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

[InfinityMuse]

The 'advantaged' benefitted, and continue to benefit, from that long period of learning and acclimatisation, from having past role model beneficiaries to look up to and emulate, and so forth. Temporary equity serves to balance things out.

...the problem with socialism is the "free rider problem", nobody does anything because they are going to get the same as their brothers and sisters at the end of the day

That isn't really socialism. It sounds like an extreme implementation of authoritarian communism with a coercively-centralised economy. Extreme implementations of any political system are generally unworkable. That applies to right-wing Capitalist systems just as much as to left-wing 'socialist' systems.

I would be careful with statements about Socialism. "Free Rider" is a Commonwealth thing

[Pattern-chaser]

The 'advantaged' benefitted, and continue to benefit, from that long period of learning and acclimatisation, from having past role model beneficiaries to look up to and emulate, and so forth. Temporary equity serves to balance things out.

...the problem with socialism is the "free rider problem", nobody does anything because they are going to get the same as their brothers and sisters at the end of the day

That isn't really socialism. It sounds like an extreme implementation of authoritarian communism with a coercively-centralised economy. Extreme implementations of any political system are generally unworkable. That applies to right-wing Capitalist systems just as much as to left-wing 'socialist' systems.

I would be careful with statements about Socialism. "Free Rider" is a Commonwealth thing

???

I have heard the term "Commonwealth" only in the context of the now-defunct British Empire.

[Pattern-chaser]

That isn't really socialism. It sounds like an extreme implementation of authoritarian communism with a coercively-centralised economy. Extreme implementations of any political system are generally unworkable. That applies to right-wing Capitalist systems just as much as to left-wing 'socialist' systems.

I would be careful with statements about Socialism.

My comment wasn't really about Socialism, but about extreme implementations of any political system.

[InfinityMuse]

The 'advantaged' benefitted, and continue to benefit, from that long period of learning and acclimatisation, from having past role model beneficiaries to look up to and emulate, and so forth. Temporary equity serves to balance things out.

...the problem with socialism is the "free rider problem", nobody does anything because they are going to get the same as their brothers and sisters at the end of the day

That isn't really socialism. It sounds like an extreme implementation of authoritarian communism with a coercively-centralised economy. Extreme implementations of any political system are generally unworkable. That applies to right-wing Capitalist systems just as much as to left-wing 'socialist' systems.

I would be careful with statements about Socialism. "Free Rider" is a Commonwealth thing

???

I have heard the term "Commonwealth" only in the context of the now-defunct British Empire.

The state we all know as Virginia is actually the Commonwealth of Virginia and not a state at all but the first nation of the first colonies and religious colonies.
Before we were called america we were the nation of Virginia and religious colonies.
Virginia is the crux of libertarian and all bipartisanship is left of Virginia in Congress at the senate building.
Hence fourth, the ideology, "what is left of Virgina is what is left of libertarian, is bipartisan, and checks and balances.

Therefore, what is right of libertarian is "Free Rider"(A.k.a the crux of Anarchist philosophy) radical, progressive, green and/or partisan.

[Sushan]

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.

I think you have a point. But in order to compensate someone, first we have to consider what they actually lost. I think this applies to gender equity as well. But we have to be careful to keep our minds open (this includes all the parties) because ruminating over the past injustice can end up in bad blood, which can make the situation worse.

[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

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

The life that you lived with your wife has been the approved and accepted form of sharing responsibilities that have been accepted by many societies and cultures through the history. But the main issue in that scenario is the female being confined to the home with a limited scope of interactions with the outside world while the male having the privilege of experiencing a relatively adventurous life. IMO, we cannot achieve everything. Some are to be sacrificed. If the woman can accept to be home and look after the kids, she will sacrifice her chance to go out, meet new people, and enjoy. If the female choose what have been sacrificed in the previous scenario, the children will have to bear not being nourished by their mother, and their happiness and development may have to be sacrificed.

First hand experience: I would not be in the position where I am today if my mother did not choose to keep her B.Sc. in Engineering aside, stay home, and look after me.

[Fried Egg]

First hand experience: I would not be in the position where I am today if my mother did not choose to keep her B.Sc. in Engineering aside, stay home, and look after me.

Indeed, but today we're encouraged all encouraged to want to have it all. Both parents can keep working and have flourishing careers. Don't worry, we'll subsidise child care so that you can pay someone else to raise your children.

I'm not convinced that's as good for the children and hence society.

[heracleitos]

Don't worry, we'll subsidise child care so that you can pay someone else to raise your children.

The desire to spend other people's money is truly insatiable.

[Sculptor1]

The 'advantaged' benefitted, and continue to benefit, from that long period of learning and acclimatisation, from having past role model beneficiaries to look up to and emulate, and so forth. Temporary equity serves to balance things out.

...the problem with socialism is the "free rider problem", nobody does anything because they are going to get the same as their brothers and sisters at the end of the day

That isn't really socialism. It sounds like an extreme implementation of authoritarian communism with a coercively-centralised economy. Extreme implementations of any political system are generally unworkable. That applies to right-wing Capitalist systems just as much as to left-wing 'socialist' systems.

I would be careful with statements about Socialism. "Free Rider" is a Commonwealth thing

???

I have heard the term "Commonwealth" only in the context of the now-defunct British Empire.

The state we all know as Virginia is actually the Commonwealth of Virginia and not a state at all but the first nation of the first colonies and religious colonies.
Before we were called america we were the nation of Virginia and religious colonies.
Virginia is the crux of libertarian and all bipartisanship is left of Virginia in Congress at the senate building.
Hence fourth, the ideology, "what is left of Virgina is what is left of libertarian, is bipartisan, and checks and balances.

Therefore, what is right of libertarian is "Free Rider"(A.k.a the crux of Anarchist philosophy) radical, progressive, green and/or partisan.

You seem to be living in a dream world of your own making.
It's about as ridiculous as claiming it all really still belongs to the British Crown.

[InfinityMuse]

The 'advantaged' benefitted, and continue to benefit, from that long period of learning and acclimatisation, from having past role model beneficiaries to look up to and emulate, and so forth. Temporary equity serves to balance things out.

...the problem with socialism is the "free rider problem", nobody does anything because they are going to get the same as their brothers and sisters at the end of the day

That isn't really socialism. It sounds like an extreme implementation of authoritarian communism with a coercively-centralised economy. Extreme implementations of any political system are generally unworkable. That applies to right-wing Capitalist systems just as much as to left-wing 'socialist' systems.

I would be careful with statements about Socialism. "Free Rider" is a Commonwealth thing

???

I have heard the term "Commonwealth" only in the context of the now-defunct British Empire.

The state we all know as Virginia is actually the Commonwealth of Virginia and not a state at all but the first nation of the first colonies and religious colonies.
Before we were called america we were the nation of Virginia and religious colonies.
Virginia is the crux of libertarian and all bipartisanship is left of Virginia in Congress at the senate building.
Hence fourth, the ideology, "what is left of Virgina is what is left of libertarian, is bipartisan, and checks and balances.

Therefore, what is right of libertarian is "Free Rider"(A.k.a the crux of Anarchist philosophy) radical, progressive, green and/or partisan.

You seem to be living in a dream world of your own making.
It's about as ridiculous as claiming it all really still belongs to the British Crown.

On gender equity, and the British . King Charles is in power and my rights to confederation slow fraternal banking in the United kingdom as long as I can stratify the fraternit of banking of the club of my so choosing... Sooo crazy or is Ireland crazy?

[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

The life that you lived with your wife has been the approved and accepted form of sharing responsibilities that have been accepted by many societies and cultures through the history. But the main issue in that scenario is the female being confined to the home with a limited scope of interactions with the outside world while the male having the privilege of experiencing a relatively adventurous life. IMO, we cannot achieve everything. Some are to be sacrificed. If the woman can accept to be home and look after the kids, she will sacrifice her chance to go out, meet new people, and enjoy. If the female choose what have been sacrificed in the previous scenario, the children will have to bear not being nourished by their mother, and their happiness and development may have to be sacrificed.

First hand experience: I would not be in the position where I am today if my mother did not choose to keep her B.Sc. in Engineering aside, stay home, and look after me.

I think your looking at it to woke

The woman isn't stuck at the house not getting to live life she just has to find a way to live life and meet new people while bringing her kids along , it's not little house on the prairie there's things for people with kids to do these days infact it's kinda the opposite of how you painted it to be because my wife was able to get out and meet people 10x more then I was because I worked about 70hr a week inorder to be able to afford for my wife to stay at home and raise are kid so part of that PRIVILEGE is the sacrifice I made where I had no social life seeing as I left the house at 5:30am and got back home at 9:30pm

I don't know why people these days view kids as such a ball and chain that destroy freedom when their not they are the are continuing and are along for the ride with us

[Sculptor1]

???

I have heard the term "Commonwealth" only in the context of the now-defunct British Empire.

The state we all know as Virginia is actually the Commonwealth of Virginia and not a state at all but the first nation of the first colonies and religious colonies.
Before we were called america we were the nation of Virginia and religious colonies.
Virginia is the crux of libertarian and all bipartisanship is left of Virginia in Congress at the senate building.
Hence fourth, the ideology, "what is left of Virgina is what is left of libertarian, is bipartisan, and checks and balances.

Therefore, what is right of libertarian is "Free Rider"(A.k.a the crux of Anarchist philosophy) radical, progressive, green and/or partisan.

You seem to be living in a dream world of your own making.
It's about as ridiculous as claiming it all really still belongs to the British Crown.

On gender equity, and the British . King Charles is in power and my rights to confederation slow fraternal banking in the United kingdom as long as I can stratify the fraternit of banking of the club of my so choosing... Sooo crazy or is Ireland crazy?

This comment has done nothing to change my view.

[InfinityMuse]

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






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.


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

The life that you lived with your wife has been the approved and accepted form of sharing responsibilities that have been accepted by many societies and cultures through the history. But the main issue in that scenario is the female being confined to the home with a limited scope of interactions with the outside world while the male having the privilege of experiencing a relatively adventurous life. IMO, we cannot achieve everything. Some are to be sacrificed. If the woman can accept to be home and look after the kids, she will sacrifice her chance to go out, meet new people, and enjoy. If the female choose what have been sacrificed in the previous scenario, the children will have to bear not being nourished by their mother, and their happiness and development may have to be sacrificed.

First hand experience: I would not be in the position where I am today if my mother did not choose to keep her B.Sc. in Engineering aside, stay home, and look after me.

I think your looking at it to woke

The woman isn't stuck at the house not getting to live life she just has to find a way to live life and meet new people while bringing her kids along , it's not little house on the prairie there's things for people with kids to do these days infact it's kinda the opposite of how you painted it to be because my wife was able to get out and meet people 10x more then I was because I worked about 70hr a week inorder to be able to afford for my wife to stay at home and raise are kid so part of that PRIVILEGE is the sacrifice I made where I had no social life seeing as I left the house at 5:30am and got back home at 9:30pm

I don't know why people these days view kids as such a ball and chain that destroy freedom when their not they are the are continuing and are along for the ride with us

I think the gender dispute about children is systemic. We as determined groups of people have created many types of, essentially, Marxism. Children are absolutely along for the ride. Protector-provider mentality may be an equality or equity of matriarchy. We might respond differently to our children if they are multiples or one, depending on gender, and health and worries. Gender equality is learned in elementary school, understanding of cognition behavior and Dialectic of behavior is one strata of physical education (gym class). The coatapaxi changes when students are introduced to law of sociology on corrections. Ie so many crimes happen within families or neighborhoods. The equity and equality roles change by difinition.

[MAYA EL]

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

The life that you lived with your wife has been the approved and accepted form of sharing responsibilities that have been accepted by many societies and cultures through the history. But the main issue in that scenario is the female being confined to the home with a limited scope of interactions with the outside world while the male having the privilege of experiencing a relatively adventurous life. IMO, we cannot achieve everything. Some are to be sacrificed. If the woman can accept to be home and look after the kids, she will sacrifice her chance to go out, meet new people, and enjoy. If the female choose what have been sacrificed in the previous scenario, the children will have to bear not being nourished by their mother, and their happiness and development may have to be sacrificed.

First hand experience: I would not be in the position where I am today if my mother did not choose to keep her B.Sc. in Engineering aside, stay home, and look after me.

I think your looking at it to woke

The woman isn't stuck at the house not getting to live life she just has to find a way to live life and meet new people while bringing her kids along , it's not little house on the prairie there's things for people with kids to do these days infact it's kinda the opposite of how you painted it to be because my wife was able to get out and meet people 10x more then I was because I worked about 70hr a week inorder to be able to afford for my wife to stay at home and raise are kid so part of that PRIVILEGE is the sacrifice I made where I had no social life seeing as I left the house at 5:30am and got back home at 9:30pm

I don't know why people these days view kids as such a ball and chain that destroy freedom when their not they are the are continuing and are along for the ride with us

I think the gender dispute about children is systemic. We as determined groups of people have created many types of, essentially, Marxism. Children are absolutely along for the ride. Protector-provider mentality may be an equality or equity of matriarchy. We might respond differently to our children if they are multiples or one, depending on gender, and health and worries. Gender equality is learned in elementary school, understanding of cognition behavior and Dialectic of behavior is one strata of physical education (gym class). The coatapaxi changes when students are introduced to law of sociology on corrections. Ie so many crimes happen within families or neighborhoods. The equity and equality roles change by difinition.

I don't think it's so simple to where it can be rendered down to 1 point IE "gym class" although gym class I'm sure has a small part in the situation however I think the problem is different then how your seeing it

You keep saying gender equality as if that claim is accurate and true but I question if it is

The media tells the majority of society what to think and in different degrees it controls the opinion of almost everyone in one way or another
And unfortunately what the media tells the people is never what it seems to be at face value because their is always a hidden motive if not several and that's a fact of life at the moment

So I don't see a unfair world for woman and a playground for men
What I see is a fast evolving society where their are still things left over from a time where things were much more simple and we didn't have a choice when it came to a lot of things and now that we do we are changing that and while doing so their is this puppeteer manipulating people to have the wrong perspective on certain aspects of the past and demonizing masculinity while painting this fake picture wherein women have it unfairly and where it's harder for them to make it in society and that men somehow enjoy making it like that and if we could just fix the inequality then life would be easy but that's all a lie

Life will never NEVER be easy EVER
And empires are built by the hands of men because woman literally are to weak physically to do so many of the jobs that are required to keep a society alive especially in the past when we didn't have technology to help out

That's just how life is and will always be their will always be things that men are better at and things woman are better at and that's not wrong or a bad thing that's just what happens with mammals because of are physiological differences and nothing's bad about that despite the woke lieing to the world saying it is then constantly reminding and showing us this picture of masculinity as the drugged out alcoholic that beats and raips his wife inorder to get you to emotionally invest in their mission .

And woman used to view their job of having and raising the kids as the most important job in the world and being able to have healthy babies was looked at as a blessing from the gods and everybody younger and the older and a prize bride was a fertile one that could have strong children that were helping because women's ability to bring life into this world was honored and viewed as one of the most sacred things in existence and when hey girl started her period for the first time it was considered a celebration and a rite of passage in a womanhood and girls were excited because being able to have kids completed them just like it completes a family and naturally society wouldn't exist without healthy children's unlike today society where the ability to get pregnant is viewed as an nuisance or a negative downside to being a female and basically the entire concept fertility has been neurotically flipped.

[Good_Egg]

Just because the inequality has been removed, it doesn't mean that the disadvantaged are no longer disadvantaged. It means the disadvantaged are no longer disadvantaged by ongoing inequality. The remaining advantage of those who benefitted has not gone away.

First, I think we're talking about a context where women are 50% of the population but hold only 15% of CEO jobs in large private sector companies.

Then there's a question of ends which should logically precede any discussion of means.

Is your idea of justice, the end that you desire:
A) that the process of selecting CEOs should select the best individual for the job, without any gender-related prejudice ?
B) that the process of selecting CEOs should result in the same male/female split amongst appointees as there is among applicants ?
C) that the process of selecting CEOs should lead to a 50:50 split amongst appointees ?

Or is it that you hold a doctrine that A) will automatically lead to C) ?

In a different context, I'm told that something like 95% of those serving prison sentences are male.

Is your idea of justice, the end that you desire:
A) that every criminal case should be judged and sentenced on its merits ?
B) that for any particular crime, the male/female split amongst those given a sentence of imprisonment should be the same as the male/female split of those prosecuted and the male/female split amongst those convicted ?
C) that the process of trial and sentencing should lead to a 50:50 male:female split amongst prisoners ?