Welcome to Gaia! ::

Alsashia

-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.

Quote:

-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.

Quote:

-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?

Quote:

-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.
Alsashia
-Demanding that society pays for abortions or birth control (whether in the form of government or insurance companies): Abortions and birth control needs to be available to women as a matter of health.

Why?

Quote:

Abortions can be important to a woman whose health is endangered by a pregnancy or when the baby has already died or miscarried. No matter how you argue there are risks to any pregnancy many are minor but there are also some major ones that can result in permanant harm or death.

And why is society responsible for the risks?


Quote:

Birth control can be taken for reasons other then to prevent pregnancy. Many women take the pill to alleviate PMS, cramping, hormonal imbalances, etc. Other forms of contraception are also performed for similar reasons.

And?

Quote:
Giving women birth control is also smart financially for the government and insurance companies since it is far cheaper to pay out for the pill rather then pay for a pregnancy that was not wanted. Directly it is expensive in potential costs in emergency pregnancy care and children placed in government care to start wih.

True, but that only makes it practical, not right. The fact that the alternative is wrong is not proof that the proposed option is permissible.

Quote:

As a matter of enabling women to have sex I would remind you that there are many drugs paid for by insurance companies that enable men to have sex like viagra.

I couldn't give a s**t if it enables them to have sex. My issue is with the entitlement aspect of it. I would feel the same way about feminists demanding I pay for anything that isn't sex-related as well.
I don't care that Viagra is covered by private insurance companies, and I don't care that some cover birth control. My issue is with the idea that all should have to cover something. It should be up to the business what they cover.
Judgmental Skull Crusher
Jessi Danger
Where Pretty Lies Perish
Jessi Danger
Where Pretty Lies Perish
Portraying women as helpless victims in their dealings with men


A point of defense for the collectivists, literally all people do this to everyone. In America it is popular to use trauma and injustice to trivialize everything and everyone.
Fair enough. It's just frustrating when they parrot "grrl power" bromides, and then play victim every time something doesn't go their way.


Well I'm speaking of the fact that society in general tends to trivialize people as being "poor unfortunate victims," especially when those people do things we don't approve of or like.

The best example is women in porn. Feminists and Social Conservative alike have set up the meme that women in porn must be poor unfortunate victims of some past trauma thus trivializing their life choices and allowing society to continue to maintain the idea that porn is bad and being in porn is bad, and thus nobody chooses it unless life circumstances force them to.
Really? Because the people in porn say differently.
Do you realize what site you are citing? Not exactly objective. Besides, one porn star may feel differently than another. Either way, they made the choice; we ought not to baby everyone throughout their lives.
Alsashia's avatar

Gracious Cat

11,050 Points
  • Bunny Hunter 100
  • Bunny Hoarder 150
  • Cats vs Dogs 100
Where Pretty Lies Perish

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.


There are women who do in fact take an interest in construction, but because there are fewer percentage applying then men the quotas should take that into account. One of the reasons some women do not participate in construction jobs is that they know that men are preferred over women as a matter of culture. Part of the way to loosen cultural biases is to institute rules like the quota system. In no way am I saying that the quotas should always be 50/50. They should reflect the percentage of women who are actively in the field or searching for employment versus men.

What I was talking about science wise is the stereotype that women +language skill -math skills while men -language skills +mathematic skills. Part of the reason you see so many women in the science field today is the concerted effort by schools, NGO's, etc to get young girls interested in the sciences and showing that they can join in. I am not sure exactly what you mean with the argument about raising a family and devotion.

Quote:
Why is hate wrong?


Because it is a strong motivation to commit illegal acts.
Keltoi Samurai's avatar

Benevolent Dog

16,300 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Alsashia

Quote:
Why is hate wrong?


Because it is a strong motivation to commit illegal acts.


but what if one does not yield to the temptation to commit illegal acts, merely being content with their hatred alone?
Alsashia's avatar

Gracious Cat

11,050 Points
  • Bunny Hunter 100
  • Bunny Hoarder 150
  • Cats vs Dogs 100
Where Pretty Lies Perish

-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.

Quote:
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.


Free speech isn't as free as we think it is, sad to say there are restrictions even in America. The United States Supreme Court has upheld certain cases where the speech is considered dangerous to the public one of the opinions in such cases gave us the scenario of the responsibility of someone yelling fire in a theatre causing a panic. Part of the reason hate speech is outlawed is that cowardly people would incite others to do their dirty work for them which is not courageous in any way.
There are concequences to breaking laws for a reason. The differences between the government violence and the hater violence are that the following:
The U.S. is barred from cruel and unsual punishments.
You can in fact leave a country/government like the U.S. beforehand.
The public have given implicit consent to the laws they live with and if not they have means by which they can change the laws.
Alsashia's avatar

Gracious Cat

11,050 Points
  • Bunny Hunter 100
  • Bunny Hoarder 150
  • Cats vs Dogs 100
Keltoi Samurai
Alsashia

Quote:
Why is hate wrong?


Because it is a strong motivation to commit illegal acts.


but what if one does not yield to the temptation to commit illegal acts, merely being content with their hatred alone?


This is in respect to hate crime type law.
Alsashia's avatar

Gracious Cat

11,050 Points
  • Bunny Hunter 100
  • Bunny Hoarder 150
  • Cats vs Dogs 100
Where Pretty Lies Perish
Alsashia
-Demanding that society pays for abortions or birth control (whether in the form of government or insurance companies): Abortions and birth control needs to be available to women as a matter of health.

Why?


Government wise it is practical matter of curbing poverty and preventing more expensive consequences to arise.
When people pay insurance it is implied that it is for all general health type stuff, and the reproductive systems of both men and women are part of their general health.

Quote:
Abortions can be important to a woman whose health is endangered by a pregnancy or when the baby has already died or miscarried. No matter how you argue there are risks to any pregnancy many are minor but there are also some major ones that can result in permanant harm or death.

Quote:
And why is society responsible for the risks?


It is responsible for the risks if the woman is not given a choice. Also, society gets the consequences of people who are killed or injured that would not otherwise have been.

Ok, talk more later. Lot's to cover.
Keltoi Samurai's avatar

Benevolent Dog

16,300 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Alsashia
Keltoi Samurai
Alsashia

Quote:
Why is hate wrong?


Because it is a strong motivation to commit illegal acts.


but what if one does not yield to the temptation to commit illegal acts, merely being content with their hatred alone?


This is in respect to hate crime type law.


then, in that case, what makes a hate-motivated crime worse than a money-motivated one?
Keltoi Samurai
then, in that case, what makes a hate-motivated crime worse than a money-motivated one?


you don't understand hate crime legislation

it doesn't worsen the penalty for committing a crime because of hate, it makes it a crime to commit acts which have the effect of victimising a community

like, say, killing a black guy and then carving DIE NIGGERS DIE into his corpse
hahahalolwut
it doesn't worsen the penalty for committing a crime because of hate, it makes it a crime to commit acts which have the effect of victimising a community

like, say, killing a black guy and then carving DIE NIGGERS DIE into his corpse

Wait, that was legal before hate crime legislation?
Dostya
hahahalolwut
it doesn't worsen the penalty for committing a crime because of hate, it makes it a crime to commit acts which have the effect of victimising a community

like, say, killing a black guy and then carving DIE NIGGERS DIE into his corpse

Wait, that was legal before hate crime legislation?


sure

or you could refrain from being a silly and assume that i'm talking about chargeable offenses. in the above scenario the defendant would previously have been charged with murder one and probably desecration of a corpse, and they would now be charged with those and also with committing a hate crime.
hahahalolwut
Dostya
hahahalolwut
it doesn't worsen the penalty for committing a crime because of hate, it makes it a crime to commit acts which have the effect of victimising a community

like, say, killing a black guy and then carving DIE NIGGERS DIE into his corpse

Wait, that was legal before hate crime legislation?


sure

or you could refrain from being a silly and assume that i'm talking about chargeable offenses. in the above scenario the defendant would previously have been charged with murder one and probably desecration of a corpse, and they would now be charged with those and also with committing a hate crime.
So it worsens the penalty, because the victims can be a bunch of people even if they weren't present for the murder. I agree with most hate crime legislation, but your interpretation of it was terrible.
Dostya
So it worsens the penalty, because the victims can be a bunch of people even if they weren't present for the murder. I agree with most hate crime legislation, but your interpretation of it was terrible.


you can criticise my interpretation when you actually understand it. hate crime legislation isn't tied to murder, i was using that example because it was easy to show legislating hate crimes into existence would bring another charge on the murderer.

that you can be charged for kidnapping and murder and be sentenced for both doesn't mean that either charge can't be applied seperately, you dig?
Alsashia

There are women who do in fact take an interest in construction, but because there are fewer percentage applying then men the quotas should take that into account. One of the reasons some women do not participate in construction jobs is that they know that men are preferred over women as a matter of culture. Part of the way to loosen cultural biases is to institute rules like the quota system. In no way am I saying that the quotas should always be 50/50. They should reflect the percentage of women who are actively in the field or searching for employment versus men.

How would a quota help? How do you know that's one of the reasons? Government has no business in culture.
Why is that sort of quota any better?

Quote:

What I was talking about science wise is the stereotype that women +language skill -math skills while men -language skills +mathematic skills. Part of the reason you see so many women in the science field today is the concerted effort by schools, NGO's, etc to get young girls interested in the sciences and showing that they can join in. I am not sure exactly what you mean with the argument about raising a family and devotion.

Good, then we can stop those efforts?
Raising a family takes a lot of investment. Becoming a professor takes a lot of investment. A person has a certain amount of time and energy to invest, and accomplishing both professorship (or any high-level career path) and parenthood is exceedingly difficult. Since women tend to be more interested in having families, they are a lower percentage of professors.

Quote:

Quote:
Why is hate wrong?


Because it is a strong motivation to commit illegal acts.

How do you know?

And so is money. Should we ban that? So is social status, should we ban that too? Jealously leads to illegal acts, must we ban that?

Hate can cause one to commit criminal acts, but so can any emotion. And hate, as with the other emotions, has useful purposes.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games