[split] moderation open thread(On affirmative action and not being sexist)
#25
okay guys i m hitting the bed wil see ur replies tomorrow. Good night or good morning where ever you are.
Reply
#26
(30-Apr-2012, 08:44 PM)sudhirbr Wrote: 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.

Sudhir, you keep invoking the phrase "without any reason" quite often. I wanted to make it clear that "legal reasoning" is quite complicated and so we have either choice between "complicated process" or "tolerant leeway". It would be really good if there is a middle choice, but there isn't. Hence the drastic step.

(30-Apr-2012, 08:44 PM)sudhirbr Wrote: 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.

This law is neither a trump card or the only law that should exist. This is ofcourse one card in a suit to help destroy the shackles of patriarchy. The effort, ofcourse, should be on all fronts.

(30-Apr-2012, 08:44 PM)sudhirbr Wrote: 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.

And this is why I asked you about whether you consider affirmative action as discrimination. Above you clearly seem to be treating that as a discrimination. When it should be clear that its not. What do you think is the intent of the law? To make sure that Husbands have hard time getting a divorce? or that wives shouldn't have to go through burdensome process? It is the intent that makes it so different from discrimination.

And the argument that this will lead to discrimination eventually is a slippery slope fallacy. The laws should get revised as and when social conditions change. That is an absolute given.
[+] 1 user Likes Kanad Kanhere's post
Reply
#27
(30-Apr-2012, 10:17 PM)sudhirbr Wrote: 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.

  1. Merit is a function of environment and the individual.
  2. The environment of certain classes of people lacks some aspects which contribute to merit.
  3. To make up for the lacking of environment, affirmative action is needed.
Given those premises and your views on equality ("See now you are taking the right point reward should be based merely on merit...") the discussion is indeed about whether we should have affirmative action or not as you seem to be denying part of premise 1 (environment) and hence questioning the validity of the need of affirmative action.
Reply
#28
This discussion is just becoming redundant.

@Sudhirbr, which of the following do you not agree to?

1) Men and women are not treated equally today
2) Affirmative action is not discrimination
3) Affirmative action strives to reduce inequality
4) The divorce laws fall under affirmative action


If I'm correct, I think you are contesting the 4th option.

We have already established(through mutual agreement) that society treats a divorced man a divorced woman differently.
If that is so, women need a way to help them cope with such social stigma. One of the ways to achieve this is to provide the woman with a legal system which is sensitive to the cases of women and provide them with benefits to counter those enjoyed by men due to prejudice.

The new divorce laws are explained by Ms. Kirti Singh here.

Quote:"The study, called "The Economic Rights & Entitlements of Separated and Divorced Women India," was conducted by a team of researchers, women's rights activists and lawyers, for the Economic Research Foundation of India between October 2008 and September 2009 and will be published later this year.

It surveyed 405 Indian women who were either separated or divorced or deserted. The women were randomly selected from cities, towns and villages in north, east, south and west of India in an attempt to understand what happens to women when marriages fail.

Most women surveyed "did not want a divorce even if they have faced violence in their marital homes as they feel both financially and socially insecure outside the marriage," the study finds."

We know, most married indian women live with their husband's family. This makes it difficult for her to seek justice and approach the system.
The other option she has is to go to her own parents and live with them while she initiates legal proceedings. This too, proves difficult as most of the time, parents of women are unsupportive and blame the woman as they feel it is her duty(as the homemaker) to ensure the smooth functioning her marriage and any breakdown makes her liable for the same.

Many women in India are also housewives meaning they have NO income of their own. She has to rely on other sources to obtain the money required for legal services and the only sources of securing money for a housewife are: the husband, in-laws, parents, siblings, friends etc. It is clear to see why the first two avenues would, in most cases, prove to be useless.

Quote:Women in India stay in failing marriages for many reasons, Ms. Singh said. Most of these emanate from the social and financial pressures that divorced women are left to face. The courts can take several years to settle a case and often women cannot afford the several rounds of litigation involved. Even if a woman does go to the court, in most cases it is an “uneven fight” between a man and a woman.

-----------------------------

(30-Apr-2012, 08:44 PM)sudhirbr Wrote: [...] 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?[...]

[...]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.

I don't think you understand what the new laws mean. Let me help you out. The following excerpt is from here.

Quote:According to the Cabinet Note, while a wife can oppose a husband's plea for a divorce under the new "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" clause, the husband will have no such rights to oppose if the wife moves the court on the same grounds.

This is designed to reduce the deliberate prolonging of the case by men which would lead to uncomfortable situations for the woman both socially and mentally. She will still have to give a reason to a judicial bench. But this reason cannot be challenged by the husband and determining the validity of such a reason rests solely with the bench.
I hope we are clear on the reason for the government trying to ensure speedy trials which are less damaging to the woman mentally, financially and to her image in society.

----------x---------x---------x----------

This being said, I'd like to point out ONE important thing that you keep missing about 'affirmative action' and our patriarchal society.

No man is 'innocent' as long as he enjoys the benefits offered to him under a patriarchal society.

Abraham Lincoln, during the Civil War, was reluctant to punish slave owners and rebels. He justified his position by saying that the existence of slavery wasn't the sole fault of slave owners, but the fault of the entire country for tolerating such a system to begin with. He believed that every individual was to be blamed for letting slavery continue for so long.

As long as sexism and misogyny exist, the burden will be on the men to help alleviate the conditions of woman as it is difficult, if not impossible, for the oppressed class to fight for emancipation alone.

(30-Apr-2012, 10:17 PM)sudhirbr Wrote: 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.

EXACTLY my point. You would first accept your higher pay and then demand equal pay for her. You see, we believe in enjoying the privilege FIRST and THEN demanding equality.

You could've easily rejected the job accusing the administration to be sexist. You could've also demanded that you be paid what she was being paid.

But instead, you would like to first reap the profits of the system and then criticize it rather than rejecting it from the start. This doesn't pertain to you specifically. This is what most people would do.

The second you enjoy the benefits of a crime, you are an indirect perpetrator ensuring its propagation. If you stay silent while people are being oppressed, you automatically side with the oppressor.
[+] 6 users Like TheTruth's post
Reply
#29
I don't think you understand what the new laws mean. Let me help you out. The following excerpt is from here.

Quote:According to the Cabinet Note, while a wife can oppose a husband's plea for a divorce under the new "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" clause, the husband will have no such rights to oppose if the wife moves the court on the same grounds.
-
I went through the new law again. Sorry i was misinformed about the law that women can claim a divorce without citing any reason. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage has a different meaning than citing no reason. I am on for this law and we need to revisit it after some time. This discussion is closed form my side.
[+] 1 user Likes sudhirbr's post
Reply
#30
[Continuing from this facebook thread]

//i giving example as to how the imbalance can happen from both the sides. //

Nope. There was no imbalance in your example. Suppose I decide to marry a girl who is an atheist - Does this imply any kind of imbalance? The imbalance would happen only if in someway society/state encourages such behavior.

//the girl the boy and everyone has a choice. this is where you and i disagree. empower the girl to say no rather than agreeing or saying yes bcos it is convinient. if its a rural uneducated girl then i would say she has no choice, if its a urban educated girl then she definitely need make a choice.//

Exactly where have I alluded to NOT empowering the girl. AT PRESENT does the girl (even in cities) have choice or a very restricted choice. You have conveniently ignored the list of comparison that I had put.

And my arguments are also precisely from empowerment perspective. Affirmative action is about empowerment.

I will try to make this absolutely clear for once and for all. I will make this very generalized so that basic anti-feminist instincts won't trigger in.

There is condition X which is skewed in favor of a section A and against a section B. Now members of B have an option to go with X or against X. The society encourages "going with X" for some irrational reasons, which leads to marginalization of members of B.

Now there are two steps to get rid of the imbalance in the society. One is to change the society to get rid of the "irrational reasons". The second KEY one is that members of B, who go AGAINST X and might suffer, should be provided support. This is a way of providing encouragement to go against the oppressive imbalance. To enable something like this laws will have to be created that "look" skewed in favor of member of B. But they aren't.

To get to a concrete example. A few years back rape laws required an eye witness for convicting the perpetrator. This was then removed. What happened was chances of an innocent getting convicted increased. Now people like you will see that this is "imbalanced" against perpetrator. But its not. This is done NOT TO PUNISH THE INNOCENT but to make the chances of a criminal very low to escape. This is way more important because of the inherent imbalance in society against rape victims.

//And for 1. 2 and 3. all these are hard decisions for both its bit easier for the boy than the girl. but its good interest of both that they have make the right decision. //

Conveniently trying to summarize the whole thing with an adjective "bit". No man. Its a much much harder decision for the girl.

//yeh thats what i m saying both men and women are subjected to similar + girls get an additional gender specific harassment. bcos of this dont pick this one reason to make men suffer.//

HAHAHA. What an argument. And @Praveen you are asking me to be "calm" about this?

Your argument is as sensible as the below:
X get robbed. Y get looted and murdered. See both suffer so why special laws for murder?

//the part where we say right or wrong its always responsbility of man while woman is not responsible for anything.//

All this while your argument has been on these lines which is a nice strawman. If law is slightly skewed for affirmative action it becomes a statement "all men are felons" for you. No my friend. It doesn't mean remotely anything of that. All this while I have been always talking in terms of "social change".

Also men in the current society enjoy some privileges. Any man who wants to keep clutching on this privileges at the unfair demand of suffering of women, then he is not innocent.

//i see wrong from both the sides. if you say all man are bad its fine, if i say some women do it i suddenly turn evil. You are assuming something i never said.//

Classic argument of "equalists". Go back to my example of balance and weights. Its not me but you who can't see that "unfair" addition of weights isn't really unfair.

//women too want that luxurious life style from his man plus also want him to be a good caring husband. when woman makes such unreasonable demand it appears valid but when man makes such unreasonable demand it appears absurd. you see the difference. //

Seriously? This is what you got from my example.
The deal is this: What happens if the NRI walks away from the proposal? What happens if the girl walks away from the dowry system? Answer that. Don't harp on something that is irrelevant.

//we discussed the same today too. why is this mentality growing that anything that anti man is pro woman. We need to frame thing so that they both coexist in harmony rather than disharmony.//

Nullius put this beautifully. For you anything pro-woman is anti-man
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 12,474 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)