[split] moderation open thread(On affirmative action and not being sexist)
#13
(30-Apr-2012, 11:46 AM)sudhirbr Wrote: The law which we discussed says wife in a marriage can pull out of marriage without even given any reason. We would like to see both husband and wife being accountable for the marriage. And we are accused of being anti women for saying this.

I think you have already clarified my below doubt, but I would like a reconfirmation, just so that the discussion can be held properly.
Do you agree that affirmative action is not discrimination? (you can consider this question in context to TheTruth's example)

If that is established, then I guess your concern is that somebody might just go overboard with affirmative action, which might lead to discrimination. And you think the law that is being discussed could be one example of this. Am I correct?

So, IMO, your concern is not misplaced. But I feel it is naive or too theoretical and lacks practical considerations. The accountability that you have mentioned in your post is in "legal" context, that shouldn't be forgotten. When a wife has to prove legal-accountability, we are back to square 0 with respect to affirmative action. The reason being, proving harassment by in-laws etc., will be very difficult and tortuous exercise especially with so many social barriers that a woman has to clear before she can take such a step. There should be, thus an affirmative action, from atleast law, to enable freedom from hostile environment in a hassle free fashion.

All this is driven by the existing social conditions which are totally balanced against women, and hence to restore the balance, such actions have to be taken.

Now is it possible that some males will get affected by fake complaints: possible, but the percentage would/should be low. And the benefits definitely seem to outweigh the costs.

As far as your objection for enabling affirmative action against "the really discriminated", then you'll have to build a stronger case in context of rich women etc. Cause as far as my readings go, misogyny is prevalent in India irrespective of class and caste.
Reply
#14
(30-Apr-2012, 10:22 AM)sudhirbr Wrote: Well guys lets not portrait either me or Piyush into evils who hate women or women's right. We are for women's upliftment as much as any of you are. I will come back to this issue in next post but lets see the way things were handled.
.
.
Now I see a new accusation that we are not pro feminist and our comments were against women's empowerment. Really not the way we should be handling or discussing issues that we disagree on.

I don't think anybody said you are "evil". The only thing that was pointed out is that your notions of equality are flawed. It is called privilege blindness. Having it doesn't mean you are a women beating maniac. It just means what it says - we have privileges that some don't and we usually aren't aware that they are privileges.

(30-Apr-2012, 10:22 AM)sudhirbr Wrote: Lets assume me and Piyush discussed something against ideas of most ppl here. There are certain ways in which this needs to be handled.
1. We should be shown our flaws with in the community as we adhere to same rational principles as all of you.

Your flaws were shown. In a very long thread.

(30-Apr-2012, 10:22 AM)sudhirbr Wrote: 2. A warning needs to be issued saying we said something that illogical or wrong for what ever reason.
3. A breach of warning should be followed with a ban.

I've never seen anyone admit that they are being illogical or wrong when strongly held beliefs are questioned (that includes all of us). So I don't think any amount of argumentation would have convinced you. It is upto you to approach the issue in your own way and change your stance (or not).

But feminism is a stance that is taken seriously at Nirmukta and we have little tolerance for views that contribute to status-quo or even degrade the situation further. Also, feminism is very broad label and the links given in this thread by others should give you a sense of what kind of feminism is being talked about here.

So no, it isn't a matter of disagreement and egos. It is a matter of sticking to an agenda. Much like how we don't allow religious apologetics in the groups.
[+] 1 user Likes Lije's post
Reply
#15
Do you agree that affirmative action is not discrimination?
-
Have no doubts. I am always on for it.

When a wife has to prove legal-accountability, we are back to square 0 with respect to affirmative action. The reason being, proving harassment by in-laws etc., will be very difficult and tortuous exercise especially with so many social barriers that a woman has to clear before she can take such a step. There should be, thus an affirmative action, from atleast law, to enable freedom from hostile environment in a hassle free fashion.
-
what really bothers me is. when ever we talk of women's inequality all of you tend to see women's position as a wife and only wife. What you all forget is women is not just a wife but can be a mother,sister,daugther,friend, mother in law,teacher and many more. If a women's get illtreated the first thing that comes to mind is attack the husband. Discrimination can occur in any of these roles. I cant see how you can assume that letting divorces without any reason for women would bridge the equality. Arent there enough laws to put ppl in trouble if they discriminate women? Well there are more than enough laws to do so. Then why isnt it stil working. Its not working because of ppl attitude and wrong implementation. So instead of fixing these real causes we end up creating even more stringent laws thinking that will bridge equality.


Now is it possible that some males will get affected by fake complaints: possible, but the percentage would/should be low. And the benefits definitely seem to outweigh the costs.
-
This is how suppressed class get created. this is how slavery and casteism were created so that suffering of few wil benefit a larger section. It also sounds like christian philosphy like you are a born sinner. If you are born as a man law wont stand for you even if you genuinely suffer. Why? why bcos your ancestors ill treated women so you too are a sinner and we will make you pay for their sins. Even countries were women have lot of rights couples are asked reason for their divorce and they have to go through atleast one round of councelling. I am not saying women should go through strict laws of court to get divorce. all that i am saying is get the reason put both the couples through a round of councellings and give them a chance. if they wont then even if they have a stupid reason for divorce we have to let them go.
Reply
#16
Your flaws were shown. In a very long thread.
-
well the conservation over there didnt even end and you already conclude that our flaws were shown.


I've never seen anyone admit that they are being illogical or wrong when strongly held beliefs are questioned (that includes all of us). So I don't think any amount of argumentation would have convinced you. It is upto you to approach the issue in your own way and change your stance (or not).
-
this is where you folks assumed instead of letting me do it and went wrong. how logical is it to ban someone without even a warning assuming my actions without even checking with me. had you told that it is too touchy subject to talk and you would ban me if i continued, it wouldnt have changed my stance but i would have stopped posting further messages.


But feminism is a stance that is taken seriously at Nirmukta and we have little tolerance for views that contribute to status-quo or even degrade the situation further.
-
for your sake i went and searched definition of feminism and lets see what it is.

About.com - Feminism, as a movement, is about women living on equal terms with men--and not pushed down, by law or by culture, into a subservient role.
Dictionary.com - the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
I and I would also vouch by Piyush that we stand for upliftment of women as much as any of you do.


So no, it isn't a matter of disagreement and egos. It is a matter of sticking to an agenda. Much like how we don't allow religious apologetics in the groups.
-
look at what you had to say "Being disrespectful is definitely allowed in the group. We disrespect religion all the time. Even perceived personal attacks are allowed, to a degree." the moderators lose the argument, we go through personal attacks, we didnt even complete the discussing, we are not issued a warning and off we are taken off and its hard to convince anyone that its the agenda. As freethinkers we were supposed to discuss everything and anything below and above the sun. We stick to scientific methods as much as you all do. We could have discussed it in the same scientific frame which someone by name satish was trying but not to be.
Reply
#17
(30-Apr-2012, 03:30 AM)TheTruth Wrote: For people having a tough time understanding 'Affirmative Action', let me use the most basic analogy I could think of:

True truth Wink, but to add to that,not all such laws are made to restore the discriminations of the past, many of the laws including the ones that started this conversation are to counter or to prevent the discrimination prevalent even today.
Reply
#18
Quote:what really bothers me is. when ever we talk of women's inequality all of you tend to see women's position as a wife and only wife. What you all forget is women is not just a wife but can be a mother,sister,daugther,friend, mother in law,teacher and many more. If a women's get illtreated the first thing that comes to mind is attack the husband.

Talking about divorce automatically means talking about a woman in the role of a wife. Iltreatment at work has little(if any) relevance to divorce. I don't know why you would use that argument as YOU were the one arguing about discrimination in divorce laws.

Quote:Discrimination can occur in any of these roles. I cant see how you can assume that letting divorces without any reason for women would bridge the equality.

That is exactly what Kanad tried to elucidate in his post. I guess you rejected it without reading. If you are under the impression that a divorced woman and a divorced man are treated equally by society, you are exhibiting signs of privilege blindness.

Quote:This is how suppressed class get created. this is how slavery and casteism were created so that suffering of few wil benefit a larger section.

Here it is obvious that we differ in our definitions of 'suppressed class'. Men are neither the 'suppressed class' nor the minority. You still seem to believe that affirmative action is synonymous with 'discrimination'.

Quote:It also sounds like christian philosphy like you are a born sinner. If you are born as a man law wont stand for you even if you genuinely suffer. Why? why bcos your ancestors ill treated women so you too are a sinner and we will make you pay for their sins.

This is what I was talking about to LMC.
The belief that you are being punished for the sins of your ancestors is a weak attempt at playing the victim.
Men of today are by no way 'innocent' as they are constantly benefited by such a patriarchal society. If you reap the benefits of a sexism, you become indirect participant of it.

Let me use another analogy(because I love to use them and they're helpful in putting the view across):

Assume A starts a company. He bribes an official X to get various grants, compensation, subsidies from the government. As a result, A makes massive profits. In due course of time, A, then, hands over the company to B. The anti-corruption bureau of the govt learns about the bribe and sues the company of A.
Would it be valid for B to claim defence on the grounds that he wasn't a participant of the bribe? No. Because B has benefited from the profits made by the company while it was under A and hence the company must pay the penalty irrespective of the administration change.

We constantly benefit the from the crimes of out ancestors in terms of job opportunities, higher pay for equal work, negligent social stigma in anything we do etc.

So the entire issue can be boiled down to a few lines:

Men stepped on women to reach the high pedestal they are on today.
Either 1) Men should help the woman up or 2) Step down.

If you were offered higher pay(for equal work) than that of a female colleague, would you demand that you be given lesser pay or demand she be given more?
[+] 1 user Likes TheTruth's post
Reply
#19
Sudhir,

From the fb thread, this is your view on equality - "if you ask me except physically challenged all other quotas should be removed especially the ones based on caste and religion. See now you are taking the right point reward should be based merely on merit not bcos someone belongs to a caste, religion or bcos one got tits."

In hindsight it is easy to think that you could have changed your views, but that comment of yours was high up in the thread and the conversation went long enough after that.

(30-Apr-2012, 09:00 PM)sudhirbr Wrote: for your sake i went and searched definition of feminism and lets see what it is.

About.com - Feminism, as a movement, is about women living on equal terms with men--and not pushed down, by law or by culture, into a subservient role.
Dictionary.com - the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
I and I would also vouch by Piyush that we stand for upliftment of women as much as any of you do.

Well, that was presumptuous. As if people here need to be taught about a dictionary definition. You obviously don't stand for upliftment of women to the same extent that some of us do, given your views on equality (Hint: TheTruth's comment earlier up in this thread). Things aren't always black and white. They fall into the full range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Just because you are for some rights, doesn't mean that your approach is correct. Just because your approach isn't correct doesn't mean that you are an evil person.

(30-Apr-2012, 09:00 PM)sudhirbr Wrote: As freethinkers we were supposed to discuss everything and anything below and above the sun. We stick to scientific methods as much as you all do. We could have discussed it in the same scientific frame which someone by name satish was trying but not to be.

This is linked to often in our groups. Freethought doesn't mean anything goes. As I said earlier in this thread, Nirmukta isn't 4chan. Btw, I'm Satish.
[+] 1 user Likes Lije's post
Reply
#20
It just means what it says - we have privileges that some don't and we usually aren't aware that they are privileges.
-
give privileges to uplift someone but we shouldnt be creating laws that ends up harassing even the innocent.

In hindsight it is easy to think that you could have changed your views, but that comment of yours was high up in the thread and the conversation went long enough after that.
-
I havent changed my stance we should gradually take off caste and religious based quotas(I got a different path for caste quotas we can discuss some other time) and neither should women's quota go on eternally. they all got to end at some point.

Well, that was presumptuous. As if people here need to be taught about a dictionary definition.
-
Obviously I had to show you the definition bcos you were often using the term feminism as if we are against feminism. I am right there on feminism.


This is linked to often in our groups. Freethought doesn't mean anything goes. As I said earlier in this thread, Nirmukta isn't 4chan. Btw, I'm Satish.
-
nice to hear you are Satish. if everything doesnt go in freethoughts we have to change the name to limited thoughts. I cant look back into our entire conversation. You tried the scientific method and your own words couldnt justify what you said as bad marriages.
Reply
#21
(30-Apr-2012, 09:52 PM)sudhirbr Wrote: Obviously I had to show you the definition bcos you were often using the term feminism as if we are against feminism. I am right there on feminism.

This is what I had said:

Quote:Also, feminism is very broad label and the links given in this thread by others should give you a sense of what kind of feminism is being talked about here.
Reply
#22
In my opinion, this, would help illustrate why 'affirmative action' isn't discrimination.

Though the cartoon is about racism, it can be easily adjusted to fit the context of sexism. Very few cartoons display such wit. I used to be confused about affirmative action too. Then I saw that cartoon.

True story.
Reply
#23
@TheTruth

Talking about divorce automatically means talking about a woman in the role of a wife. Iltreatment at work has little(if any) relevance to divorce. I don't know why you would use that argument as YOU were the one arguing about discrimination in divorce laws.
-
thats what i mean to say the moment discrimination of women comes ppl look women only as a wife she has many more roles than a wife. yeh thats the whole point this argument started as the recently passed divorce law is totally discriminating to men and takes a wrong path that easy divorce would give equality to men and women.

That is exactly what Kanad tried to elucidate in his post. I guess you rejected it without reading. If you are under the impression that a divorced woman and a divorced man are treated equally by society, you are exhibiting signs of privilege blindness.
-
I never said divorced men and women are equally treated though they should be. I read kanad's post and replied too.

Here it is obvious that we differ in our definitions of 'suppressed class'. Men are neither the 'suppressed class' nor the minority. You still seem to believe that affirmative action is synonymous with 'discrimination'.
-
you seem to be reading what you want to read and not what i said. I never said men are suppressed class. I said if such laws are made men would end up as suppressed class. Obviously what we are debating is what should be affirmative action not wheather we should have an affirmative action or not. We all agree women and the poor need affirmative action.

Men stepped on women to reach the high pedestal they are on today.
Either 1) Men should help the woman up or 2) Step down.
-
wel you have taken a wrong analogy. when we talk about these laws the imagine of a man we picture is not a normal man of india but one with good job, good salary, good education and lot of power like company A or B. A normal man of india is struggling to feed his wife and children, has no savings, struggles to get a job or pay for daily needs. there was and stil is discrimination of women that shouldnt become a basis to punish a innocent man who wasnt involved in any of it.


If you were offered higher pay(for equal work) than that of a female colleague, would you demand that you be given lesser pay or demand she be given more?
-
I would demand she be given more to match me than to cut my salary.
Reply
#24
Also, feminism is very broad label and the links given in this thread by others should give you a sense of what kind of feminism is being talked about here.
-
i have gone through most of them and dont think I would disagree with them. I am merely fighting the notion that giving a choice of divorce without even a reason wont help bridge the gap of equality among sexes.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Building a FAQ on Affirmative Action Lije 46 32,733 25-Aug-2013, 01:21 AM
Last Post: roopeshpraj
  [split] National Pride and Caste nispat 24 12,475 25-Apr-2012, 08:50 PM
Last Post: arvindiyer
  The Harvard 'Justice with Michael Sandel' Thread unsorted 6 7,505 09-Mar-2012, 09:09 PM
Last Post: unsorted
  [split] Poor Country, Rich Gods arvindiyer 1 2,458 05-Jul-2011, 09:49 PM
Last Post: arvindiyer



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)