I guess we'll have to contact them and explain we're debating in circles here over their petition on the PJ message board And we need some clarification!
good idea! go straight to the source .
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
So, say there's a test to see who's most qualified and the top four happen to be male. You'd be okay with denying this man a position he deserves just because he's male and giving the post to a woman who doesn't deserve it just because she's female?
I thought that was what feminists have been against since the beginning? It's now somehow okay because the roles are reversed?
As I said, if you have read my posts, I do not believe there is a de facto equality yet, while there is a de jure equality between men and women.
Therefore, I do understand why certain measures are introduced so as to ensure women also get to the top job, which is still the preserve of men, by and large.
So in this situation I would see no problem at all to deny the post to a man IF there were a woman who deserved the post with the same qualifications, according to the legal quota approved.
As I said, if you have read my posts, I do not believe there is a de facto equality yet, while there is a de jure equality between men and women.
Therefore, I do understand why certain measures are introduced so as to ensure women also get to the top job, which is still the preserve of men, by and large.
So in this situation I would see no problem at all to deny the post to a man IF there were a woman who deserved the post with the same qualifications, according to the legal quota approved.
That would not be injustice, but as I said a redressing/rebalancing of justice.
So no hypocracy at all.
Well, great... but that was not the question at all.
In a way the roles are being reversed, but speaking globally you're right. Would you agree with giving the position to the woman in that scenario?
this might be nit-picking but i also think it's the crux of affirmative action debates. i really don't think the roles are being reversed---not just globally speaking. let's say one woman gets put in that position. that isn't going to make women the dominant gender in that field or in that society. men have had that position for so long that some type of "affirmative action" in that scenario isn't going to reverse roles---men will still be dominant overall, but that is one step in making it more equal and leveling the playing field.
do i agree with giving that position to the woman? i honestly don't know.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
In a way the roles are being reversed, but speaking globally you're right. Would you agree with giving the position to the woman in that scenario?
also...i don't know if i can articulate this well enough, but it seems even saying 'role reversal' implies that it is not a woman's role to be in a position of power.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
this might be nit-picking but i also think it's the crux of affirmative action debates. i really don't think the roles are being reversed---not just globally speaking. let's say one woman gets put in that position. that isn't going to make women the dominant gender in that field or in that society. men have had that position for so long that some type of "affirmative action" in that scenario isn't going to reverse roles---men will still be dominant overall, but that is one step in making it more equal and leveling the playing field.
do i agree with giving that position to the woman? i honestly don't know.
I see your point, but I don't agree with it. It may be one step in making it more equal, but it's a step of dishonesty and contradictory to feminist beliefs, I think.
It's a difficult matter.
Could it be that, paradoxically, men will play a major role, if not be the key player, in leveling the playing field? I'm sure it's been discussed here but there are men who consider themselves to be feminists, and there are definitely men who are humanitarians who also want to see equality for women. Like destroying the system for within, so to speak?
also...i don't know if i can articulate this well enough, but it seems even saying 'role reversal' implies that it is not a woman's role to be in a position of power.
I definitely didn't mean to imply that. I'll try to explain what I meant; men have always had these power structures, still have, that make it harder, and at times impossible, for women to get a certain position. Now, women, in my hypothetical question, have the power to decide who gets a certain position. Sadly enough, I think my question is indeed still hypothetical and that's why I think the roles would be reversed so to speak.
I see your point, but I don't agree with it. It may be one step in making it more equal, but it's a step of dishonesty and contradictory to feminist beliefs, I think.
It's a difficult matter.
Could it be that, paradoxically, men will play a major role, if not be the key player, in leveling the playing field? I'm sure it's been discussed here but there are men who consider themselves to be feminists, and there are definitely men who are humanitarians who also want to see equality for women. Like destroying the system for within, so to speak?
did you have any strategies in mind?
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
The question is about appointing the best people for the positions. If the women scored equally well, they'd deserve the position just as much. And if that were the case I'd say it should go to the woman based on the fact that it would be more representative of the population.
We're talking about if the four best candidates were male, would you be okay with it if the position was not given to the man who deserves it and went to a woman even though she doesn't deserve it? Because after all, this is what you said was a "necessary evil."
So, say there's a test to see who's most qualified and the top four happen to be male. You'd be okay with denying this man a position he deserves just because he's male and giving the post to a woman who doesn't deserve it just because she's female?
I thought that was what feminists have been against since the beginning? It's now somehow okay because the roles are reversed?
You cannot restore justice by more injustice. You cannot create peace by more violence.
If you're wondering where feminists got a bad name, look no further, it's this hypocricy right here.
And just to clarify in this example, I disagree with you that the woman does not deserve the job compared to the other men because in order to apply all candidates must have certain minimum requisites to apply for a position and advance to the final stages.
So in that sense you could say they all are deserving. But other factors will come into play after that, one of which will be the female quota issue.
And it's quite similar to the affirmative action position in the States for minorities, I believe.
The question is about appointing the best people for the positions. If the women scored equally well, they'd deserve the position just as much. And if that were the case I'd say it should go to the woman based on the fact that it would be more representative of the population.
We're talking about if the four best candidates were male, would you be okay with it if the position was not given to the man who deserves it and went to a woman even though she doesn't deserve it? Because after all, this is what you said was a "necessary evil."
See my reply to your post you've edited while I was writing.
In a nutshell, I disagree that the woman would not be deserving in this case.
And just to clarify in this example, I disagree with you that the woman does not deserve the job compared to the other men because in order to apply all candidates must have certain minimum requisites to apply for a position and advance to the final stages.
So in that sense you could say they all are deserving. But other factors will come into play after that, one of which will be the female quota issue.
And it's quite similar to the affirmative action position in the States for minorities, I believe.
Could you stop dodging the question?
It's a hypothetical situation. Would you agree? Yes or no?
But I guess you already answered it indirectly. And that's what I'd call hypocritical.
It seems to me from the other threads that you either make a lot of assumptions about what I think or say or just simply jump to conclusions. Either way, you don't seem to understand what I write and communicate.
I believe I have answered your question directly when asked and that it was not hypocritical.
It seems to me from the other threads that you either make a lot of assumptions about what I think or say or just simply jump to conclusions. Either way, you don't seem to understand what I write and communicate.
I believe I have answered your question directly when asked and that it was not hypocritical.
Cheers!
You either support the notion that the position should go to the most qualified candidate or you don't (you said you didn't, remember: necessary evil)
I see what you mean - the female quota by law (= this goes against the notion that the most qualified should get the job) - and I can see both sides of the argument.
In theory yes, you want the best person for the job, regardless of sex but when you consider the bigger picture with discrimination in the workplace I understand this request for at least one top job to be assigned to a female.
I guess, it's a necessary evil until true equality is reached.
A direct answer would be 'yes' or 'no' or like VG's answer, for example. Your answer is by no means direct.
Again, the top four candidates were male. No question about it. The women had lesser scores. There are no "certain minimum requisites" in this hypothetical situation. So, would you agree with the woman getting the job even though she doesn't deserve it.
Maybe you just don't write and communicate as clearly as you think.
You either support the notion that the position should go to the most qualified candidate or you don't (you said you didn't, remember: necessary evil)
A direct answer would be 'yes' or 'no' or like VG's answer, for example. Your answer is by no means direct.
Again, the top four candidates were male. No question about it. The women had lesser scores. There are no "certain minimum requisites" in this hypothetical situation. So, would you agree with the woman getting the job even though she doesn't deserve it.
Maybe you just don't write and communicate as clearly as you think.
As I thought I've explained, I disagree with your position for the reasons I've outlined, because your hypothesis is flawed from the start as it already contains a bias and it's not what happens in reality as far as I know of female quota and that's why I have expanded the reasons - not to dodge the question or be hypocritical.
And in that first quote of mine, I should have clarified that it is a perception that the female quota upholds reverse discrimanation [like for Affirmative Action], which I thought it's a fairly common misconception and misrepresentation of the female quota issue.
As I thought I've explained, I disagree with your position for the reasons I've outlined, because your hypothesis is flawed from the start as it already contains a bias and it's not what happens in reality as far as I know of female quota and that's why I have expanded the reasons - not to dodge the question or be hypocritical.
And in that first quote of mine, I should have clarified that it is a perception that the female quota upholds reverse discrimanation [like for Affirmative Action], which I thought it's a fairly common misconception and misrepresentation of the female quota issue.
Ok, forget it. I see you won't answer it. It's a hypothetical situation (hypothetical: "imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true" cambridge online dictionary), so you're right it's not what happens in reality hence the adjective hypothetical.
I just wanted to have your opinion about it, to see where you stand in that situation.
Ok, forget it. I see you won't answer it. It's a hypothetical situation (hypothetical: "imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true" cambridge online dictionary), so you're right it's not what happens in reality hence the adjective hypothetical.
I just wanted to have your opinion about it, to see where you stand in that situation.
But I did give you my answer and position on this issue with the proviso on your original hypothetical question because I felt the way you posed your question was already loaded with an obvious accusation of being unfair - which you then stated by telling me that I was being hypocritical.
That's why I said also it is a "necessary evil" because until you achieve true equality you must redress the balance to achieve an equal playing field by what I claim is restoring justice and equality, which you instead claim is perpetuating inequality and being hypocritical.
The phrase "necessary evil" indicates the differrent perceptions of that measure according to the opposite viewpoint.
Basically, I say it's not so black and white, while you seem to believe that the female quota would just perpetuate inequality by promoting different treatment between genders.
But I did give you my answer and position on this issue with the proviso on your original hypothetical question because I felt the way you posed your question was already loaded with an obvious accusation of being unfair - which you then stated by telling me that I was being hypocritical.
You did not answer my question. And you still haven't.
Why was the original hypothetical question "loaded with an obvious accusation of being unfair" ?
That's why I said also it is a "necessary evil" because until you achieve true equality you must redress the balance to achieve an equal playing field by what I claim is restoring justice and equality, which you instead claim is perpetuating inequality and being hypocritical.
The phrase "necessary evil" indicates the differrent perceptions of that measure according to the opposite viewpoint.
Basically, I say it's not so black and white, while you seem to believe that the female quota would just perpetuate inequality by promoting different treatment between genders.
If a woman gets the job through the female quota even though she's not the most qualified for the job, it's injustice. Someone has been wronged, like women have been wronged for so many years.
If you want fair treatment and you impose a system treats people unfairly because of their gender then you are being a hypocrite.
Ok, so I'm a little confused now. We're saying that women have to compete as being the best person for the job even though the total number of people included are over represented by men?
There shouldn't be such a thing as a "quota". No matter what you're voting for, in terms of a group of candidates it should always be taken from an equal representation of men and women. So as far as I can see if you have 50 representatives 25 of them should be men, 25 of them should be women. You get the best 25 men for the job and the best 25 women. Men can only compete for one of 25 places and women can only compete for one of 25 places. This best person, or best candidate business is flawed from the outset because different genders offer different perspectives and as far as I'm concerned any group of elected officials should always be a true representation of the demographic they are representing.
You did not answer my question. And you still haven't.
Why was the original hypothetical question "loaded with an obvious accusation of being unfair" ?
If a woman gets the job through the female quota even though she's not the most qualified for the job, it's injustice. Someone has been wronged, like women have been wronged for so many years.
If you want fair treatment and you impose a system treats people unfairly because of their gender then you are being a hypocrite.
I have answered your question. Please re-read my previous posts.
But to finish this, as I said, we do not have a de facto equal level playing field and that's why such measures the female quota provide a guarantee and safeguard for women and are a "necessary evil" to restore justice, and that's why it's not hypocritical.
From what you say it seems that you believe that the current system is already equal and fair and just, both de jure and de facto.
I disagree, because while it is de jure, de facto it is not still. And that's why these measures even if they may appear unfair to some are necessary n certain situations, to redress the balance.
So we disagree, as I thought it was fairly obvious, different starting point and different conclusions, and so let's agree to disagree on this.
I agree that as women got more rights they got more choices as they were no more confined to the private family world as it were, but could become financially independent on their own.
And I agree you cannot paint all women with the same brush; same as men, of course.
But that's why one must have equal rights for all.
Agreed! I think where we see differently is what those "rights" are.
Man is a social animal so one needs rules and laws agreed by all.
I see that some humans want laws and rules agreed by all. However, I don't at all see that we need them. We all exist and thrive quite nicely without laws and rules agreed by all.
If I understand your point correctly about enpowerment, responsibility and consciousness awareness this is on a more individual and personal level. And I agree with that.
However, for me that is not the whole picture, because of the inherent diversity in human beings - not all men/women are the same or have the same abilities intellectually, emotionally, physically, etc.
And that's precisely why we need external rules to ensure a level playing field for all. This of course would extend to rights for all groups that have been subjected to abuses, constraints, etc.
I can understand that people want to bring about an even playing field in life. I am so for that. I live to embody balance, and the even playing-field personified. I also live to create the even playing field wherever I can. What I cannot support is creating an even playing field at the expense of someone else. That is not the even-playing field at all. That is an illusion. If we create fairness for one person, while creating oppression and control with another, I see a power struggle. And I see the justification for that power struggle to be an emotional argument removed from a whole-brain argument. The reason I see that is because such a contradiction, logical fallacy or hypocrisy cannot be justified. Therefore, I see that when holding this flawed and/or incomplete argument one is doing the best they know how, without sound principles as a foundation. And when one knows better, they will do better.
It is the human ego that believes it can fairly and equitable quantify the unquantifiable vast differences you speak of. The only entity capable of fully appreciating such diversity and acting accordingly is nature herself. The concept of exacting external rules is authoritarian, and it's male-based dominance. It's the opposite to living in the femine-based harmony with nature.
This is why as long as women continue to play a mans game they will continue to lose. We are not men. Our true power is in being all we can be. Not trying to outdo patriarchy with more patriarchy. Our actual power is in developing our power, so that it emerges to balance and complement patriarchy in our individual lives, and on the world scale. This will bring our birthright equality into being politically and structurally.
In this sense I disagree with your assertion that the law and government are used to take away rights to give them to women - if that's what you mean - because it's not a question of taking away rights but extending rights to those who have been excluded before.
I'm all for creating any equality for women that doesn't infringe on someone else. Once that "equality" infringes on someone else, the logic and the argument for doing so reveals itself as unsound. Again, it shows we are trying to win at the man's game that we know causes our problems. Women's evolution and empowerment is in owning and expanding upon our power, and creating our own equality from being all we can be from within. When a system does not work, we don't go into it and try to force it, like patriarchy dictates. We create a system from what we, with our wonderful strengths (if we can remember them, outside what we've been taught to patriarchically value) inherently know is amazing. We don't use male dominant force in male systems that we don't like. That's self-destructive for us as women and as humans. It's like the cancer cell eating up the cell next to it at the ultimate expense of the body.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by natural law. In philosophical terms, it was used in contradiction to the laws of society in the sense that man in the state of nature behaved in a certain manner [and according to your philosophical viewpoint could be good, in harmony with each other, or bad as in struggle with each other]
Cheers
To me, natural laws are the laws which everything exists within, physically, emotionally, spiritually, philosophically, scientifically, etc. These laws keep all of nature thriving and recycling in perfection, at all times, independent of our human conflict with it.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I see that some humans want laws and rules agreed by all. However, I don't at all see that we need them. We all exist and thrive quite nicely without laws and rules agreed by all.
I agree that some may be able to live in harmony and without conflict without rules and laws, but that cannot be extended to society as a whole because there is always the risk of exploitation of the weaker. The rule of law should prevent that and guarantee an equal playing field for all. So, additional external protection, as it were.
I can understand that people want to bring about an even playing field in life. I am so for that. I live to embody balance, and the even playing-field personified. I also live to create the even playing field wherever I can. What I cannot support is creating an even playing field at the expense of someone else. That is not the even-playing field at all. That is an illusion. If we create fairness for one person, while creating oppression and control with another, I see a power struggle. And I see the justification for that power struggle to be an emotional argument removed from a whole-brain argument. The reason I see that is because such a contradiction, logical fallacy or hypocrisy cannot be justified. Therefore, I see that when holding this flawed and/or incomplete argument one is doing the best they know how, without sound principles as a foundation. And when one knows better, they will do better..
That's the crux of the matter. How would you be able to create a level playing field when the current field is unfair and unbalanced per se?
More on a societal level than just individual basis, I mean.
Would you say it would be an accumulation of single individual behaviour perpetuating fairness that will bring it about? without resorting to external helps, such as specific laws to protect minorities, etc? so as not perpetuate unfairness and get involved in a power struggle with the same behaviours.
And on an individual basis, I would agree it could be possible because one can choose how to behave according to their views, awareness levels, etc, but not every one is the same in society so you will still encounter some inequalities.
It is the human ego that believes it can fairly and equitable quantify the unquantifiable vast differences you speak of. The only entity capable of fully appreciating such diversity and acting accordingly is nature herself. The concept of exacting external rules is authoritarian, and it's male-based dominance. It's the opposite to living in the femine-based harmony with nature.
This is why as long as women continue to play a mans game they will continue to lose. We are not men. Our true power is in being all we can be. Not trying to outdo patriarchy with more patriarchy. Our actual power is in developing our power, so that it emerges to balance and complement patriarchy in our individual lives, and on the world scale. This will bring our birthright equality into being politically and structurally.
I'm all for creating any equality for women that doesn't infringe on someone else. Once that "equality" infringes on someone else, the logic and the argument for doing so reveals itself as unsound. Again, it shows we are trying to win at the man's game that we know causes our problems. Women's evolution and empowerment is in owning and expanding upon our power, and creating our own equality from being all we can be from within. When a system does not work, we don't go into it and try to force it, like patriarchy dictates. We create a system from what we, with our wonderful strengths (if we can remember them, outside what we've been taught to patriarchically value) inherently know is amazing. We don't use male dominant force in male systems that we don't like. That's self-destructive for us as women and as humans. It's like the cancer cell eating up the cell next to it at the ultimate expense of the body.
I definitely can see your point, and I agree one does not have to play the man's game. However, when you suggest to create a system of our own, different from patriarchy, wouldn't that be creating a new different imbalance? even if paradoxically and in theory based in fairness?
I think it would be a combination of the two different approaches: at individual level but also societal levels. And that's where we disagree because for me it means getting involved and changing the current system from within.
To me, natural laws are the laws which everything exists within, physically, emotionally, spiritually, philosophically, scientifically, etc. These laws keep all of nature thriving and recycling in perfection, at all times, independent of our human conflict with it.
So in your definition, there is no distinction between nature and society, nature and man/woman, animals? there's an underlying universal natural law?
Thanks for clarifying your points and the reasoned debate
I am thinking of basic human rights supported by the rule of law to be observed by all, so as to especially protect minorities, the weak, etc.
Women rights are a sub-set of these because there is still de facto inequality.
okay.
I agree that some may be able to live in harmony and without conflict without rules and laws, but that cannot be extended to society as a whole because there is always the risk of exploitation of the weaker. The rule of law should prevent that and guarantee an equal playing field for all. So, additional external protection, as it were.
I realize most people are out of synch with life, in their perception of it. Most people are at odds with and experience conflict in life. That's the nature of life! We experience challenges and learning experiences as a way of adapting and evolving. Or we maladapt. The system works perfectly, including there being a lot of fallout for choices that don't work for people. And yet, each diverse individual, in each moment chooses: to progress, regress or to stagnate. It's universal. It applies to man/woman/child/transvestite (and any other sex I may miss out on....)
Sure people get angry about their life circumstances. sure human perception and human ego is indignant at the state of natural evolution. And yet, natural evolution works perfectly, for it's own evolutionary purposes, regardless of our ignorance. And that perfection includes our heart-based desires to make a difference in wonderful ways.
That's the crux of the matter. How would you be able to create a level playing field when the current field is unfair and unbalanced per se?
There are multi-facets here. "The" current field is not imbalanced. Aspects of it are. When we hook into and embody imbalance, we perpetuate the cycles. If all individuals became empowered, in their power, they would know to focus on what they want to create more of. What we focus on expands. If we focus on lack, we create more of it. If we focus on empowerment and power, we create more of it. If all became theoretially empowered, each lacking aspect of the system would fall away, due to lack of use/need/attention on it. As it is, everyone...man/woman/feminist continue to happily and willfully feed energy and power into these flawed systems, with our added flaws, thusly showing a current and apparently unconscious need for the use of flaw and of flawed systems. It is us who sustain them! It's not someone "out there".
What this ultimately means is that anywhere we can create positive change (without also creating it's backlash through inauthentic power, control, and other maladaptive patriarchical ways) we are creating the even playing field.
Part of the problem is the human ego. We don't understand that our only and immense power is in creating progress. We try to create an illusory finished product, which is a product of our patriarchically based ego (in men AND women). We won't have the wisdom to design the ideal outcome until we are closing in on the outcome. Our ideas at this point come from our patriarchically developed brains that are in the infancy of our power. We want to fix things, as patriarchy dictates, thereby overstepping our actual power, willfully walzing into the realm of distortion and abuse of power. And then, in true masculine-detached-of-the-whole-of-life patriarchy, we want to then justify our abuses of power. I must forgive people for not knowing what they do. And I trust that when they know better, they will do better.
More on a societal level than just individual basis, I mean.
It is imperative that we raise our consciousness individually, so we can see how to do this. When we allow ourselves the luxury of "creating" in abusive, invasive ways, we are not operating from a place of power. They key to making the big changes...like those in authentic power do, is in raising our consciousness...this means resolving our inner emotional issues. It means seeking letting go of the false filters that we've internalized, in search of the Truth, and true empowerment, and not accepting the illusion of both.
Would you say it would be an accumulation of single individual behaviour perpetuating fairness that will bring it about? without resorting to external helps, such as specific laws to protect minorities, etc? so as not perpetuate unfairness and get involved in a power struggle with the same behaviours.
At the risk of being redundant...yes!! When we tap our true inner power, and do everything we can to always choose authentic empowerment, and to resolve it when we err, we will evolve into our own dream life and Self, including being empowered in ways we cannot imagine!!
And on an individual basis, I would agree it could be possible because one can choose how to behave according to their views, awareness levels, etc, but not every one is the same in society so you will still encounter some inequalities.
Not only is it possible, it's happening all around us! There is so much evolution happening. It's beautiful. There are many who still live out and justify maladaptation. And yet the evolution happens anyway! The authentic empowerment is on the side of adaptation, without any doubht. In evolution there is always lack and room for improvement so we learn to accept the inequities as we continue to do all in our power to progress..
And eventually, on this road of empowerment, one comes to a place beyond evolution. One comes to a centered place of pure potentiality.
I definitely can see your point, and I agree one does not have to play the man's game. However, when you suggest to create a system of our own, different from patriarchy, wouldn't that be creating a new different imbalance? even if paradoxically and in theory based in fairness?
We are only responsible for each thing we create. If we create according to our ideals without compromising them we create ideally, never imbalanced. Realistically, we are human and make mistakes. We learn to resolve our mistakes into the bigger picture of the ideal. This is why we cannot justify mistakes...or we justify creating in a flawed manner. We justify not resolving our problems and errors, which is the imbalance we create. So creating from the ideal is the opposite of creating imbalance.
I think it would be a combination of the two different approaches: at individual level but also societal levels. And that's where we disagree because for me it means getting involved and changing the current system from within.
I do just this in each day. I am in the world. I am within this partriarchical system. The key is I am not OF it. What I mean is, I create from ideals, not from the flaws that already exists. Yet I am always creating interactively within this system. For example, my purpose is in creating an even playing field in the mental health system. Where do I do this? Within the mental health system where I work. However, I don't perpetuate the flaws I see in the system and call it necessary. I don't use male power to abuse. I've raised my awareness enough to integrate my own male and female power into a synergistic potential, which is beyond what most have done. In order to do this, I have to embrace male power fully, and forgive the errors of male power that others perpetuate, and that I've perpetuated daily for over 40 years. Again, this is in the system, but not of it.
Let me tell you, this energy is infectious for men, too. Humans are invigorated and enlivened by Truth and by true empowerment. Men are as much a "victim" of patriarchy as women are. Men are as unconscious of this ugliness they perpetuate as we are unconscious of our own creation of it. Men seek transcendence of our human issues, too. Just not at their expense. They seek balance, as well. And gravitate towards it unconsciously, where they are aligned with their natural evolution. When we come from a place of ideals, the men cannot help but join in, as key to the "male-intelligence ideal" they've been conditioned with is the awareness of the brilliance of the Light of beautiful reason, or "enlightenment".
So in your definition, there is no distinction between nature and society, nature and man/woman, animals? there's an underlying universal natural law?
There is a distinction in the context that we create it for theoretical purposes, to understand dynamics that we experience or see. In the big picture, it's all energy.
Thanks for clarifying your points and the reasoned debate
thank YOU. There is a wonderful synergy between laterally discussing these subjects in the "feminine" sense and integrating that with "male" reason and the natural hierarchies of natural law. The synergy of the whole is always greater than the sum of the parts. This type of conversation excites me, and is an example of this greater potential I love so much. And of the beauty of the balance of complementary ways. I'm seeing much of it in these threads where women-potential (including as inherent to men) is being truly acknowledged. Peace.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I have answered your question. Please re-read my previous posts.
I re-read all your post. You did not answer my question (it was a yes or no question, there are only a restricted number of answers possible).
You did, however, avoid answering my question by saying it was not a good question. Your argument was that the hypothetical (imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true) situation was not based on reality. So you "answered" my question by defining my question i.e. not necessarily real or true.
You gave me a reason why you didn't answer my question. So, in fact you leave me no choice but to extrapolate from your posts what your answer could be and when I do so you claim I jump to conclusions, make assumptions.
From your posts I gather you would agree. So, I'll take that as your answer to my question.
But to finish this, as I said, we do not have a de facto equal level playing field and that's why such measures the female quota provide a guarantee and safeguard for women and are a "necessary evil" to restore justice, and that's why it's not hypocritical.
Well, I think you can try to justify your unfair treatment of others all you want, the facts remain.
If you deny a man a position he deserves and give it to a woman who does not deserve it because of her gender, the female quota, you are not restoring justice.
First of all, that woman does not deserve the position. How is it just she should get it anyway solely based on the fact that she's a woman?
That fact that women have been oppressed is not a reason to oppress other people.
Secondly, not only do you give someone a position they do not deserve, you deny someone a position he does deserve.
I think it's fairly obvious why this isn't justice or a restoration of justice either.
I think justifying this and agree with it is highly hypocritical.
From what you say it seems that you believe that the current system is already equal and fair and just, both de jure and de facto.
"It seems to me ... that you either make a lot of assumptions about what I think or say or just simply jump to conclusions. Either way, you don't seem to understand what I write and communicate."
Never have I said that in this entire thread, and if you will go back and read my posts, you'll see I have said the exact opposite.
So we disagree, as I thought it was fairly obvious, different starting point and different conclusions, and so let's agree to disagree on this.
Oh, I definitely disagree with you.
edit: I forgot the blatant hypocrisy in claiming you want the best people for the job and imposing a female quota.
Ok, so I'm a little confused now. We're saying that women have to compete as being the best person for the job even though the total number of people included are over represented by men?
There shouldn't be such a thing as a "quota". No matter what you're voting for, in terms of a group of candidates it should always be taken from an equal representation of men and women. So as far as I can see if you have 50 representatives 25 of them should be men, 25 of them should be women. You get the best 25 men for the job and the best 25 women. Men can only compete for one of 25 places and women can only compete for one of 25 places. This best person, or best candidate business is flawed from the outset because different genders offer different perspectives and as far as I'm concerned any group of elected officials should always be a true representation of the demographic they are representing.
Too bad those feminists (from that website) can't figure out something so simple, eh?
When it comes to positions where the people in those positions need to represent the people, it would seem more logical to have a an equal representation of men and women. Although, I'm not entirely sure I agree with that.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the part I put in bold, could you elucidate?
The concept of exacting external rules is authoritarian, and it's male-based dominance. It's the opposite to living in the femine-based harmony with nature.
Angelica, you really have a talent for explaining things clearly and patiently, but I struggle a bit with this part. Could you explain what you mean exactly?
Comments
good idea! go straight to the source
cross the river to the eastside
As I said, if you have read my posts, I do not believe there is a de facto equality yet, while there is a de jure equality between men and women.
Therefore, I do understand why certain measures are introduced so as to ensure women also get to the top job, which is still the preserve of men, by and large.
So in this situation I would see no problem at all to deny the post to a man IF there were a woman who deserved the post with the same qualifications, according to the legal quota approved.
That would not be injustice, but as I said a redressing/rebalancing of justice.
So no hypocracy at all.
Well, great... but that was not the question at all.
naděje umírá poslední
this might be nit-picking but i also think it's the crux of affirmative action debates. i really don't think the roles are being reversed---not just globally speaking. let's say one woman gets put in that position. that isn't going to make women the dominant gender in that field or in that society. men have had that position for so long that some type of "affirmative action" in that scenario isn't going to reverse roles---men will still be dominant overall, but that is one step in making it more equal and leveling the playing field.
do i agree with giving that position to the woman? i honestly don't know.
cross the river to the eastside
also...i don't know if i can articulate this well enough, but it seems even saying 'role reversal' implies that it is not a woman's role to be in a position of power.
cross the river to the eastside
I see your point, but I don't agree with it. It may be one step in making it more equal, but it's a step of dishonesty and contradictory to feminist beliefs, I think.
It's a difficult matter.
Could it be that, paradoxically, men will play a major role, if not be the key player, in leveling the playing field? I'm sure it's been discussed here but there are men who consider themselves to be feminists, and there are definitely men who are humanitarians who also want to see equality for women. Like destroying the system for within, so to speak?
naděje umírá poslední
Then, what was the question?
I definitely didn't mean to imply that. I'll try to explain what I meant; men have always had these power structures, still have, that make it harder, and at times impossible, for women to get a certain position. Now, women, in my hypothetical question, have the power to decide who gets a certain position. Sadly enough, I think my question is indeed still hypothetical and that's why I think the roles would be reversed so to speak.
naděje umírá poslední
naděje umírá poslední
did you have any strategies in mind?
cross the river to the eastside
The question is about appointing the best people for the positions. If the women scored equally well, they'd deserve the position just as much. And if that were the case I'd say it should go to the woman based on the fact that it would be more representative of the population.
We're talking about if the four best candidates were male, would you be okay with it if the position was not given to the man who deserves it and went to a woman even though she doesn't deserve it? Because after all, this is what you said was a "necessary evil."
naděje umírá poslední
But I didn't reply to this post, but to the one quoted in my reply.
This one:
And just to clarify in this example, I disagree with you that the woman does not deserve the job compared to the other men because in order to apply all candidates must have certain minimum requisites to apply for a position and advance to the final stages.
So in that sense you could say they all are deserving. But other factors will come into play after that, one of which will be the female quota issue.
And it's quite similar to the affirmative action position in the States for minorities, I believe.
See my reply to your post you've edited while I was writing.
In a nutshell, I disagree that the woman would not be deserving in this case.
Could you stop dodging the question?
It's a hypothetical situation. Would you agree? Yes or no?
naděje umírá poslední
Who's dodging the question?!
I've answered and provided an explanation.
You.
But I guess you already answered it indirectly. And that's what I'd call hypocritical.
naděje umírá poslední
It seems to me from the other threads that you either make a lot of assumptions about what I think or say or just simply jump to conclusions. Either way, you don't seem to understand what I write and communicate.
I believe I have answered your question directly when asked and that it was not hypocritical.
Cheers!
You either support the notion that the position should go to the most qualified candidate or you don't (you said you didn't, remember: necessary evil)
A direct answer would be 'yes' or 'no' or like VG's answer, for example. Your answer is by no means direct.
Again, the top four candidates were male. No question about it. The women had lesser scores. There are no "certain minimum requisites" in this hypothetical situation. So, would you agree with the woman getting the job even though she doesn't deserve it.
Maybe you just don't write and communicate as clearly as you think.
naděje umírá poslední
As I thought I've explained, I disagree with your position for the reasons I've outlined, because your hypothesis is flawed from the start as it already contains a bias and it's not what happens in reality as far as I know of female quota and that's why I have expanded the reasons - not to dodge the question or be hypocritical.
And in that first quote of mine, I should have clarified that it is a perception that the female quota upholds reverse discrimanation [like for Affirmative Action], which I thought it's a fairly common misconception and misrepresentation of the female quota issue.
Ok, forget it. I see you won't answer it. It's a hypothetical situation (hypothetical: "imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true" cambridge online dictionary), so you're right it's not what happens in reality hence the adjective hypothetical.
I just wanted to have your opinion about it, to see where you stand in that situation.
naděje umírá poslední
But I did give you my answer and position on this issue with the proviso on your original hypothetical question because I felt the way you posed your question was already loaded with an obvious accusation of being unfair - which you then stated by telling me that I was being hypocritical.
That's why I said also it is a "necessary evil" because until you achieve true equality you must redress the balance to achieve an equal playing field by what I claim is restoring justice and equality, which you instead claim is perpetuating inequality and being hypocritical.
The phrase "necessary evil" indicates the differrent perceptions of that measure according to the opposite viewpoint.
Basically, I say it's not so black and white, while you seem to believe that the female quota would just perpetuate inequality by promoting different treatment between genders.
You did not answer my question. And you still haven't.
Why was the original hypothetical question "loaded with an obvious accusation of being unfair" ?
If a woman gets the job through the female quota even though she's not the most qualified for the job, it's injustice. Someone has been wronged, like women have been wronged for so many years.
If you want fair treatment and you impose a system treats people unfairly because of their gender then you are being a hypocrite.
naděje umírá poslední
There shouldn't be such a thing as a "quota". No matter what you're voting for, in terms of a group of candidates it should always be taken from an equal representation of men and women. So as far as I can see if you have 50 representatives 25 of them should be men, 25 of them should be women. You get the best 25 men for the job and the best 25 women. Men can only compete for one of 25 places and women can only compete for one of 25 places. This best person, or best candidate business is flawed from the outset because different genders offer different perspectives and as far as I'm concerned any group of elected officials should always be a true representation of the demographic they are representing.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I have answered your question. Please re-read my previous posts.
But to finish this, as I said, we do not have a de facto equal level playing field and that's why such measures the female quota provide a guarantee and safeguard for women and are a "necessary evil" to restore justice, and that's why it's not hypocritical.
From what you say it seems that you believe that the current system is already equal and fair and just, both de jure and de facto.
I disagree, because while it is de jure, de facto it is not still. And that's why these measures even if they may appear unfair to some are necessary n certain situations, to redress the balance.
So we disagree, as I thought it was fairly obvious, different starting point and different conclusions, and so let's agree to disagree on this.
I see that some humans want laws and rules agreed by all. However, I don't at all see that we need them. We all exist and thrive quite nicely without laws and rules agreed by all.
I can understand that people want to bring about an even playing field in life. I am so for that. I live to embody balance, and the even playing-field personified. I also live to create the even playing field wherever I can. What I cannot support is creating an even playing field at the expense of someone else. That is not the even-playing field at all. That is an illusion. If we create fairness for one person, while creating oppression and control with another, I see a power struggle. And I see the justification for that power struggle to be an emotional argument removed from a whole-brain argument. The reason I see that is because such a contradiction, logical fallacy or hypocrisy cannot be justified. Therefore, I see that when holding this flawed and/or incomplete argument one is doing the best they know how, without sound principles as a foundation. And when one knows better, they will do better.
It is the human ego that believes it can fairly and equitable quantify the unquantifiable vast differences you speak of. The only entity capable of fully appreciating such diversity and acting accordingly is nature herself. The concept of exacting external rules is authoritarian, and it's male-based dominance. It's the opposite to living in the femine-based harmony with nature.
This is why as long as women continue to play a mans game they will continue to lose. We are not men. Our true power is in being all we can be. Not trying to outdo patriarchy with more patriarchy. Our actual power is in developing our power, so that it emerges to balance and complement patriarchy in our individual lives, and on the world scale. This will bring our birthright equality into being politically and structurally.
I'm all for creating any equality for women that doesn't infringe on someone else. Once that "equality" infringes on someone else, the logic and the argument for doing so reveals itself as unsound. Again, it shows we are trying to win at the man's game that we know causes our problems. Women's evolution and empowerment is in owning and expanding upon our power, and creating our own equality from being all we can be from within. When a system does not work, we don't go into it and try to force it, like patriarchy dictates. We create a system from what we, with our wonderful strengths (if we can remember them, outside what we've been taught to patriarchically value) inherently know is amazing. We don't use male dominant force in male systems that we don't like. That's self-destructive for us as women and as humans. It's like the cancer cell eating up the cell next to it at the ultimate expense of the body.
To me, natural laws are the laws which everything exists within, physically, emotionally, spiritually, philosophically, scientifically, etc. These laws keep all of nature thriving and recycling in perfection, at all times, independent of our human conflict with it.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I am thinking of basic human rights supported by the rule of law to be observed by all, so as to especially protect minorities, the weak, etc.
Women rights are a sub-set of these because there is still de facto inequality.
I agree that some may be able to live in harmony and without conflict without rules and laws, but that cannot be extended to society as a whole because there is always the risk of exploitation of the weaker. The rule of law should prevent that and guarantee an equal playing field for all. So, additional external protection, as it were.
That's the crux of the matter. How would you be able to create a level playing field when the current field is unfair and unbalanced per se?
More on a societal level than just individual basis, I mean.
Would you say it would be an accumulation of single individual behaviour perpetuating fairness that will bring it about? without resorting to external helps, such as specific laws to protect minorities, etc? so as not perpetuate unfairness and get involved in a power struggle with the same behaviours.
And on an individual basis, I would agree it could be possible because one can choose how to behave according to their views, awareness levels, etc, but not every one is the same in society so you will still encounter some inequalities.
I definitely can see your point, and I agree one does not have to play the man's game. However, when you suggest to create a system of our own, different from patriarchy, wouldn't that be creating a new different imbalance? even if paradoxically and in theory based in fairness?
I think it would be a combination of the two different approaches: at individual level but also societal levels. And that's where we disagree because for me it means getting involved and changing the current system from within.
So in your definition, there is no distinction between nature and society, nature and man/woman, animals? there's an underlying universal natural law?
Thanks for clarifying your points and the reasoned debate
I realize most people are out of synch with life, in their perception of it. Most people are at odds with and experience conflict in life. That's the nature of life! We experience challenges and learning experiences as a way of adapting and evolving. Or we maladapt. The system works perfectly, including there being a lot of fallout for choices that don't work for people. And yet, each diverse individual, in each moment chooses: to progress, regress or to stagnate. It's universal. It applies to man/woman/child/transvestite (and any other sex I may miss out on....)
Sure people get angry about their life circumstances. sure human perception and human ego is indignant at the state of natural evolution. And yet, natural evolution works perfectly, for it's own evolutionary purposes, regardless of our ignorance. And that perfection includes our heart-based desires to make a difference in wonderful ways.
There are multi-facets here. "The" current field is not imbalanced. Aspects of it are. When we hook into and embody imbalance, we perpetuate the cycles. If all individuals became empowered, in their power, they would know to focus on what they want to create more of. What we focus on expands. If we focus on lack, we create more of it. If we focus on empowerment and power, we create more of it. If all became theoretially empowered, each lacking aspect of the system would fall away, due to lack of use/need/attention on it. As it is, everyone...man/woman/feminist continue to happily and willfully feed energy and power into these flawed systems, with our added flaws, thusly showing a current and apparently unconscious need for the use of flaw and of flawed systems. It is us who sustain them! It's not someone "out there".
What this ultimately means is that anywhere we can create positive change (without also creating it's backlash through inauthentic power, control, and other maladaptive patriarchical ways) we are creating the even playing field.
Part of the problem is the human ego. We don't understand that our only and immense power is in creating progress. We try to create an illusory finished product, which is a product of our patriarchically based ego (in men AND women). We won't have the wisdom to design the ideal outcome until we are closing in on the outcome. Our ideas at this point come from our patriarchically developed brains that are in the infancy of our power. We want to fix things, as patriarchy dictates, thereby overstepping our actual power, willfully walzing into the realm of distortion and abuse of power. And then, in true masculine-detached-of-the-whole-of-life patriarchy, we want to then justify our abuses of power. I must forgive people for not knowing what they do. And I trust that when they know better, they will do better.
It is imperative that we raise our consciousness individually, so we can see how to do this. When we allow ourselves the luxury of "creating" in abusive, invasive ways, we are not operating from a place of power. They key to making the big changes...like those in authentic power do, is in raising our consciousness...this means resolving our inner emotional issues. It means seeking letting go of the false filters that we've internalized, in search of the Truth, and true empowerment, and not accepting the illusion of both.
At the risk of being redundant...yes!! When we tap our true inner power, and do everything we can to always choose authentic empowerment, and to resolve it when we err, we will evolve into our own dream life and Self, including being empowered in ways we cannot imagine!!
Not only is it possible, it's happening all around us! There is so much evolution happening. It's beautiful. There are many who still live out and justify maladaptation. And yet the evolution happens anyway! The authentic empowerment is on the side of adaptation, without any doubht. In evolution there is always lack and room for improvement so we learn to accept the inequities as we continue to do all in our power to progress..
And eventually, on this road of empowerment, one comes to a place beyond evolution. One comes to a centered place of pure potentiality.
We are only responsible for each thing we create. If we create according to our ideals without compromising them we create ideally, never imbalanced. Realistically, we are human and make mistakes. We learn to resolve our mistakes into the bigger picture of the ideal. This is why we cannot justify mistakes...or we justify creating in a flawed manner. We justify not resolving our problems and errors, which is the imbalance we create. So creating from the ideal is the opposite of creating imbalance.
I do just this in each day. I am in the world. I am within this partriarchical system. The key is I am not OF it. What I mean is, I create from ideals, not from the flaws that already exists. Yet I am always creating interactively within this system. For example, my purpose is in creating an even playing field in the mental health system. Where do I do this? Within the mental health system where I work. However, I don't perpetuate the flaws I see in the system and call it necessary. I don't use male power to abuse. I've raised my awareness enough to integrate my own male and female power into a synergistic potential, which is beyond what most have done. In order to do this, I have to embrace male power fully, and forgive the errors of male power that others perpetuate, and that I've perpetuated daily for over 40 years. Again, this is in the system, but not of it.
Let me tell you, this energy is infectious for men, too. Humans are invigorated and enlivened by Truth and by true empowerment. Men are as much a "victim" of patriarchy as women are. Men are as unconscious of this ugliness they perpetuate as we are unconscious of our own creation of it. Men seek transcendence of our human issues, too. Just not at their expense. They seek balance, as well. And gravitate towards it unconsciously, where they are aligned with their natural evolution. When we come from a place of ideals, the men cannot help but join in, as key to the "male-intelligence ideal" they've been conditioned with is the awareness of the brilliance of the Light of beautiful reason, or "enlightenment".
There is a distinction in the context that we create it for theoretical purposes, to understand dynamics that we experience or see. In the big picture, it's all energy.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I re-read all your post. You did not answer my question (it was a yes or no question, there are only a restricted number of answers possible).
You did, however, avoid answering my question by saying it was not a good question. Your argument was that the hypothetical (imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true) situation was not based on reality. So you "answered" my question by defining my question i.e. not necessarily real or true.
You gave me a reason why you didn't answer my question. So, in fact you leave me no choice but to extrapolate from your posts what your answer could be and when I do so you claim I jump to conclusions, make assumptions.
From your posts I gather you would agree. So, I'll take that as your answer to my question.
Well, I think you can try to justify your unfair treatment of others all you want, the facts remain.
If you deny a man a position he deserves and give it to a woman who does not deserve it because of her gender, the female quota, you are not restoring justice.
First of all, that woman does not deserve the position. How is it just she should get it anyway solely based on the fact that she's a woman?
That fact that women have been oppressed is not a reason to oppress other people.
Secondly, not only do you give someone a position they do not deserve, you deny someone a position he does deserve.
I think it's fairly obvious why this isn't justice or a restoration of justice either.
I think justifying this and agree with it is highly hypocritical.
"It seems to me ... that you either make a lot of assumptions about what I think or say or just simply jump to conclusions. Either way, you don't seem to understand what I write and communicate."
Never have I said that in this entire thread, and if you will go back and read my posts, you'll see I have said the exact opposite.
Oh, I definitely disagree with you.
edit: I forgot the blatant hypocrisy in claiming you want the best people for the job and imposing a female quota.
naděje umírá poslední
Too bad those feminists (from that website) can't figure out something so simple, eh?
When it comes to positions where the people in those positions need to represent the people, it would seem more logical to have a an equal representation of men and women. Although, I'm not entirely sure I agree with that.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the part I put in bold, could you elucidate?
naděje umírá poslední
Angelica, you really have a talent for explaining things clearly and patiently, but I struggle a bit with this part. Could you explain what you mean exactly?
naděje umírá poslední