« BACK TO FORUM
Moderators:
AminaYasmine, aymanelhakea, Liamjod, mnopq, Shweta-sj
 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Jerry Welch
Joined: Sep 7, 2003
Posts: 4
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Country: United States
Province/State: Texas
City: Lufkin
|
Why just women's rights?
September 23, 2003 - 10:53 AM
|
|
Wouldn't it be better to decide on a list of rights and then apply them equally to everyone?
Wouldn't that solve the problem?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Jerry Welch
Joined: Sep 7, 2003
Posts: 4
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Country: United States
Province/State: Texas
City: Lufkin
|
Re: Why just women's rights?
September 24, 2003 - 09:19 AM
|
|
Originally posted by mikael
Firstly, the title - "Why just women's rights?" The current reality is far from being a situation in which only women's rights are emphasized. This can be clearly understood given that men are the majority of lawmakers and always have been in the majority of the world's countries, and their laws have not always given women the rights they deserve.
Understood; I am just saying that it would save time for all groups if they all just came together, decided on a list of rights, and then applied them equally.
If an individual thinks that women are the only ones whose rights are important or promoted, then they've been mislead by the fact that men's rights don't need to be promoted... as a sex, they have not been threatened or infringed upon like women's have.
In some areas they are; for instance, I was personally told that I didn't qualify for a grant, but that there were FOUR that I would have qualified for if I was just a woman. That's wrong.
We already do have a list of rights that should apply equally to everyone. The problem comes in when they do not. Studies have shown, for example, that women generally are paid less than men for equivalent positions,
Ah, ah, ah, let's not muddy the discussion with the word "equivalent". "EXACTLY THE SAME" is what should be used. For instance, road workers. If you look at a road worker who is holding the YIELD sign when the roads are being worked on, if it is a guy, I guarantee you that he is getting paid less than if it is a woman holding that sign, because "equivalent" here is that a woman holding a sign is somehow equal to the guys digging and actually working on the road.
Also, when it comes to executives of companies, women want to take as much as a year off from work, but still have the same seniority as a man or other women who stayed there the entire time, as well as not be penalized for the time off (they should be promoted as if they were still there). This is not equivalence.
That being said, there is no reason that a woman doing the same job as a man should be paid less. And if she has the same seniority as a man, she should be getting all the same benefits as well.
which seems to indicate that in this case women get the 'short end of the stick' more often than men do. In this case there must be something additional done to rectify the problem so that the 'list of rights' really does apply equally to everyone.
Not if it comes at the expense of men. Again, a list of mandatory rights should be compiled and then equally applied. End of problem.
Given that it has been shown that women have traditionally been less favoured legally (and in education, society etc.) than men, do you believe it is correct to attempt to rectify these wrongs?
Sure do, also for discrepancies based on race as well.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Crystal_Abongta
Joined: Oct 18, 2002
Posts: 8
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 34
Country: Cameroon
|
It makes much difference
September 24, 2003 - 09:46 AM
|
|
Hello folks,
Well, I agree with most of the speaker. Te emphasis might have been only on women’s rights but then we should understand. Every sector of the society consciously or unconsciously infringes on the rights of women, from the language to other elements of human existence fall suit.
I believe that if women are given the opportunity to fully exhume their natural potentials, the world would witness much improvement that we do today. “Women are the silent builders of nations” this was said long ago by those who were not afraid to use their brains.
I believe achieving real sustainable development means giving women a place in the development process. If Africa is still mentally and physically third world, it’s all because women are still at the bottom of the development ladder.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Mikael
Joined: Apr 12, 2002
Posts: 15
Poster Rank:
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 27
Country: Canada
Province/State: Quebec
City: Montréal
|
Re: Why just women's rights?
September 24, 2003 - 12:35 PM
|
|
Originally posted by jerrywelch
Wouldn't it be better to decide on a list of rights and then apply them equally to everyone?
Wouldn't that solve the problem?
Firstly, the title - "Why just women's rights?" The current reality is far from being a situation in which only women's rights are emphasized. This can be clearly understood given that men are the majority of lawmakers and always have been in the majority of the world's countries, and their laws have not always given women the rights they deserve. If an individual thinks that women are the only ones whose rights are important or promoted, then they've been mislead by the fact that men's rights don't need to be promoted... as a sex, they have not been threatened or infringed upon like women's have.
We already do have a list of rights that should apply equally to everyone. The problem comes in when they do not. Studies have shown, for example, that women generally are paid less than men for equivalent positions, which seems to indicate that in this case women get the 'short end of the stick' more often than men do. In this case there must be something additional done to rectify the problem so that the 'list of rights' really does apply equally to everyone.
Given that it has been shown that women have traditionally been less favoured legally (and in education, society etc.) than men, do you believe it is correct to attempt to rectify these wrongs?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Nick Carroll
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Posts:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 38
Country: United States
Province/State: Texas
City: Houston
|
Re: Why just women's rights?
September 25, 2003 - 03:06 AM
|
|
Originally posted by jerrywelch
Wouldn't it be better to decide on a list of rights and then apply them equally to everyone?
Wouldn't that solve the problem?
That makes too much sense. 
Do we have Affirmative Action for women too, or just minorities?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Mikael
Joined: Apr 12, 2002
Posts: 15
Poster Rank:
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 27
Country: Canada
Province/State: Quebec
City: Montréal
|
Re: Why just women's rights?
September 25, 2003 - 06:32 AM
|
|
Originally posted by jerrywelch
Understood; I am just saying that it would save time for all groups if they all just came together, decided on a list of rights, and then applied them equally.
I seem to recall you arguing that that's what the constitution is for...
In some areas they are; for instance, I was personally told that I didn't qualify for a grant, but that there were FOUR that I would have qualified for if I was just a woman. That's wrong.
Is it? What is wrong about it? If there exists a domain in which there are *no* grants for men and only grants for women, that is not fair. However in the way you've described the situation, you've made it seem like because you're a man, there aren't any grants for you. We have no way of knowing this - there are probably other reasons for why you don't qualify for a grant apart from your sex. Simply being a woman doesn't get you a grant in most cases. If you can show me an example then I'd be delighted to debate its merits with you, within the appropriate context.
Ah, ah, ah, let's not muddy the discussion with the word "equivalent". "EXACTLY THE SAME" is what should be used. For instance, road workers. If you look at a road worker who is holding the YIELD sign when the roads are being worked on, if it is a guy, I guarantee you that he is getting paid less than if it is a woman holding that sign, because "equivalent" here is that a woman holding a sign is somehow equal to the guys digging and actually working on the road.
I fail to see how you can jump to that conclusion.
If we take two road workers, both doing the exact same thing (holding the YIELD sign), except that one is a woman and one is a man, on average the man will be making more money. Why? The man and woman are doing "EXACTLY THE SAME" job - and yet the man somehow is compensated better for holding the sign, simply because he is male. Is that fair?
Your argument is that a woman doing a certain duty is seen to be equal to men doing a more challenging and involved duty. This is fallacious. Firstly, you need to back up such statements with some statistical proof. Secondly, such a statement is patently false once you consult said statistical proof.
As for stats: in 1992 "women's median weekly earnings were 75.4 percent of men's". (from http://www.mith2.umd.edu/WomensStudies/GenderIssues/WomenInWorkforce/earnings-differences) - US Department of Labor Facts on Working Women.
Also, when it comes to executives of companies, women want to take as much as a year off from work, but still have the same seniority as a man or other women who stayed there the entire time, as well as not be penalized for the time off (they should be promoted as if they were still there). This is not equivalence.
Why do they want to take a year off work? For fun in the sun? No - I believe it's called 'maternity leave', and I would hate to think that you would want to penalize a woman's career for doing something which is often a natural part of a woman's life.
Would you argue that maternity leave is not an important measure taken by businesses? That if a professional woman wants to have a baby, she should forsake her career advancement opportunities? I look forward to reading your arguments about this point.
That being said, there is no reason that a woman doing the same job as a man should be paid less. And if she has the same seniority as a man, she should be getting all the same benefits as well.
Very true.
Not if it comes at the expense of men. Again, a list of mandatory rights should be compiled and then equally applied. End of problem.
So then you admit that your priority is the well-being of men, because you do not believe it is right to promote women's employment at the potential expense of men in the workplace. You see, in order to obtain equality it can be argued that it is necessary to assist people in joining the workforce. Progressive attitudes towards women in employment have resulted in a gradual narrowing of the gap between salaries of men and women and, although it's not quite "equivalent" yet, I believe we're on the right track.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Mikael
Joined: Apr 12, 2002
Posts: 15
Poster Rank:
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 27
Country: Canada
Province/State: Quebec
City: Montréal
|
Re: Why just women's rights?
September 25, 2003 - 06:40 AM
|
|
Originally posted by NickCarroll
That makes too much sense.
Do we have Affirmative Action for women too, or just minorities?
It makes so much sense it blows your mind?  It blows my mind, but in a different way...
Nick - do you think that all ethnic groups are on an equal footing in the workplace?
How about men and women? Are they on an equal footing in terms of salary and benefits? And if not, do you think something should be done to correct the discrepancy?
I'll throw this question out to everyone else as well.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Jerry Welch
Joined: Sep 7, 2003
Posts: 4
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Country: United States
Province/State: Texas
City: Lufkin
|
Re: Why just women's rights?
September 25, 2003 - 06:54 AM
|
|
Originally posted by mikael
It makes so much sense it blows your mind? It blows my mind, but in a different way...
Affirmative action, in as it is a standard to discriminate is just as wrong as the original wrong being corrected.
Nick - do you think that all ethnic groups are on an equal footing in the workplace?
I don't think so. Can't speak for Nick.
How about men and women? Are they on an equal footing in terms of salary and benefits? And if not, do you think something should be done to correct the discrepancy?
I'll throw this question out to everyone else as well.
I do, and I will go so far as to provide a solution: Enforce the laws that are on the books and modify laws so that the goal is the eradication of legalized bias when it comes to race and gender. Don't use it as an attempt to punish the former and you will get more support than you can imagine.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Nick Carroll
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Posts:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 38
Country: United States
Province/State: Texas
City: Houston
|
Re: Why just women's rights?
September 25, 2003 - 06:58 AM
|
|
Originally posted by mikael
Nick - do you think that all ethnic groups are on an equal footing in the workplace?
Legally, yes, via the 14th Amendment. For a company that deliberately pays white employees more for the same position and experience than a black person, the victim has recourse in this country via the 1st Amendment to sue over the matter.
Are there still racists and sexists in the work force? Certainly. But we have legal recourse for dealing with this.
To illustrate a parallel, are there still rapists in the world? Certainly. But we have legal recourse for dealing with this, too. Just like any crime.
Now let me ask you a question, would you support racism the other way, paying minorities more, just because of their ethnicity?
Originally posted by mikael
How about men and women? Are they on an equal footing in terms of salary and benefits? And if not, do you think something should be done to correct the discrepancy?
They should be. And if not, the women can sue, and if there is a clear violation of federal law here, the company can be punished severely.
We have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in this country, as well as due process. Affirmative Action as it is used today (quotas, etc) violates both of these tenants of our country's legal system.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Jerry Welch
Joined: Sep 7, 2003
Posts: 4
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Country: United States
Province/State: Texas
City: Lufkin
|
Re: Why just women's rights?
September 25, 2003 - 07:12 AM
|
|
Originally posted by mikael
I seem to recall you arguing that that's what the constitution is for...
And indeed it is. I am saying that if we get together and make a list of what we want as rights and apply it equally, bam! There's the end of the problem, whether it be gender bias or racism.
Is it? What is wrong about it? If there exists a domain in which there are *no* grants for men and only grants for women, that is not fair. However in the way you've described the situation, you've made it seem like because you're a man, there aren't any grants for you.
I'm saying that there are grants that discriminate against men.
Is that fair?
We have no way of knowing this - there are probably other reasons for why you don't qualify for a grant apart from your sex. Simply being a woman doesn't get you a grant in most cases. If you can show me an example then I'd be delighted to debate its merits with you, within the appropriate context.
There is a small business grant dedicated solely for businesses owned (or being started by) women.
Is that gender bias?
If we take two road workers, both doing the exact same thing (holding the YIELD sign), except that one is a woman and one is a man, on average the man will be making more money. Why? The man and woman are doing "EXACTLY THE SAME" job - and yet the man somehow is compensated better for holding the sign, simply because he is male. Is that fair?
Of course not; as I said; equal work should get equal pay, irregardless of gender or race, for that matter.
If gender bias is WRONG, then it is wrong no matter what gender we are talking about.
Your argument is that a woman doing a certain duty is seen to be equal to men doing a more challenging and involved duty. This is fallacious. Firstly, you need to back up such statements with some statistical proof. Secondly, such a statement is patently false once you consult said statistical proof.
Not for the specific case I presented; overall, it is and I agree with you; it needs to be worked on to eliminate (not reduce, nor turn it against men) gender bias.
ALL gender bias.
Why do they want to take a year off work? For fun in the sun? No - I believe it's called 'maternity leave', and I would hate to think that you would want to penalize a woman's career for doing something which is often a natural part of a woman's life.
And accidents and disease are a normal part of lives, but men don't get seniority for that time taken off.
This works out to be a benefit for women only. Let's say that a woman has to work 20 years to retire.
If she has five kids, then she only has to work 15.
Is that fair?
Would you argue that maternity leave is not an important measure taken by businesses? That if a professional woman wants to have a baby, she should forsake her career advancement opportunities? I look forward to reading your arguments about this point.
I'm not saying she should be fired; I am just saying that if she worked at the company for eight years, then she worked at the company for eight years, not nine, because the fact is, she didn't.
So then you admit that your priority is the well-being of men, because you do not believe it is right to promote women's employment at the potential expense of men in the workplace.
No, my priority is that gender bias be eliminated, not replaced with gender bias against men.
You see, in order to obtain equality it can be argued that it is necessary to assist people in joining the workforce.
Not if it comes at the expense of a gender through bias against that gender.
Either gender bias is WRONG and it should be eliminated or it isn't wrong.
Sexism against men is still sexism.
Progressive attitudes towards women in employment have resulted in a gradual narrowing of the gap between salaries of men and women and, although it's not quite "equivalent" yet, I believe we're on the right track.
I agree and I also agree we have a ways to go.
What I'm saying is that special preferential treatment, based solely on gender is GENDER BIAS.
It should be eliminated totally, like slavery.
If the slaves are saying "Make slavery illegal", then you get a lot of support; if you say "Make slavery illegal and let us have a few white people for slaves ourselves" you lose the high ground and majority support.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Mikael
Joined: Apr 12, 2002
Posts: 15
Poster Rank:
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 27
Country: Canada
Province/State: Quebec
City: Montréal
|
Re: Why just women's rights?
September 25, 2003 - 07:35 AM
|
|
Originally posted by NickCarroll
Legally, yes, via the 14th Amendment. For a company that deliberately pays white employees more for the same position and experience than a black person, the victim has recourse in this country via the 1st Amendment to sue over the matter.
Are there still racists and sexists in the work force? Certainly. But we have legal recourse for dealing with this.
To illustrate a parallel, are there still rapists in the world? Certainly. But we have legal recourse for dealing with this, too. Just like any crime.
Now let me ask you a question, would you support racism the other way, paying minorities more, just because of their ethnicity?
Thanks for your response. I believe it to be a tad simplistic for a few reasons. Firstly, even if someone is protected by law, it doesn't mean that they can take on a huge company and win. Someone who is discriminated against because of ethnicity, say, might also be someone who can't afford to drag a leviathan organization to the Supreme Court. You haven't considered that in your argument. Also, suing a big corporation (or even a smaller one) can lead to problems for the person who sues - such as the reluctance of other companies to employ that individual. It's not exactly as easy as 1-2-3 to win a legal battle and conserve your employment if you're being discriminated against.
Again, you're operating on the false assumption that everyone is equal and that there is a level playing field. Your concepts are interesting - for people who have lots of money.
Also, your allusion to rapists is slightly disturbing. Yes, we have rapists in this world, and there are laws against rape - but does this mean that we should not have educational programs which seek to teach respect for women? Would you argue that as long as there are laws in place, no measures or programs are necessary to compensate for discrepancies that exist?
By that measure you would argue that as long as there are laws against transmitting HIV/AIDS, who needs to educate people about it.
And to answer your question, I wouldn't support "racism the other way" - but that is not the issue here. No one has suggested that minorities should be paid more just because they are minorities, and bringing that up is distracting from the point of the conversation.
They should be. And if not, the women can sue, and if there is a clear violation of federal law here, the company can be punished severely.
We have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in this country, as well as due process. Affirmative Action as it is used today (quotas, etc) violates both of these tenants of our country's legal system.
Yes, we do have the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' and due process - for people accused of crimes. When there exists an obvious discrepancy between salaries for men and women, that is the "proven guilty" component. Affirmative action simply seeks to redress wrongs that have been committed in the past. Had there not been discrimination there would have been no need for this type of program. However there was, and there is.
You seem to be ignoring the reason for which affirmative action was put into place to begin with.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Mikael
Joined: Apr 12, 2002
Posts: 15
Poster Rank:
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 27
Country: Canada
Province/State: Quebec
City: Montréal
|
Re: Why just women's rights?
September 25, 2003 - 08:09 AM
|
|
Originally posted by jerrywelch
And indeed it is. I am saying that if we get together and make a list of what we want as rights and apply it equally, bam! There's the end of the problem, whether it be gender bias or racism.
What if, once this list is made, some people don't respect it? What would happen then? And what if this lack of respect became an institutional phenomenon to the point where it became very difficult to fight it? What then?
I'm saying that there are grants that discriminate against men.
Is that fair?
Do they discriminate against men, or do they serve to give opportunities to women? In my experience the majority of grants in many sectors are for everyone, regardless of gender. I'm sorry that it doesn't work out for you, but that doesn't mean that measures to increase the female presence in small business ownership shouldn't exist.
There is a small business grant dedicated solely for businesses owned (or being started by) women.
Is that gender bias?
If you mean 'bias' in a pejorative way, then it is evident that these measures do not exist to screw men over. They exist to help women get more of a foothold in a business world traditionally controlled by men.
If you mean 'bias' in the sense that those specific grants target women, then yes, I'd agree with you. Usually bias is used in a negative way, though. In this case I don't believe that these measures are wrong. Just because there are grants just for women doesn't mean there isn't a wide array of grants available for both sexes.
Also, traditionally men haven't needed help to succeed, because they controlled society much more than women did; if it were the opposite situation, where men had trouble getting into a female-dominated workplace, there would most likely be affirmative action for men.
Of course not; as I said; equal work should get equal pay, irregardless of gender or race, for that matter.
If gender bias is WRONG, then it is wrong no matter what gender we are talking about.
But affirmative action for women isn't simply gender bias, and I reject your attempts to categorize it as such. Your use of 'gender bias' implies negative reasoning - a discrimination against men because the people in charge don't like them. I find that highly unlikely given that men are very much present in the upper echelons of the world's businesses and government (more so than women). I'd appreciate it if you could argue against the reasoning behind affirmative action, that is, the attempt to right wrongs and make up for discrepancies etc. as I've stated.
Not for the specific case I presented; overall, it is and I agree with you; it needs to be worked on to eliminate (not reduce, nor turn it against men) gender bias.
ALL gender bias.
Sure - but again, pro-female projects in no way imply that men are inferior or less deserving of help. They are targeting groups that need more help as a whole, given the generations of male dominance in economy and government.
And accidents and disease are a normal part of lives, but men don't get seniority for that time taken off.
This works out to be a benefit for women only. Let's say that a woman has to work 20 years to retire.
If she has five kids, then she only has to work 15.
Is that fair?
Conversely, if a woman has babies and contributes to furthering the human race, should she have to work 25 years in order to get 20 years of seniority? This implies that babies are not a good choice for a woman's career. Perhaps the solution would be to not count the time off for maternity leave in determining seniority.
I'm not saying she should be fired; I am just saying that if she worked at the company for eight years, then she worked at the company for eight years, not nine, because the fact is, she didn't.
Makes sense!
At the same time though, we shouldn't force women to choose between a career and children because it isn't fair. Women did not choose to be the bearers of children for humanity - it's just how it is. Because that's the case, if our race is to survive while conserving rights for workers, we must provide some sort of aid for women having children (hence maternity leave.) This is a whole other discussion though
Not if it comes at the expense of a gender through bias against that gender.
Either gender bias is WRONG and it should be eliminated or it isn't wrong.
Sexism against men is still sexism.
See above.
I agree and I also agree we have a ways to go.
What I'm saying is that special preferential treatment, based solely on gender is GENDER BIAS.
It should be eliminated totally, like slavery.
Then what other means do you propose to ensure that women don't get the short end of the stick in terms of salary for equal positions, as they have up to now?
If the slaves are saying "Make slavery illegal", then you get a lot of support; if you say "Make slavery illegal and let us have a few white people for slaves ourselves" you lose the high ground and majority support.
This comparison doesn't apply. Affirmative action does not aim to belittle men - it aims to make up for the male refusal to allow women positions worthy of their abilities for generations. Do you think that perhaps we need to make up for the faults of generations past by encouraging women to overcome stereotypes and bias and move into the professional world?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Me
Joined: Jun 9, 2003
Posts: 8
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 23
Country: United States
|
Re: Why just women's rights?
September 25, 2003 - 08:59 AM
|
|
Originally posted by jerrywelch
Of course not; as I said; equal work should get equal pay, irregardless of gender or race, for that matter.
Minor but important starting point: irregardless is not a word. The word you want is regardless, which means "In spite of everything; anyway".
And, a few minor points to add to Mikael's response:
And accidents and disease are a normal part of lives, but men don't get seniority for that time taken off.
This works out to be a benefit for women only. Let's say that a woman has to work 20 years to retire.
If she has five kids, then she only has to work 15.
Is that fair?
I'm not saying she should be fired; I am just saying that if she worked at the company for eight years, then she worked at the company for eight years, not nine, because the fact is, she didn't.
How many women do you know who have five kids and work full-time? I don't know any. So your example is really rather pointless for the majority. Additionally, companies are increasingly adding paternal leave- more than a few teachers have taken off months of work at my school to stay at home with their infants. All normal benefits still apply. As it is, many workplaces implicitly forbid women taking off time for child care- there are very, very few women with tenure who have children; the university system makes it nearly impossible.
No, my priority is that gender bias be eliminated, not replaced with gender bias against men.
Either gender bias is WRONG and it should be eliminated or it isn't wrong.
Sexism against men is still sexism.
Uh, obviously sexism against men is sexism. But who exactly is proposing replacing gender bias against women with gender bias against men?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Nick Carroll
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Posts:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 38
Country: United States
Province/State: Texas
City: Houston
|
Re: Why just women's rights?
September 25, 2003 - 09:27 AM
|
|
"Irregardless" is as much a word as "uh" which you've just used. I can also take everyone to task here for not being grammatically correct, including myself. What does purpose does that serve Erratic? 
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Jerry Welch
Joined: Sep 7, 2003
Posts: 4
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Country: United States
Province/State: Texas
City: Lufkin
|
Re: Why just women's rights?
September 25, 2003 - 09:46 AM
|
|
Originally posted by mikael
What if, once this list is made, some people don't respect it? What would happen then?
The same that happens when any of our rights are violated now, why? Although I prefer jail time over fines and lawsuits.
Fines and lawsuits aren't personally paid by the person who committed the crime; the company pays the tab; jail time actually gets the person who broke the law.
That is how it should be.
And what if this lack of respect became an institutional phenomenon to the point where it became very difficult to fight it? What then?
Then you tell yourself that you aren't through and fight for enforcement. I never said it would be easy, or even that no gender bias will exist in X years.
After the law is passed, enforcement is the key.
Do they discriminate against men, or do they serve to give opportunities to women?
Both. However, I have a Constitutional right not to be discriminated against, while women don't have a Constitutional right to have preferential treatment in certain areas.
In fact, the two conflict with each other.
In my experience the majority of grants in many sectors are for everyone, regardless of gender. I'm sorry that it doesn't work out for you, but that doesn't mean that measures to increase the female presence in small business ownership shouldn't exist.
Is it justifiable to discriminate against men to try to artificially increase the female presence in small business ownership?
If we are going to eliminate gender bias, LET'S ELIMINATE IT.
Here's what I propose; remove all reference to gender and let them give a decision based on the grant proposal.
Then if it's a woman's company, hooray! If it's a man's company, then maybe, just maybe, the man had a better proposal.
Don't automatically rule the man out; you can't fight discrimination with discrimination.
If you mean 'bias' in a pejorative way, then it is evident that these measures do not exist to screw men over. They exist to help women get more of a foothold in a business world traditionally controlled by men.
Really? If that grant weren't gender biased, I would qualify for it. Well, probably would be; after I found out it was for women only, I dropped it.
Bottom line is that I was discriminated against solely based on my gender.
That's wrong.
If you mean 'bias' in the sense that those specific grants target women, then yes, I'd agree with you. Usually bias is used in a negative way, though. In this case I don't believe that these measures are wrong. Just because there are grants just for women doesn't mean there isn't a wide array of grants available for both sexes.
That's not the point; the point is that you have two groups of grants:
1) For everyone
2) For women
I can apply for grants in section one, but BECAUSE OF MY GENDER, I cannot apply for grants in section two.
That is gender bias.
Also, traditionally men haven't needed help to succeed, because they controlled society much more than women did; if it were the opposite situation, where men had trouble getting into a female-dominated workplace, there would most likely be affirmative action for men.
And I would disagree with it then as well.
But affirmative action for women isn't simply gender bias, and I reject your attempts to categorize it as such.
If a grant is only available for women, that is gender bias, plain and simple.
Your use of 'gender bias' implies negative reasoning - a discrimination against men because the people in charge don't like them.
No, it doesn't; it implies that I am being discriminated against because of my gender.
Women don't like it and they don't want to put up with it; tell me why I should...
I find that highly unlikely given that men are very much present in the upper echelons of the world's businesses and government (more so than women). I'd appreciate it if you could argue against the reasoning behind affirmative action, that is, the attempt to right wrongs and make up for discrepancies etc. as I've stated.
Two wrongs don't make a right. If gender bias is wrong, then it is wrong.
Sure - but again, pro-female projects in no way imply that men are inferior or less deserving of help.
It infers that men will be discriminated against for those programs.
They are targeting groups that need more help as a whole, given the generations of male dominance in economy and government.
Then they should enforce laws that prohibit bias based on gender. Again, it's not EVERY MAN'S FAULT that women haven't gotten far.
Conversely, if a woman has babies and contributes to furthering the human race, should she have to work 25 years in order to get 20 years of seniority?
No, I am saying that she has to work 20, though. Not 15, not 19. EXACTLY THE SAME AS A MAN: 20
That's equality.
I don't believe she should be punished for taking maternity leave, though. Her position should be saved, or a better one provided and her time stored until she returns.
This implies that babies are not a good choice for a woman's career. Perhaps the solution would be to not count the time off for maternity leave in determining seniority.
That's what I've been saying.
Makes sense!
At the same time though, we shouldn't force women to choose between a career and children because it isn't fair. Women did not choose to be the bearers of children for humanity - it's just how it is. Because that's the case, if our race is to survive while conserving rights for workers, we must provide some sort of aid for women having children (hence maternity leave.) This is a whole other discussion though
I believe it is pertinent. Women should have maternity leave. I don't believe that time should be counted toward seniority, though.
Then what other means do you propose to ensure that women don't get the short end of the stick in terms of salary for equal positions, as they have up to now?
All legal means at the disposal of the government.
This comparison doesn't apply. Affirmative action does not aim to belittle men - it aims to make up for the male refusal to allow women positions worthy of their abilities for generations.
It does apply, because, in order to help the status for past wrongs, the same wrong is being committed, but only in the opposite direction. That is the point my analogy made.
Again, why should I be punished for something I haven't done? To make up for past sins? Are we now visiting the sins of the father on the children? That goes against our legal system.
Do you think that perhaps we need to make up for the faults of generations past by encouraging women to overcome stereotypes and bias and move into the professional world?
No, that would be just as wrong as telling them to stay home barefoot and pregnant. I believe women should be informed of all of their available career choices and let THEM decide.
They're know what is best for themselves.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
|
Home
Community
