Feminism

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by anakin_girl, Mar 19, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    You don't seem to be a sexist person based on the PM conversations we've had, but that is as sexist a stance as I've ever seen.

    Did you not read the rest of my post? You must not have for you to take that one sentence out of context. Immediately after that statement, I quaified it by explaining the context.

    If the employer is hiring the employee for a 3-month project, and the female applicant is 6 months pregnant, the employer is justified in discriminating against her for being pregnant, even if the other applicant had a pregnant wife at the same stage.

    Why? Because one would have less of an impact on the company and the success of the project. Is that discrimination based on sex? Yes, it is. Is it justified? Again, yes it is. The pregnant woman would not be able to do the same work as the soon-to-be-father.

    SHould the employer hire the individual who would perform less work just to avoid accusations of sexism? Or should they hire the person who will give them the greatest return on their investment? Remember that these are two equally qualified individuals.

    To say that there are no situations in which discrimination is justified is to ignore reality. In the same way, to say that discrimination is always justified also ignores reality. As I have said many times before, you need to find a balance.

    Perhaps you advocate breaking the law then?

    I didn't advocate breaking the law, but if you notice, the law has exemptions in it. Those exemptions exist because there are times when such discrimination is appropriate.

    I believe that you should not legislate behavior to change attitudes (except in violent crimes). Making people comply by force does nothing to change their atittudes, which are the root cause of the problem. In fact, you can't change anyone else's attitudes, nor can you force someone to change their attitude. All you can really do is try to convince them to change. It is only when they accept that change willingly and of their own free will that you will ultimately solve the problem. Until then, you are only putting a bandaid on a compound fracture.

    Kimball Kinnison
  2. darth_paul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 24, 2000
    star 5
    I'd like to see some of these sexist employers who think it's a crime for an employee to have a uterus, try to run their businesses without these employees.
    So there you go. If it's not the law, then they can try to run their businesses without those workers, and you'll get what you want.

    I don't see it as a power/no power relationship. Both employers and employees have power in their own ways. But do you believe that if there are two companies for which an employee is equally qualified, in equally appealing industries, with identical terms of employment, that the employee should be able to choose between the two companies for personal reasons? If so, why should the rules be different for employers?

    Let's take a hypothetical. Dave is a business owner. He has two applicants: Jim and Dan. They're pretty much equally qualified, but Dave knows Jim's father. Dave and Jim's father have a long and unpleasant history; they've never gotten along well, and for that reason, Dave has negative feelings toward Jim's entire family. Is it fair that he hire Dan because solely because of this? Probably not. But should it be illegal?

    And if an employer chooses to hire a less qualified employee over a more qualified one for reasons of prejudice, he's pretty much shooting himself in the foot. I have no sympathy for his stupidity, but I don't see why it shouldn't be his stupid decision to make.

    Edit: My philosophy of government, which you have expressed agreement with in other threads, is that governments exist to protect people and their property from harm or theft by others. But refusing to hire somebody is neither doing direct harm to him nor stealing from him. It is simply not giving him a job. It would make as much sense to say that if an employee does not apply for or accept an employer's job, he is depriving him of a worker.

    -Paul
  3. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    But refusing to hire somebody is neither doing direct harm to him nor stealing from him. It is simply not giving him a job.

    And forcing him to either mooch off the government or starve. That is doing harm.

    Your and KK's philosophy would have all women and minorities living on welfare.

    Is it fair that he hire Dan because solely because of this? Probably not. But should it be illegal?

    It would be hard as hell to prove, but I think it should fall under unethical hiring practices and be against the law.

    I think society functions better when everyone is given equal opportunity to work, therefore avoiding having the government pay for welfare. In order for this to happen, we have to have equal opportunity hiring practices for women, minorities, homosexuals, and yes, even werewolves.
  4. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Your and KK's philosophy would have all women and minorities living on welfare.

    And your "force then to behave" philosophy would never fix the real problem. All it would do is prolong the conflict even more.

    Contrary to what you might think, people are not stupid (well, most people, at least). They are simply self-interested. They will do what they think is best for them before anyone else.

    You aren't going to convince them to change just by saying "you should do this", and the Tarkin doctrin (rule through fear of force) will only cause them to want to resist even more.

    No, the solution is to find a way to show them that treating people equally is in their best interest. Once you convince them of that, they will gladly do it, and will likely even convince others to do so as well. It provides a lasting solution to the problem, rather than a "solution" that only attacks the symptoms.

    That's just basic economics. In fact, as Adam Smith stated back in 1776
    Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog. Nobody ever saw one animal by its gestures and natural cries signify to another, this is mine, that yours; I am willing to give this for that. When an animal wants to obtain something either of a man or of another animal, it has no other means of persuasion but to gain the favour of those whose service it requires. A puppy fawns upon its dam, and a spaniel endeavours by a thousand attractions to engage the attention of its master who is at dinner, when it wants to be fed by him. Man sometimes uses the same arts with his brethren, and when he has no other means of engaging them to act according to his inclinations, endeavours by every servile and fawning attention to obtain their good will. He has not time, however, to do this upon every occasion. In civilized society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons. In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens. Even a beggar does not depend upon it entirely. The charity of well-disposed people, indeed, supplies him with the whole fund of his subsistence.
    You need to make people want to do it, or you will only keep fighting this same battle, or you will pass the battle on to the next generatio, or the generation after that.

    If you want to solve the problem, then why not actually deal with the real problem? All you are doing is fighting against your own goals otherwise.

    Kimball Kinnison
  5. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    Contrary to what you might think, people are not stupid (well, most people, at least). They are simply self-interested. They will do what they think is best for them before anyone else.

    And it's perfectly OK for people to act like selfish pigs?

    Why don't we just allow people to steal then? Or, instead of making a law that says they can't steal, try to convince them it is within their best interests not to steal?

    And men have been imposing the Tarkin-like fear factor on women for centuries.

  6. Ton_G Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 15, 2002
    star 4
    KK didn't justify that people people should be allowed to act only with their own interests in mind, simply that they do.
  7. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    And it's perfectly OK for people to act like selfish pigs?

    I never said that. I simply pointed out what reality is like. If you want to actually make a difference, then you have to deal with things as they are, not as you wish they were. Self-interest is the single most effective tool that you can use.

    And men have been imposing the Tarkin-like fear factor on women for centuries.

    Should I turn around what you said in the same post? Does that make it right?

    Again, is this about equality? Or vengence? Do you actually want things to be equal? Or do you just want to get back at those chauvinist, sexist jerks who want women to remain barefoot and pregnant?

    If you want equaltiy then stop throwing out this "Men did it to women" crap. As I said before, that is hypocrisy to justify your own sexism by the fact that others did it. Because that's what you are when you justify your comments like that. You are sexist. You are using the exact same sexist methods that you complain about. If it is sexist coming from a man, the same behavior is sexist coming from a woman.

    Deal with things as they are. Don't just repeat the mistakes of the past.

    Kimball Kinnison
  8. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    You are sexist.

    If I called a man on this thread sexist, how quickly would I get banned and for how long?

    Should I turn around what you said in the same post? Does that make it right?

    I was making a point that sexist employers who want the right to be sexist have no business complaining about "Tarkin-like fear".
  9. darth_paul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 24, 2000
    star 5
    I think you basically called KK sexist. :confused:

    Anyway, I'm with you when you abhor gender roles. I'm with you all the way on the draft issue. I totally agree with you that it's inappropriate for society to see and treat men and women different (although you're just going to have to let me keep my chivalry instinct, because it's too centrally a part of me). And I'm with you that it's screwed-up to treat men and women differently in the business world (though, and KK's been arguing it much better than I have, I do see very legitimate grounds for "discriminating" against pregnant women in the hiring process). Plainly, the government ought not to be able to discriminate based upon gender, or upon anything else.

    Where you lose me, anakin_girl, is when you start arguing in favor of trampling all over the rights of business owners in order to attempt to enforce some sort of artificial equality. There's no law preventing you from choosing not to enter a store because the owner is black, or against your choosing not to buy something because the cashier is a man. Furthermore, gender, race, sexuality, etc. of a prospective employer are all perfectly legal reasons for you to choose not to take a job. And until you advocate making those distasteful business decisions illegal, I think your attempts to villify and subsequently legislate business owners for making similar decisions are out of line.

    And if you do advocate making such choices illegal, God help us all.

    -Paul
  10. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    If I called a man on this thread sexist, how quickly would I get banned and for how long?

    Do me a favor. Stop quoting me out of context, then.

    If you look at what I said asa whole, rather than picking out three words, and stop trying to interpret what I say as a way to uinsult you, you would see what I am really saying.

    I said
    Because that's what you are when you justify your comments like that. You are sexist. You are using the exact same sexist methods that you complain about. If it is sexist coming from a man, the same behavior is sexist coming from a woman.
    That has a completely different meaning than the part that you simply quoted.

    Do you even care about equality at all? Or are you just looking for ways to justify your views of men as being sexist pigs? Because if you would try actually reading what I write and trying to understand it in context, you would come to quite different conclusions than the ones that you have expressed.

    I was making a point that sexist employers who want the right to be sexist have no business complaining about "Tarkin-like fear".

    Who are you to tell others what to believe? If someone were to say "I was making a point that Wiccan employers who want the right to be Wiccan have no business complaining about 'Tarkin-like fear'." you would be all over the person. Why is it inappropriate to tell someone what to believe in one case (religious beliefs) but not in another (social beliefs)? You may find some people's social beliefs offensive, but there are a heck of a lot of people who find yours offensive as well. What makes you so priviledged that your beliefs should then be weighed in over others'?

    Kimball Kinnison
  11. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    Do you even care about equality at all? Or are you just looking for ways to justify your views of men as being sexist pigs?

    This discussion appears to be over. Your last four or five posts have been nothing but attacks on me--you have accused me of being sexist, someone who treats men like scum (funny that I've been married for ten years to someone who is far from being a wuss), a hypocrite and an egomaniac rather than looking at what I'm actually trying to do, which is improve the situation for women in America (not that I can do much from a message board, but my point is still made). I'm tired of it.

    You accuse me of "looking for ways in which people are insulting me", yet you pick apart my post and try to find ways in which I'm insulting men.

    If that's what this discussion is going to be, rather than discussing the subject of feminism, then just lock the thread. Since I started the thread, I think I'm within my limits to make that request.

    I'm not going to participate anymore until the stupid insults stop, that's for sure.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.