Women's Equality Amendment

[A_Wanderer]

But it isn't Canada.

 

[anitram]

Well, but what horrible unseemly things have happened here as a result of the enactment of the Charter in 1982? Can you name one?

ETA: I do believe a lot of this is political posturing. But when you read things like that ridiculous glass ceiling comment on this thread, it really sheds some light on the types of attitudes which used to be pervasive but remain with us to this day. I mean, to suggest that I should be grateful I have a glass ceiling rather than being dead - you have to ask yourself who thinks this way?

 

[CTU2fan]

I remember hearing about the ERA as a little kid (the first time) and assuming in my youthful naivete that, of course, it would pass. I mean, who'd be openly against equal rights for women under the law? But of course I was very little at the time...sadly now when it doesn't pass this time around (and it surely won't) I won't be surprised. Opposition to the ERA, to me, should be greeted with the same scorn that Tim Hardaway's "I hate gays" comments were. The fact that someone can say "I'm against equal rights for women" and still have a political career in this country is truly pathetic.

 

[martha]

^A legitimate need for certain groups with their own ends; but given but if it was ever used to force private organisations to have quotas or break up clubs that discriminate by sex it would be very wrong.

Yes, yes, we know that private property trumps any rights anybody has. No matter what their gender or skin color.

Or political associations.

 

[martha]

I mean, to suggest that I should be grateful I have a glass ceiling rather than being dead - you have to ask yourself who thinks this way?

I don't want to think about it.

 

[A_Wanderer]

No, but that is really an issue of proximity. I just think that those policies while beneficial against the most intransigent sections of society are government overstepping it's bounds.

 

[martha]

No, but that is really an issue of proximity. I just think that those policies while beneficial against the most intransigent sections of society are government overstepping it's bounds.

We've been around on this before, and I'll say when you get out a little bit and really see what's going on, you'll alter your opinions a bit. Especially when you run up against the kind of discrimination in reality you support in theory.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yes, yes, we know that private property trumps any rights anybody has. No matter what their gender or skin color.

Or political associations.

Better than the idea that your right to control your property is void when the way that you want to use it clashes with societies expectations.

 

[A_Wanderer]

We've been around on this before, and I'll say when you get out a little bit and really see what's going on, you'll alter your opinions a bit. Especially when you run up against the kind of discrimination in reality you support in theory.

To support the right to do the wrong thing is not an endorsement of it; much different than say actively supporting positive discrimination.

It gets so ad hominem; if I support the right of neo-nazis to march then I implicitly support their agenda, if I oppose speech codes then I agree with hate speech etc. now all of those throwaway lines that have been used are useless since they don't line up with the evidence. Your intent however is much more clear and you consistently support more government protections that will force bad people to play nice at the expence of freedom.

At the end of the day I support abortion rights, every type of marriage contract, employers electing to have diversity quotas and make smart hiring decisions and oppose the use of force and coercion to achieve change which in large part was won from within society without such measures.

 

[CTU2fan]

When someone's "freedom to" overlaps someone else's "freedom from", where do you draw the line?

 

[A_Wanderer]

There is no freedom to be employed by a certain employer like there is no freedom to not be offended.

If somebody refused to hire me because I am an atheist then they are excercising control over their property, if I get the government to force them to hire me then I and excercising control over their property.

That sucks and as a hypothetical example it is far less vicious and pernacious than the very real obstacles and hatred behind such discrimination in the real world but the principle remains the same.

 

[martha]

That sucks and as a hypothetical example it is far less vicious and pernacious than the very real obstacles and hatred behind such discrimination in the real world but the principle remains the same.

Again, some realities will indeed alter your blind adherence to theory. It may take a while, and it may hurt like hell, but it will happen.

Until then, please don't continue to excuse real discriminatory behavior by hiding behind theory.

Thank you.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The realities of what happens when the government is given the power to supress speech, confiscate individuals property and the history of trying to change society from the top down (and in this case it is very late indeed) do temper my views.

Your making a utilitarian argument to support a softly authoritarian agenda; I am not claiming that a laissez faire approach to a governments control of it's population will produce equality or happiness or even the ideal solution to problems but you are claiming that government force can be a force for good in society. It is grounded in it's own theory; which seems to be that society benefits most from equality and diversity and that those goals are at times more important than the individual; appart from the issues of individual rights and property rights which cannot be agreed upon I have a problem with this argument (provided that it generally reflects your philosophy) in that it is dependent on arbitrary definition of what constitutes the greater good - you always end up with double standards to reach that end.

There is no slippery slope for the government to tumble down if it is never given the power to act.

 

[martha]

but you are claiming that government force can be a force for good in society.

Yes, I am. Ask any black American who can now live, shop, worship, and work anywhere she wants to.

Babble on all you want about how "the government" shouldn't control these things, but "the government" is ultimately us, acting to step in when the individual has allowed his hatred for those different from him to interfere with those different ones' ability to live their lives.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And one important point, individual rights are not mutually exclusive to diversity and equal rights.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yes, I am. Ask any black American who can now live, shop, worship, and work anywhere she wants to.

Babble on all you want about how "the government" shouldn't control these things, but "the government" is ultimately us, acting to step in when the individual has allowed his hatred for those different from him to interfere with those different ones' ability to live their lives.

Good open ended justification; the ability to live their lives; now in the case of segregation this is a persuasive argument that deserves consideration but at the stage of employment opportunity and club membership it should be questioned; not being able to get a specific job from a specific employer or being overlooked for promotion may not hold the same weight to justify action.

 

[martha]

not being able to get a specific job from a specific employer or being overlooked for promotion may not hold the same weight to justify action.

Oh man. You are priceless sometimes.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Were not talking about broad and institutionalised discrimination crippling any chance at living a life; women in the USA in 2008 are not living in the same condition as negroes in the 1950's and that means that such action to ameliorate it may be unjustified.

 

[martha]

Dude, you gotta start using punctuation correctly. It takes me a minute to figure out what you're saying.

 

[martha]

Were not talking about broad and institutionalised discrimination crippling any chance at living a life; women in the USA in 2008 are not living in the same condition as negroes in the 1950's and that means that such action to ameliorate it may be unjustified.

I didn't take that "you don't have it as bad as other people" shit from Indy, and I won't take it from you either.

 

[anitram]

not being able to get a specific job from a specific employer or being overlooked for promotion may not hold the same weight to justify action.

Thankfully the courts interpret liberty far more broadly than you do.

All of your arguments have the same underlying theme as INDY's, that is, "come on now, you don't have it THAT bad, it could be much worse, so let's maintain the status quo."

No can do.

 

[A_Wanderer]

It isn't a formal essay: the situation for women in the USA today does not justify across the board government intervention as much as it did for African Americans in the 20th Century so it is not supportive of discrimination to question or oppose it.

That opposition is not by defintion grounded in any deeper misogyny or support for discriminatory practices and in every one of these sort of topics you run with dichotomies that are as nuanced as GWB; if your not with us your against us.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Thankfully the courts interpret liberty far more broadly than you do.

All of your arguments have the same underlying theme as INDY's, that is, "come on now, you don't have it THAT bad, it could be much worse, so let's maintain the status quo."

No can do.

No, my argument is not that you have it better than X therefore we should do nothing. It is that in the case of X it was decided that action had to be taken but because the situation for this isn't as severe then that course of action may not be justified. Not to say that I wouldn't support

I don't think is supporting the status quo if the situation of equal representation at all levels is held as the ideal; or if the major changes in society that are continuing to bring that closer are considered to be good.

 

[Diemen]

No, my argument is not that you have it better than X therefore we should do nothing. It is that in the case of X it was decided that action had to be taken but because the situation for this isn't as severe then that course of action may not be justified.

Which essentially boils down to "you guys don't have it as bad as they did," does it not?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Which is because it was explicitely stated that that intervention was made because people couldn't live their lives

So shouldn't it follow that since women can live their lives then intervention is unjustified.

 

[Vincent Vega]

So for you as a radical libertarian life has to be at stakes to justify some government intervention?

I don't think a law making equal pay and equal chances for promotion mandatory causes that much trouble.

 

[A_Wanderer]

No they don't, they should be required for all government agencies and anything that gets money from the government but using legal action against individuals prejudice in the hiring and firing within their business does strike me as excessive.

You can all keep your civil society, I would much prefer some sort of dystopian anarcho-capitalism.

 

[anitram]

You can all keep your civil society, I would much prefer some sort of dystopian anarcho-capitalism.

That's because you've never lived in one. It's nothing but an academic argument for you. And academic arguments mean squat to living, breathing people.

 

[deep]

That's because you've never lived in one. It's nothing but an academic argument for you. And academic arguments mean squat to living, breathing people.

a good reply

to quite a few of the replies that get offered up in here

 

[A_Wanderer]

And cold calculated political machinations that ressurect proposals after the 30 years in which most of their goals have been won through other means do?