"Why can't we hate men?"

[pharphis]

It is a good thing that de jure discrimination was ended.

But are you claiming de facto discrimination doesn't exist? Do you think the attitudes behind those practices we forbade haven't lingered on? Because if discrimination still does exist, and a lot of people still operate in a racist/sexist mindset, we have a serious problem.

Of course that's not what I'm claiming. Discrimination does exist and against all groups to varying degrees in public and private. I still hold that that is irrelevant to the point that elected officials share their policy positions, people vote based on those positions. Are you saying there are NO politicians who share your view on a topic? That may be the case. Almost certainly no politicians agree with all of your views, and there's always the problem of idealism vs pragmatism when it comes to enacting changes...

How does "more people in group x" solve this problem?

 

[cullennz]

Of course that's not what I'm claiming. Discrimination does exist and against all groups to varying degrees in public and private. I still hold that that is irrelevant to the point that elected officials share their policy positions, people vote based on those positions. Are you saying there are NO politicians who share your view on a topic? That may be the case. Almost certainly no politicians agree with all of your views, and there's always the problem of idealism vs pragmatism when it comes to enacting changes...

How does "more people in group x" solve this problem?

There are also plenty of mysoginistic women

So you would have to weed them out if of people are talking quotas

 

[Roboramma]

One other thing: If "superficial" characteristics like skin color and having a vagina or not was the difference between whether you can vote, or be owned by someone else, or drink at a certain fountain, or sit where you want on a bus, or go to a decent school, they're not so "superficial", are they?

It's exactly because those are superficial characteristics that those things you list are so unjust.

 

[Fudbucker]

It's exactly because those are superficial characteristics that those things you list are so unjust.

Yes, there is no debate that those characteristics should be superficial. They obviously should. The reality, unfortunately, is that to a lot of people, they're extremely significant.

 

[Roboramma]

Now you're adding qualifiers. But it still doesn't change the fact that stupid people have life experiences that smart people do not have and often do not understand.

Should we, for instance, institute quotas based on which university candidates attended? I suspect that ivy league graduates are over-represented in congress. The life experiences of people going to ivy league schools are different from those of people going to lower tier colleges. Aren't those life experiences valuable to democracy?

Personally I think that to the extent that that might be true, we should vote for those candidates whose life experience might add value to the political process, rather than supposing that we can figure out ahead of time what that balance should be. That also sounds a lot more democratic to me than some top down imposition of who we think really represents people.

When it comes to discrimination there is a real problem of wasted human capital. There are some reasons to believe that some part of the discrepancy between men and women in politics and business is due to biases in the system (both discrimination against women and environments that more negatively affect women than men). To what extent this problem affects outcomes I don't know, but there is evidence that is greater than zero. That's not good, and I very much support attempts to identify discrimination where it exists and remove it as much as possible.

But that's just it. We should attack the actual specific problems, not make some a priori judgement about the outcome (50/50 split for instance) and try to impose that from the top down. That will neither eliminate the specific instances of discrimination nor ensure that we maximize either justice or the efficient use of human capital.

 

[Roboramma]

Yes, there is no debate that those characteristics should be superficial. They obviously should. The reality, unfortunately, is that to a lot of people, they're extremely significant.

And your ideas make them more significant, not less.

 

[TomB]

How exactly would this quota thing work?

Take the senate, because it's simple. There are fifty districts (states) each represented by two senators. So each state has to elect one male and one female senator?

OK, but why just sex?

According to Wikipedia (cuz I'm lazy) the racial breakup of America includes:

White: 62%
African American 12.6% (I thought this was larger.)
Hispanic 17.3%
Asian 5.2%

So by the same logic, shouldn't the senatge be:

31 White males
31 white females
7 African males
7 African females
8 Hispanic males
8 hispanic females
3 Asian males
3 Asian females

So...in which districts (states) should white people be represented? in which should asians be represented? (And this still excludes Native Americans and other races.)

The house is even worse. Each district is assigned one representative. So if district A elects a male that means district B must elect a female?

Unless you are proposing to do away with districts all together and make every representative at large. Then we would need a quota for urban/rural as well so that all the representatives did not come from large urban centers like New York, Chicago or LA.

I don't see a way to do a workable quota system that is actually fair.

I would love to see more women and non-whites in office, but I want it to be because their ideas appeal to the people in their constituencies, not because of their demographics.

 

[d4m10n]

How exactly would this quota thing work?

Take the senate, because it's simple. There are fifty districts (states) each represented by two senators. So each state has to elect one male and one female senator?

OK, but why just sex?

Because sexual equality is the lowest hanging fruit, obviously. Also 50/50 is easy math. Also the ERA was an actual thing.

I don't see a way to do a workable quota system that is actually fair.

No system is perfectly fair, some are less unfair than others.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't care about the explanation, I care about what your answer is. You're having trouble providing one. Why is that?

I don't accept the premise of the question.

You don't have insufficient data because I was talking about THIS country.

But that's not the case in this country, so it's not actually this country you're talking about. Your hypothetical might resemble this country, but it must be different in some unspecified ways to produce different results.

That's the second time I've brought up sexual harassment on Capital Hill in this thread. And your sentiments are applauded, but here's my problem with men as a whole: why did we tolerate a publicly-funded sexual harassment account for Congressmen?

Who is this "we" you keep talking about? I never tolerated any such thing.

There's a problem with men.

If you want to talk about groups, well, there's a problem with humans. I prefer to deal with individuals whenever possible.

One other thing: If "superficial" characteristics like skin color and having a vagina or not was the difference between whether you can vote, or be owned by someone else, or drink at a certain fountain, or sit where you want on a bus, or go to a decent school, they're not so "superficial", are they?

"Superficial" doesn't have to mean insignificant. Its primary definition is being at the surface. And yes, no matter how consequential skin color is, it is absolutely superficial.

 

[Tony]

Yes, there is no debate that those characteristics should be superficial. They obviously should. The reality, unfortunately, is that to a lot of people, they're extremely significant.

People like you. It’s telling that you have the same world view as racists and sexists.

 

[Fudbucker]

People like you. It’s telling that you have the same world view as racists and sexists.

I wish everyone could put petty differences aside. I, for example, do not care about interracial marriage. But seem people did, and it had to be made "significant", in the courts, so that it could fade into "insignificance" and now nobody much cares anymore. At least not enough to try and outlaw it anymore.

In other words, if racists and bigots and misogynists are going to make big deals about superficial differences, then I'm going to make a big deal about it to stop them. Get it?

 

[Giz]

I wish everyone could put petty differences aside. I, for example, do not care about interracial marriage. But seem people did, and it had to be made "significant", in the courts, so that it could fade into "insignificance" and now nobody much cares anymore. At least not enough to try and outlaw it anymore.

In other words, if racists and bigots and misogynists are going to make big deals about superficial differences, then I'm going to make a big deal about it to stop them. Get it?

But you aren’t stopping it. You are perpetuating it.

 

[Brainster]

How exactly would this quota thing work?

The only way to make it work is the one I suggested (which everybody ignored); for the Democrats to make it a party rule that nobody can be nominated who is from an over-represented demographic (basically hetero white cis-males).

Making it an actual law would of course require a constitutional amendment, which is never going to happen. So the solution is for the Democrats to take it on themselves. It will give them an even more smug feeling about how progressive they are, as they lose most elections.

 

[Fudbucker]

But you aren’t stopping it. You are perpetuating it.

Not at all. Gay marriage is now a thing. It's also something people care less and less about. Eventually, it will be an insignificant thing. That took a lot of work by a lot of activists. The problems that we have now will be solved by a lot of people doing a lot of thankless work. Pretending there's no problem, as you seem to be suggesting, is not a good strategy for change.

 

[Giz]

Not at all. Gay marriage is now a thing. It's also something people care less and less about. Eventually, it will be an insignificant thing. That took a lot of work by a lot of activists. The problems that we have now will be solved by a lot of people doing a lot of thankless work. Pretending there's no problem, as you seem to be suggesting, is not a good strategy for change.

Actually, gay marriage is not a good analogy for the thread topic. (As gay marriage just puts everyone in an equal position). An accurate analogy for this topic, using gay marriage, is if we said: straight couples have been getting married for ages, it’s time for them to step back and not get married (or be able to order straight wedding cakes etc), to let gay couples have a turn in the spotlight.

Which is obviously ********. Both gay and straight couples should be able to get married, get cakes, venues etc. neither should be prioritized over the other going forwards.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because sexual equality is the lowest hanging fruit, obviously.

And once that's achieve, it will be on to the next higher fruit, and the next higher one, and so on and so on.

You can't dismiss these other breakdowns out of inconvenience because the principles you're using don't distinguish. There is no limiting principle here, no point at which you can say, this division of people into groups is important, but that division isn't. The divisions can go on forever. And will, if the activists get their way.

 

[phiwum]

Because sexual equality is the lowest hanging fruit, obviously. Also 50/50 is easy math. Also the ERA was an actual thing.

By "actual thing", I guess you mean an amendment which has never been passed?

How is the ERA relevant? If you think it should have passed or should pass now, surely you should be working for it. But it makes literally no sense to refer to a failed amendment in order to justify restrictions on who can be elected to Congress.

 

[pharphis]

What is the ERA?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

What is the ERA?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

 

[cullennz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

Just reading this ERA thing it's seems a bit silly

Do women seriously want to have to stop all their female safe spaces, gyms, business relationship groups, womens awards, and other organisations?