In general, I am anti law because of the kind of law being created these days. I am a proponent of laws which protect individual liberties. Don't murder, don't steal, etc... But when the laws, themselves, create looters and thieves, I am absolutely opposed to them. When someone tells me who I have to hire and how much I have to pay them, I am opposed to them. If laws protect employees from thieving employers I support them. If laws protect employers from thieving employees I support them. But if employees and employers of their own voltion enter into a mutually beneficial contract it should be none of the government's (or society's) business.
If company x isn't paying a "fair" wage, find another company. At some point, if nobody accepts jobs at company x's "unfair" wage, company x will either fold or increase wages/benefits to compete. We don't need the strong arm of the government punishing employers and coercing them into hiring or retaining people.
Why can't people then just find another employer who doesn't rob them? Because that's just ridiculous, that's why. Wrong is wrong and discrimination is wrong. I'm not saying you should be told who to hire, just treat them equally once you've hired them when it comes to things such as gender and race where a person can't change.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
But some people here can't see it. If you devote yourself to your husband and/or your kids...you are the anti-everything.
lots of people here....and out in the world...can't see lots of things. none of it makes it any less true or false though, depending on the topic. i think a real step forward for feminsim/women would be for neither working women nor stay-at-home parents to feel the need to defend their choices. the ONLY valid/right choice...is the one that is right for you, for your partner, for your family. that is a great step towards equality.
lots of people here....and out in the world...can't see lots of things. none of it makes it any less true or false though, depending on the topic. i think a real step forward for feminsim/women would be for neither working women nor stay-at-home parents to feel the need to defend their choices. the ONLY valid/right choice...is the one that is right for you, for your partner, for your family. that is a great step towards equality.
i think we will. i think we are moving in the right direction, men and women, in general. i'd love to see it in my lifetime, but if not...i'll just keep doing the best i can. don't be 'sorry'....global warming IS a serious concern, for us ALL......and absolutely a 'bigger' issue. there are almost always 'bigger issues'...but doesn't make me not care about some of the smaller ones as well. for my personal life, neither is a huge concern....b/c overall while i still see some limitations, i do quite well as a female and am happy/content....and global warming isn't going to hurt my lifetime either, at least i think it doubtful. as i don't have offspring, one could say i'd not 'care' about the future....but absolutely i do, b/c i DO hope improvements for life happen long after i am gone...and that this beautiful planet keeps spinning.......
This is so incredibly off-topic that...well, perhaps, you do not see some of these laws/rules as beneficial to not only individuals, but the health of the country.
I certainly see the benefits! I also see the benefits to the man who robs you at the ATM. Just because someone benefits from something does not make that something right.
You seem to be suggesting that martial law has been enacted upon the workplace in America.
Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not suggesting that martial law has been enacted upon the workplace in America. For the most part, the workplace in America still remains relatively free, despite your laws. However, you cannot change the fact that behaviors are demanded of people in this country at the point of a gun and that the proposals here would further increase those demands. Those demands are made under the guise of "rights" when in fact they're little more than the whims of true goons.
You have a job on the message pit?
By "here", I meant my business, not the message pit.
What? How would that be possible? How can your food just magically appear on your table? How can you house just magically be built? How can you clothing just magically weave itself? How can anything you value in this life simply be conjured out of thin air????
Hardly anyone works their job because they want to. It's a necessity.
Don't you see what you're saying here? Don't you understand the link between "want" and "necessity" above?
Productive human behavior is a requirement of survival. You have two choices, if you desire to survive:
1. You may contribute to that production and freely exchange with others who do the same.
2. You may enslave others and steal the products of their labor.
Your "we shouldn't have to work" is the path to #2.
Feminism takes a situational and emotional approach to working out sociological problems. Feminism victimizes women, it describes women as victims within society and encourages feelings of oppression and lowered worth. It discourages women from maintaining an open mind when entering an interview with a male employer, initiating a relationship and deliberating their worth in society.
Feminism does not allow for a centrist perspective. It views all circumstances from a bias viewpoint.
Masculism is also bad and also views all circumstances from a bias perspective.
Egalitarianism/Centrism views all circumstances from a central, non-bias viewpoint.
All of these terms are verbs, not nouns, they describe a perspective a way of looking at issues from a viewpoint. I am weary of anyone that labels themselves a feminist or masculist.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Feminism takes a situational and emotional approach to working out sociological problems. Feminism victimizes women, it describes women as victims within society and encourages feelings of oppression and lowered worth. It discourages women from maintaining an open mind when entering an interview with a male employer, initiating a relationship and deliberating their worth in society.
Feminism does not allow for a centrist perspective. It views all circumstances from a bias viewpoint.
Masculism is also bad and also views all circumstances from a bias perspective.
Egalitarianism/Centrism views all circumstances from a central, non-bias viewpoint.
All of these terms are verbs, not nouns, they describe a perspective a way of looking at issues from a viewpoint. I am weary of anyone that labels themselves a feminist or masculist.
All points of view have a biased perspective. Unless one overlooks their bias.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
All points of view have a biased perspective. Unless one overlooks their bias.
People have biases, not verbs.
However, the magnitude of the bias is plastic. Simply because I am a man does not mean that I will view all "Male vs Female" debates from a male perspective. I could be totally non-bias when debating such things, but be bias in another regard..
Realizing that people have prejudices does not mean that everyone is prejudice all the time. However, if a person labels themselves "feminist" it's quite obvious they have adopted a bias perspective. The doctrine of feminism is to find areas where women are treated unequal. By looking for these inequalities they are encouraging themselves to be bias.
If everyone was prejudice all the time, then no one is ever right. Truth would lie in-between two polar opposites, or be the closest to the truth.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
However, the magnitude of the bias is plastic. Simply because I am a man does not mean that I will view all "Male vs Female" debates from a male perspective. I could be totally non-bias when debating such things, but be bias in another regard..
Realizing that people have prejudices does not mean that everyone is prejudice all the time. However, if a person labels themselves "feminist" it's quite obvious they have adopted a bias perspective. The doctrine of feminism is to find areas where women are treated unequal. By looking for these inequalities they are encouraging themselves to be bias.
If everyone was prejudice all the time, then no one is ever right. Truth would lie in-between two polar opposites, or be the closest to the truth.
Each view has validity within the context it exists. If one looks at that from the outside, from their own context without appreciating the context at hand, one will not see or understand that validity. The validity within all views coincides very nicely with actual Truth.
If one believes an egalitarian view works "better", that's a contradiction, in that the egalitarian view claims to accept all views equally, and therefore without "better". In order to see the "betterness" or "rightness" of a view, we need to accept the natural hierarchy inherent in life. Appreciating "rightness" or
"truth" with any kind of accuracy entails being able to synthesize lateral and natural hierarchical systems integratively and holistically in understanding, and not judgment.
Of course feminism is coming from a subjective view, tied to past experiences, and personal affect--like any other view. To suggest someone not live and respond based on their experiences or personal view sounds ludicrous to me. Personal empowerment is the opposite of tuning out one's inner feedback.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Each view has validity within the context it exists. If one looks at that from the outside, from their own context without appreciating the context at hand, one will not see or understand that validity. The validity within all views coincides very nicely with actual Truth.
If one believes an egalitarian view works "better", that's a contradiction, in that the egalitarian view claims to accept all views equally, and therefore without "better". In order to see the "betterness" or "rightness" of a view, we need to accept the natural hierarchy inherent in life. Appreciating "rightness" or
"truth" with any kind of accuracy entails being able to synthesize lateral and natural hierarchical systems integratively and holistically in understanding, and not judgment.
Of course feminism is coming from a subjective view, tied to past experiences, and personal affect--like any other view. To suggest someone not live and respond based on their experiences or personal view sounds ludicrous to me. Personal empowerment is the opposite of tuning out one's inner feedback.
You rely far too much on your "inner feedback" for your own personal bias.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You rely far too much on your "inner feedback" for your own personal bias.
Are you saying the "objective" world exists in a vacuum that does not include inner feedback and the subjective experience? Or would you agree they are two sides of the same coin?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
What? How would that be possible? How can your food just magically appear on your table? How can you house just magically be built? How can you clothing just magically weave itself? How can anything you value in this life simply be conjured out of thin air????
Don't you see what you're saying here? Don't you understand the link between "want" and "necessity" above?
Productive human behavior is a requirement of survival. You have two choices, if you desire to survive:
1. You may contribute to that production and freely exchange with others who do the same.
2. You may enslave others and steal the products of their labor.
Your "we shouldn't have to work" is the path to #2.
Yeah, I know people have to work. That was the point. If it's a necessity then people should be treated equally. It's not slavery to ask that people treat others fairly and be non discriminatory. Look, I don't even want to get into this extreme way you like to discuss things. I guess it's also slavery to make laws against theft and murder. I happen to think some laws have a good purpose, this includes anti discrimination laws. I know to you, it's all just guns pointing at your head to require that people be decent to each other.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The doctrine of feminism is to find areas where women are treated unequal. By looking for these inequalities they are encouraging themselves to be bias.
It seems like you're assuming that feminists decide to become feminists first and then look for inequalities. I'd say most women will find the inequalities first THEN become feminists when they decide some of those inequalities are unjust. I don't think women need to be told about the inequalities...they simply run into them on their own without the bias of a "feminist doctrine". Same goes for anyone, not just women.
Yeah, I know people have to work. That was the point. If it's a necessity then people should be treated equally. It's not slavery to ask that people treat others fairly and be non discriminatory. Look, I don't even want to get into this extreme way you like to discuss things. I guess it's also slavery to make laws against theft and murder. I happen to think some laws have a good purpose, this includes anti discrimination laws.
Just because two things are laws do not make them equal. A law is only as good as its consistency in logic. And a law that requires me to treat two things as equal that are not necessarily equal is illogical.
I know to you, it's all just guns pointing at your head
It seems like you're assuming that feminists decide to become feminists first and then look for inequalities. I'd say most women will find the inequalities first THEN become feminists when they decide some of those inequalities are unjust. I don't think women need to be told about the inequalities...they simply run into them on their own without the bias of a "feminist doctrine". Same goes for anyone, not just women.
My point is that if I surround myself with apes I'm going to become a very dirty person.
If a woman encounters these inequalities and decides to surround herself with others that feel the same, they are creating a vortex of prejudice. If a person truly wants equality they should surround themselves with people that both think alike and think differently. As people we need some level of opposition to keep us central. People will become polarized to their "clique" and neglect their own thoughts contradictory to the group's doctrine.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
My point is that if I surround myself with apes I'm going to become a very dirty person.
If a woman encounters these inequalities and decides to surround herself with others that feel the same, they are creating a vortex of prejudice. If a person truly wants equality they should surround themselves with people that both think alike and think differently. As people we need some level of opposition to keep us central. People will become polarized to their "clique" and neglect their own thoughts contradictory to the group's doctrine.
Yes, if you surround yourself with a certain group of people, you could start thinking like them to a point. But people surround themselves with all types of other people, not just one type. There are feminists who do hang out with other people besides other feminists, which gives them balance. Being a part of a group isn't so cut and dry, and it doesn't ensure any particular bias. People aren't robots....some develop bias when the join a group, and others don't. It's not guaranteed that a woman will become polarized because she decides to become a feminist.
Yes, if you surround yourself with a certain group of people, you could start thinking like them to a point. But people surround themselves with all types of other people, not just one type. There are feminists who do hang out with other people besides other feminists, which gives them balance. Being a part of a group isn't so cut and dry, and it doesn't ensure any particular bias. People aren't robots....some develop bias when the join a group, and others don't. It's not guaranteed that a woman will become polarized because she decides to become a feminist.
No it's not, but the concept of feminism warrants it, whereas the concept of centrism does not. It's a bias perspective. If someone thinks "There are inequalities in the world, I'm going to join a group." and joines a centrist group, then they are truly seeking to rectify all inequalities, if they join a feminist or masculist group, they are just being selfish and looking out for themselves from a bias perspective.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
No it's not, but the concept of feminism warrants it, whereas the concept of centrism does not. It's a bias perspective. If someone thinks "There are inequalities in the world, I'm going to join a group." and joines a centrist group, then they are truly seeking to rectify all inequalities, if they join a feminist or masculist group, they are just being selfish and looking out for themselves from a bias perspective.
Yeah, this goes back to what I said a while back in the thread. I really don't think it's realistic for people to try and simultaneously fight every type of inequality and injustice in the world at the same time. Usually, you spread yourself too thin, and nothing actually gets done. Centrism is an idealistic idea, not realistic. It isn't based on getting results, it's based on theory.
However, groups with similar goals like equality but coming from different perspectives (say feminists and civil rights activists), are typically the most successful. They focus on their goal, which is partly in-line with another group's goal, which is partly in-line with another group's goal, and so on. This can create a synergy that can actually produce results like we saw when groups like these in America came together in the 1960s.
Obviously, some groups will always work against each other, but the ones who are serious about producing results will adapt, compromise, and do what they have to do to get things done. That applies to some feminist groups, but not all.
A law is only as good as its consistency in logic. And a law that requires me to treat two things as equal that are not necessarily equal is illogical.
Of course you did, when you simply portrayed my views as anti-law, period, without recognizing that all laws are different.
Explain 'not necessarily equal'.
Two employees are rarely equal. Laws in this area will likely force me to treat them that way, however.
To me, it is deserving of a law. I don't feel it's too much ask to treat people equally when both sexes can perform the job.
See? A "perform the job" standard missing word like "exceptional" and "poorly" are what will lead me to simply fire all the men in my office or all the women, based on your law.
Of course you did, when you simply portrayed my views as anti-law, period, without recognizing that all laws are different.
I thought all laws being different was obvious. I mentioned thinking there was a good purpose for the ones we are discussing, tying that into other laws we have that have a purpose and are much needed.
See? A "perform the job" standard missing word like "exceptional" and "poorly" are what will lead me to simply fire all the men in my office or all the women, based on your law.
I agree performance should decide your pay once hired. But if you're performing your job exceptionally and still not getting paid as much as co workers who are male then I have a problem. These cases should go to court. It's not like you don't get to show your side of things and if it's not clearly discrimination then it would show.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I thought all laws being different was obvious. I mentioned thinking there was a good purpose for the ones we are discussing, tying that into other laws we have that have a purpose and are much needed.
The purpose of the laws you're discussing is fairness. The problem is that your standard of fair is likely different than mine. The underlying assumption to your law is that you have a right to define fair for my business. Furthermore, you're going to spend my money in the process.
If you feel that I don't pay my employees fairly, feel free to supplement their incomes with your money.
At least hire people that are equally qualified on the same rate. Performance comes into play after being hired.
Let me give you an example. Let's say employee A and employee B have exactly the same skills. Employee A is hired at a time when I'm extremely short-staffed, whereas employee B is hired during a normal hiring cycle. Therefore, employee A has a greater value to me at the time of hire than employee B did.
Now, by your logic of "fairness" I should either pay employee B more than their initial value at hire, or I should cut employee A's salary when I hire employee B. Neither is "fair" to my business. Furthermore, neither respects the fact that both employees agreed to their salaries when hired.
I agree performance should decide your pay once hired. But if you're performing your job exceptionally and still not getting paid as much as co workers who are male then I have a problem.
Certainly! If you're not being paid for the value of your labor, you have every obligation to yourself to either demand a raise or withhold your labor. However, you have no right to force the person writing your paycheck to increase your pay. By that logic, I would have an equal right to force your labor in the first place.
These cases should go to court. It's not like you don't get to show your side of things and if it's not clearly discrimination then it would show.
Wow, how kind of you to let me speak in a circumstance where you'll be spending my money and making my decisions for me.
BTW, how many raises do you think businesses are going to be handing out when they have to explain them in courts half the time?
Yes, if you surround yourself with a certain group of people, you could start thinking like them to a point. But people surround themselves with all types of other people, not just one type. There are feminists who do hang out with other people besides other feminists, which gives them balance. Being a part of a group isn't so cut and dry, and it doesn't ensure any particular bias. People aren't robots....some develop bias when the join a group, and others don't. It's not guaranteed that a woman will become polarized because she decides to become a feminist.
I completely agree with you. For example, I consider myself very independent of any school of thought/philosophy. I consider myself very central and balanced in my approach. And at the same time, I've been personally affected by phsychiatric issues throughout a huge portion of my life. By the blend of my subjective and objective stances, I'm tunnel-vision towards increasing our cultural awareness of psychiatric issues, and of deconstructing illusions and stigmas regarding the delusions we hold towards mental illness in our society. My entire approach is still a centred approach, even though I've incorpated my personal purposes. Therefore, I can certainly stretch that to embrace a feminist stance as well. One can be centered and objective and still view the inequities women deal with in day to day, and seek to work constructively in that department.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I completely agree with you. For example, I consider myself very independent of any school of thought/philosophy. I consider myself very central and balanced in my approach. And at the same time, I've been personally affected by phsychiatric issues throughout a huge portion of my life. By the blend of my subjective and objective stances, I'm tunnel-vision towards increasing our cultural awareness of psychiatric issues, and of deconstructing illusions and stigmas regarding the delusions we hold towards mental illness in our society. My entire approach is still a centred approach, even though I've incorpated my personal purposes. Therefore, I can certainly stretch that to embrace a feminist stance as well. One can be centered and objective and still view the inequities women deal with in day to day, and seek to work constructively in that department.
Right on. I also don't follow any particular philosophy except my own, which changes with my experiences (physical and emotional). I've read some Jung and others, but I really think when you subscribe to a certain philosopher/philosophy, you get pigeon-holed and you continue down a certain path from there on, and overlook alternative paths along the way.
I think the basic approach, as you pointed out, is the thing to focus on. I'm still working on mine, but I think the best basic approach should be simple but also robust, allowing for changes along the yellow brick road
Right on. I also don't follow any particular philosophy except my own, which changes with my experiences (physical and emotional). I've read some Jung and others, but I really think when you subscribe to a certain philosopher/philosophy, you get pigeon-holed and you continue down a certain path from there on, and overlook alternative paths along the way.
I think the basic approach, as you pointed out, is the thing to focus on. I'm still working on mine, but I think the best basic approach should be simple but also robust, allowing for changes along the yellow brick road
Yes, again I agree in that people alter what they will or will not accept down the road when they adhere to an external approach above all, either pre-accepting or pre-dismissing alternate views. If our approach is instead to be true to ourselves, we'll find what we resonate with at each step of the journey. In this way, information becomes processed from without and becomes integrated with our subjective view, and we have knowing, or knowledge, which is beyond information. Actual knowing is much more multi-dimensional, inspirational in directing us, and ultimately can be very potent. I think if we are patient and open to develop our voice or our passion, and eke out an environment conducive to our development, yes, we will make our way down that road quite nicely.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
Why can't people then just find another employer who doesn't rob them? Because that's just ridiculous, that's why. Wrong is wrong and discrimination is wrong. I'm not saying you should be told who to hire, just treat them equally once you've hired them when it comes to things such as gender and race where a person can't change.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
But some people here can't see it. If you devote yourself to your husband and/or your kids...you are the anti-everything.
lots of people here....and out in the world...can't see lots of things. none of it makes it any less true or false though, depending on the topic. i think a real step forward for feminsim/women would be for neither working women nor stay-at-home parents to feel the need to defend their choices. the ONLY valid/right choice...is the one that is right for you, for your partner, for your family. that is a great step towards equality.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
We'll never be equal.
At least in my lifetime.
I'm more concerned about global warming...sorry.
i think we will. i think we are moving in the right direction, men and women, in general. i'd love to see it in my lifetime, but if not...i'll just keep doing the best i can.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I certainly see the benefits! I also see the benefits to the man who robs you at the ATM. Just because someone benefits from something does not make that something right.
Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not suggesting that martial law has been enacted upon the workplace in America. For the most part, the workplace in America still remains relatively free, despite your laws. However, you cannot change the fact that behaviors are demanded of people in this country at the point of a gun and that the proposals here would further increase those demands. Those demands are made under the guise of "rights" when in fact they're little more than the whims of true goons.
By "here", I meant my business, not the message pit.
What? How would that be possible? How can your food just magically appear on your table? How can you house just magically be built? How can you clothing just magically weave itself? How can anything you value in this life simply be conjured out of thin air????
Don't you see what you're saying here? Don't you understand the link between "want" and "necessity" above?
Productive human behavior is a requirement of survival. You have two choices, if you desire to survive:
1. You may contribute to that production and freely exchange with others who do the same.
2. You may enslave others and steal the products of their labor.
Your "we shouldn't have to work" is the path to #2.
Feminism takes a situational and emotional approach to working out sociological problems. Feminism victimizes women, it describes women as victims within society and encourages feelings of oppression and lowered worth. It discourages women from maintaining an open mind when entering an interview with a male employer, initiating a relationship and deliberating their worth in society.
Feminism does not allow for a centrist perspective. It views all circumstances from a bias viewpoint.
Masculism is also bad and also views all circumstances from a bias perspective.
Egalitarianism/Centrism views all circumstances from a central, non-bias viewpoint.
All of these terms are verbs, not nouns, they describe a perspective a way of looking at issues from a viewpoint. I am weary of anyone that labels themselves a feminist or masculist.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
People have biases, not verbs.
However, the magnitude of the bias is plastic. Simply because I am a man does not mean that I will view all "Male vs Female" debates from a male perspective. I could be totally non-bias when debating such things, but be bias in another regard..
Realizing that people have prejudices does not mean that everyone is prejudice all the time. However, if a person labels themselves "feminist" it's quite obvious they have adopted a bias perspective. The doctrine of feminism is to find areas where women are treated unequal. By looking for these inequalities they are encouraging themselves to be bias.
If everyone was prejudice all the time, then no one is ever right. Truth would lie in-between two polar opposites, or be the closest to the truth.
If one believes an egalitarian view works "better", that's a contradiction, in that the egalitarian view claims to accept all views equally, and therefore without "better". In order to see the "betterness" or "rightness" of a view, we need to accept the natural hierarchy inherent in life. Appreciating "rightness" or
"truth" with any kind of accuracy entails being able to synthesize lateral and natural hierarchical systems integratively and holistically in understanding, and not judgment.
Of course feminism is coming from a subjective view, tied to past experiences, and personal affect--like any other view. To suggest someone not live and respond based on their experiences or personal view sounds ludicrous to me. Personal empowerment is the opposite of tuning out one's inner feedback.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You rely far too much on your "inner feedback" for your own personal bias.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yeah, I know people have to work. That was the point. If it's a necessity then people should be treated equally. It's not slavery to ask that people treat others fairly and be non discriminatory. Look, I don't even want to get into this extreme way you like to discuss things. I guess it's also slavery to make laws against theft and murder. I happen to think some laws have a good purpose, this includes anti discrimination laws. I know to you, it's all just guns pointing at your head to require that people be decent to each other.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
It seems like you're assuming that feminists decide to become feminists first and then look for inequalities. I'd say most women will find the inequalities first THEN become feminists when they decide some of those inequalities are unjust. I don't think women need to be told about the inequalities...they simply run into them on their own without the bias of a "feminist doctrine". Same goes for anyone, not just women.
Just because two things are laws do not make them equal. A law is only as good as its consistency in logic. And a law that requires me to treat two things as equal that are not necessarily equal is illogical.
That's a contradiction, but whatever.
My point is that if I surround myself with apes I'm going to become a very dirty person.
If a woman encounters these inequalities and decides to surround herself with others that feel the same, they are creating a vortex of prejudice. If a person truly wants equality they should surround themselves with people that both think alike and think differently. As people we need some level of opposition to keep us central. People will become polarized to their "clique" and neglect their own thoughts contradictory to the group's doctrine.
Yes, if you surround yourself with a certain group of people, you could start thinking like them to a point. But people surround themselves with all types of other people, not just one type. There are feminists who do hang out with other people besides other feminists, which gives them balance. Being a part of a group isn't so cut and dry, and it doesn't ensure any particular bias. People aren't robots....some develop bias when the join a group, and others don't. It's not guaranteed that a woman will become polarized because she decides to become a feminist.
No it's not, but the concept of feminism warrants it, whereas the concept of centrism does not. It's a bias perspective. If someone thinks "There are inequalities in the world, I'm going to join a group." and joines a centrist group, then they are truly seeking to rectify all inequalities, if they join a feminist or masculist group, they are just being selfish and looking out for themselves from a bias perspective.
Yeah, this goes back to what I said a while back in the thread. I really don't think it's realistic for people to try and simultaneously fight every type of inequality and injustice in the world at the same time. Usually, you spread yourself too thin, and nothing actually gets done. Centrism is an idealistic idea, not realistic. It isn't based on getting results, it's based on theory.
However, groups with similar goals like equality but coming from different perspectives (say feminists and civil rights activists), are typically the most successful. They focus on their goal, which is partly in-line with another group's goal, which is partly in-line with another group's goal, and so on. This can create a synergy that can actually produce results like we saw when groups like these in America came together in the 1960s.
Obviously, some groups will always work against each other, but the ones who are serious about producing results will adapt, compromise, and do what they have to do to get things done. That applies to some feminist groups, but not all.
I didn't say it did
Explain 'not necessarily equal'.
To me, it is deserving of a law. I don't feel it's too much ask to treat people equally when both sexes can perform the job.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Emma Goldman and anarchism are tools of the devil.
-Enoch Powell
Great reply.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Emma Goldman is certainly not the devil.
Of course you did, when you simply portrayed my views as anti-law, period, without recognizing that all laws are different.
Two employees are rarely equal. Laws in this area will likely force me to treat them that way, however.
See? A "perform the job" standard missing word like "exceptional" and "poorly" are what will lead me to simply fire all the men in my office or all the women, based on your law.
I thought all laws being different was obvious. I mentioned thinking there was a good purpose for the ones we are discussing, tying that into other laws we have that have a purpose and are much needed.
At least hire people that are equally qualified on the same rate. Performance comes into play after being hired.
I agree performance should decide your pay once hired. But if you're performing your job exceptionally and still not getting paid as much as co workers who are male then I have a problem. These cases should go to court. It's not like you don't get to show your side of things and if it's not clearly discrimination then it would show.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The purpose of the laws you're discussing is fairness. The problem is that your standard of fair is likely different than mine. The underlying assumption to your law is that you have a right to define fair for my business. Furthermore, you're going to spend my money in the process.
If you feel that I don't pay my employees fairly, feel free to supplement their incomes with your money.
Let me give you an example. Let's say employee A and employee B have exactly the same skills. Employee A is hired at a time when I'm extremely short-staffed, whereas employee B is hired during a normal hiring cycle. Therefore, employee A has a greater value to me at the time of hire than employee B did.
Now, by your logic of "fairness" I should either pay employee B more than their initial value at hire, or I should cut employee A's salary when I hire employee B. Neither is "fair" to my business. Furthermore, neither respects the fact that both employees agreed to their salaries when hired.
Certainly! If you're not being paid for the value of your labor, you have every obligation to yourself to either demand a raise or withhold your labor. However, you have no right to force the person writing your paycheck to increase your pay. By that logic, I would have an equal right to force your labor in the first place.
Wow, how kind of you to let me speak in a circumstance where you'll be spending my money and making my decisions for me.
BTW, how many raises do you think businesses are going to be handing out when they have to explain them in courts half the time?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Right on. I also don't follow any particular philosophy except my own, which changes with my experiences (physical and emotional). I've read some Jung and others, but I really think when you subscribe to a certain philosopher/philosophy, you get pigeon-holed and you continue down a certain path from there on, and overlook alternative paths along the way.
I think the basic approach, as you pointed out, is the thing to focus on. I'm still working on mine, but I think the best basic approach should be simple but also robust, allowing for changes along the yellow brick road
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!