Feminism

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Depends on what you mean by the term. All I ask if equal consideration, and decisions about hiring, wages, lifestyle based solely on the merit of a person's individual talent, regardless of gender. I'll never say women are the same as men, but there exists so much difference between two men or two women that gender alone isn't such a big deal to me.

Precisely, when I say no one is equal, I am referring to the totality, whether its across gender, or across individuals.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by patlajan I agree with the equal pay for equal work part completely. However, for example I see way too many female cops around. And that's equal pay for unequal work in my opinion. If the job requires certain physical capabilities I don't think we should go out of our way to create diversity. Same thing with the armed serivces.

But wait, the State has been in the "diversty' industry for some time now, how dare you question the "diversity is our strength" motto.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Then they won't be on the force. Gail Devers could certainly run anybody down.

If you have a pool of candidates who are equal in every respect - which is a little hard to believe given all of the qualities you can look for - then whoever's doing the hiring will just have to go on instinct. It's a necessarily subjective process anyway, unless you choose randomly. The choice needn't be based on gender. As it is, there are labor laws in place that enforce fair hiring standards anyway. All you have to do is remove special considerations, and if everyone is honest, you will have the system I advocate. I suppose you'll need that ERA lotus was speaking of as well.

I am against labor laws, wage laws all these stupid laws that force a non existing reality on you.

[patlajan]

Originally posted by Anonymouse I am against labor laws, wage laws all these stupid laws that force a non existing reality on you.

If the reality is forced then it is real.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by patlajan Diversity IS our strenght, but in some areas it is misguided.

Haha "diversity" is not our strength Mr. eggplant. It is a misonception since the United States is a country of special interests, different political camps and ideologies. Diversity is more of a weakness than a strength since it does not homogenize instead it creates factions, no unity. Ultimately diversity is one of the variables in chaos theory that leads to the break up of empires, whether it was Rome, or Ottoman, or Soviet Union. Diversity is anything but a strength.

Japan is perhaps one of the best examples of cultural homogeneity and how their society has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, the highest literacy rate, gdp, and they are second to none after the U.S.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by patlajan If the reality is forced then it is real.

How is forcing affirmitive action and "equality" real?

Last I checked nothing in our "reality" is equal, instead they force a false reality on you, making you believe there is "equality" or that "affirmitive action" brings equality.

[patlajan]

Originally posted by Anonymouse How is forcing affirmitive action and "equality" real?

Last I checked nothing in our "reality" is equal, instead they force a false reality on you, making you believe there is "equality" or that "affirmitive action" brings equality.

Affirmitive action is not a blanket rule. It is not even a law. In industries where there is a history of inequality is where it is best applied.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by patlajan Affirmitive action is not a blanket rule. It is not even a law. In industries where there is a history of inequality is where it is best applied.

History of inequality? So if Person A is owner of Business A, it is within HIS property rights to hire whomever he wants. If he doesn't want to hire homosexuals, minorities, etc., it is his right, not you nor the State can decide, but alas leave it to "democracy" to decide that.

And yes affirmitive action is a law, it is hiring practices enforced by the State. If you dare go otherwise you will find yourself in a legal setting, in front of a judge.

[patlajan]

Originally posted by Anonymouse History of inequality? So if Person A is owner of Business A, it is within HIS property rights to hire whomever he wants. If he doesn't want to hire homosexuals, minorities, etc., it is his right, not you nor the State can decide, but alas leave it to "democracy" to decide that.

And yes affirmitive action is a law, it is hiring practices enforced by the State. If you dare go otherwise you will find yourself in a legal setting, in front of a judge.

Not if person A is a small business owner. If person A is a corporation with thousands of employees then person A has more social responsibility. To assume that anything is inherently wrong with the ability to work of any of these people is person A's mistake. While person B is historicly disadvataged and will eventualy resort to violence. Thus having economic distributuion among the A's and B's prevents a civil war.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by patlajan Not if person A is a small business owner. If person A is a corporation with thousands of employees then person A has more social responsibility. To assume that anything is inherently wrong with the ability to work of any of these people is person A's mistake. While person B is historicly disadvataged and will eventualy resort to violence. Thus having economic distributuion among the A's and B's prevents a civil war.

Whether Person A is a small business owner or a Corporation owner, the current State says he must hire accordingly. It matters not if it is a corporation or a small business, it is essentially a private company and it is within the property rights of the owner to decide who he wants to hire or not. To think that the corporation as a "social responsibility" is morphing it into a welfare institution that somehow it is OBLIGED to help minorities. That is not so since you are thinking in socialist terms.

If affirmative action is a good thing and recognized as such by illuminated "liberals" of all stripes, why don't we see more voluntary affirmative action? Why don't white, liberal congressmen resign so that a black can be appointed instead? Why doesn't a university dean or Chancellor resign and insist that the job go to a Chicano? Why don't some of these very progressive CEOs hand over their own jobs to minorities? As with most forms of socialistic morality, it's always somebody else who pays the price for the illuminated ones' righteousness. As with everything the State does, all it does is hamper on business and the private enterprise.