|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 01, @01:54PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Well:
I basically agree. The right of "non-association" is one of those formerly "fundamental" rights that has been lost in most situations over the last 40 years. I do have some disagreements , however.
Lets take the situation of black people 50 years ago, for instance. I suppose I don't have to remind anyone of the various "Jim Crow" laws of the time. This occured, at least in part, because the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution was not applied to the States themselves. However a large part of it was due to the large capital holders of many communities {who tended to be white} refusing to hire or serve black citizens.
What could be done? Well in terms of public accomdations (such as schools) the Constitutional protections could be applied. But up to a point these protections could be circumvented and abrogated by the sheer private social structure of entrenched racism.
Extreme libertarians might argue that this is fair state of affairs, and that as boycotts, protests, etc. seemed to work in many cases in the civil rights movement, that is all that can ever legitimately be done.
I disagree. Even without the many excesses and mistakes of "affirmative action" (quotas whether they admit it or not, and WHEN will it ever end? ), the Constitution DOES give the Government the power to regulate Interstate Commerce. Once again, this power has been overused to the extent that had the VAWA act #1 survived the Supreme Court, Congress would have had no limits on its ability to pass laws. But even a strict construction would easily give Congress the power to regulate very large multistate or multinational businesses in their sells/hiring policies as to racial minorities. Thus bigger businesses would have to serve all people , and hire all people equally. The price of being big would be more social responsibility, the price of being a bigot would be an intrastate giant company at best.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I tend to agree with you here, Remo. As I think anyone who has consistently read my posts on this Web site, I'm about as anti-government-intrusion as I can be. However, I think both cases were important because
1) they exposed the interal bigotry for public scrutiny. I never would have known to write letters or boycott Ford or Smith's if it hadn't been for these very public court cases;
2) They reinforce the idea that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." There's a horrible thing happening in the workplace called "affirmative action" in the U.S. and "positive discrimination" in the U.K. If businesses see that government does not hold with it, they are more likely to change their own attitudes.
All that said, I *don't* think it's wise to file a lawsuit as soon as one determines that discrimination is going on. I think the first thing to do is what Babyak did and the Ford Motor Co. employees did: complain, complain, complain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 01, @04:59PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
You make some good points, Nightmist.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not against celebrating the victories that come mens way, even if, for awhile anyway, they have to come at women's (or some particular persons) expense. Thats life: Our "democratic republic" is so screwed up now by the corrupting influences of money and special interests that even modest reforms will cause immense pains, and to the extent that women (or blacks or whatever group) have been treated as "more equal" under the law, then some "tit-for-tat" is called for.
Actually, now that I think of it, the biggest single "group" that would "lose out" under MY proposals would be - lawyers. Do you see why I feel that reform is such an iffy proposition at best?
Anyway we had BETTER win -- by any means necessary-- because if you want to see a prescient book about where feminism (and along with it the society)is heading:
Feminism without Illusions: A critique of Individualism By Elizabeth Fox-Genovese. The University of North Carolina Press. 1991.
And if they succeed, neither they, nor anyone will benefit in the end. For you see, for all of "feminisms" maniupulative power, they have started to create mechanisms of surpassing direct power, and that will eventually be used for some goal-and probably not one they, or we, would like.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 01, @05:04PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
An addendum:
I meant to say that feminists (in general) seem to understand indirect power much better than direct power. And they are trying to use direct power mechanisms to acheive their goals. By the way, I'm going to take no position as to this understanding of indirect power but misunderstanding of direct power has any biological basis.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To echo Remo's remarks, in a purely egalitarian society, I agree with Wendy that the government should not involve itself in private hiring practices, whether through active means such as Affirmative Action or EEO, or even through passive means such as entertaining discrimination lawsuits.
However, we do not live in a perfect society. Even in cases where it is not done maliciously, discrimination occurs. In an enterprise that just so happens to employ mostly white males, the process of identifying qualified candidates is naturally going to involve personal associations and acquaintences, and more white males are going to be hired. Qualified black candidates will never get identified and hence, will rarely get hired. Again, it may not be done maliciously. It's just that the non-traditional candidate never even gets onto the radar screen. So, while I'm definitely NOT in favor Affirmative Action or EEO requirements, I do support a court system that attempts to see that everyone is treated equally. On the other hand, a court that awards a plaintiff so much more than the economic cost of what the opportunity WOULD have been does NOT have my support. If you truly were a victim of discrimination, then you are only entitled to the difference between what you have now and what you would have had if you'd been otherwise treated equally. Having lost the potential for advancement does not count. There is no assurance that you would have advanced had you not been discriminated against.
We've seen time and againt that no matter how hard a government tries to see to equal treatment for all, at one time or another, they all get it wrong. Consider the Jim Crow Laws, the Violence Against Women Act, and the Poor Laws in 18th century Ireland. Under pressure from the electorate, they eventually get it right. But if they did nothing, then we'd have a Bolshevik revolution every twenty years or so because eventually all the wealth flows to one group or another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it is perfectly proper for men to demand the equal protection of the law. That woman apparently demands that men should nobly refrain from attempting to make use of their nominal legal rights simply because she doesn't think those rights should exist in a perfect world.
I say bullshit. Of course women would absolutely love that situation; *they* aren't about to stop making the maximum use of their rights under EEO legislation. Men's not using the same rights just allows them to become comfortably established as "women's rights".
The only hope of persuading women that these laws aren't so great is to start using them to cause some pain.
sd.
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 01, @03:51PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
SD:
Agree with you. But its not something to be cheerful about. Even if say, we were to win so many cases that we caused utter pain to many females everywhere, who would be the real winner? The Government. I wish I could believe that using these laws "against themselves" , so to speak would work toward the good. But I'm not so sure: entrenched beauracracies like the EEOC ( and the parasitic lawyer class that feed on their existence) have every reason to protect their own interests at the expense of everybody else.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agree with you. But its not something to be cheerful about. Even if say, we were to win so many cases that we caused utter pain to many females everywhere...
Don't worry, the law would be changed well before that happened. Our task would be to influence the change in a "equalitarian" (hate that word -- implies forced equality) direction.
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amen. Let's change the rules now that things are turning around! LOL Just be nice and don't cause trouble and let this sort of take care of itself....don't bring suits... Ha!
I am not big on govt intervention and agree with Wendy on that score. However one of the biggest variables here is that many people are completely unaware of or don't give a crap that men are being discriminated against. Ho hum, if it's a white man it just doesn't matter. It does matter and we need to treat all as equally as we can under the law. As I remember Ford literally had written policies that actively discriminated against men. If the policies were against women or minorities there would have been a freaking war! This kind of suit helps bring awareness into the mass consciousness. This is victory. Keep it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, now that I think of it, the biggest single "group" that would "lose out" under MY proposals would be - lawyers.
Reminds me of Shakespeare (can't remember which play- think it was Henry IV)- "Let's kill all the lawyers..." LOL
The problem is we need government intervention and lawsuits as catalysts for things to change on their own. I'm not big on government intervention, but it needs to be done, even in one case to call attention to the cause.
In short, equality shouldn't discriminate.
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reminds me of Shakespeare (can't remember which play- think it was Henry IV)- "Let's kill all the lawyers..." LOL
The Shakespeare buff in me speaks up (double-majored in English and journalism back in college). The line is from Henry VI Part II, Act IV, Scene 2.
The irony of that line is that it is uttered by a Dick the Butcher, part of a would-be tyranny, who believes that killing all the lawyers is the first step to destroying freedom. ;)
And now back to your regularly scheduled debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 02, @09:06AM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
The irony of that line is that it is uttered by a Dick the Butcher, part of a would-be tyranny, who believes that killing all the lawyers is the first step to destroying freedom. ;)
I've heard that before. (Read about half Shakespeare's works myself)
I suppose its impossible to have too much of a good thing? (G) In Maryland , nearly one out of every ten employees is a lawyer, paralegal, or in some way connected to the legal system. This IS downright crazy.
In the past lawyers used to handle different kinds of cases then they do today. I can't begin to list all the hundred (yes hundreds) of areas of litigation that were invented in the twentieth century alone. I'll just point out that in the past an average person might have contact with an attorney once or twice in his /her life -- maybe at the reading of a will.
Most lawyers aren't defending our liberties. They are defending the interests of whoever pays them, and for whatever purpose. And then of course there are the "activist" attorneys. NOW has quite a few of these, as all us men should know.
Anyway, lawyers have increasingly poked their noses more and more into the private sphere where they are least useful, and most destructive. And 'family law' has become a downright monster.
Shivering,
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The irony of that line is that it is uttered by a Dick the Butcher, part of a would-be tyranny, who believes that killing all the lawyers is the first step to destroying freedom. ;)
NOW would love that..not only because they're hiding behind legalities, but also for the "Dick the Butcher" thing as a misandrist play-on-words to fit their agenda. If only they'd re-discover the Bard...[kidding, as gender feminists think "masterpieces" are a construction of patriarchy]
Lawyers have a really bad reputation for being underhanded and sneaky, which they often are. But on the other hand, they defend our freedoms. Go figure.
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In general I agree with Ms McElroy. However, she fails to mention that AA or "preferential" entitlement has been with us in for a long long time. It is not a new thing.
One example, the Civil Service Exam add points to veteran's scores. Also veterans are given preferences in college admissions. I don't have a problem with either BTW, however, if one is going to be upfront and honest, one must admit this is Affirmative Action or what I prefer to call "preferential" treatement.
There are many examples in our society of "preferential" treatment. For example, tax breaks and other economic preferences for the elderly.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
