Positive discrimination towards women in society is justified. No because… Discrimination is never ‘positive’. In a civilized society, it is not exceptable to treat people differently, on the basis of gender. Furthermore, the claim of women having a “disadvantaged status” is preposterous. A quick examination of our laws and societal practices shows that women have an incredibly advantaged status. They are not required to register for the draft, like men are. They have a government council devoted solely to them , whereas men do not.
They have female-only scholarships and grants, whereas men do not. They have shelters to escape domestic violence, whereas men do not. They are protected from circumcision by law, whereas men are not. Their names are hidden when they accuse others of several kinds of crimes, whereas men are not. If anyone is disadvantaged, it’s men. Men are 80% of suicides, 40% of colleges students, 40% of degree earners, 80% of the homeless, 80% of the layed off, and 92. 7% of the job deaths.
Men are more likely to die from every major cause of death, and yet there exists no amount of medical funding and research for them, on par with that of women. And this is to say nothing, of the blatant discriminations, under the law, that men suffer, as mentioned above. Positive discrimination towards women should not be allowed Women shouldn’t be subject to positive discrimination because they are as capable as men are at succeeding in society. International law also states that men and women are both equal in right therefore positive discrimination is in direct breach of this.
Even given the best of intentions, discrimination based on ascribed rather than achieved characteristics is unjust Not true equality… If men and women are truly equal, there shouldn’t be a need for a particular legislation to classify them as such. Laws are inherently complicated and the wording can be interpreted in a variety of ways. If we propose to legislate ‘equality’ rights for women, that could have the negative effect of restricting the rights as lawyers examine the legislations finding alternate interpretations.
Ending up in constricting rights that is already given in general laws applying equally to every man woman and child in this country. Positive discrimination serves little purpose, women shouldn’t need a specific set of laws telling them what they can do, if they truly believe they are equal to men in every way. The basic laws such as Human Rights Act 1998 should be sufficient. Will Cause Resentment Between Men and Women Positive discrimination is seen as favouring one over the other, the other side will harbor resentments and jealousy.
Women and men need to work together in society; and, they can’t do so with such hostility between them. Such steps will engender a feeling of despair in men, when they are treated as less that of women. They will resent women, particularly for attempting to justify the discriminations against them. In no way, shape, and form could biases against men, contribute to a healthy society, nor will they mend any problems we have now. On the contrary, they would make relations between the genders far more problematic than they already are. As for your question, about my origins, I’m from Mars, if you’re from Venus.
It does not address the underlying issues well actually if the women of today are given jobs on the basis of positive discrimination, their daughters(and sons) have greater motivation and probability for getting jobs. Working/educated mothers have better chances of educated/working children. Schools set up just to educate girls are a form of positive discrimination. Positive discrimination is merely a ‘stop-gap’ measure. It only helps women in the ‘end result’ ie getting a job – it doesn’t address why they might not be having the access to these opportunities in the first place.
If women are not being offered jobs at the top end of industry, why not? If as in some countries it is because they do not have equal access to education, then addressing this base issue would have a more positive and long lasting effect. If women do not have access to jobs through discrimination reasons then discrimination legislation needs to be implemented or more strictly enforced. Positive discrimination may help the current generation of disadvantaged women but fails to address future generations issues. It is Men, Not Women, who are Disadvantaged in our Society
The claim of women having a “disadvantaged status” is preposterous. A quick examination of our laws and societal practices shows that women have an incredibly advantaged status. They are not required to register for the draft, like men are. They have a government council devoted solely to them , whereas men do not. They have female-only scholarships and grants, whereas men do not. They have shelters to escape domestic violence, whereas men do not. They are protected from circumcision by law, whereas men are not.
They’re names are hidden when they accuse others of several kinds of crimes, whereas men are not. If anyone is disadvantaged, it’s men. Men are 80% of suicides, 40% of colleges students, 40% of degree earners, 80% of the homeless, 80% of the layed off, and 92. 7% of the job deaths. Men are more likely to die from every major cause of death, and yet there exists no amount of medical funding and research for them, on par with that of women. And this is to say nothing, of the blatant discriminations, under the law, that men suffer, as mentioned above.
Rebuttal to opposition, part 1: “Not True Equality” In the post, “Not True Equality”, you stated that: “your premise is incorrect. All men and women should be treated equally. A woman keeping a man-slave for chattel does not make that slave inferior but if the law does not say that they are equal she’ll have the right to treat that man as an inferior and keep him as her slave; undermining him in everything. bullying people does not make someone superior, fact is more men bully women than vice versa and the law needs to state that the sexes are equal to diminish harassment from either side. It is your premise that is incorrect. You can not state that you think men and women should be treated equally, when you are arguing in favor of women being given special advantages in society. Secondly, the law does state that the sexes are equal; but, it isn’t applied that way. For example, only men are required to register for the draft. If it is equality you seek, then the answer is just that: equality. Inequality can not be fixed by advocating for more inequality. Thirdly, where on earth did you get that men bully women, more often than vice-versa?
You gave no citations; and, you need to add them. You outright claim it’s a fact; but, you go on to give no factual evidence. Furthermore, how is that relevant to the discussion at hand? Bullying has no barring on the subject of how the law should treat different groups. Rebuttal to opposition, part 2: “Positive discrimination towards women should not be allowed” In the post, “Positive discrimination towards women should not be allowed”, you stated: “There is no such thing as ‘international law’ in the USA, except for treaties which are ratified by the Senate.
Consequently, the so-called ‘international law’ must be subservient to USA law and interpreted accordingly. Thus, positive discrimination does NOT violate international law — because ‘international law’ does NOT exist in the USA. Women should certainly be granted positive discrimination, and men should give every advantage to them. ” Actually, there is such a thing as international law; and the one’s we are talking about have already been agreed to by the United States Congress. It is not, nor must it be subservient to U. S. law.
The United States signed the treaty known as the Charter of the United Nations; wherein the United States agreed to be bound by it’s articles, including chapter IV, wherein the United States agreed to adhere to the resolutions of the General Assembly. One such resolution was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which stated in Article 2: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty” One of the rights and freedoms set forth in the declaration, that was alluded to in the post, “Positive discrimination towards women should not be allowed” was the right to be equals before the law, as set out in Article 7, which states: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. ” The United States Congress has already signed this treaty and is therefore obliged to comply with it, at the legislative level. That is why ‘positive discrimination’ against men is already in violation of our laws and international law; and, why it can’t be permitted.