2
   

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

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 06:00 pm
@hawkeye10,
We need to take a very close look at legacy of Title IX, which was supposed to be all about equality but the result over its implementation time we have seen a huge decline in male results. I am not willing to take this concept through the entire society using the full power of the government to do so until/unless I am very certain that it has not destroyed the well being of males.
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 06:13 pm
@hawkeye10,
I don't care much about the 'well-being of males', though I care for a leveled playing field. I also care about empathy between the sexes. The response to 'special interest feminism' should not be 'special interest masculinism'. We can do better than that. Men and women NEED one another. We don't come from Mars and Venus. We're one species.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 06:27 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
. The response to 'special interest feminism' should not be 'special interest masculinism'. We can do better than that. Men and women NEED one another.

agreed, but when political militants of one sex with massive government assistance are running over the other sex just about any and all measures to put an end to the abuse are justified.

Have you perhaps heard the mocking of those who voice concern of the well being of men out of the feminists these last few years? We are passed off as insane, as if the concept of men being treated unfairly is theoretically and thus practically impossible. When faced with this compete contempt forceful assertion of our rights and claims of lack of inferiority to women is right, and rightous.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 06:52 pm
@hawkeye10,
I think you are making a mistake Hawkeye (and it is the same mistake that some feminists are making). If the feminists can point to men acting badly, they win. The way to win equality is to support equality for both men and women in a positive way.

The struggle for equality is a struggle for hearts and minds. Feminists are facing a backlash because they are overreaching. The problem is that honestly the actions of some men's rights groups make them an easy target and provide cover for feminism. As long as they can legitimately criticize men's groups, they have an easy way to deflect legitimate criticism from themselves. Feminists and men's rights advocates angrily yelling at each other doesn't help anyone, and it certainly doesn't make society any better.

The way forward is to reach out to people who support both pay equality for women and custody rights for men. When there are enough people with this message, society will change for the better.

I wish there was a movement that supported equality for all.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 07:01 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
The struggle for equality is a struggle for hearts and minds. Feminists are facing a backlash because they are overreaching

true, but how many women of the 1950's were all cute and charming as they told men about their boredom, about how the rules of society worked to keep them from being able to do what they wanted to do, kept so many interesting pursuits as the domain of men only? It was only after they got pissed off and organized that much of anything happened.

Men 2015 is much like women 1957, not women 2015. The feminists are now overreaching for sure, but that does not negate that they were almost completely right in 1957.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 07:05 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
There's also the Titanic-style 'children and women first'. Would that be repelled under full gender equality? ;-)

Would "whites and children first" be considered unacceptably racist?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 07:19 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
We don't come from Mars and Venus. We're one species.

ya, but I am not interested in rubbing out the genders, or of any force applied by the state or the elite to do away with differentiated gender behavior norms. I have no interest in the Northern European ideal of us all becoming its, and I dont want to otherwise water down the differences between men and women. Such a life would be very boring to me.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2015 07:23 am
@hawkeye10,
I'm fine with keeping SOME gender roles intact. The critique of gender roles tend to be facile and superficial, like most of these things. If all societies on earth have gender roles, these roles must have some value.

Which feminist here will teach her son that he can dress however he wants to, including in skirt? Or teach her daughter she can pee standing if she wants to? I could go on and on.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2015 08:13 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:

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).



You have some actual statistics on that you'd care to post?


Max lies, he makes stuff up, and then expects everyone to treat his fabrications as Gospel. Once more he is saying the exact opposite of what actually happens.

Quote:
Women may have gained some kind of recognition in the court for violence committed after years of abuse through the creation of the legal category 'battered wife syndrome', but this does not always mean justice is served. Women who kill violent partners often end up with harsher sentences than men who have killed their partners without such abuse. Campaign group Justice for Women have examples of such inequality in sentencing on their website.

Compare the example of Brian Steadman, jailed for just three years in 1995 for killing his wife by hitting her 13 times with a hammer after pleading diminished responsibility because his wife constantly nagged him, with the example of Zoorah Shah who had experienced 20 years of sexual and physical violence from her partner - who then began to abuse her eldest daughter - and was given 20 years for his murder.

Justice for Women tells us she remains in prison.

There are lots of other examples here which illustrate that women are not allowed to be violent, the reasons for their violence are rarely taken into account and the idea of what is acceptable provocation in the law is gender-biased.

'Nagging' is seen as acceptable provocation; years of abuse is not.

Another example of a harsher sentence being meted out to women for lesser crimes of violence is that of the Scott sisters in the US who were given a double life sentence each for an armed robbery in which no one was killed or injured and less then $12 was stolen (see the Huffington Post for a quick overview of this case). The fact these women are black adds another dimension to the reasons for this extremely harsh sentence being served.


http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2009/11/gender_and_sent
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2015 08:22 am
@izzythepush,
We have danced this dance before Izzy, and I understand your perspective. You are making another ad hominem argument, but as has been said before there isn't much I can do about that. For the record, the statistics Andrei requested were provided, and it is true that across the board, even for crimes like vehicular homicide (that have nothing to do with gender roles) women receive significantly lower sentences then men.

But, let's focus on what we agree on.

You and agree that the E.R.A. as written in the first post, would be good for both men and women, right? I strongly support the E.R.A. Don't you?

I am arguing here for equality. You believe in equality. Why do we need to fight?
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2015 08:39 am
@izzythepush,
I would like to ask, in civil way, for a link to the legitimate statistics about sentences for killing a spouse.

This claim interests me and I would like to see the actual data. Does anyone have a link (my google search didn't find any source data)?
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2015 08:51 am
Never mind, a little more searching and I did find the statistics (for the US case). This is from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (from the US government).

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/SPOUSMUR.PDF

Women who kill their spouses get an average sentence of 6 years. Men who kill their spouses get an average sentence of 16.5 years. Women are also significantly more likely to be acquitted at trial and to be given probation (i.e. never see a jail cell).

0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2015 09:38 pm
The other issue is conscription. No one has commented on whether the next time that there is a draft, young women should be forced to fight in war along with the young men.

Should women be drafted?

"Equality under the law" means that women would have the same legal obligation to fight in war that men have. This would be good for men. When women are equal to men twice as many people will be available to be drafted. This would mean only half as many men would be drafted.

RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2015 09:43 pm
@maxdancona,
Many crimes are different from one another so how do you define equal sentences for equal crimes.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2015 09:48 pm
@RABEL222,
I am not sure I understand your question.

The phrase "equal sentences for equal crimes" means that the crimes are "equal" (i.e. not different from each other). Researchers looked at one crime (i.e. vehicular homicide while intoxicated) and compared the average sentences given to men (across all the men who committed that crime) with the average sentences given to women. When they did this for many crimes (looking at each one individually), they found the same result.

Men get significantly higher prison sentences then women when comparing apples to apples (i.e. the same crime).

Is this what you are asking?
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2015 10:14 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

The other issue is conscription. No one has commented on whether the next time that there is a draft, young women should be forced to fight in war along with the young men.

Should women be drafted?


Most would agree with your view that as many women as men should be drafted under the ERA. That women would be subject to the draft was introduced as an argument against the ERA the last time it was considered.

A likely result of the ERA passing is that there would never be a draft again, since few people want to see women drafted.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2015 11:51 pm
@Kolyo,
I dont see the draft issue to be a problem, because there would be limited objection.

The daft is actually a big subject at the moment BTW, some very serious people have come forward to say that they think we need to go to the draft, usually connected to some national service. Saw about a month ago some bigtime retired General say it would be better for the military. Dont remember the full argument, but it in part revolved around the need for shared sacrifice across class,politics, race, gender and region lines.
Kolyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 12:03 am
@hawkeye10,
In defense of a draft, Slate wrote:

Civilian leaders who have never served lack the institutional feel, and knowledge, that can help prevent disastrous adventures such as the Iraq War.
from: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/11/veterans_day_2013_technology_demands_we_bring_back_the_draft.html

My response:
Civilian leaders like W., who started the war in Iraq?
Great Vietnam hero he was at the time of the last draft!

Wapo wrote:

Two weeks before he was to graduate from Yale, George Walker Bush stepped into the offices of the Texas Air National Guard at Ellington Field outside Houston and announced that he wanted to sign up for pilot training.

It was May 27, 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War. Bush was 12 days away from losing his student deferment from the draft at a time when Americans were dying in combat at the rate of 350 a week. The unit Bush wanted to join offered him the chance to fulfill his military commitment at a base in Texas. It was seen as an escape route from Vietnam by many men his age, and usually had a long waiting list.

Bush had scored only 25 percent on a "pilot aptitude" test, the lowest acceptable grade. But his father was then a congressman from Houston, and the commanders of the Texas Guard clearly had an appreciation of politics.
from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072899.htm
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 12:06 am
If there were a draft, the male death toll would still probably be higher, since men would fill more combat role, on account of their superior physical strength.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 07:33 am
@Kolyo,
Kolyo wrote:

If there were a draft, the male death toll would still probably be higher, since men would fill more combat role, on account of their superior physical strength.

Agreed.

That males sacrifice themselves to protect females makes perfect Darwinian sense, since among mammals, one male can service dozens of females. Hence the 'children and women first'. But it makes no 'gender equality sense'...
0 Replies
 
 

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 © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/16/2021 at 10:29:48