You want equality and quotas for women in Congress, on Boards of Directors, in wages, in science? Fine. Are you also ok with equality in healthcare spending? In sentencing of crimes? In child custody? In Selective Service? Quotas for dangerous, difficult jobs? Quotas in education? Why not?

ripter · 2010-10-02T16:23:28+00:00

I've worked for companies that hired people to fill quotas. You end up with people who are underqualified and that don't try as hard because they know they won't be fired.

It's one thing to make sure companies aren't discriminating, it's another thing to force hiring of certain people regardless of their qualifications.

bobartig · 2010-10-02T19:11:39+00:00

The constitutional answer, according to several leading scholars of constitutional jurisprudence, is this:

When you have an activity, such as Congress person, or other activities where gender plays NO role, classifications based upon gender are arbitrary and capricious, and both genders must be afforded equal opportunity. Failure to do so must pass a heightened scrutiny analysis, which requires that the unequal treatment be in furtherance of an important gov't objective and in a manner substantially related to that goal. This level of scrutiny tends to invalidate unequal treatment.

When you have activities such as healthcare, certain types of crimes, and child custody, where both genders objectively are NOT considered equal, unequal treatment is more likely to stand. Here, the unequal treatment must merely pass rational basis review: that the inequity have a rational means in furtherance of a legitimate goal.

In healthcare, men and women have different medical needs, and therefore unequal spending is less likely to trigger an equal protection issue.

In child custody, in certain scenarios, such as unwed couples, the man and woman have different legal rights and obligations, however, I don't know exactly what this post is referring to.

The Court has upheld statutory rape laws that only criminalize the male on the basis that women bear a disproportionate amount of the downside risk associated with teenage sex. I find this to be overly paternalistic, but there you go.

In terms of quotas, the Supreme court tends to shoot down quota-based efforts related to affirmative action as being arbitrary and lacking a "substantial relation" to addressing the gov'ts goal. This, of course, only applies to actions taken by state organizations and public institutions.

ignatiusloyola · 2010-10-02T15:32:13+00:00

Government jobs have high job security and great benefits - it is pretty obvious why some people care about quotas for these types of jobs. And then, when these people realize that these jobs are lower paying in compensation for the security and benefits, they will further cry foul about the "wage gap".

But that isn't all women. Just some people.

lawfairy · 2010-10-02T17:45:45+00:00

Equality and quotas are two different things. Quotas are a pretty outdated suggestion. Most feminists want equality, and we look at things like the vast gulf between men and women in politics and banking because they serve as evidence (though not proof-positive) that inequalities still linger somewhere in the system. I don't know of any reputable feminists who are asking for quotas, though -- so your insistence that feminists seek quotas for dangerous work is misplaced.

That said, you might recall that until recently, many women weren't allowed to take certain dangerous jobs, and formally, they still aren't (e.g., technically female soldiers aren't allowed to be deployed in combat, although this rule is mostly broken these days from what I understand). Feminists have tended to be on the side of changing these rules. Look at the VMI case. That was feminists, wanting women to have the opportunity to take on dangerous, difficult, low-paying work in the military.

FWIW, I'm a feminist, and I believe more men should be teachers; men should not be looked upon with suspicion for getting along with children; child custody should be decided on an actual case-by-case basis, not on outdated sexist stereotypes; the war on drugs should stop putting black men in jail for being black men; women should be required to register with the selective service; and so on. And, as someone who's frequented a lot of feminist communities on the internet, I know that I'm far from alone on these issues.

MultiUseAccount · 2010-10-02T21:50:42+00:00

If some women complain about being underrepresented in the corporate world, then why (for instance) are they completely ok with auto insurance companies charging higher rates for men than for women? Yes, men tend to get in accidents more often, likely because they are naturally prone to be more aggressive and take risks. This could also explain the higher prevalence of men in business fields (among other reasons, like women tending to leave jobs to raise kids.)

zshe41 · 2010-10-02T18:54:44+00:00

Maybe they just need to illegalize the usage of "gender" when it comes to business.

Hamakua · 2010-10-02T20:17:23+00:00

Comprehensive discussion as to why a quota for congress would be going against the desires of women

sun_wyvern · 2010-10-02T20:47:11+00:00

I'm an absolute equality nazi. And honestly, quotas are a terrible implementation of equality in policy.

huntwhales · 2010-10-03T00:24:53+00:00

quotas

Not fine

acey · 2010-10-03T03:37:37+00:00

--Female here. I want equality for everyone, and I don't want quotas for women in congress or science. That would not be equality.
--I am okay with equality in healthcare spending, but I want a definition of that. --I am okay with equality in sentencing for crimes; that's part of equality.
--I am okay with equality in child custody; see above. --I would also like to see women have to register for the Selective Service.
--I don't think quotas for difficult or dangerous jobs makes sense--for gender, race, or age; it seems much more likely they'll be done badly or people will be hurt if that happens.

2010-10-03T06:48:13+00:00

Why do people continue to try and force equality where it does not exist? I'm not saying that men are better or that women are better. I'm saying the argument is comparing apples to oranges.

jimmyjango42 · 2010-10-02T16:57:08+00:00

Because some of these options would actually be equalizing, and feminist groups of today only care about taking as many rights away from men as possible.

Don't believe me? Talk, if you will, to some women that have been the victims of spousal abuse. It is a very sad sight, but as you start to hear them out more and more, you come to realize that modern day feminism has implanted into these women's heads that all men are bad, evil, and trash. A literal blanket hatred of men, and a quick-to-jump mindset that all the problems and issues are the cause of men, because of their balls and penises. And, a lot of these women, victims of abuse, believe into it. It's the only real way to get any help.

So, no, they don't want this kind of "equality". The term "equality" is a front to the real meat of the operation - to make men the target of all negative stereotypes, to rip them of their dignity, all on reason of patriarchy. Because modern day feminism isn't about choice, it's about a blanket self righteous hatred that is covered in media as being acceptable.

Thenotsoloneranger · 2010-10-02T18:54:22+00:00

"You can train a man to do anything, but you cannot train them to grow tits."

kurfu · 2010-10-03T00:42:04+00:00

The "fight for equality" is no longer about true equality, it's about gaining special privilege.

2010-10-03T04:33:10+00:00

EXACTLY! That's what real equality is: equality in both the good and the not so good. Only wanting equality when it comes to more positive things that satisfy one's ego is bull. That's what we call privilege.

justdoasisay · 2010-10-03T06:38:38+00:00

2010-10-03T08:11:35+00:00

You're comparing a bunch of apples with a bunch of pork. They're both food, but should be treated differently

Stuff like who's on a board of directors, wages and who has child custody should be merit-based, which would probably result in a pretty fair distribution between genders.

Other things, like healthcare spending (and possibly education, if demand is unevenly distributed for instance) should be based on need.

Not specifically dangerous, but difficult jobs should also be based on need if an average man is more capable of doing it (manual labour, etc.).

esulcer · 2010-10-03T22:39:42+00:00

Whoah... Hi, Strawman!

I just... Wow.

I mean...

I've heard so much about you, and thought about what I would say if I ever met you, but here I am and I can't think of anything to say...

Just... How are you, man? Spurious argument business treating you well? Good... Good...

2010-10-02T23:22:59+00:00

I knew when I signed up for this subreddit that I would be as confused as I am now. It's still funny though.

BZenMojo · 2010-10-02T17:38:57+00:00

All I can see is a black man quietly nodding his head and thinking, "Fuck yes!"

lawfairy · 2010-10-02T16:40:48+00:00

[permanently deleted]

ialsolovebees · 2010-10-02T21:43:48+00:00

This is the only valid point I've ever read on r/MensRights.

Hamakua · 2010-10-02T16:24:13+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Liverotto · 2010-10-02T22:38:02+00:00

Of course not. They are ok with quotas only for good jobs and good stuff.

PopePedoBear · 2010-10-03T00:54:52+00:00

Sorry but for several thousand years men have been getting the better deal. If quotas for women are needed so women have the same opportunities as men then so be it. After a few more generations perhaps quotas will be unnecessary. But I still hear managers rejecting women for jobs (in the tech field) because they are women.

UnreachablePaul · 2010-10-03T01:59:10+00:00

I thought we have finished with communism like 20 years ago. Looks like some politicians are not well educated. What a shame... What's wrong with you people ?

esulcer · 2010-10-03T04:23:40+00:00

" feminists are seeking to reshape the MDGs to advance their agendas for transformative gender justice and economic justice."

"Goals related to women’s health, control over their bodies, freedom from violence, and ability to have access to sexual and reproductive rights are inextricably linked to Goals related to macro-economic policy, poverty and resource distribution. "

"In general, women’s unpaid labour is discounted and women are relegated to a secondary status, with less access to property, little power to make decisions over resources and production, and little control over personal life choices.

Paid jobs are still segregated by gender, with women concentrated in the lowest paying jobs with fewer benefits. Women head single headed households in disproportionate numbers. Violence affects women’s ability to access certain jobs and income, as does the ability to choose when and whether to have children."

"poverty eradication must empower women to make decisions about priority services and how they are delivered"

"..what keeps girls from accessing schools. This might include the fear of violence from teachers or male students.."

"Women often must walk many miles for both water and fuel, adding to the many hours of unpaid work they do each day."

Strategic Priorities Outlined by Task Force 3 (Gender Equality)

Strengthen opportunities for post-primary education for girls and eliminate gender gaps at that level, while meeting commitments for universal primary education.
Guarantee Sexual and Reproductive Rights and Health (at a minimum, national public health systems must provide quality family planning, safe abortion, and emergency obstetric services.)
Invest in Infrastructure to Reduce Women’s and Girls’ Time Poverty (reallocating time from routine maintenance tasks to more productive and fulfilling activities)
Guarantee Women’s Property and Inheritance Rights
Reduce Discrimination in Labour Markets by decreasing women’s reliance on informal employment, closing gender gaps in earnings, and reducing occupational segregation.
Increase Women’s Representation in Political Bodies (with the suggested use of gender quotas)
Combat Violence against Women (via a global campaign and community-based interventions).

Carol Barton ▫ Women’s International Coalition for Economic Justice (WICEJ)

w w w.un-ngls.org/.../CSO%20perspectives%20on%20the%20MDGs%20FINAL.doc

Comments