Feminism

farfromglorified wrote:

Just because two things are laws do not make them equal.

I didn't say it did

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

Explain 'not necessarily equal'.

farfromglorified wrote:

That's a contradiction, but whatever.

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.

CorporateWhore wrote:

Emma Goldman and anarchism are tools of the devil.

Great reply.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I didn't say it did

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.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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?

angelica wrote:

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