Fox hastings seems to believe she should be compensated for what may or may not have happened hundreds of years ago before anyone alive today was even born. As an equalitarian I don't believe anyone should be compensated for what may or may not have happened to other people hundreds of years ago before anyone alive today was born.
Women are the victims of a society that is still shrugging off the last vestages of institutional patriarchy. We've come a long way and we have comparitively a short way to go, but the going is slow. The problem is that the victim mentality is not conducive to equality. I agree with the OPs general sentiment that modern feminism seeks to elevate women synthetically by making the world more hospitable to them than men. This is the result of treating women like the victims that they are. The victim mentality must be abandonned (regardless whether its warranted or not) for full equality to be acheived. While its important for men to do their part to treat women as equals, women have to BE equals as well, or else the entire movement is a farce and thus doomed to failure. You can't be an equal while getting special treatment in compensation for being victimized. The dynamics OP mentions within the justice and education system for examples are problems that block the progress of inequality, and the emotional response to OPs (admittedly insensitive) method of calling attention to them is a problem as well.
I bet you really think you are an equalitarian... And I do have to laugh when you put down liberals(not equal to you I guess, ) for psychoanalyzing and then you do just that with feminists..I love when men tell feminists what they believe..soon you'll say I have penis envy I believe people should be accountable for their actions also and patriarchy has kept women down and now you "equalitarianists" are pissed off because women are making it harder for you. You actually have to compete with 50% more people than you had to in the past. I am glad to hear that you are not fond of the supremacists...how nice of you
As an Equalitarian, I simply believe inequalities are wrong when those inequalities are the result of discrimination, regardless of race and gender. When inequalities are the result of something other than discrimination such as, say, choice, as in the wage gap, or biology, as in, say, not being able to qualify for jobs requiring strength, equalitarians do not believe those inequalities are wrong. We believe they just are. And equalitarianism is different than egalitarianism in that there are other kinds of egalitarianism other than race and gender egalitarianism such as, say, economic egalitarianism and equalitarians do not believe in manufacturing equal outcomes like egalitarians. Equalitarians believe in equity.
I'm neither a liberal, nor a conservative. I'm a member of the, "reasonable," party. We're like liberals and conservatives, only reasonable. And I don't mind competing with women for opportunities as long as the candidates for those opportunities are chosen based on merit, not race and gender. If women are preferred 2 to 1 over identically qualified male candidates in an industry then that is not an indication of discrimination against women. If anything, that is and indication of discrimination against men
Dude, you're mincing words. Equal work, equal pay. Equality isn't about giving "special benefits" to some and not others regardless of reason. You and the LWers are all about everything but equality.
LOL.. I joke that Liberals accuse me of being a Conservative and Conservatives accuse me of being a Liberal, often times on the same issue and that has happened right here, in this very thread-lol. A Liberal accusing me of being a Conservative and a Conservative accusing me of being a Liberal means I'm exactly where I want to be, so thank you. That's what being a member of the, "Reasonable" party is all about-simply being reasonable-lol.
I didn't call you a liberal. I said the liberals give the same argument on "some are more equal than others".
And I never said they were responsible ....you're making up things because you are so wrong and have nothing to go on but your imaginary history and misogyny.
Uh, you're not a liberal because some dope thinks liberals don't believe in equality.. ..you are definitely of the political party ""conservative/misogynist."""
None. The LWers want to give them special benefits and people like @ryobi imagine they already have special benefits. The problem is that there are still social limits for women. Nothing in law, just "the way it's always been". Of course that doesn't make it right and isn't right. The LWers want to use force of law to put the shoe on the other foot, but that is an attempt to use two wrongs to make a right. People like ryobi clamor because they can see the LW wrong coming, but refuse to acknowledge there is a wrong in the first place.
You realize you said nothing. We don't want the shoe on the other foot. We don't want to deny men equal pay. We want both shoes on both feet. That's equal. Try addressing the issue rather than speak in hyperbole. What do we want to deny men? Do we want to deny them access to the best colleges? do we want to deny them athletic scholarships? Now you have to share those white male rights.
Why are you so abscessed with identity politics? Some women want to do the work traditionally done by men and if the can perform equally (without time off for pms) they should get paid equally. In fact, it would be in the employers best interest to do so. Other women are more of the "nurturer type" and want more time with family. Some men are that way. Part time pays less....it's just a natural fact. Of course perhaps you think only of "government or union employment". That is a whole different realm bordering on the pretext of Marxism in nature where everyone gets paid beyond their performance regardless of how they perform.
You are the one who seems obsessed with identity politics... women are free to do whatever they want....but we should be paid the same as men for the same or comparable work. It's easy for,you to give lip service to the obvious but look what's going on with the discrimination against women in the tech industry. I agree women have been socialized to be nurturers. And you say men are too and I agree, but yet they're not respected if they are stay at home dads dependent on their wives. I think you believe women don't perform as well as men thus your last sentence. Who the hell ever said someone should get the same pay for work they can't do? What's with "Marxism"? You created a fake scenario and took off with it and using a false and silly hypothetical.
Then Answer the questions rather than metaphors. What special privileges do women have? Ps I'm older than you...so respect an old lady (but very smart, not to mention gorgeous lol)
Yes, but can you back up any claim like """The LWers want to give them special benefits""" or is that just something you heard a rightie say? ...and BTW, sometimes laws(force) are necessary to protect women's rights when there can be such nasty opposition to them....women waited until the 20th century (the 20th century!!!!!!!!!!!) to vote and a law had to be passed to "allow" women to have a right they should've had all along.
Yes: Why "women's rights"? Why not just apply the 14th Amendment and protect everyone's rights? Why the special treatment? FYI, women had the vote in some states before the 19th Amendment. Contrary to your post, there's a difference between protecting the rights of all and giving special focus on the rights of a single group.