• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Why can't we hate men?"

phiwum said:
I'm not. I think women should have more representation, but not by implementing a quota system.

Such an idea is remarkably undemocratic.
Click to expand...

Right now we have age limits on who can serve as President (35), Senator (30), and Representative (25). Are those age-based limitations similarly undemocratic?
 
d4m10n said:
I'm just going to have to disagree here. Seems quite likely to me that those interested in equal rights are also interested in equal representation.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that? You can believe in neither, but you can't actually believe in both without contradiction. Equality of opportunity does not produce equality of outcome, and the only way to produce equality of outcome is to deny equality of opportunity.
 
Ziggurat said:
Equality of opportunity does not produce equality of outcome, and the only way to produce equality of outcome is to deny equality of opportunity.
Click to expand...

How exactly would one male and one female Senator per state make political opportunity less equal rather than more so?

ETA: What metric are you using here to quantify opportunity?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
How exactly would one male and one female Senator per state make opportunity less equal rather than more so?
Click to expand...

Some people would be prohibited from being elected based not on their talents but on their sex. That is not equal opportunity.
 
d4m10n said:
Right now we have age limits on who can serve as President (35), Senator (30), and Representative (25). Are those age-based limitations similarly undemocratic?
Click to expand...
To some small extent, yes, but these apply to all, regardless of gender or heritage.
 
Ziggurat said:
Whoever was not elected but would have been absent the quota.

In California, probably Barbara Boxer.
Click to expand...

In the system I am envisioning, quite a few incumbents would have to go.

You may see this as more of a bug than a feature, but I do not.

(ETA: They could run again in two to six years, of course.)
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
How exactly would one male and one female Senator per state make political opportunity less equal rather than more so?

ETA: What metric are you using here to quantify opportunity?
Click to expand...

When there are 2 female candidates that are both more qualified than the male that now has to be there.

I want qualified people, not mandated penis.
 
d4m10n said:
In the system I am envisioning, quite a few incumbents would have to go.

You may see this as more of a bug than a feature, but I do not.

(ETA: They could run again in two to six years, of course.)
Click to expand...

Some would call it retarding political effectiveness. I am one of those people.
 
d4m10n said:
In the system I am envisioning, quite a few incumbents would have to go.

You may see this as more of a bug than a feature, but I do not.

(ETA: They could run again in two to six years, of course.)
Click to expand...

Whether it's a bug or a feature, what it is not is equal opportunity.
 
sadhatter said:
I agree you don't like the word atonement, but that is what you are promoting.

You are asking me to modify my actions based upon the actions of other people that bear a similarity to me. Because they ********** up for so long you feel I have to take actions to remedy this. This is your position , plain and simple. If for thousands of years men didn't treat women like property you wouldn't feel I need to take these actions.
Click to expand...

Still not my position. You seem to be mixing me up with others in this thread.

I'm sorry but I'm not an ambassador from planet male, I will take zero blame for the actions of anyone but myself or those I give orders to. And I will interact with people based on the content of their character , my actions in regards to voting, media, personal decisions will be motivated by my own qualitative research, not trying to play catch up for thousands of years oppression I have nothing to do with.

Asking me to modify my actions had to come with a pretty specific and logical reason. "Because it makes you a good person" isn't good enough, as "good person" changes drastically with time, person and culture. To go any further you need to explain why this would make me a good person and the answer has to be "due to thousands of years of male oppression" for your position to make sense. And I simply will not modify my actions based on the actions of idiots I oppose now and would have opposed then.
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm talking about common decency. Continuing misogony is not common decency. Treating women as equals is.

I'm not doing it to remedy anything or to be "a good person". I'm doing it because that's the way I treat all fellow humans. With decency.

But that seems to be asking too much of you.
 
d4m10n said:
You sincerely believe that a legislative body with 27 fewer men would be retarded, relative to the one we have now?
Click to expand...

It could have 54 fewer men if the candidates were strong enough. Under your system that could never happen. So yes by the very definition of retarding progress to equality and political effectiveness it is retarding progress to equality and political effectiveness you are not giving women anything approaching a fair chance.

You are making sure if a majority female government would be the most effective that will never happen. Just file this idea under sounded better in your head.

I'll not even get into how being the question the post was.
 
erlando said:
Still not my position. You seem to be mixing me up with others in this thread.



Nope. I'm talking about common decency. Continuing misogony is not common decency. Treating women as equals is.

I'm not doing it to remedy anything or to be "a good person". I'm doing it because that's the way I treat all fellow humans. With decency.

But that seems to be asking too much of you.
Click to expand...

I don't see any misogony in his post
 
Ziggurat said:
Whether it's a bug or a feature, what it is not is equal opportunity.
Click to expand...

All qualifications for office restrict opportunity. We think wisdom is important in a president, so young people need not apply. Same with presidents who want to serve more than two terms.

Should gender be a qualification? Presently, no. Women have made great strides and legislating their equal representation would be counter-productive. But it doesn't seem to me that because quotas would deprive some people of opportunities, they should be automatically rejected. Like every qualification we have for office, qualification based on gender would have to be argued for. I can only imagine going that route if we saw ourselves headed into some weird Handmaid's Tale reality.
 
Roboramma said:
Yes. It would be interesting if anyone has more reliably reported statistics of CEO or executives' working hours. I've seen some statistics in presentations on youtube before which were in line with those quoted in the article, but if anyone has something better to present I'd be interested.

I can see a possible bias in the reporting (maybe they are exaggerating how many hours they work), but I think it would be hard to exaggerate your way into an extra ten hours/week without deliberate dishonesty and I don't really think there's a motivation for that. It's just a survey, it's not like these numbers are taken from someone's autobiography, and I think the surveys were done in real time (rather than compiled weeks or months after the fact from memory).
Click to expand...
Well a CEO will review the newspaper in a morning, you and I simply read the paper!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom