Ron Lee's Personal Rules for Diving in Cozumel

[BTravlin]

One of the nebulous issues in such debates is the concept of 'respect' as it applies.

Though some of the behaviors often shown by 'gentlemanly' types toward women are also shown toward the advanced elderly, the obviously severely handicapped and young children (all perceived as weak and needing assistance at times), such behavior is often attributed not to a low estimation of a woman's abilities, but to 'respecting' women.

Which means what, exactly? We're supposed to 'respect' everybody, unless & until given cause not to. The context often implies that women are (for whatever reason) to be shown/assigned either additional respect, or some type of respect, that men are not. Women as a general class, not just one's wife, daughter, mother...

The answer must lie in some value system, since it clearly assigns some value difference to women vs. men. Our society has tried to move away from that, though there are still entrenched remnants (e.g.: debates over women in military combat, and the old 'women & children first' cliche' show our society still views men as more expendable than women).

So while the exercise of deferential & preferential treatment may not be rooted in condescension or a presumption that one is superior, it is rooted in a sexist view on some level.

Richard.

P.S.: Elsewhere I've seen before the argument 'Well, that's how my father taught me...' I'm 40 something and I remember a bit of that generation and their common views on equality, too. Using the N word for blacks was common and (when none were around) accepted, inter-racial marriage viewed as wrong and while they didn't promote slavery, a lot of them weren't fully convinced of true equality. Not all that couple of generations believed and practiced that way, but it was common. Considering the source, I'm a tad skeptical of their wisdom in treating groups differently. I bear that in mind when a view is justified in terms of 'old fashioned' values.

I respect them because to do otherwise is foolish. Have you not seen how devious and vicious they can be when crossed?

 

[chillyinCanada]

I shall adopt Ron's rules with the exception of swapping out rule #1 for "watching over/monitoring old guys".

 

[ggunn]

I shall adopt Ron's rules with the exception of swapping out rule #1 for "watching over/monitoring old guys".

Hey! I resemble that remark!

 

[beaverdivers]

Has not Ron taken sufficient punishment yet....?

I thought the Fun just begun.

 

[Mike]

This has to be the longest I have watched a train wreck thread hang around Coz before being shuffled off to the argument clinic. Has not Ron taken sufficient punishment yet....?

This thread could use some attention, I believe somebody insulted someone over a taco or something

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/cozumel/420085-best-meal-restaurant-cozumel.html

 

[Quero]

That implies that language is an exact science. It isn't. When someone makes a statement you can't look up all the words he used in the dictionary and therefore claim to know what he was *really* saying based on the explicit definitions of the words. What he meant when he was saying it is a function of his state of mind when he said it, and unless you know someone, you can't know that. If you are a language professor or a lawyer, you probably use language more precisely than do most of the rest of us. So sue us.

Gordon, I'm a linguist by training--specifically, my field is called Applied Linguistics. No linguist would ever claim that "language is an exact science"--I certainly wouldn't. "Exact" sciences are fields like chemistry and physics whereas linguistics is a social science with origins in the field of anthropology. As to being able to understand what a person means without knowing that person well, I can say that it's rare in the extreme that I'm ever misunderstood, and I spend the vast majority of my time communicating with people I've never met. The reason for this ability to write clearly is that I am careful about the way I phrase things, and I consider how my words might be interpreted/misinterpreted before I ever use them. In addition, in those rare cases in which I am misinterpreted, I assume the fault is mine, I apologize for being unclear, and I rephrase in order to get the communication back on track. The onus for clear communication is always on the writer.

Given that linguistics is not an "exact science" how can I judge when I'm being clear? Simply by making sure I know the different common meanings of the words I use. The fact is that I don't need to personally know a writer's state of mind to know that the words "monitor" and "watch over," as commonly used, both have a particular connotation that indicates that the person doing the monitoring and the watching over is doing so in some authoritative capacity, e.g., as a caretaker (parent, babysitter, warden, etc.) or as a designated observer (auditor, watchdog, steward, etc.) rather than simply as a bystander. If--and that's still a big "if" in my mind--that's not what Ron meant to say, and as such, if poor word choice is what caused the misinterpretation of his intended meaning by so very, very many of us who read his words, he should have phrased his message more carefully in the first place, and he should have clarified his meaning for us when he realized his mistake. His mistake, not our mistake.

In fact, he specifically indicated women divers along with children and inexperienced divers as the subjects of his monitoring efforts, and it came off as patronizing and overbearing rather than considerate and caring. If he actually meant to say "Be a gentleman and help women with their heavy equipment" (or even simply "Be a gentleman"), he should have said as much; it would then have been taken in the caring and considerate way that you keep saying he meant it.

 

[dmoore19]

I would chime in with my thoughts but my wife would find out and I am already sleeping on the couch. I am not interested in sleeeping in the garage.

Yep, were the same.

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/womens-perspectives/425580-moroccan-argan-oil.html

 

[cvchief]

The fact is that I don't need to personally know a writer's state of mind to know that the words "monitor" and "watch over," as commonly used, both have a particular connotation that indicates that the person doing the monitoring and the watching over is doing so in some authoritative capacity, e.g., as a caretaker (parent, babysitter, warden, etc.) or as a designated observer (auditor, watchdog, steward, etc.) rather than simply as a bystander.

1. Go to Google
2. Type "UN failure"
3. Choose any suggestion.

Hence, in the example of UN Monitor one might get the common belief that monitor don't 'do' anything and have no authority. They just watch stuff and hope they can tell someone who cares and can do something.

I would also suggest that:

1. A parent only monitoring a child leads to delinquency. (We do have alot of that.)
2. A babysitter only monitoring a child leads finger-painting on the walls. (You won't get a second gig)
3. A warden who only monitors the prison will have a lot of shanked prisoners. (Mostly this doesn't happen. Much...)

Monitoring absent actions is still a passive activity. For instance an auditor looks at the books and reports irregularities to the people with authority. While the position might be mandated and required, it is without authority. It only 'reports.'

A monitor can often be absent ANY real authority. The UN even has a handbook on Monitoring http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/training7Introen.pdf

I have some elderly neighbors. I kinda watch over them. I don't 'do' anything. Just keep an eye on the place and them when I see them to see if I see any problems.

If this thread doesn't end up in the PUB soon, the beer will run out.....

 

[Quero]

1. A parent only monitoring a child leads to delinquency. (We do have alot of that.)
2. A babysitter only monitoring a child leads finger-painting on the walls. (You won't get a second gig)
3. A warden who only monitors the prison will have a lot of shanked prisoners. (Mostly this doesn't happen. Much...)

Ah, but you have added a qualifier there. You repeatedly use the word "only" to restrict the sense of "monitor." The expectation of follow-on action once monitoring has revealed an issue that should be addressed in some way is embedded so deeply in the sense of monitoring that you actually felt the need to qualify it with "only" in order to narrow it. Very interesting as an insight into your own writing style.

Monitoring absent actions is still a passive activity.

Again you needed to qualify the sense of "monitoring" with the phrase "without actions" in order to narrow it from the usual understanding of the meaning of this term.

For instance an auditor looks at the books and reports irregularities to the people with authority. While the position might be mandated and required, it is without authority. It only 'reports.'

The auditor has been given the explicit charge of reporting irregularities. Again, the expectation of follow-on action is embedded in the sense of monitoring, even if the action is limited to making a report to someone else.

I do not want Ron assuming he has the explicit charge of overseeing my diving just because I'm female.

A monitor can often be absent ANY real authority. The UN even has a handbook on Monitoring http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/training7Introen.pdf

Now Ron is being equated with a UN monitor? Anyway, it's interesting that you cite this reference, and I did try to read it to see how they define the process of monitoring, but this is just the introduction and table of contents, and I didn't take the time to dig for the whole document. However, I did find this quote about the role of monitoring by human rights organizations (HROs):

Indeed, HROs do not restrict their work simply to observing and reporting, because the human rights operation's objective is generally to help redress human rights problems and prevent future violations. The human rights operation should have a presence at all levels of the society. The local authorities should be aware that the operation reports not only human rights violations which have occurred but also the follow-up action taken by local authorities to redress the situation. Hence, the monitoring and reporting carried out by HROs can help to put pressure on local authorities to address and follow up on particular human rights problems. Often, this follow up action will not only redress human rights violations, but also serve to prevent human rights violations in the future.

Nope. Still don't want Ron "monitoring" me in view of redressing any violations he thinks he notices, thank you very much.

I have some elderly neighbors. I kinda watch over them.

Interesting that you specify that they are elderly--do you not watch over your other neighbors who are not elderly? Or do you just watch over those you feel are at some disadvantage in taking care of themselves? For example, if it was a single mom with kids, would they merit watching over? How about a single dad with kids? A 30-something mom and dad with kids? A couple of young guys who rent the place? A couple of young gals who rent the place?

I don't 'do' anything. Just keep an eye on the place and them when I see them to see if I see any problems.

And, according to your definition of watching over, if you should notice some problem, do you continue to observe passively or do you take some action, even if that action is simply going to talk to them to give them advice, e.g., "Say, I noticed that the right front tire of your car is a little lower than the left. You should see about that the next time you stop at the gas station."

Nope. I don't want Ron "watching over" me just because I'm a woman, as per his Rule #1, and feeling free to give me unsolicited advice.

 

[ggunn]

Gordon, I'm a linguist by training--specifically, my field is called Applied Linguistics. No linguist would ever claim that "language is an exact science"--I certainly wouldn't. "Exact" sciences are fields like chemistry and physics whereas linguistics is a social science with origins in the field of anthropology. As to being able to understand what a person means without knowing that person well, I can say that it's rare in the extreme that I'm ever misunderstood, and I spend the vast majority of my time communicating with people I've never met. The reason for this ability to write clearly is that I am careful about the way I phrase things, and I consider how my words might be interpreted/misinterpreted before I ever use them. In addition, in those rare cases in which I am misinterpreted, I assume the fault is mine, I apologize for being unclear, and I rephrase in order to get the communication back on track. The onus for clear communication is always on the writer.

Given that linguistics is not an "exact science" how can I judge when I'm being clear? Simply by making sure I know the different common meanings of the words I use. The fact is that I don't need to personally know a writer's state of mind to know that the words "monitor" and "watch over," as commonly used, both have a particular connotation that indicates that the person doing the monitoring and the watching over is doing so in some authoritative capacity, e.g., as a caretaker (parent, babysitter, warden, etc.) or as a designated observer (auditor, watchdog, steward, etc.) rather than simply as a bystander. If--and that's still a big "if" in my mind--that's not what Ron meant to say, and as such, if poor word choice is what caused the misinterpretation of his intended meaning by so very, very many of us who read his words, he should have phrased his message more carefully in the first place, and he should have clarified his meaning for us when he realized his mistake. His mistake, not our mistake.

In fact, he specifically indicated women divers along with children and inexperienced divers as the subjects of his monitoring efforts, and it came off as patronizing and overbearing rather than considerate and caring. If he actually meant to say "Be a gentleman and help women with their heavy equipment" (or even simply "Be a gentleman"), he should have said as much; it would then have been taken in the caring and considerate way that you keep saying he meant it.

Much ado about nothing. In my experience when people start haggling over the dictionary meaning of words in someone's statement, the original intent of that statement has been left in the dust. I mean no offense, but those who were grievously offended by Ron's remark ought to choose their battles more wisely. Life is too full of real issues to deal with for anyone to waste effort trying to psychoanalyze and find wanting someone from an offhand remark they wrote in an internet forum. Seriously.