Quote:
|
Originally Posted by All Systems Go
I'm having difficulty understanding what you are complaining about. Is it because there is legislation trying to redress the imbalance? there seems to be agreement that quotas are not the best way to address things, but considering glass ceilings and all that, it seems like a short-term measure to redress the balance. Of course this alone is simply covering up a greater social problem, but to say it is a sign of some female conspiracy is just a joke. |
The attempt to build matriarchal order - is a spike I used to elaborate the equality debate. Obviously it's not going to happen, but obviously, that's how the debate is - in Finland - the participating parties (hereby, women), are only really interested in discussing what problems the participating parties (hereby, women) suffer, and interested in fixing the problem with the methods like the mentioned quota.
Quotas, and such, are really a bad short term measure to adjust. Why? Because if you issue a short-term fix that will cause trouble on long term, it's a bit of a silly move? Why would it cause problems on the long term? Because it's essentially an institution built to discriminate the other gender in an attempt to reduce discrimination on the other gender. Either it will eventually have to be removed (which would say when the effect of the other programs, see below has been achieved), during which we're stuck with adverse selection issues and probably more friction between the genders (caused by legistlatively forcing in a limitation in the freedom of choice for PLCs, for example). Instead, a long-term fix, improving the education and so-related, in the subject, would provide less if any drawbacks (adverse selection, friction caused, possible counter-reactions), but would take longer. If we look at the statistics displayed by Dante Hicks, we can already see a difference - take 50 years back and you wouldn't have 53% of judges male, you'd have 99.95% or 100%. Achieved without quotas, through education and changes in the social mechanisms related to raising children and informing about the subject.
Quote:
|
I wouldn't worry about women taking over. If rich white males genuinely felt threatened by this state of affairs then there would be a massive movement to stop it.
|
I would worry more about the equality debate at large demolishing itself. Because it's a discussion worth having in governmental level, and making it a bicker where one gender is discussing to itself will definately make the rich white males genuinely not discriminate.
Edit. What this a lot has to do with the thread? The thread was started given certain prejudices that exist about men - which should also be included in the discussion of gender equality and the social changes required to make the system "more equal". Rape cases, while a lot are valid and while the crime is blatantly horrible, present a certain degree of discrimination - at least here, and especially on word-against-word cases (the first that springs to mind is the Vesa Keskinen incident, where he had sex with an 18-year-old - who was drunk - and accused Keskinen of raping her later; taking that she was at Keskinen's mansion at an afterparty of her own concent, and that the man is piss rich, and obviously offered them drinks, it's become more or less evident that the girls are just trying to cash in on her - it's being processed at the moment, but we'll see; as no signs of violence were found, it comes down to whether or not the 18-year-old was "made to drink herself drunk" or not, which essentially comes down to word against word and the judgement of the judge whether or not an 18-year-old can be "made to drink herself drunk" without violence).