Feminism and Sexual Equality page 7

353 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by MoonlaughMaster:

If a girl hits you, she is guilty of assault, and will be prosecuted the same as a man – just press charges.

We are talking culturally, not legally.

That’s their problem, not the guy’s. Crying is good for emotional stability.

That’s his point. It’s the culture that women can cry all they want, but men have to be stoic at all times.

Even speaking of “culturally”,,,
there are soooooooo many variables that make even “subjective” look well disciplined.

Same goes for “crying”,,,
Different cultures,,,different “rules”.
Different motivatiors//reasons….different responses
for different ppl,,,at different times for the same ppl,,,
Different ages elicit different emotions.

That’s a whooooole lot of America’s “culture problem”.
We want to put human behavior in nice neat little ticky-tacky boxes of deffinitions//rules.

 
Flag Post

Then work on changing the culture. We all have the power to alter our local culture, through our actions and our influence on others.

 
Flag Post

YUP…“influence on others” can very often be much greater than one realizes….even if it is just making a silent, yet strong, stand on an issue.

Applied to the bully thread….this can be seen as just stepping forward and saying: NO, this is WRONG.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MoonlaughMaster:

That’s his point. It’s the culture that women can cry all they want, but men have to be stoic at all times.

In some cultures. If you’re a female in the military, and you cry, you’ll get some strange looks and feel disapproval.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by AmandaC4:

Are the genders equal? Does each gender have certain rights and privileges?

Does more work need to be done in order to make the genders equal? What can be done?

(to all) Define rights. Are rights things that are given by the government or are they somehow innate?

 
Flag Post

I would say that a lot of rights are given by the government. Yes, there are rights that you should be given to you at birth. But if you happened to be born in a really strict and oppressive government then you might not have much of a say in your rights.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by einfach:
Originally posted by AmandaC4:

Are the genders equal? Does each gender have certain rights and privileges?

Does more work need to be done in order to make the genders equal? What can be done?

(to all) Define rights. Are rights things that are given by the government or are they somehow innate?

Yes,,,,there ARE innate rights.
Unfortunately,,,,one very often has to fight very hard to keep them.
And, yet…there are those that don’t seem to give a shit if they are usurped or even just lost due to neglect & disuse.

THEN, there is: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

 
Flag Post

Are rights things that are given by the government or are they somehow innate?

All rights you have are given to you by the government, your parents, or your partner. Having a certain right basically means “you will not be punished if you perform this, and if somebody restricts you in doing this I might be able to punish them for doing as such”. There are no innate “rights”. By definition it means you are allowed to do something. Allowed by whom? Exactly.

Government-given rights should be equal for women as they are for men, of course.

 
Flag Post

@karma – How are rights innate? How does that work? Or, that is, in what sense are rights innate? Could you defend your position a little more?

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Are rights things that are given by the government or are they somehow innate?

All rights you have are given to you by the government, your parents, or your partner. Having a certain right basically means “you will not be punished if you perform this, and if somebody restricts you in doing this I might be able to punish them for doing as such”. There are no innate “rights”. By definition it means you are allowed to do something. Allowed by whom? Exactly.

OK, but conversely, suppose we have no government. Does that mean that we now have unlimited rights, because we are “allowed” to do anything? So then a nonexistent government has now “given” us rights? This doesn’t make sense. This seems to lead to a contradiction.

 
Flag Post

Huh. If you follow my line of reasoning you’ll understand without a government there are no government-given rights at all. Maybe I should have expanded a little as well. Everyone can grant you rights. Any rights at all. The problem is that not everyone can protect those rights. I’ve explained the government punishes those who restrict you in your rights. Any authority is most likely capable of punishing those who restrict others in certain rights. But when I give you the right to walk over my neighbour’s grass and he has a shotgun, I’m not able to protect that right of yours, because he’s stronger than I am. It’s likely he disagrees with such a right as well. In fact, there are many people that disagree with many types of rights the government grants you, but they, contradictory with the neighbour, are not strong enough to prevent those rights.

If you are alone, you can even grant yourself some rights. But can you protect them? Probably only against those weaker than yourself. We’ve come to the part where we acknowledge you’re really only capable of protecting your so-called rights through power. And what meaning do rights then have? None. All it means is that you have certain abilities you wish to perform and you protect those abilities by punishing those that restrict you in performing them. There are no innate rights, because having been “given” those rights by nobody means nobody can protect you when you’re restricted in them.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Huh. If you follow my line of reasoning you’ll understand without a government there are no government-given rights at all. Maybe I should have expanded a little as well. Everyone can grant you rights. Any rights at all. The problem is that not everyone can protect those rights. I’ve explained the government punishes those who restrict you in your rights. Any authority is most likely capable of punishing those who restrict others in certain rights. But when I give you the right to walk over my neighbour’s grass and he has a shotgun, I’m not able to protect that right of yours, because he’s stronger than I am. It’s likely he disagrees with such a right as well. In fact, there are many people that disagree with many types of rights the government grants you, but they, contradictory with the neighbour, are not strong enough to prevent those rights.

If you are alone, you can even grant yourself some rights. But can you protect them? Probably only against those weaker than yourself. We’ve come to the part where we acknowledge you’re really only capable of protecting your so-called rights through power. And what meaning do rights then have? None. All it means is that you have certain abilities you wish to perform and you protect those abilities by punishing those that restrict you in performing them. There are no innate rights, because having been “given” those rights by nobody means nobody can protect you when you’re restricted in them.

OK – this is more what I was looking for. It is not the “giving” of the rights but the “protecting” of the rights that creates rights. This still seems a little shaky, but it could do.

Taking this, then does it make sense to ask, “Does each gender have certain rights and priviliges?” since that is relative to the society that you are placed in? It seems more like you would be looking for a response along the lines of the policy of a particular government (in this country, these genders have these rights). If there are no innate rights, then the question does not make that much sense.

I’m also still not willing to accept that rights stem from the use of force.


My proposal

Perhaps rights don’t refer to anything but the lack of restriction — the lack of threat. That is, I have all the rights I want, until my rights are taken away. Thus, rights cannot be given, only removed. Governments have no ability to “grant” you rights, they can only prevent themselves from restricting one’s rights. Often times, rights are taken away for the sake of the public good (I’m not saying this is right or wrong here, but it happens, as is the case of water fluoridation).

 
Flag Post

Taking this, then does it make sense to ask, “Does each gender have certain rights and priviliges?” since that is relative to the society that you are placed in?

Some societies deem women to be inferior. It is quite easy to see they do not have equal rights and privileges. Others get fairly close. The question was probably aimed towards America, but it can be asked about any society, or just in general.

I’m also still not willing to accept that rights stem from the use of force.

You might not be willing to accept, but you’ll see in my reasoning that is the only way you’ll be guaranteed those rights. Do you have the right to live? Well, do you? What if someone kills you? Will you start screaming at him that you had the right to live so in reality you shouldn’t be dead? Of course not, you’re dead, you can’t scream or be alive. If you have that right given to you by the government, there will be a law prohibiting the general killing of others. This will make sure a lot of people don’t get the thought to do as such. There will also be the police that may prevent killing. Furthermore, punishment of murderers is trying to achieve making sure others do not want to have the same punishment. This is sheer use of force. If the government was not there, no criminal will be stopped from taking your life except by yourself or your friends. That “right to live” then is given to you by you and your friends, as you have the power to stop a single thug. But if you are a handicapped individual without friends, you have no means to protect that right, and it is effectively meaningless.

Do you now get why I am saying your rights basically only exist through brute force?

Perhaps rights don’t refer to anything but the lack of restriction — the lack of threat. That is, I have all the rights I want, until my rights are taken away. Thus, rights cannot be given, only removed. Governments have no ability to “grant” you rights

Hold on, this is a different issue. I agree with the general idea, but not that this is what the supposed rights are. I agree you are capable of doing everything in your power until a government comes along. Then you are restricted in certain issues, but are still allowed (note the word) to do certain other things. But, at the same time, the government also protects you in doing the things you’re allowed to do. I understand where you’re coming from, but it effectively means the same thing. The supposed “rights” you have are the things you are allowed to do under the government. I merely disagree they are still rights when there is no government. I suppose you could argue, in my line of reasoning, that you give yourself all those rights, but again, you have no power to protect the majority of the rights you’ve given yourself. That makes them effectively meaningless.

I do think I’m going rather off-topic with this. I know there’s a thread about this somewhere and I found it very interesting, but it died off. It made me unload most of my thoughts here the moment you started talking about it.

 
Flag Post

On average, given the past two years of quarterly employment rates, 10% more men are employed than women; 10% more men are unemployed than women. In august of 2009, the worst economic crisis most reading here can remember, men had an unemployment rate of 10.1% and women had an unemployment rate of 7.6%. Some simple arithmetic yields that, in August of 2009, men were unemployed at a rate 33% higher than women (note this is irrespective of hard numbers—even though men quantitatively had higher unemployment numbers, men have disparagingly higher, qualitative unemployment rates). Let’s discuss why this might happen:

1) Women and men work similar jobs at similar rates, and women have more impunity than men. That is to say, women get more tenure, are seen as more valuable to companies, and in the event of economic turmoil, are indispensable compared to their oppositely gendered coworkers.
I, like you (not to be confused with “I like you”), think this is utter bullshit. Moving on.

2) Women and men work similar jobs at different rates. Certain companies, with different gender employment rates (and stability), were hit with a different level of severity. Thus certain firms with more male employees got shut down more, causing men to become unemployed at a quicker rate than women.
Conclusion: Plausible.

3) The statistics were made up.
No. They weren’t.

So what’s our conclusion analyzing these statistics with Dr. Baron? (For anyone curious, I’m now officially a doctor woot woot.) We conclude that men and women worked similar jobs at different rates. What’s the extrapolation? These different companies are bound to pay different rates as well, causing the notorious pay gap.

But let’s analyze another interesting aspect to this: why are 10% more men in the labor force when men and women share equal amounts of population? The reason is readily available: Men must provide. In the event a couple is in need of income, the man must seek work, in the competitive work force, thus also compounding the unemployment rate of men in economic hardship. Nota bene: In normal economic times, men are only 5% more unemployed than women! Yay!

>inb4 citation needed. I defer you to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, lazy, illiterate ignoramus.
>inb4 forged numbers. I wish I could teach you to do elementary arithmetic. Unemployment rate = (#employed+#unemployed)/#unemployed
>inb4 DarkBaron, our lord and savior has returned. Not really. Just sharing information with my brainwashed adorers toward whom I contain an immeasurable repugnance.

 
Flag Post

maybe it’s easyer to let men off than women?

but how come men are more employed and more underemployed? i don’t get that part.

nice to see you back.

 
Flag Post

oh noes!

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Ignoring the troll, it does have something of a point. We still have a long way to go for true gender equality, but you will never get identical statistics between the genders. Individual variance will assure there are always a few percentage points difference, even when gender is no-longer relevant.

 
Flag Post

Out of lurking….congrats on the doctorate. Is it PhD or M.D.?

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

maybe it’s easyer to let men off than women?

I haven’t found that to be the case. I’m a woman, by the way, and my former white male boss had no problem harassing his female colleagues on a daily basis and/or flirting with them before letting them (and me) go. Maybe it depends on the organization. In this instance, I would say he actually acted with inpunity. He did shit none of us could have gotten away with, such as bringing his pet to work and letting it sit at our desks.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by AmandaC4:

Are the genders equal? Does each gender have certain rights and privileges?

Does more work need to be done in order to make the genders equal? What can be done?

First off, from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary this is what feminism is, as referred to in this thread. It is NOT, as many believe, a plot to bring men down.

fem·i·nism – noun \ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm\
Definition of FEMINISM
1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

Mostly, people who claim the feminist mantle these days, are looking to give all women the power to act as men behaving badly. This seems to be a primary reason that many women reject the title.

 
Flag Post

You might want to name some examples. I know plenty of feminists – NONE of them, even the ones with views I severely disagree with, believe that, even implicitly.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

You might want to name some examples. I know plenty of feminists – NONE of them, even the ones with views I severely disagree with, believe that, even implicitly.

Feminism is dominated by issues regarding sexual liberation.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Beegum:
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

You might want to name some examples. I know plenty of feminists – NONE of them, even the ones with views I severely disagree with, believe that, even implicitly.

Feminism is dominated by issues regarding sexual liberation.

That’s a narrow and short-sighted analysis.
Feminism is much much more than just ‘sexual liberation’…I almost think your are confusing feminsim with hippies.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:
Originally posted by Beegum:
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

You might want to name some examples. I know plenty of feminists – NONE of them, even the ones with views I severely disagree with, believe that, even implicitly.

Feminism is dominated by issues regarding sexual liberation.

That’s a narrow and short-sighted analysis.
Feminism is much much more than just ‘sexual liberation’…I almost think your are confusing feminsim with hippies.

Without qualifications most people assume that if you’re a feminist, you’re pro-abortion funding by the state and offering abortions and birth control to children without their parents knowledge or consent… for instance.

While, sure, this is short sighted, it’s simply much easier to deny that you’re a feminist if you think this is a crazy basic philosophy.