Will feminism really bring women happiness?

[Iniquitous]

I am going to address the only part of the OP that I actually have knowledge on and that is the women in the family unit part.

In the ‘good ole days’ (and I am talking from medieval period on up) women were what amounted to slaves. They were property of their father first and he chose who she would marry based upon what could be obtained for her hand in marriage. Most often she had no say in who she would be wedded to. Once she was married she was property of her husband. Marriage at that time was nothing more than a contract - he would pay her dowry and upkeep (clothe her, feed her, house her) with the expectation of her keeping his house, birthing heirs and, if she was lucky enough to survive childbirth, raise those children. Period. He could treat her however he wanted - beat her, have mistresses, etc - and she had absolutely no recourse. The church would tell her it was her lot in life and the law of the land certainly wouldn’t take her side so a divorce simply did not happen.

Now, things gradually began to change. Dowries went the way of the doo doo bird, women started gaining the right to have some say in who they’d marry but they were still chattel to their husband. They were raised to be a wife and a mother, nothing else. Once married their lives became mired in cooking, cleaning, child rearing and ensuring their husband was happy. It was not taken into account if a woman did not wish to be a wife and a mother, if she failed to marry and have children then something was obviously wrong with her.  And during this time men could still treat their wives however they wished and divorces were still extremely rare (and usually never granted if a woman did petition. Men had to petition and then it was a shame on the woman).

As for your comparison of the sky high divorce rates to feminism and how it must show that women are not truly happy… let me just say this. In this day and age there seems to be this mentality of ‘it’s broken, toss it’ instead of ‘it’s broken, let’s fix it’.  There seems to be little desire to actually WORK at making a marriage last. First sign of hardship in the marriage and one (or both) bolt. It is not indicative of feminism. It is indicative of the horrible mentality that prevails in this day and age.

And last but not least. Your bible has all these lessons on how a marriage should be but it most certainly was not taught that way in the churches until the recent past. What was taught was women were to honor, cherish and obey because they were beneath their husbands and to do anything less than honor, cherish and obey their husbands was a sin. So, while your bible has pretty words on the subject of marriage, what is in it and what has been in practice are two totally different things.

[Caehlim]

But he was saying that he worried that the wage gap would be resolved by men across the world having to take a pay cut - that is, male wages falling to female levels not female wages rising to male ones.

Economics aside, how do people feel about that possibility?

Assuming that was the only way it could happen, then I'd vote for it. (I don't see why we couldn't just average the two out for everyone, but for the sake of the hypothetical I'll accept the premise). I don't want to be getting paid more than someone else who is doing the same job, that's just wrong.

Of course, that said I already get paid exactly the same amount as the women doing the same job as me. It's an award rate and set at that figure regardless of who is doing the job.

Vaguely relevant

Capuchin monkeys reject unequal pay

[Brittany]

I think businesses are more likely to make the males take a pay cut than raise the female pay if it comes to the crunch.

We've seen it in England with car insurance.  Women are statistically the safest drivers, with more accidents but of a much minor degree than what the men have (this is in the UK and is a well known thing).  As such for years and years women have had cheaper car insurance.

The government declared this was sexism, and men and women were to pay the same.

Instead of the insurance companies lowering the cost of men's insurance to the cost of the women's, they raised the cost of the women's to meet the mens.

If there was to be a definitive "You must pay women and men the same and if you are caught not doing so, there is going to be punishment" I assume the first thing they would look to do is see how they can drop the male pay to that of the womans, which would a) not cost them anything and b) keep roughly the same saving they were already making.

[Monfang]

I think businesses are more likely to make the males take a pay cut than raise the female pay if it comes to the crunch.

We've seen it in England with car insurance.  Women are statistically the safest drivers, with more accidents but of a much minor degree than what the men have (this is in the UK and is a well known thing).  As such for years and years women have had cheaper car insurance.

The government declared this was sexism, and men and women were to pay the same.

Instead of the insurance companies lowering the cost of men's insurance to the cost of the women's, they raised the cost of the women's to meet the mens.

If there was to be a definitive "You must pay women and men the same and if you are caught not doing so, there is going to be punishment" I assume the first thing they would look to do is see how they can drop the male pay to that of the womans, which would a) not cost them anything and b) keep roughly the same saving they were already making.

I'm not sure if you know, but did they originally give women lower rates across the board, or were women in general so good at driving, they earned the lower rates individually?

[Brittany]

I'm not sure if you know, but did they originally give women lower rates across the board, or were women in general so good at driving, they earned the lower rates individually?

I'm not too sure how it started.  But it wasn't an individual thing as long as I've known it, sex played an issue with starting insurance premiums (it would go up if you claimed).  I payed less than my brother for example.  It wasn't based on being the "better" drivers, but on statistics involving insurance claims.  Women in the UK statistically have more accidents but lower insurance claims (a women backing into a post compared to a male writing off his car).  Also men are statistically the higher drink-drivers or aggressive drivers.

What they are saying now is that Jack as an individual is no more likely to write off his car than Amy.  The way they've gone about it in the past was that there was a higher chance that Jack would write off his car because more men write off their cars than women do.  While technically that is still true, to restrict Jack as an individual goes against the equality laws we have now.

[Trieste]

I'm not sure if you know, but did they originally give women lower rates across the board, or were women in general so good at driving, they earned the lower rates individually?

Emphasis mine - actually, yes, that's how insurance companies work. If the statistics say you are less likely to get into an accident based on whatever factor, they will give lower rates.

Several statistical studies showed that men tended to get more violations and crash more than women at certain ages. So women got (not sure if they still get) better rates.

I have always thought this was a pretty fair example of dynamic equality at work between the sexes. If the statistics changed and men started driving safer than women, women's rates would go up and men's would go down. It's about economics rather than actually about gender - they are using gender as a point of demarcation, yes, but they are not actually being sexist in my opinion.

Edit: According to what I can find, insurance companies started out giving women similar premiums to men but the actual payments worked out to be less because women drove less. Or claimed driving less. Or whatever.

[Monfang]

Well it's a shame they forced themselves into the private sector to do that. All you are doing is hurting one sex and not helping the other at all.

[Brittany]

Well it's a shame they forced themselves into the private sector to do that. All you are doing is hurting one sex and not helping the other at all.

I'm not condoning it, although as Trieste says, it was dynamic equality and it wasn't limited to sexes.  I believe a driver in their mid 40's who learnt to drive would pay significantly less than a driver of qualifying age, even though they have the same experience.  And I believe a driver over 70 who has a LOT of driving experience, would still pay more in many cases than an almost new driver in their middle age.  This was based on the probability that they are more likely to have an accident.

While it is something that does unfairly affect a male in comparison to a female, sexism would be to limit the male because he was male.  It was limiting the male because other males have crashed their cars a lot more than women have.  Under their system, if females were to start writing off cars in heavy numbers, then their payments would go up and if males had a big turn around on their no claims bonuses then male payments would go down.  Men are being let down by other male drivers in this respect.  The way they are going to do it now, is male and females will be merged together in driver statistics (while keeping age seperate).  Premiums will go up or down as they did, but instead of what we have now, a woman's rates will go up if men keep crashing their cars.

Also bear in mind these were just starting rates.  If Jack had three years of no claims bonuses added to his insurance and Amy had an accident and claims back every year, then Jack will pay less than Amy.

I don't particularly agree or disagree with the system.  I can see how it's unfair in individual cases, while being about right on a broader basis. But back to the original point, lowering the males costs to the level the female costs were at would have been a more welcome solution if one was deemed neccessary, and was the solution sought by the male equality groups.  By simply raising the female rate to meet the male, it doesn't really help the men who are paying for their daughter or wives insurance, and leaves the women while the insurance companies are rubbing their hands at all the extra money that is coming in. 

[Kythia]

Emphasis mine - actually, yes, that's how insurance companies work. If the statistics say you are less likely to get into an accident based on whatever factor, they will give lower rates.

Several statistical studies showed that men tended to get more violations and crash more than women at certain ages. So women got (not sure if they still get) better rates.

I have always thought this was a pretty fair example of dynamic equality at work between the sexes. If the statistics changed and men started driving safer than women, women's rates would go up and men's would go down. It's about economics rather than actually about gender - they are using gender as a point of demarcation, yes, but they are not actually being sexist in my opinion.

Edit: According to what I can find, insurance companies started out giving women similar premiums to men but the actual payments worked out to be less because women drove less. Or claimed driving less. Or whatever.

I'm surprised you agree with this, to be honest.  It seems to be step one to profiling.  Sure we can phrase it as the positive and say women make, on average, less insurance claims than men and so pay lower premiums.  But we can flip that to the negative - to men make on avergae more claims and pay higher premiums.

Which seems to be analogous to a whole load of other policies.  Asian youths steal more cars so police should be more free with stopping and checking.  Muslims are more likely to be Al-Queda terrorists so airport security should give them special attention. 

I've literally never thought about that topic before just now so there may well be something glaring I'm missing. 

[Monfang]

But if everyone gets their due process, their ability to prove their innocence or to prove that they are different, is profiling really as bad as it might seem?

[Brittany]

I personally thinking profiling has a benefit...  but I understand it is a hot issue.  To use one of the examples above:

Check all young islamic/foreign males that are carrying a bag onto a bus that may be used to conceal an explosive device

When you look at it like that, I can see how some people would find it repulsive and ignorant.  But lets look at how it would work in practise.  On 7/7 young muslim men got onto buses and tubes in London, at a time that we were all aware that any such threat would most likely come from young muslim men.  If each of them were checked, the 7/7 attacks could likely have been prevented.  As there were 4 seperate attacks, the likelihood is that such a rule would have at least lessened the overall devastation.  If they knew they would be checked, it could well have been pre-empted.  Because there was no such checks, people died.

So you could then say:

Extensively check all passengers who are boarding the bus with a bag

This would be a more fairer way of doing it, but is there much point?  Because 6 year old girls and 60 year old grandfathers are not likely to blow up a bus.  I'm not saying every muslim is, but the demographic for blowing up buses at that time was pretty much them.  The time and cost and inconvenience that it costs to extensively search anyone is pretty much wasted.  We can round it out to an age group and any ethnicity to be more politically correct, but I don't see the point because we know who the likely suspects are so why inconvenience more people than necessary?  If young white men started to blow up the buses, we could then check them as well, so I wouldn't see it as racism, or prejudice.  It's simply identifying likely threats and taking extra steps with them.

Is one particular muslim male more likely to blow up a bus than I am?  No.  I may have a troubled life and he may be a quiet devout.  It's entirely forgivable for the police not to forsee the actions of a single nutjob.  But in my view, it's not really forgivable to lose lives because they didn't recognise trends and act on them accordingly.

I see profiling, and police profiling especially as efficient.  If it had saved lives in 7/7 I wish we had used it.  As for how unfair it would be?  If females in their mid twenties were more likely to be bombing buses, I would happily be checked, for I have done nothing wrong and I would understand that it's other people of my age group that have let me down in this respect.  It may even be enough of an inconvenience for me to actively rally to change the opinions and ways of my demographic, something that didn't appear to really be happening enough in the islamic community back at that time.  They condemned it, but had it hit their own rights and convenience, they likely would have made a more concertive effort to stop it.

[Silverfyre]

Wow, justifying ethnic and gender profiling as a means of "keeping safe": that's a whole new level of "do not want" for me.  What was it Benjamin Franklin said?"

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

No thanks.  I'd rather not live in "1984".

[Monfang]

Wow, justifying ethnic and gender profiling as a means of "keeping safe": that's a whole new level of "do not want" for me.  What was it Benjamin Franklin said?"

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

No thanks.  I'd rather not live in "1984".

But is not the reverse also true? Should you give up security and safety for liberty?

[Silverfyre]

There is a fine line between giving up civil liberties for the sake of security and safety and outright denying those rights to another person or ethnicity due to the actions of an extreme few.  I would rather live in a world that gave the same consideration and legal rights to everyone than one that was deemed "safe" yet trampled on the rights of others. 

[Brittany]

Wow, justifying ethnic and gender profiling as a means of "keeping safe": that's a whole new level of "do not want" for me.  What was it Benjamin Franklin said?"

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

No thanks.  I'd rather not live in "1984".

We have agreed to disagree and to stay away from each other. as we have completely different views on life.  I disagree with every word you say and vice versa.  Not everyone here is an idealist liberal and you need to accept that.

I have kept my side of the bargain, I respectfully ask you to stick to yours as you are verging on bullying.  Many Thanks.

[Silverfyre]

It was a continuation of the discussion rather than just a single post and remark about your own.  You were not the only one commenting on the subject so perhaps you should stop considering that my responses are just about you or your limited perspective. I am allowed to continue posting in this section of the board whether you like it or not.  Thank you.

[Brittany]

It was a continuation of the discussion rather than just a single post and remark about your own.  You were not the only one commenting on the subject so perhaps you should stop considering that my responses are just about you or your limited perspective. I am allowed to continue posting in this section of the board whether you like it or not.  Thank you.

I am the only person to "justify ethnic and gender profiling as a means of keeping safe" as you referenced then mocked.  You know you were referencing me and trying to discredit me as you have been from your very first post.  I'd ask that you raise your level of maturity and keep your discussion away from my comments and references.  Thanks.

Note to moderators - I would have discussed this in private messages, but have been blocked.

[Silverfyre]

You were a part of the discussion and Monfang produced the point about whether profiling was good or bad.  If you don't like the discussion or being used as a part of the point, then don't post your ideas.  I'm allowed to discuss them, plain and simple.  You can ignore them if you like but if you continue to make points I disagree with, then why should I not be able to reference them when they are a part of the larger discussion? That's all I'll say about that.

[Star Safyre]

Racial and religious profiling by states for the alleged safety of its citizens has a very long and very ugly history.  I can easily recall instances in which the state abused this ability to segregate and harass certain portions of the population.  It was an excuse to violate basic human rights.  There's a big difference between a state government profiling a race or creed (even under the guise of public safety) and one gender getting a discount on car insurance bought on the free market.

Brittany: I'm confused.  How is it okay for a woman to have her bags searched and be subjected to additional police attention because of her gender but not okay to be paid less at work or be sexually harassed because of her gender?  State enforced sexism/racism in the name of public interest is acceptable but the same actions by the private sector isn't?

[Mithlomwen]

Not everyone here is an idealist liberal and you need to accept that.

Let's keep personal attacks out of the arguments please. 

Also a general reminder as things seem to be getting heated, sometimes taking a break is the best thing to do. 

[Monfang]

There is a fine line between giving up civil liberties for the sake of security and safety and outright denying those rights to another person or ethnicity due to the actions of an extreme few.  I would rather live in a world that gave the same consideration and legal rights to everyone than one that was deemed "safe" yet trampled on the rights of others.

Civil liberties is defined as: "(civil liberty) one's freedom to exercise one's rights as guaranteed under the laws of the country." If the laws of the country says that if the police believe you might be a risk to innocents, then you will be searched to make sure then you aren't giving up a civil liberty, you are working under it. You don't have a right to NOT be suspected for a crime or to be a danger to the general public.

There are four exemptions to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (For our friends across the pond, that would be the one that states that you or your property can't be searched without warrant) and one of those exemptions is called Exigent Circumstances. If the police believe waiting for a warrant puts the general public or their lives at risk, they can search you. That means if you fit the profile of people who are a danger to the general public, they can pull you aside and search you without a warrant. This is the law, which means that it is covered by Civil Liberties.

If a person looks like a gang member, I want them searched. If a person looks like a terrorist, I want them searched. If a person looks like they have a gun, I want them searched and to prove they can legally own it. I'm a starch supporter of Constitutional rights, and I clearly understand that those who keep us secure need the tools to keep us safe. (Now, don't think I am in support of drones overhead 24/7, that's a different matter, but) if the police believe that I am a danger to innocents, I want them to take action!

Though we do seem to be taking part in a wondering thread. Wonder if it's time to lock this because of how far we got away from the original point.

[Silverfyre]

And what defines how a "terrorist" looks or what constitutes a "gang member"?  Does some government committee come up with such "lawful" guidelines or does the individual carrying out the search do such things?  To some extremists, all "brown people" are terrorists; how can this be justified in any regard when you can simply switch on the news and know that there are people in power with these sorts of opinions? Such subjective definitions only serve to be the basis of discrimination and unlawful impediment upon civil rights. 

But yes, you are right; we are digressing.  I think the profiling of women in any regard is not a measure that would lead to anything but further problems and discrimination. 

[Monfang]

But yes, you are right; we are digressing.  I think the profiling of women in any regard is not a measure that would lead to anything but further problems and discrimination.

Right, with something as broad as females you are crossing a lot of lines.

With gangs it's easier because they have specific clothing and tattoos and terrorists generally come from specific areas with some exceptions.

In any case, you do have a few points about giving too much power to those who want it.

[Star Safyre]

If a person looks like a gang member, I want them searched. If a person looks like a terrorist, I want them searched. If a person looks like they have a gun, I want them searched and to prove they can legally own it. I'm a starch supporter of Constitutional rights, and I clearly understand that those who keep us secure need the tools to keep us safe. (Now, don't think I am in support of drones overhead 24/7, that's a different matter, but) if the police believe that I am a danger to innocents, I want them to take action!

Though we do seem to be taking part in a wondering thread. Wonder if it's time to lock this because of how far we got away from the original point.

I was kind of thinking that myself.  ::)  Maybe another topic split is in order?

The issue for me is the criteria used by law enforcement.  What constitutes "looking like a gang member"?  How does one look like a terrorist?  What gives the impression that someone has a gun?  If the whole of those traits are a list of uncontrollable features (age, race, gender, subculture, religion) and not based on individual facts, that's unreasonable in my mind.  I don't want to be searched only because of an increased likelihood of people my age, race, religious views, and socioeconomic level to be involved in crime no more than I enjoy hearing my black male students talk about being followed in stores or questioned for walking down a street in the evening.  Gang paraphernalia changes often as well.  One can find plenty of incidents described of innocent people being mistaken for gang members by both law enforcement and gang members themselves.

[Oniya]

You don't have a right to NOT be suspected for a crime or to be a danger to the general public.

Sorry, court-watcher here (sometimes I really miss cable.)

Actually, the Supreme Court has spoken on this back in 1895, with Coffin et al. v. US:

http://openjurist.org/156/us/432

The relevant bit starts at section 76 with

Greenleaf thus states the doctrine: 'As men do not generally violate the Penal Code, the law presumes every man innocent; but some men do transgress it, and therefore evidence is received to repel this presumption. This legal presumption of innocence is to be regarded by the jury, in every case, as matter of evidence, to the benefit of which the party is entitled.' On Evidence, pt. 1, § 34.