2
   

The ERA: good for men, good for women, bad for feminists.

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 01:54 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
did you forget how to use Google?

Just one:

http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=gang_lee
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 01:58 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

The gender inequality in sentencing is across the board. For example, women receive the same preferential sentencing in the case of vehicular homicide while intoxicated (a crime that has nothing to do with gender).



well what would you expect to happen when the state claims that women are not equal so should not be treated equally? This is UK but the sentiment in America is much the same.

Quote:
Judges have been told to treat female criminals more leniently than men when deciding sentences.
New guidelines declare that women suffer disadvantages and courts should ‘bear these matters in mind’.
The rules say women criminals often have poor mental health or are poorly educated, have not committed violence and have children to look after

‘Women’s experiences as victims, witnesses and offenders are in many respects different to those of men,’ according to the Equal Treatment Bench Book.
‘These differences highlight the importance of the need for sentencers to bear these matters in mind when sentencing.’
The controversial advice comes from the Judicial Studies Board, which is responsible for training the judiciary.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311004/Judges-ordered-mercy-women-criminals-deciding-sentences.html#ixzz3QoAUHTqy
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 02:15 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.


The ERA would fix that problem Hawkeye. Equality of rights under the law is a pretty clear standard.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 02:26 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Equality of rights under the law is a pretty clear standard.

due process is a very clear standard, but that has not stopped 30 years of SCOTUS approved seizures of money and stuff by cops based upon an alleged hunch. The state is continuing to build its DNA databank on every citizen in spite of this being a clear violation of the 4th amendment. Laws are only laws if they are followed.
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 02:57 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
An attempt by MRAs to summarily reduce all men's sentences by 39% in order to make them as short as women's would most assuredly run afoul of the ERA.


That doesn't make any sense. The amendment guarantees "equality under the law".


It bans blatant, intentional discrimination.

It doesn't guarantee equal results in criminal sentencing any more than it guarantees equal results in earnings from employment.

When the judge gives a longer sentence to a man than he would to a woman, he won't say "I gave him a longer sentence because men are dangerous." He will say "I gave him a longer senetence because he seemed dangerous."

Also, as far as convictions go, you can't go to a jury that is deciding a female defendant's fate and advise them: "okay, guys, statististically speaking, courts tend to convict more men than women, so I want you to convict this bitch by any means possible to even things out." That is not an acceptable way of correcting the disparity in convictions. Juries aren't supposed to worry about whether more men get convicted overall; they are supposed to worry about the guilt or innocence of a solitary individual.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 03:03 pm
@Kolyo,
There is no more important aspect of equal rights than the equal application of the laws by the state. The state which refuses to exercise equality through the law is also unfit to demand that the citizens practice equality.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 03:05 pm
@Kolyo,
That doesn't make sense. People are getting significantly higher prison sentences for the exact same crime based on their gender. This is clearly an example of inequality.

"Equal sentences for equal crimes" is a basic principle of equality. It works the same as "Equal pay for equal work". These are both statements of basic fairness.

The distinction between the two doesn't make sense. A boss could say "I will pay a man more than a woman because he 'seems' more valuable". Are you claiming that this is not an example of inequality?

Just how would you fix the disparity in prison sentencing based on gender for the exact same crime? And how is this different from fixing the disparity based on gender for the exact same work? I suspect the only difference is that one favors men, and the other favors women.

Equality means equality. The ERA would demand that men and women are treated equally under the law. Sentencing equality is an obvious consequence of that.



hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 03:09 pm
Another area where the government practices inequality is ObamaCare, where the law has men subsidizing the healthcare of women. Under an equality scheme each race and gender would pay their own way. Obamacare expressly outlaws equal treatment.
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 03:12 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

The distinction between the two doesn't make sense. A boss could say "I will pay a man more than a woman because he 'seems' more valuable". Are you claiming that this is not an example of inequality?


He couldn't use those exact words.

The boss could keep his sexist reasons to himself and simply say "I am paying him more than her because he seems more valuable." There is, in that case, no way to prove he is being discriminatory.

Likewise, the judge may have an inherent bias against men, but he will not admit to it. He will say "I gave him a longer a sentence than her, because he is more dangerous." There is, in that case, no way to prove he is being discriminatory.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 03:18 pm
@Kolyo,
Quote:
The boss could keep his sexist reasons to himself and simply say "I am paying him more than her because he seems more valuable." There is, in that case, no way to prove he is being discriminatory.

not according to the Feminists, who trot out their data that women make less than men as proof of hostility towards women. They make no allowances for any belief from employers that women are worth less, they claim that any belief that women are worth less must be in error and is an illegitimate excuse to abuse women by short changing them. Employers have data that women take more time off and are more likely to abandon their career, but we are told to not consider these facts.
Kolyo
 
  3  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 03:24 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
The boss could keep his sexist reasons to himself and simply say "I am paying him more than her because he seems more valuable." There is, in that case, no way to prove he is being discriminatory.

not according to the Feminists, who trot out their data that women make less than men as prove of hostility towards women. They make no allowances for any belief from employers that women are worth less, they claim that any belief that women are worth less must be in error and is an illegitimate excuse to abuse women.


I agree with the feminists that employers unfairly slight women, and I agree with Max that courts unfairly clobber men, but there's no clear remedy unless you can prove that a particular boss or judge is behaving in a sexist manner. You can't just point to statistics about how "discrimination occurs in general in situations like this" as evidence that discrimination occurred in this particular situation.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 04:05 pm
@Kolyo,
Quote:
Likewise, the judge may have an inherent bias against men, but he will not admit to it. He will say "I gave him a longer a sentence than her, because he is more dangerous." There is, in that case, no way to prove he is being discriminatory.


How is this not discriminatory? A boss paying a female employee for using the same reason as this judge would be discriminatory. Don't you agree.

Women are consistently paid less then men for the same work. We see this a conclusive evidence that the system is unfair to women. We must fix this injustice as a matter of inequality.

Men are consistently given longer prison sentences then women for the same crimes. This is conclusive evidence that the system is unfair to men. We must fix this injustice as a matter of inequality.

Tell me the truth, Kolyo. If it were women who were getting harsher prison sentences for the same crimes, wouldn't you see this as evidence of discrimination toward women?

I think the problem here is that you think it is impossible for men to face discrimination (even when they clearly do).

However, equality is equality.

The ERA certainly address the inequality in prison sentencing. This is one of the reasons I strongly support the ERA.

Kolyo
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 04:11 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
Likewise, the judge may have an inherent bias against men, but he will not admit to it. He will say "I gave him a longer a sentence than her, because he is more dangerous." There is, in that case, no way to prove he is being discriminatory.


How is this not discriminatory? A boss paying a female employee for using the same reason as this judge would be discriminatory. Don't you agree.


But you can't prove that a particular boss or judge is discriminating on the basis of gender in a particular case, even if intuition tells you it's plain as day. Like I already said, evidence that the system overall is discriminatory is not evidence that discrimination occurred in a particular case. And if you can't identify discrimination in a particular case, you can't stop it.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 04:12 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Section 1 is pretty broad ranging, Oralloy. I think that language alone will be a pretty powerful way to protect men's rights as well as woman's.

Only if people actually follow what the amendment says.

If the feminists get legislation passed that is supposedly designed to enforce the amendment, but which is actually discriminatory towards men, and if the courts do not strike it down, the result is not going to be the equality that you are hoping for.

And the feminists are going to fight hard to do just that. You've noted already how their agenda is contrary to what the amendment says. When legislation is passed to enforce the amendment, if the feminists have their way, that legislation will conform to their agenda and not to the spirit of the amendment.

Now the fact that the feminists are going to try to do this does not mean that they will succeed. This is a great opportunity for the men's rights movement to fight for equality.

But they will have to fight for it. Mere passage of the ERA will not be an automatic guarantee of equality for men.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 04:22 pm
@Kolyo,
You have just made an argument against the cause of both sentencing fairness and pay equity. I disagree with you, and I would look forward to the first legal challenges on both of these issues should the ERA pass.


maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 04:25 pm
@oralloy,
Sure Oralloy, but the E.R.A. is a powerful tool that can be used by either women or men who are looking for equality. This is similar to Title IX, which was created to help women, but is now being successfully used by students accused of rape when they aren't given a fair hearing.

This is why I support the E.R.A. It doesn't fix everything overnight, but it does provide a powerful lever and makes fighting for equality that much easier for both men and women.
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 05:07 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

You have just made an argument against the cause of both sentencing fairness and pay equity.


Nope. I'm in favor of both. I just don't think any proposed laws or mandates in the pursuit of either will survive legal challenges.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 05:30 pm
I am curious... is there anyone here who believes that it is a good thing that men get much harsher prison sentences than women for the exact same crime?

This seems like an obvious injustice (if equality is really the goal).

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 05:45 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

I am curious... is there anyone here who believes that it is a good thing that men get much harsher prison sentences than women for the exact same crime?

This seems like an obvious injustice (if equality is really the goal).



no, and this includes domestic violence were I am fairly certain that women give just as good as they get.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 05:51 pm
@hawkeye10,
Child custody: another area where this government works in direct opposition to equality even as it holds equality out as an ideal, and makes it the law for the citizens to follow.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/26/2022 at 12:00:32