Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystallas
We require a bit of cultural maintenance. When I say we, I do mean all of us, although I don't intend to speak for everyone.
|
Who does?
Quote:
|
There will be times where one gender may have the perception of being greater than the other. But to remove some of the few functioning mechanisms of determining the best applicant, by oppression one side is a total failure from the beginning. I do not support the oppression of any group, whether it be by gender, race, or purely intellectual diversity.
|
Cut to the chase! Is this an argument against affirmative action and recognition that there are groups within a society that are deliberately disadvantaged and oppressed by those in power?
Quote:
|
To grant power to the women may be viewed as some sort of payback to generations that are dying off now, and have already died off in the past, but you are trying to take two wrongs to make a right. The same would be true no matter what group was granted special power.
|
If no one else mentions it, there is still a great disparity in wage gaps between men and women today....just as there is among visible minorities; and there are a litany of problems specifically related to women, if we use the stats on domestic violence, rape and sexual assault as a guide, women (especially lower class women) are often at risk just for the fact of being female in societies that still do not go very far out of their way to address these issues. So altogether, these aren't problems that can pushed aside as some sort of historical grievances.
Quote:
|
You see, oppression is a hell of a aura to live with. If any individual had to live through this, and this does happen to all groups directly and indirectly now in some form(mainly from the opposition, cats vs dogs, ect), the groups that are most suppressed will fight harder to become better and stronger, or simply find better ways to sell their strengths to whatever is recognized as a society. You might say, well, that would be a good thing if they made themselves better, but in fact, it does not. Because you artificially made one group better than the other, the privileged group will recognize this occurance and do as much as possible to grow their influence to further oppress the opposing group. At the same time, the privileged group becomes weaker as individuals, because they don't have to work as hard. Their science, their opinions rule, and their bias is pushed into the spotlights, therefore they believe they are somehow greater. Now the privileged group doesn't work as hard, they develop their system to support this, and basically you have one group that has some bit of a majority that become slouches, sloths, ignorant to the very world they live in. Now while one group gains momentum, they become very hateful in this shift of power, and they fight hard to regain their place, for equality, they will say. But the truth is, they want to rule, they want payback. It doesn't matter what the tendencies of each gender have, BOTH will do cruel things, both will not understand the other fully, both will have strengths and weaknesses, and both will merely use their strengths and weaknesses for and against each other in this shift of power.
|
This is total libertarian bs that doesn't pass the smell test! All we have to do is track the actual results regarding social mobility, where we find the "privileged group" that inherits their money, can use that money to expand their wealth. While those who grow up in slums and ghettos in stressed out families and broken families, eating sub-standard food, going to sub-standard public schools, and having to mortgage the rest of their working lives if they want to go to university, remain in the grinding poverty that their forebears endured. That is the price of libertarian cut-the-taxes-cut-the-public-services strategies that have turned a more equal society of 30 to 40 years ago into the new rightwing feudalism. The truth is the enemy of every right wing economic argument that exists today: By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States.
Understanding Mobility in America
Quote:
|
Equality is equality, no collectivism, no rules that define a group. You must treat each person as the individual that they are, and no longer stereotype entire masses as if they share the same qualities(and therefore must be the same clock punching robot.) We need to stop this whole, back and fourth junk, because it truly makes all of us worse in some way, shape, or form. All of this is VERY realistic, it just takes a bit of the good in our hearts to look for a better tomorrow, and not cry about a bad yesterday. The bad in us, will always try to get the upper hand, and we do need to maintain ourselves.
|
And this is the other shoe I was expecting to drop! Collective action is the only clear path to social change for a group that is being marginalized in society.
The libertarian propaganda that convinced poor slobs that they didn't need their unions anymore and could bargain for better wages on their own -- discovered the truth too late! Likewise, the younger women of today who consider feminism to be something from the past, and criticize the feminist movement so they will be more popular with the boys, or just to avoid any possible confrontations with men complaining about divorce and alimony legislation, are just shooting themselves in the foot, and making themselves worse off.
|
10-05-2011, 07:59 PM
Linear Mode
