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

[Fried 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) ?

From my conversations with Pattern Chaser * it is clear that he does not believe that (A) will inevitably lead to (B) and (C) because if he did then there would be no need advocate for for quotas (or other such policies).

It also seems clear from our conversations that he believes there are other impediments (besides bias) that need to be eliminated in order that (B) and (C) will follow as a natural result of (A).

But it's not clear to me how exactly a quota system will do anything to eliminate those other impediments (unless he believes that the mere fact that (B) and (C) is not the case is it's own impediment), nor is it clear exactly why (B) & (C) are intrinsically desirable (better for women and/or society).

I think what it really comes down to is this:

Advocates of "equality" aim for (A) and hope that (B) and (C) will eventually follow naturally whereas advocates of "equity" aim for (B) and (C) and hope that (A) will eventually follow.

* Of course, this is only my interpretation of Pattern Chaser's arguments and I may well have mischaracterized his position in some ways and if that is the case I apologize.

[Papus79]

Staking the boring and well-trod ground probably but:

Equality is a legal matter and should apply to everyone. Equity though can't be absolute, ie. actual differences in priority need to be allowed for and to do it in the light and practical ways - more support should be given to the critical but non-economic fields such as raising children, childhood education, etc. so that these areas of life are less penalized. Completely ignoring equity we have neoliberalism as a paperclip maximizer, perfect equity OTOH is the whole 'equal in hell' bit.

[InfinityMuse]

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.

In perspective of the "normal inteligencia" I agree or disagree. Comparing the rites of passage to propaganda is a dialectic of your argument. In my opinion, the dialectics of your arguments have either an egalitarian or anti-egalitarian control of the total sum of the philosophy. I would consider your precedence of polemics a degree of self sabotage. Women are experts of segregation and secular women's rights have either strengths or weaknesses comparitive to the Black American political party. This dilemma has much to do for physical education and early childhood development.

Interdisciplinary research in corruption (PDF)

https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/view ... xt=gc_pubs

The link above ∆
Gives a brief catagorical study about corruption and behavior in interdisciplinary. Interdisciplinary and early childhood development are often researched by multitudes of sociological groups or early childhood psychologists, "advocacy/crisis relief", groups. There are very serious repercussions for practitioners who do not allow the peace process. Culturing childhood advocacy, education, development, schools, classes, or secular groups is strictly prohibited. This research can be compared with other research and new ground theory to make inferences apon gender equity and gender equality. I would say it depends on what is most suitable based on projected life goals and/or direction or degree of family relations.

Physical education and growing and changing are mile stones, like rites of passage. Boys may never experience rites of passage untill they find success in the ARMY or from emotional displacement, like pedagogy. NOT the navy, NOT the marines, NOT the air force, NOT the space force, NOT corporations, NOT sports, NOT their girlfriend, NOT their mother or their father. There is nothing like a good dodge ball and hard working lacrimation. Getting called a ***** is only the stench of urine. Urine is only a good mordent if sick or stale. The rest is up the the construct of mind.

I see the intersectional gender equality in your argument. In total, I am frustrated because I feel like I am analyzing case law to the degree of ratifying the future of judicial policy making. In whole, of the act of theater, each court house only has the opinion of judgment of just cause for only one most simplistic engagement at a time. The will of the judge is an important remark in each case. The Idea of Physical Education is only ONE comparison to the act of gender equality or gender equity per diem.

[Pattern-chaser]

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) ?

The end that I desire is A), but in the context of a 'level playing field', where all are able to compete without disadvantages placed upon them due to their race, gender, creed, etc. My suggestions aim to achieve this, by ensuring that historic inequalities, and their residual effects, are no longer significant disadvantages to any person.

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 ?

A).

Even the 'law' should only operate as a guideline, allowing the courts to enact justice, not merely 'enforce the law'. N.B. Justice for all: the accused, the victim, their families and friends, the general population —all.

[Fried 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) ?

The end that I desire is A), but in the context of a 'level playing field', where all are able to compete without disadvantages placed upon them due to their race, gender, creed, etc. My suggestions aim to achieve this, by ensuring that historic inequalities, and their residual effects, are no longer significant disadvantages to any person.

Talk about doublethink in action - you claim that you aspire to end discrimination and yet you are quite happy to use discrimination to eliminate the "residual effects" of "historic inequality". Talk about fighting fire with fire.

And yet you have not been clear what exactly these residual effects are that you refer to, nor been clear about how they are harmful, nor clear about what your suggestions are that would remedy them. You've merely hinted and left us to guess at what you really mean.

Earlier in this thread you stated:

I would say that the second, temporary, 'wrong' helps to balance, and compensate for, the much longer-term historic 'wrong'.

But how exactly does one wrong help "balance" or "compensate" for historic wrongs? Besides satisfying a desire for revenge (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth), how does this "level the playing field"? You assume that a short, temporary period of "wrong" will eventually level the playing field without any concrete notion of how we would even measure or quantify this (or really know when this temporary measure can come to an end)?

Furthermore you don't even acknowledge that this "temporary" period of discrimination might cause resentment and lead to new waves of discrimination and misogyny that wouldn't have otherwise arisen.

Positive/reverse discrimination is a small help in redressing the historic balance.

How does it help remove those residual effects of historic discrimination? It's like you believe that a historic wrong can (and should) be balanced by a period of future wrong, But I would argue that if you don't stop the pendulum swinging, and insist that it swings to the right after a period of swinging left, it will only end up swinging left again. The cycle will never end.

Because of the accumulated advantage that benefits the, er, beneficiaries of discrimination. There is a historical 'reservoir' of advantage that the victims of discrimination must still overcome, and this constitutes a continuing inequality if nothing is done about it.

Again, you make only vague reference to what this "accumulated advantage" really is and how people now are benefitting from it.

That a few individuals suffer is undesirable, but not a good reason not to implement a solution that is otherwise fair and just.

Setting aside the question as to exactly what you are referring to (I will assume you refer generally to the concept of "reverse" discrimination) but you have not made clear how it can be considered "fair and just" outside of the notion of revenge. i.e. women suffered so much in the past so it is only fair that we make men suffer for it now.

I put it to you that you ending discrimination is not the ultimate end that those that pursue equity. As soon as institutional discrimination started getting rolled back and they noticed that statistical disparities persisted even in its absence, as soon as they started being willing to use discrimination as a tool to resolve these statistical disparities, it became clear that they never really cared about discrimination. Equal outcomes were the goal, not equal opportunity. And the refusal to admit it is evidence of their doublethink.

[MAYA EL]

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.

In perspective of the "normal inteligencia" I agree or disagree. Comparing the rites of passage to propaganda is a dialectic of your argument. In my opinion, the dialectics of your arguments have either an egalitarian or anti-egalitarian control of the total sum of the philosophy. I would consider your precedence of polemics a degree of self sabotage. Women are experts of segregation and secular women's rights have either strengths or weaknesses comparitive to the Black American political party. This dilemma has much to do for physical education and early childhood development.

Interdisciplinary research in corruption (PDF)

https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/view ... xt=gc_pubs

The link above ∆
Gives a brief catagorical study about corruption and behavior in interdisciplinary. Interdisciplinary and early childhood development are often researched by multitudes of sociological groups or early childhood psychologists, "advocacy/crisis relief", groups. There are very serious repercussions for practitioners who do not allow the peace process. Culturing childhood advocacy, education, development, schools, classes, or secular groups is strictly prohibited. This research can be compared with other research and new ground theory to make inferences apon gender equity and gender equality. I would say it depends on what is most suitable based on projected life goals and/or direction or degree of family relations.

Physical education and growing and changing are mile stones, like rites of passage. Boys may never experience rites of passage untill they find success in the ARMY or from emotional displacement, like pedagogy. NOT the navy, NOT the marines, NOT the air force, NOT the space force, NOT corporations, NOT sports, NOT their girlfriend, NOT their mother or their father. There is nothing like a good dodge ball and hard working lacrimation. Getting called a ***** is only the stench of urine. Urine is only a good mordent if sick or stale. The rest is up the the construct of mind.

I see the intersectional gender equality in your argument. In total, I am frustrated because I feel like I am analyzing case law to the degree of ratifying the future of judicial policy making. In whole, of the act of theater, each court house only has the opinion of judgment of just cause for only one most simplistic engagement at a time. The will of the judge is an important remark in each case. The Idea of Physical Education is only ONE comparison to the act of gender equality or gender equity per diem.

Do you feel that there is such a thing as gender equality? And if so do you think it can be obtained? And do you agree or disagree with me when I said that do to the limitations of technology and the lack of birth control there weren't any other practical options other then the standard house wife and working man type living?

And if yes to the first one then why do you view the past as not being fair to woman instead of viewing it as just the pattern of biological mammals?
I mean if we look into the past we see that every war killed men or al least 99% were men

Other then the woman hating alcoholic concept that keeps being used as the reason for gender equality I don't see any

Yes their are men that treat woman bad
But not every man

And their are woman that treat men bad too

If you want to talk about the inequality of genders just look at how the courts favor the woman over the man no one can say that not a real thing

And I've never had a job that was discriminate in a bad way twords woman
Yes they discriminated but you have to do so with logical wisdom

Example being if we had an office job available 9x out of 10 they would pick a woman for the job because it's not back breaking labor and woman can organize better then men can so there usually better for the job and when a position on the floor was available we only took applications from men because it was to labor intensive for any woman to do they would destroy their body in no time if they could even complete the job at all so we gave that spot to the physically best fit man

Because it's just common sense

[InfinityMuse]

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.

In perspective of the "normal inteligencia" I agree or disagree. Comparing the rites of passage to propaganda is a dialectic of your argument. In my opinion, the dialectics of your arguments have either an egalitarian or anti-egalitarian control of the total sum of the philosophy. I would consider your precedence of polemics a degree of self sabotage. Women are experts of segregation and secular women's rights have either strengths or weaknesses comparitive to the Black American political party. This dilemma has much to do for physical education and early childhood development.

The link above ∆
Gives a brief catagorical study about corruption and behavior in interdisciplinary. Interdisciplinary and early childhood development are often researched by multitudes of sociological groups or early childhood psychologists, "advocacy/crisis relief", groups. There are very serious repercussions for practitioners who do not allow the peace process. Culturing childhood advocacy, education, development, schools, classes, or secular groups is strictly prohibited. This research can be compared with other research and new ground theory to make inferences apon gender equity and gender equality. I would say it depends on what is most suitable based on projected life goals and/or direction or degree of family relations.

Physical education and growing and changing are mile stones, like rites of passage. Boys may never experience rites of passage untill they find success in the ARMY or from emotional displacement, like pedagogy. NOT the navy, NOT the marines, NOT the air force, NOT the space force, NOT corporations, NOT sports, NOT their girlfriend, NOT their mother or their father. There is nothing like a good dodge ball and hard working lacrimation. Getting called a ***** is only the stench of urine. Urine is only a good mordent if sick or stale. The rest is up the the construct of mind.

I see the intersectional gender equality in your argument. In total, I am frustrated because I feel like I am analyzing case law to the degree of ratifying the future of judicial policy making. In whole, of the act of theater, each court house only has the opinion of judgment of just cause for only one most simplistic engagement at a time. The will of the judge is an important remark in each case. The Idea of Physical Education is only ONE comparison to the act of gender equality or gender equity per diem.

Do you feel that there is such a thing as gender equality? And if so do you think it can be obtained? And do you agree or disagree with me when I said that do to the limitations of technology and the lack of birth control there weren't any other practical options other then the standard house wife and working man type living?

And if yes to the first one then why do you view the past as not being fair to woman instead of viewing it as just the pattern of biological mammals?
I mean if we look into the past we see that every war killed men or al least 99% were men

Other then the woman hating alcoholic concept that keeps being used as the reason for gender equality I don't see any

Yes their are men that treat woman bad
But not every man

And their are woman that treat men bad too

If you want to talk about the inequality of genders just look at how the courts favor the woman over the man no one can say that not a real thing

And I've never had a job that was discriminate in a bad way twords woman
Yes they discriminated but you have to do so with logical wisdom

Example being if we had an office job available 9x out of 10 they would pick a woman for the job because it's not back breaking labor and woman can organize better then men can so there usually better for the job and when a position on the floor was available we only took applications from men because it was to labor intensive for any woman to do they would destroy their body in no time if they could even complete the job at all so we gave that spot to the physically best fit man

Because it's just common sense

I need not explain the contrastivism of your argument. I will not answer your question. Please try again.

[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.

I think we're struggling with language here. If A) (appointment on merit) is the aim, then inequality of opportunity between current applicants is the problem. If there is no ongoing inequality, then there is no problem - the desired end-state is achieved.

Sure, any appointees under previous systems may still be in place. So what ?

You may of course argue that despite the best efforts of those involved, despite company equal-opportunity policies, that some lingering residue of past prejudices remains.

That may be the case. One can imagine a female candidate in the boardroom, looking up at the portraits of all the (white male) past presidents of the corporation, and feeling that being seen as presidential is more difficult for her because of her gender. Feeling that she has to be much better qualified than a man would be. I get all that.

But describing it as a disadvantage that is distinct from inequality seems to muddy rather than clarify.

Such residual prejudice from a past that was different is unjust to the individuals experiencing it. But deliberately introducing a reverse prejudice is being more unjust today in the vague hope that it will make life more just tomorrow.

In the prison context, would you impose harsher sentences on convicted women today, just for being women ? Be unjust to this generation in the hope of changing the culture so that women are seen as being as likely to be criminal as men in the next generation ?

[Mounce574]

I am for gender equality, however, I tend to lean more toward traditionalist values. I think women should be able to choose whatever career they want and whether they want to raise children. I will admit that it was easier, and financially cheaper, for me to stay at home when I had my 4 children. I have a degree in Veterinary Technology, but my ex-husband's job earned more than mine.
Many wars were actually started by women as leaders- the Spartans are a prime example of this

[Pattern-chaser]

Talk about doublethink in action - you claim that you aspire to end discrimination and yet you are quite happy to use discrimination to eliminate the "residual effects" of "historic inequality". Talk about fighting fire with fire.

What I've suggested is not difficult to understand. A temporary boost for women, once equality is actually in place, allows them to catch up to the men who have benefitted from inequality for so very many centuries. Look back to the beginning of that last sentence: the 2nd word is "temporary".

It's almost equivalent to training wheels on a bicycle. They're not required for long, only while you learn to balance. Using this analogy — which won't stretch too far, I admit — the men have been able to ride bikes for a long time, but the women never had the chance. It does not create equality if you just allow women to own bicycles. They need to catch up, which in this case means learning to ride. Once that has been achieved, matters are properly equal, and can be determined by merit and competition. This isn't 'rocket science'.

[Fried Egg]

Talk about doublethink in action - you claim that you aspire to end discrimination and yet you are quite happy to use discrimination to eliminate the "residual effects" of "historic inequality". Talk about fighting fire with fire.

It's almost equivalent to training wheels on a bicycle. They're not required for long, only while you learn to balance. Using this analogy — which won't stretch too far, I admit — the men have been able to ride bikes for a long time, but the women never had the chance.

Indeed, you analogy is terrible. You are not just giving women training wheels, you are sabotaging the men's bikes at the same time.

It does not create equality if you just allow women to own bicycles.

Yes, it does create equality. i.e. equal opportunity. What it doesn't create (not immediately anyway) are equal outcomes. i.e. equity.

They need to catch up, which in this case means learning to ride. Once that has been achieved, matters are properly equal, and can be determined by merit and competition. This isn't 'rocket science'.

Why do they need to catch up? Why are equal outcomes so important?

Furthermore, I put it to you that you will never know when it has been achieved, because you have no clear idea as to what "it" is, know way of measuring (besides observing statistical disparity) and you would always be afraid that if you abolished your quotas that these imbalances would creep back in.

Let me put it this way, if you are convinced that in a truly meritocratic society that there would be a 50/50 split between woman and men CEO's. If it were observed that there was not a 50/50 split between men and women, QED, there must be some form of imbalances in place preventing there being a 50/50 split. There is no point in removing a quota is it would serve to automatically "fix" any tendency to deviate from a 50/50 split.

Anyhow, whether or not it would be temporary, it's kind of besides the point. If you believe institutional discrimination is wrong, whether or not it is temporary doesn't make any difference.

[MAYA EL]

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.

In perspective of the "normal inteligencia" I agree or disagree. Comparing the rites of passage to propaganda is a dialectic of your argument. In my opinion, the dialectics of your arguments have either an egalitarian or anti-egalitarian control of the total sum of the philosophy. I would consider your precedence of polemics a degree of self sabotage. Women are experts of segregation and secular women's rights have either strengths or weaknesses comparitive to the Black American political party. This dilemma has much to do for physical education and early childhood development.

The link above ∆
Gives a brief catagorical study about corruption and behavior in interdisciplinary. Interdisciplinary and early childhood development are often researched by multitudes of sociological groups or early childhood psychologists, "advocacy/crisis relief", groups. There are very serious repercussions for practitioners who do not allow the peace process. Culturing childhood advocacy, education, development, schools, classes, or secular groups is strictly prohibited. This research can be compared with other research and new ground theory to make inferences apon gender equity and gender equality. I would say it depends on what is most suitable based on projected life goals and/or direction or degree of family relations.

Physical education and growing and changing are mile stones, like rites of passage. Boys may never experience rites of passage untill they find success in the ARMY or from emotional displacement, like pedagogy. NOT the navy, NOT the marines, NOT the air force, NOT the space force, NOT corporations, NOT sports, NOT their girlfriend, NOT their mother or their father. There is nothing like a good dodge ball and hard working lacrimation. Getting called a ***** is only the stench of urine. Urine is only a good mordent if sick or stale. The rest is up the the construct of mind.

I see the intersectional gender equality in your argument. In total, I am frustrated because I feel like I am analyzing case law to the degree of ratifying the future of judicial policy making. In whole, of the act of theater, each court house only has the opinion of judgment of just cause for only one most simplistic engagement at a time. The will of the judge is an important remark in each case. The Idea of Physical Education is only ONE comparison to the act of gender equality or gender equity per diem.

Do you feel that there is such a thing as gender equality? And if so do you think it can be obtained? And do you agree or disagree with me when I said that do to the limitations of technology and the lack of birth control there weren't any other practical options other then the standard house wife and working man type living?

And if yes to the first one then why do you view the past as not being fair to woman instead of viewing it as just the pattern of biological mammals?
I mean if we look into the past we see that every war killed men or al least 99% were men

Other then the woman hating alcoholic concept that keeps being used as the reason for gender equality I don't see any

Yes their are men that treat woman bad
But not every man

And their are woman that treat men bad too

If you want to talk about the inequality of genders just look at how the courts favor the woman over the man no one can say that not a real thing

And I've never had a job that was discriminate in a bad way twords woman
Yes they discriminated but you have to do so with logical wisdom

Example being if we had an office job available 9x out of 10 they would pick a woman for the job because it's not back breaking labor and woman can organize better then men can so there usually better for the job and when a position on the floor was available we only took applications from men because it was to labor intensive for any woman to do they would destroy their body in no time if they could even complete the job at all so we gave that spot to the physically best fit man

Because it's just common sense

I need not explain the contrastivism of your argument. I will not answer your question. Please try again.

excuse me? please try and answer my question i don't quite understand what you mean but i doubt you didn't understand what I said, now if you want to talk to someone that talks just like you and doesn't ask you any hard questions then i recommend you go find a mirror because i won't change my entire post because you don't like it's grow up kid your going to always meet people that don't talk the way you like and don't see eye to eye with you .

see this is one of the big problems in today's youth is they think the world needs to form to fit them as if they are the correct everything when in reality they need to learn to learn to deal with differences because they would have a cow if someone tried to make them be the one to change OMG heaven forbid that .

[MAYA EL]

Talk about doublethink in action - you claim that you aspire to end discrimination and yet you are quite happy to use discrimination to eliminate the "residual effects" of "historic inequality". Talk about fighting fire with fire.

What I've suggested is not difficult to understand. A temporary boost for women, once equality is actually in place, allows them to catch up to the men who have benefitted from inequality for so very many centuries. Look back to the beginning of that last sentence: the 2nd word is "temporary".

It's almost equivalent to training wheels on a bicycle. They're not required for long, only while you learn to balance. Using this analogy — which won't stretch too far, I admit — the men have been able to ride bikes for a long time, but the women never had the chance. It does not create equality if you just allow women to own bicycles. They need to catch up, which in this case means learning to ride. Once that has been achieved, matters are properly equal, and can be determined by merit and competition. This isn't 'rocket science'.

catch up to men? are you kidding? there is no catching up to be made society has been evolving and at one time the woman had no choice but to stay home because there was no birth control and hardly any jobs that a woman could safely do i mean your view is about as nonsensical as me saying history has shown how unfair it is that man hasn't been aloud to stay home and be there with the babies 24hrs a day 7 days a week during those presses bonding months and years how dare woman hog the kids like that and make the man go break his back and risk his life out their in the world and job force having fun having a blast partying cracking jokes about how there wife got fat and can't leave the house because she wants to hog the kids..


see how insane that sounds?

[MAYA EL]

im not sure when exactly parents stoped teaching kids this important life fact but they most definitely stoped and that fact is that life's not fair and life's complicated so suck it up it will always be hard and their will always be someone with a better advantage then you in some kind of way so suck it up and give it 100% of your effort because nobody owes you anything in life

[Pattern-chaser]

Talk about doublethink in action - you claim that you aspire to end discrimination and yet you are quite happy to use discrimination to eliminate the "residual effects" of "historic inequality". Talk about fighting fire with fire.

What I've suggested is not difficult to understand. A temporary boost for women, once equality is actually in place, allows them to catch up to the men who have benefitted from inequality for so very many centuries. Look back to the beginning of that last sentence: the 2nd word is "temporary".

It's almost equivalent to training wheels on a bicycle. They're not required for long, only while you learn to balance. Using this analogy — which won't stretch too far, I admit — the men have been able to ride bikes for a long time, but the women never had the chance. It does not create equality if you just allow women to own bicycles. They need to catch up, which in this case means learning to ride. Once that has been achieved, matters are properly equal, and can be determined by merit and competition. This isn't 'rocket science'.

catch up to men? are you kidding? there is no catching up to be made

No, I'm not kidding. Equality is just that: a 'level playing field'. And if men are in all the positions of power and privilege, because of a historical denial of women's rights, if men are educated, have the vote, are able to own property, and so on, then simply introducing equality is insufficient to make things right. A brief period of catching-up is in order, so that there really is a 'level playing field' on which all can compete equally.

society has been evolving

Yes, the recognition of inequality, and consequent moves toward equality, are part of that.

and at one time the woman had no choice but to stay home because there was no birth control and hardly any jobs that a woman could safely do...

...except for all the jobs they have historically done? Childcare is only one of them. In a hunter-gatherer society, women gather while men hunt. Women have been 'gainfully employed' throughout the history of our species, doing at least as much as men, but doing different things, because in the end, all of those things needed doing. It is a nonsense that women did no work, and another nonsense that women took their leisure at home while men did the work.