Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

This topic is about the October 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches by John N. (Jake) Ferris

"Our protest is not against men. Our protest is against the system which men are born into." -Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall-

Gender equality has been a topic which has been discussed with positive, negative, and neutral reactions from the society for ages. But it has not been achieved in many parts of the world.

What we have been doing is making rules and laws to ensure equal opportunities to both sexes. But it is obvious that none of these laws can change the traditional mindsets that are set to give priority to boys over girls. This is where the word 'equity' comes into play.

While gender equality is simply focused on providing men and women with the same equal opportunities (like making it legal for women to own land, or even attend school), gender equity works to correct the historical wrongs that have left women behind (such as societal restrictions on employment). Gender equity also means giving women the tools to succeed, like programs that offer conditional cash transfers to women. A focus on equity bridges the gaps in equality through laws and policies and gender-focused programs that don’t just level the playing field, but also work to change the culture to be more supportive of women.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.co ... ation/amp/

What are your opinions on this thought? What is more suitable? Or in other words, what is more achievable, sustainable, as well as practically applicable?

Please note that, even If you are against gender equality, your posts are welcome in this forum. Thank you

[LuckyR]

This topic is about the October 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches by John N. (Jake) Ferris

"Our protest is not against men. Our protest is against the system which men are born into." -Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall-

Gender equality has been a topic which has been discussed with positive, negative, and neutral reactions from the society for ages. But it has not been achieved in many parts of the world.

What we have been doing is making rules and laws to ensure equal opportunities to both sexes. But it is obvious that none of these laws can change the traditional mindsets that are set to give priority to boys over girls. This is where the word 'equity' comes into play.

While gender equality is simply focused on providing men and women with the same equal opportunities (like making it legal for women to own land, or even attend school), gender equity works to correct the historical wrongs that have left women behind (such as societal restrictions on employment). Gender equity also means giving women the tools to succeed, like programs that offer conditional cash transfers to women. A focus on equity bridges the gaps in equality through laws and policies and gender-focused programs that don’t just level the playing field, but also work to change the culture to be more supportive of women.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.co ... ation/amp/

What are your opinions on this thought? What is more suitable? Or in other words, what is more achievable, sustainable, as well as practically applicable?

Please note that, even If you are against gender equality, your posts are welcome in this forum. Thank you

Gender "equity" as you define it is not in the same category as racial "equity", in the sense that if blacks are say redlined out of easy home ownership in one era, their descendants will have lost out on the growth in equity that could have run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. OTOH, women who lose out on financial opportunities typically were partnered with men who didn't and had sons who didn't. Similarly, men who had financial advantages compared to their female counterparts commonly would have daughters who would suffer those inequities. Thus the gender inequality didn't get passed and compounded over generations such that women today should be compensated for inequality generations ago.

[stevie]

While gender equality is simply focused on providing men and women with the same equal opportunities (like making it legal for women to own land, or even attend school), gender equity works to correct the historical wrongs that have left women behind (such as societal restrictions on employment). Gender equity also means giving women the tools to succeed, like programs that offer conditional cash transfers to women. A focus on equity bridges the gaps in equality through laws and policies and gender-focused programs that don’t just level the playing field, but also work to change the culture to be more supportive of women.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.co ... ation/amp/

What are your opinions on this thought? What is more suitable? Or in other words, what is more achievable, sustainable, as well as practically applicable?

Please note that, even If you are against gender equality, your posts are welcome in this forum. Thank you

Considering that any kind of discrimination can have structurally and culturally conditioned traditional causes simply to provide equal opportunities doesn't necessarily remove the discrimination. There must be regulations that enable the discriminated individual to claim their due.

[Pattern-chaser]

What are your opinions on this thought? What is more suitable? Or in other words, what is more achievable, sustainable, as well as practically applicable?

Please note that, even If you are against gender equality, your posts are welcome in this forum. Thank you

Equality is for all, under all circumstances, so it would surely include women along with all those who are not, or have not been, fairly treated.

Equity is probably justified, but requires serious thought, consideration, and care before deciding the best way to achieve it.

[heracleitos]

Equity, i.e. justice, is the complete set of true propositions, M, in a moral theory, T.

Hence, justice is always relative to a particular foundationalist take on the matter. Therefore, it is necessary to first specify within what moral theory T we are reasoning, because M will be different depending on that.

Systemless or unsystematic morality is to be rejected because in that case it will be impossible to verify if a moral proposition syntactically entails from its axiomatic context.

In my impression, systemlessness is the main feature, i.e. the main characteristic, of modern "gender studies". The entire approach is simply in violation of the theorem of soundness.

As you can only know if a proposition is true when it can be justified from its foundationalist context, where can we find a completely documented copy of the axiomatization of modern "gender studies"?

In the meanwhile, as Carl Herbert Von Clausewitz so beautifully pointed out in his seminal publication, "Vom Kriege" ("About war"):

i]War is the continuation of the negotiations but then by other means.[/i]

Hence, if the West want to impose their feminist views and their other so-called "values" onto others, then let them prove that they are willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in.

Vladimir Putin has recently termed the West to be "Satanic". Therefore, the Holy War, i.e. the "Jihad", is about to begin.

Since the USA are supplying the adversaries of the Russian Federation with weapons, in my opinion, it will soon be necessary to deploy the Russian submarine fleet as to interdict all shipping across the Atlantic, and if need be, to proceed to unrestricted maritime warfare. The time is slowly but surely arriving to hit home the basic principle that all respect is ultimately based on the fear for reprisals.

[Fried Egg]

I think equity dangerous and actually at odds with equality.

This is because in order to achieve equity it necessitates reverse discrimination which in turn stokes resentment from those who are discriminated against which can manifest in many different ways.

With regards to gender specifically, equality is one thing but one can hardly deny some essential biological (and psychological) differences between men and women so then there is no reason to suppose that an equity of outcomes would ever result naturally. Unlike with race, where most people would agree that there are only cultural differences and no biological reasons for different outcomes, achieving gender equity might necessitate permanent structural disclination in favour of women in order to maintain it.

Perhaps you might not mind it if there were to be permanent structural, institutional bias in place to maintain between the genders? After all, what about disability? In order to achieve equity between disabled and non disabled people in society of course it will need permanent apparatus in place to sustain it. But women are not disabled, just different. I would argue we don't need institutional structures in place in order to attempt to iron out those differences.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think equity dangerous and actually at odds with equality.

This is because in order to achieve equity it necessitates reverse discrimination which in turn stokes resentment from those who are discriminated against which can manifest in many different ways.

So your reason for not wanting to even the balance, when one community has been discriminated against, is that those who benefitted from that discrimination might resent seeing victims given compensation?

What about the prisoner who is proven innocent and released? Would you deprive her of financial compensation, in case other law-abiding citizens resent it?

Compensation and restitution are long-accepted in social, commercial, financial and legal contexts. Is 'equity' so different?

[Fried Egg]

So your reason for not wanting to even the balance, when one community has been discriminated against, is that those who benefitted from that discrimination might resent seeing victims given compensation?

If a particular individual in the community issuing compensation doesn't believe they ever benefited from the discrimination against the other community, they are liable to resent being forced to contribute, yes.

What about the prisoner who is proven innocent and released? Would you deprive her of financial compensation, in case other law-abiding citizens resent it?

That is about one individual who had been wronged by another individual/institution. How can we possibly assess how much compensation each woman deserves from every man as a result of an institutional bias that existed before they were even born?

Perhaps the institutional bias a poor man endured in the past was more significant than the bias a rich woman from the same time endured?

Compensation and restitution are long-accepted in social, commercial, financial and legal contexts. Is 'equity' so different?

I think any attempt to compensate and restitute based on category (i.e. genre, race, sexuality, etc.) rather than on an individual basis is always going to be problematic. Plus we're talking about inherited inequity from past generations so it is always going to be fore more difficult to gauge.

[MAYA EL]

This topic is about the October 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches by John N. (Jake) Ferris

"Our protest is not against men. Our protest is against the system which men are born into." -Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall-

Gender equality has been a topic which has been discussed with positive, negative, and neutral reactions from the society for ages. But it has not been achieved in many parts of the world.

What we have been doing is making rules and laws to ensure equal opportunities to both sexes. But it is obvious that none of these laws can change the traditional mindsets that are set to give priority to boys over girls. This is where the word 'equity' comes into play.

While gender equality is simply focused on providing men and women with the same equal opportunities (like making it legal for women to own land, or even attend school), gender equity works to correct the historical wrongs that have left women behind (such as societal restrictions on employment). Gender equity also means giving women the tools to succeed, like programs that offer conditional cash transfers to women. A focus on equity bridges the gaps in equality through laws and policies and gender-focused programs that don’t just level the playing field, but also work to change the culture to be more supportive of women.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.co ... ation/amp/

What are your opinions on this thought? What is more suitable? Or in other words, what is more achievable, sustainable, as well as practically applicable?

Please note that, even If you are against gender equality, your posts are welcome in this forum. Thank you

There will never be gender equality because men and women are not equal and that's not a bad thing and I'm not talking down on either side

It's a fact that men and women are different and that's not a bad thing

Do to woman being the only ones that can have the kids and the fact that men are a great deal stronger them woman means that there are many different situations where it's a men only kind of scenario .

I know from first hand experience in my early 20's I was the only one working because my wife had to stay home with are new born baby seeing as they require 24/7 attention

Not only that but I worked jobs that were far to physically demanding that no woman could do no matter how manly they might be they wouldn't make it till lunch , hell I thought it was back breaking and I was a fit 220lb

And my wife didn't look at it as an unfair situation because she understands that their have been certain rolls in society since the dawn of time because of gender and that's not a bad thing

But today's society we have gender equality being used as a tool against people for various reasons and the equality of gender not being actually one of them

[Pattern-chaser]

So your reason for not wanting to even the balance, when one community has been discriminated against, is that those who benefitted from that discrimination might resent seeing victims given compensation?

If a particular individual in the community issuing compensation doesn't believe they ever benefited from the discrimination against the other community, they are liable to resent being forced to contribute, yes.

You seem to be devoting considerable effort to avoiding or dodging the argument, instead of addressing it?

I have made my points. I believe them to be good and valid points.

[Fried Egg]

So your reason for not wanting to even the balance, when one community has been discriminated against, is that those who benefitted from that discrimination might resent seeing victims given compensation?

If a particular individual in the community issuing compensation doesn't believe they ever benefited from the discrimination against the other community, they are liable to resent being forced to contribute, yes.

You seem to be devoting considerable effort to avoiding or dodging the argument, instead of addressing it?

I have made my points. I believe them to be good and valid points.

I believe I have more than adequately addressed your point but let me try to elaborate further.

I believe any attempt to achieve "equity" will inevitably misfire and lead to unintended consequences. If you institute discrimination against one community (in favour of another) now for past discrimination that worked the other way you will unavoidably harm some individuals disproportionately leading to resentment and a desire for retribution the other way.

You are right, it works well enough when we are talking about individuals compensating each other for a past wrong. But when you construct an arbitrary distinction between two groups of people, the extent to which individuals in one group were responsible and benefited from past wrongs is variable (and probably depends on a whole host of other factors).

Every time a woman gets a job, not because she is the best person for the job, but because of a quota, the man who didn't get the job is wronged. What the woman gains (at the man's expense) in the name of equity cannot possibly be proportionate to his supposed privileged position (as a result of past discrimination against women).

"Equity" only works when you treat all individuals in arbitrary group as being the same and equally benefitted/harmed from past wrongs but that very assumption is a falsehood and that's why we shouldn't even try to pursue a policy of "equity".

[Ddrezner]

We already give women enough chances to get equity. In fact, there are more women in universities than males, and any visit to a social services office or any number of offices with professinal clercial staff are filled with women.
Men who apply for these jobs are often rejected because of their sex.

Men are practically excluded from elementary school education for one simple reason. To take such a job is to invite being arrested for illicit touching of a child or at least a firing, because what women can get away with, and must do to perform their job, men get waylaid for by prosecutorial parents.

In fact, most jobs where women choose to take education to qualify for that position are then filled by women who apply, if they really qualify.

The problem is that somehow women are NOT pursuing professions in the science areas in the same area as men, nor are they learning mathematics in the same percentages as males. This is not the fault of the educcational systems. It has to do with choices made by the women when choosing a profession.

In fact, women have more opportunity in the educational and child care industries. in nursing. So why doesn't this count as equity?
If a man chooses to stay home and take care of children- a whole list of undesirable labels get attached to him. Not so for for women, now.

A while ago a branch of feminism insisted that women needed to leave the home and get 'real' jobs, even if they enjoyed watching their children grow into little people. The result- the Supermom- a person expected to both be a great mother and a superior worker in the normal workplace-
I'm not sure how they found time for either husband or for their own personal pursuits, but the feminists kind of waved that aside. This generation did try that, and the result was latchkey children with inferior emotional intelligence, and an inferior set of people to take over from their parents.

Now- there is a place where equity has not been established. There IS a glass ceiling for women in top executive positions and the legislative world. There are not many women senators or congressmen compared to their population in the country. This is only one form of inequity. How many black CEO's are ghere for the top 500 usa companies? Not many. How many black Republican representatives or senators? Almost none.

Its hard to breal this glass ceiling, but educating all children that women need to be given a chance in all professions is the only way to change this. Why? Because the positions I've talked about aren't filled by a bottom oriented merit based procedure, but by selections made by powerful people to either allow, or not allow a certain person.

It' isn't new. Jewish law firms were formed because Christian law firms wouldn't hire Jews. Same for banks- instead, Jews made their own way in the more open stock market based finance world and general investing. Women need to do the same thing, and eventually, those glass ceilings will break because they will make their OWN elevator to the top.

Education is necessary, not browbeating the world- though a little reminding isn't bad.

[heracleitos]

A while ago a branch of feminism insisted that women needed to leave the home and get 'real' jobs, even if they enjoyed watching their children grow into little people. The result- the Supermom- a person expected to both be a great mother and a superior worker in the normal workplace-
I'm not sure how they found time for either husband or for their own personal pursuits, but the feminists kind of waved that aside. This generation did try that, and the result was latchkey children with inferior emotional intelligence, and an inferior set of people to take over from their parents.

Women with a degree and/or a job, or who are still single in their early twenties, signal very loudly to men that they are not wife material. These women won't have time for that anyway.

Is that a problem?

No, because outside the West there's an entire planet of girls who are wife material. Geomaxxing also spares a man from dangerous western divorce laws.

The women that are not wife material are best off in hookup culture, where they can share the same, handsome Chad, in their capacity of occasional, "situationship"-based side chick along with 20+ other women for the same Chad.

Chad also likes it because these women pay for themselves and don't cost him a dime.

These women won't have to find time for a husband or children because they won't have any of that anyway. In the end, that is clearly what works best for everyone.

[LuckyR]

A while ago a branch of feminism insisted that women needed to leave the home and get 'real' jobs, even if they enjoyed watching their children grow into little people. The result- the Supermom- a person expected to both be a great mother and a superior worker in the normal workplace-
I'm not sure how they found time for either husband or for their own personal pursuits, but the feminists kind of waved that aside. This generation did try that, and the result was latchkey children with inferior emotional intelligence, and an inferior set of people to take over from their parents.

Women with a degree and/or a job, or who are still single in their early twenties, signal very loudly to men that they are not wife material. These women won't have time for that anyway.

Is that a problem?

No, because outside the West there's an entire planet of girls who are wife material. Geomaxxing also spares a man from dangerous western divorce laws.

The women that are not wife material are best off in hookup culture, where they can share the same, handsome Chad, in their capacity of occasional, "situationship"-based side chick along with 20+ other women for the same Chad.

Chad also likes it because these women pay for themselves and don't cost him a dime.

These women won't have to find time for a husband or children because they won't have any of that anyway. In the end, that is clearly what works best for everyone.

A simple theory that doesn't match up with what Real people actually do.

[heracleitos]

A while ago a branch of feminism insisted that women needed to leave the home and get 'real' jobs, even if they enjoyed watching their children grow into little people. The result- the Supermom- a person expected to both be a great mother and a superior worker in the normal workplace-
I'm not sure how they found time for either husband or for their own personal pursuits, but the feminists kind of waved that aside. This generation did try that, and the result was latchkey children with inferior emotional intelligence, and an inferior set of people to take over from their parents.

Women with a degree and/or a job, or who are still single in their early twenties, signal very loudly to men that they are not wife material. These women won't have time for that anyway.

Is that a problem?

No, because outside the West there's an entire planet of girls who are wife material. Geomaxxing also spares a man from dangerous western divorce laws.

The women that are not wife material are best off in hookup culture, where they can share the same, handsome Chad, in their capacity of occasional, "situationship"-based side chick along with 20+ other women for the same Chad.

Chad also likes it because these women pay for themselves and don't cost him a dime.

These women won't have to find time for a husband or children because they won't have any of that anyway. In the end, that is clearly what works best for everyone.

A simple theory that doesn't match up with what Real people actually do.

Well, I simply rewrote in my own words what "conservative" television anchor Tomi Lahren (Fox News) has said in her "Public Service Announcement (PSA) for Boyish Men":

PSA for Boyish Men (long video rant)

The experience of women who range in age from 24 to 36. We all got issues. All of my friends are attractive. All of my friends are successful. Almost every single one of them have an issue with men ... bla bla ... IT IS MEN'S FAULT !!! ... bla bla ... "It might not be us. It might be you. It might be men!" ... The pussification of America: Men are no longer men! They are trash all over this country. ... bla bla ... A lot of men are trash! I have had it all happen to me!

First question: Are you single?
I mean, not "single seeing 5 people" ...
Are you actually "single single"?

Second thing: Don't text instead of seeing the girl in person ...
Third: Make a plan! (Don't just suddenly ask to see me for 20 minutes at 1 a.m. because you want sex.)

bla ... bla ... I am not a feminist! I love men! ... bla ... bla ...

Fourth: Value value!

Please, do not mix in girls, like me, who have something going on with other girls that have nothing going on. If you want to mix in people like me or my friends who are go-getters, who work really hard, who make their own money, who are talented, skilled, ambitious, please don't mix us in with the Thotianas.

Quite frankly, we take it as an insult, if we find out that you are also "talking" to five Thotianas who have nothing going on. People like me and my friends are going to be insulting by that, and there is almost really no coming back from it.

So, if you want that kind of girl, who is just happy going through the motions of life, not really super-ambitious, hasn't really found herself yet, doesn't really have a whole lot going on, other than she is pretty, please, just go after them. Please, do not mix us in. We dont want to be there, I promise you.

So, "value value" !

There's a lot of women out there that I know that are my good friends who have amazing jobs, who work really hard, but who can't seem to find a decent guy, even if the go up in age 5, 10, 15 years, because those guys all want to be with 21 year olds who have nothing going on.

... bla bla ...

Tomi finally seems to understand what a man actually values:

- youth
- beauty
- chastity (i.e. low body count, or preferably, no body count)

Men do not value Tomi's take on female value, and never will. What's more, Tomi's masculine rant won't turn anybody on. It won't give any man an erection. Seriously, in what world would a man want to come home to a woman like her?

Tomi is an ambitious go-getter. Good for her!

However, Tomi has to understand that the Chad that she is trying to haul in, is not just "talking" with 5 Thotianas -- there is much more nudity involved than that -- and it is not just 5 of them.

Furthermore, the reason why Chad is keeps having sex with the Thotianas is not because he would seek to insult Tomi. No, that is really not what it is about. We know that women only like men that other women also like. So, in order to get more Thotianas, Chad has to keep collecting them. The more that Chad shows up with a new stunning Thotiana, the more that the other Thotianas who see this, also want to sleep with him. Hence, Chad is simply keeping the snowball effect going.

You see, Tomi is not ugly. She undoubtedly makes for good-quality bedroom fun (if she can keep that big mouth of her shut for the time that it takes). However, what man wants to get to hear things like Tomi's PSA on a daily basis?

By the way, Tomi Lahren is a "real person". Her friends in the same situation that she keeps talking about, are almost surely not imaginary either.