Re: Off-Topic -- Gender Discrimination



David Klassen wrote:

On Jun 20, 8:59 am, Werebat <ronpoir...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

David Klassen wrote:


Perhaps---it was posited as a *possible* zero-sum game. Granting
that we will *always* need some sort of prison system so long as
we have *any* laws. Hell, you gotta stick the pot-smokers
somewhere. :p

The problem arises when some people figure out how the system works and
begin working it. If all I have to do to earn a living is have enough


It's only a problem if "enough" of them do. I'd rather err on the
side of
making sure all kids get a fair shake at the starting line and end up
supporting the occasional "welfare queen" than create a system that
decides "there shalt be *no* welfare queens!" and loses a slew of
kids in the process.

Actually, I agree with you. But what is "enough", or "too many" of them? And what exactly is to be done when we reach that magic threshold? Surely we can both agree that it is best if we can at least find a way to limit the number of parasites as much as possible, without harming the children.

For example, a change in family court law ordering a presumption of transfer of custody to a willing and financially solvent parent in the event that the currently custodial parent gets on welfare. Then the argument is over whether or not this is "harmful" to the children, and what "harmful" MEANS, exactly, etc. You can guess which crowd will be crafting the argument.


than other paths. Then my daughters will learn that as a model for
life. And so on.


Sure, you'll get some. But I think the anti-handout ethic is very
strong
in most folks that this will be the exception and not the rule.

For now, maybe. The culture changes and from what I've seen in kids at school, the anti-handout ethic is being beaten down into the dirt.


In the same sense that men are "coerced" into fatherhood, I guess. Can

Yep.

Victims, aren't we all?


Not victims per se. Just a recognition that there's a LOT more
going on that simple "everyone makes a complete and well-informed
decision for themselves at each and every opportunity" which is
basically what Shawn and all the uber-"personal responsibility"
types like Rush Limbaugh and the Bushies spout. Of course,
W's bad decisions were simply "youthful indiscretions", his nieces
drug habit a "family matter" and Rush is just a complete hypocrite.

Hypocrisy on the part of conservatives is always fun. As my leanings are more Libertarian by the year I can share a popcorn and a few laughs over them with you. However there is equal madness at the far socialist end of the spectrum. It is not healthy for a society to place too LITTLE emphasis on personal responsibility either.

And of course in family court there is an unholy alliance of these two groups, each one administering its madness to a different gender.


Seriously, at what point does this all just get silly? Studies have
shown a wage gap between tall and short people, thin and fat people,
beautiful and ugly people... At some point you have to realize that the
number of people who ARE NOT victims is exceedingly small.


I think we can recognize inequity without labeling those who are
targeted by those inequities as "victims". It's a loaded word to
disarm real, conscious, discrimination from those unconscious
ones that also exist. Of course, we should all be striving to treat
one another equitably and thus should try to recognize, and correct,
those unconscious discriminations as well. But we can certainly
work hard to wipe out the conscious ones.

Yeah, but against who? People who are in recognized "victim" bins. The unrecognized -- male victims of domestic abuse, short people, etc. -- get forgotten, or worse, demonized by currently recognized groups who fear a loss of power. It all ends in a shouting match between different groups all trying to prove to Papa Government how much they need special funding over the others -- how much More Equal they need to be treated than everyone else in order for things to be fair.

And when we all rely on the government to determine who gets to be treated More Equally than everyone else, it tends to work out... poorly. We get, among other things, situations where everyone seems to know all about the plight of women not earning as many cents to the dollar as men, but very few people seeming to have a clue about how good fathers have their children stolen away from them with the help of grotesquely gender-biased family courts when they have done nothing wrong. Again, which is honestly more traumatic?


Almost. I think there have been some studies that have created a
viable zygote (or nearly viable...?) by yanking out all the necessary
stuff from one egg and shoving it into another. Gotta double-check
that, but I think I read that somewhere...

Be careful about bringing theoretical science into this. In theory, men
can clone themselves or develop some "breeder tank" to raise fetuses to
term in. To date, none of these options have borne fruit, so they
aren't part of the reality we are talking about.


Female only reproduction is FAR less theory than male only.

That's nice. Sex androids capable of rendering women irrelevant to many men are probably far less theory than similar sex androids capable of doing the same to men.

To date, none of these options have borne fruit, so they aren't part of the reality we are talking about.


Granted. But then Shawn doesn't believe in irrationality either.

My point is that your definition of the word "coerce" may be so
stretched as to make the term meaningless. It already sounds like it
wouldn't hold up in a court of law.


I'm not arguing legal; I'm arguing psychological. I'm arguing that as
a society we ought to recognize that we have, for decades, devalued
the economic capability of women. They have been marginalized,
and when they do things expected of them (have babies, take time
to tend those babies while young) they are punished for it
economically.

The word "pressure", while less sexy than "coerce", is probably far more accurate here.


And, yes, fathers are punished in the reverse. There are fixes. We
could A) demand that businesses give family leave time, without an
economic punishments, for women to have babies and for both
parents to spend the desired amount of child-rearing time that we
deem necessary

Your sexism prevented you from mentioning a father-care only option?


or B) we could so something at the government
level that erases much of the economic losses.


"I didn't choose to steal those shoes, your honor -- I was COERCED by a
culture that forces me to equate my shoe style with my personal


Hyperbole. I don't think recognition of social conditioning leads, in
any way, to this slippery slope you envision.

It doesn't have to -- it just has to be used successfully as a defense, whether it's true or not.


I believe humans are social animals and when faced with social
conditioning and possible social disapproval, humans will do what
is expedient and go with the society unless they have a particularly
strong enough ego to utterly not care. But that's usually just bowing
to a different subset of the society whose approval they are seeking.
I think "real" or "complete" independent responsibility is a rare
thing.

So you don't believe in adults? You know, those people who make their
own decisions and take responsibility for them, rather than blaming
society for every ***-up in their lives?


That's not what I said. In other words, I don't think your definition
of
"adult" is proper at all.

Taking responsibility is not juxtaposed to
recognizing that we are, at many levels, simply animals with some
degree of "instinct"; that we are social with a lot of conditioning
that colors our decision making process. Mitigation with respect
to "responsibility" is not the same as erasure of it.

Yes -- and the Devil is in the details of who is allowed a "pass" and who isn't, and the endless argument over which bin to put people in. For example, male vs. female domestic abusers.


Because when we tell women that the fact that they didn't get a raise
because they didn't ASK for a raise is somehow not because of their own
decision to not ask for a raise, and instead because of evilmen and
sexism who forced them to become the type of person who doesn't ask for
raises, we deny them their status as adults (and keep them dependent on
Papa Government). THAT is sexist.


No more sexist than saying that the average male is physically
stronger than the average female. If the condition exists, it is
not sexist to note it and tell folks about it. We do know that in
decades past women's work *was* devalued relative to men's
even in the same job, even in the same office just one desk
over. It was merely the accepted condition.

And WOMEN who see this "special treatment for women" as sexist should just sit down, shut up, and let Papa Government fix things for them the way it knows best how to do?

Bah.


First and foremost, I'm an monarchist----but only insofar as I
get to be the monarch. I think the second best would be something
akin to socialism. But I've only slowly been pulled in that direction
as I've re-embraced my Christianity.

As a Christian, your "first and foremost" should be "Monarchy, with God
as monarch."


God *is* monarch.

Then this is the best of all possible worlds.

- Ron ^*^

.