Feminism

VictoryGin

Collin wrote:

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 .

lgt

Collin wrote:

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.

Collin wrote:

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.

That would not be injustice, but as I said a redressing/rebalancing of justice.

So no hypocracy at all.

Collin

lgt wrote:

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.

VictoryGin

Collin wrote:

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.

VictoryGin

Collin wrote:

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.

Collin

VictoryGin wrote:

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?

lgt

Collin wrote:

Well, great... but that was not the question at all.

Then, what was the question?

Collin

VictoryGin wrote:

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.

Collin

..

VictoryGin

Collin wrote:

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?

Collin

lgt wrote:

Then, what was the question?

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."

lgt

Collin wrote:

..

But I didn't reply to this post, but to the one quoted in my reply.

This one:

Collin wrote:

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.

lgt

Collin wrote:

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.

Collin

lgt wrote:

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?

lgt

Collin wrote:

Could you stop dodging the question?

It's a hypothetical situation. Would you agree? Yes or no?

Who's dodging the question?!

I've answered and provided an explanation.

Collin

lgt wrote:

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.

lgt

Collin wrote:

You.

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.

Cheers!

Collin

lgt wrote:

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)

lgt wrote:

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.

lgt

Collin wrote:

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.

Collin

lgt wrote:

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.