Where Pretty Lies Perish
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:16:56 +0000
-Ensuring favoritism for women in professions (affirmative action, quotas): This is not a matter of favoritism. This is put in place to counteract barriers placed by cultural ideas and biases of women in regards to some sectors of the working world. Areas such as construction and science sectors have problems with people hiring women due to ideas that women lack the physical strength or do not have the mindset equal to a mans. Of course this needs to be adjusted by changing statistics like the fact that women are now exceeding men in gaining college degrees should mean that there should not be any quota or action for general college admissions.
Regarding construction . . . there may indeed be a hiring bias against women, but the more significant contributor to the gender disparity is the fact that women tend to not want to be in construction. Now, maybe this is "cultural conditioning", and maybe it isn't. Either way, AA and quotas do nothing to help. There are women who are physically capable of working in construction, but there are many more men capable of doing so. This isn't a cultural bias. As a rule, men are physically stronger than women.
Regarding science . . . in the labs I work in there are as many women as there are men. It is doubtful that I work in freakishly equitable labs, compared to other labs, so it is a reasonable assumption that this is commonplace. Within the labs, everyone is treated equally, save the PI, who obviously holds more sway. Yes, most PIs are men, but that is because being a professor is a demanding profession. The female PIs I know are just as capable as the male ones, but there are less of them. This isn't (necessarily) because men tend to be smarter, or harder-working. It is because men tend to place a higher value on their careers than women do. One tends not to become a professor without unwavering devotion to the task. It is exceedingly difficult to raise a family as one become a professor; once one becomes one, he or she has more leeway to form a family, but it is usually an afterthought.
-Portraying women as helpless victims in their dealings with men: It is true that women should not be set in such a light in general. If a woman commits spousal abuse she should face the same consequences as a man. On the other hand if a crime is committed against a woman she should not be given undo blame as a victim with arguments like she shouldn't have dressed that way or she knows how to push buttons.
I agree with you here.
-Supporting hate crime laws that create a tiered system of justice: I am on the fence on this one. Hate is wrong and any crime motivated by it should be punished. Such laws seem to be geared towards emphasizing how wrong misogyny.
Why is hate wrong?
-Supporting hate speech laws that effectively bar opponents from joining the debate: Hate speech laws really only keep people from inciting others to commit crimes. No argument that encourages illegal actions against others is valid anyways. It's not really a debate when either side is just spewing insults and ignorance.
This is clearly not true. There have always been crimes against inciting violence (at least well before such hate speech laws). One example, though admittedly probably an outlier, is a guy in Britain who was singing "Kung Fu Fighting" in some public area. An Asian man called the police, and the man was arrested for hate speech (may have been a hate crime, same thing in this case.
This is true, and has been well-established before hate speech laws. And if threats are always wrong (and they are), then how is using the threat of government violence to constrain speech any better. It is in fact worse. At least hate speakers have the courage to put their own life on the line.