Even if you find a cause, or several causes for the imbalance that does not necessarily mean that they are problems.
Its changing the situation to favour the preferences of a group, depending on the situation being changed and what measures are to be taken some people may consider it worth it, but others may not.
the intelligent person wonders why
I have no problem with this, it's always helpful to try to figure out how something came to be.
and tries to correct the problem.
This can be problematic. We can try to figure out what influences the male muscovy duck to hold the female down and force copulation for example, but why is it a "problem"? and why should it be "fixed"?
Since when is people choosing what they want a "problem" that deserves "fixing" with indue influence?
Science is a tool used to try to figure out how things are, it doesn't judge them as morally good or bad.
Wikimedia Foundation efforts to address this "gender gap" have so far remained fruitless.
Why must everything be gender balanced? Why not let women do what they want instead of trying to force them in to places that aren't necessarily their thing?
If women are actors instead of objects, they can make their own damn choices and do what they want to do without requiring others to try to sweeten the deal specifically for them to try to entice them.
I agree with your post, I brought it up mainly because someone said that we know something with certainty, my post was to remind people that we don't really know anything 100% and to always leave room for doubt, nothing more.
I see people claiming that something is without a doubt 100% certain and truth. Which is why I linked that speech.
there are plenty of scientists out there who know the limitations of what they know, and there are a few who are more certain than they should be. When measures are proposed from theories where the measures are likely to destroy some people's livelihoods,the amount of certainty people want can differ. Those who aren't likely to be adversely affected by the measures are the most likely to want to push forward. Those that will be adversely affected, want to be truly sure it is worth it.
wanting to protect the environment from people can be a nice goal, but people need resources. It doesn't matter if we become 30% more energy efficient across the board when the population doubles.
There are lots of things we know with certainty.
i think richard feynman put it best.
The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.
Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.
Were the dissenting opinions from within the organisation though? I remember a piece written by one of the gay employees that said while the revelation of his donation was disappointing that he had always been reasonable and treated them no differently than anyone else.
from a bystanders point of view, it looked like just a lot of hate directed towards him, with no end in sight until there was some form of admission that he was an evil evil person.
Considering I don't see gay marriage activists advocating polygamy be accepted yeah, they aren't for equal rights. The only sensible thing that would treat everyone equally in regards to marriage would be to eliminate it as a government thing whatsoever.
treating people equally can be a silly goal though at times, I would not treat the prime minister of great Britain. The same as I would treat a six year old on a special needs bus. Like it or not people are different and sometimes those differences can matter to their suitability to a task or problem.
what people would probably agree more to is not using criteria irrelevant to a task, but that then devolves into what are the criteria and why is it important.
anyway the point I was trying to get across is equality as a blind goal is not necessarily a good thing.
The scary thing is you think that women have been powerless victims for millennia completely unable to have any effect on society or men until an eyeblink ago.
You must think women are pretty inferior to men to maintain that belief.. because how else would that situation have been maintained?
When it comes to people sense of agency, agents are capable of making decisions that affect the outcome of things, and things simply happen to objects.
To say that women are unable to have control over their situation (as you do when you paint them the victim) is to objectify them.
It is often in this way that feminists are the biggest objectifiers of women that I know.
And I think the majority of women back then (who were _not_ feminists) had a better idea.
Women weren't granted the vote until over 50% of the women _wanted_ the vote. To say that it was unfair before then is to say that those women who didn't want to vote were wrong, in which case you are telling women what they should want.
I actually did a rather lengthy post on that topic somewhere else in this thread.
You are looking at things through a great deal of distortion today. Women have always been favoured (see the women are wonderful effect which feminism uses to it's ends), but being favoured has had different sets of trade-offs at different periods.
Oppression: prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority.
This also may take your interest, from the past.
Let us first take our existing marriage laws. We shall find that in England whilst the woman is practically relieved of all responsibility for the maintenance of her husband, he can be compelled by poor law to maintain her under a penalty of three months’ hard labour for leaving her without provision, should she choose to apply to the parish. On anything that by latitude of interpretation can be deemed ill-usage or neglect, she can, if rich, obtain judicial separation with alimony from the divorce court, or, if poor, a magisterial order for separation with weekly maintenance from the police court.
Jackson versus Jackson has decided that a wife can leave her husband at will, that he cannot raise a finger to compel her to remain with him or to come back, neither can she be imprisoned for contempt of court for refusing to obey an order for restitution of conjugal rights; in other words, it is decided that the contract of marriage is the single case of a contract which one of the contracting parties is at liberty to break without reason given, and without compensating the other party. But it is well to remember that it is only one of the parties that has this liberty, for Bunhill versus Bunhill gives the wife the right to follow an absconding husband and break into his house, if necessary, for the purpose of compelling cohabitation. He, on his part, is precluded by the decision in Weldon versus Weldon from obtaining restitution of conjugal rights even by way of action; he is liable, however, for his wife’s postnuptial torts, so that she has only to slander or libel some person without his knowledge or consent, and whilst she comes off scot free, even though possessed of property, the husband can be cast in damages. Trespass to land, trespass to goods, injuries done through negligence, all these actions coming under the legal definition of “torts,” render the husband liable, no matter what private wealth the wife may possess.
Is the ability for a woman to put a man in jail effectively at her whim if he is not sufficiently wealthy not injust? Would you consider it a form of oppression, or not?
I can give modern examples, actually far worse ones for men where the women are literally holding the power to end their lives with impunity.
But I'm wondering what you consider oppression first.
Unrelated to the thread at hand, apologies I didn't see it earlier as this very much is the kind of thing I'd chime in on especially in regards to feminists very skewed ideas of history.
Would just like swing you something nice to read that may take your interest, shows how little some things have changed.
Very little to do with the site it comes from, it's well written. here
A small excerpt from towards the end of the piece:
Nowadays any one who protests against injustice to men in the interests of women is either abused as an unfeeling brute or sneered at as a crank. Perhaps in that day of a future society, my protest may be unearthed by some enterprising archaeological inquirer, and used as evidence that the question was already burning at the end of the nineteenth century. Now, this would certainly not be quite true, since I am well aware that most are either hostile or indifferent to the views set forth here on this question. In conclusion, I may say that I do not flatter myself that I am going to convert many of my readers from their darling belief in “woman the victim.” I know their will is in question here, that they have made up their minds to hold one view and one only, through thick and thin, and hence that in the teeth of all the canons of evidence they would employ in other matters, most of them will continue canting on upon the orthodox lines, ferreting out the twentieth case that presents an apparent harshness to woman, and ignoring the nineteen of real injustice to man;
Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.
