RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality

RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

LotusSong -> RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality (8/3/2006 6:04:25 PM)
I'm going to leave this thread and move the discussion to Utopia. The question has been rephrased. Thoughtful discussion appreciated.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality (8/3/2006 9:21:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level LA, you are one of the most reasonable human beings on this site; kudos to you. That is high praise, I greatly appreciate it.

amastermind -> RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality (8/4/2006 4:51:07 AM)
Ellen, Although your nazi imagery and SS uniform are a bit extreme, your point is not lost on me. I, as well as just about everyone else for that matter, have gone on interviews and soon realized that I had no chance for the job for reasons that had nothing to do with the interview or my qualifications. Prejudice of all forms exists and always will. Every organization has a culture and everyone knows that fitting into the social culture of the organization is as important as anything else when it comes to succeeding within the organization. But the last thing I want is for the goverment to enter in as my "savior". I have been paid less because of my heritage and had an exit interview with the president which desintegrated to him basically calling me a dirty jew. I laughed in his far as if to say, "Is that the best you can come up with?" To the extent that world socialism which has made all corporations conform to the same culture as dictated by government contracts and intenational labor laws (most of which unnecessarily tell companies how to manage themselves) has not completely taken over the economy, there are a variety of companies and corporate cultures. Rather than complain about being mistreated, harassed, or discriminated against, just leave and find a company more suited to you.

LadyEllen -> RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality (8/4/2006 8:15:39 AM)
Hi amm I sympathise with you - I also hope you dont think I would necessarily do the things I wrote to illustrate my point. I have a pair of shiny boots, but thats as far as it goes! I guess overall, it comes down to the same thing as many threads regarding justice/injustice do; some feel a need to remedy injustice and some are content to accept it as part of the deal and work around it. It could just be that we justice seekers are wasting our time and battling impossible odds in a struggle against human (and so societal) nature, but still I'd rather fight injustice than acquiesce to it I'm afraid. It is for me a better option to eradicate injustice as much as possible, however imperfect the means, than to succumb to what I feel would be a cynical life view whereby anything goes because thats how it is. Whether we are wasting our time or not, and societal progress would tend to suggest we're not, depends I guess on which view one takes. Of course in the end it is up to each of us how we deal with injustice - in work we could take legal action, we could sock whoever in the face, we could just leave or we could just live with it. What is important is that these options and the framework of determining what is just and unjust on which such options rely, is there. Without them, then really anything goes since if human nature is allowed to prevail then workers could be chained to their desks/machines and whipped to increase output - and whipped again if they complained, paid enough just to barely survive and subject to any whim of management at any time. Whilst some on these fora might find such a workplace attractive as fantasy, the reality is not. E

somethndif -> RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality (8/4/2006 9:46:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amastermind Dan An employer has a history of discrimination. Therefore, the remedy is to force him to discriminate more, with qualified innocent people being the victims. Sounds like the appropriate remedy to me. "You can't be serious". How about just punishing the employer? Fines, denying business licences, etc. Doesn't that make more sense? Keep trying to defend affirmative action. I doubt you will come up with anything. I do think that in some cases, some affirmative action makes sense and should be an available remedy, and I do not believe that requiring an employer to remedy past discrimination is requiring that employer to discriminate more, as you so misleadingly put it. But as I said earlier, affirmative action is dead; it is not being used in the U.S. any more to my knowledge, so there is no reason for me to defend it. And under U.S. law employers are not fined for unlawful discrimination, nor are they denied business licenses. Presumably denying the company a business license would put the company out of business, so I am very surprised you would even suggest that. I certainly don't endose putting an employer out of business because it was found to have engaged in unlawful discrimination. Rather, under U.S. law, the person who is the victim of the discrimination is entitled to reinstatement to the job he or she would have had, but for the unlawful discrimination, back pay to make up for the lost wages suffered as a result of the unlawful discrimination, compensation for the emotional distress of having been the victim of unlawful discrimination, and attorneys fees and costs. In a few, very rare cases, punitive damages may be awarded in an amount determined by the jury, and this could be viewed as a fine, but the discrimination victim, not the government receives the punitive damage award, in those few cases where punitive damages are awarded. Under U.S. law, there are statutory caps on the amount of non-economic damages, including punitive damages. For companies with less than 100 employees, the cap is $50,000. These monetary remedies for unlawful discrimination are, I think, entirely appropriate. The victim of unlawful discrimination may also be able to obtain from the court what is called injunctive relief, a court order to the employer who unlawfully discriminated, ordering the employer to stop its discriminatory practices. MM, it appears that you would do away with all of the discrimination laws and allow employers to discriminate against women, African-Americans, Jews, the disabled, etc. I have not heard even the most right-wing members of Congress advocating such a position. Are you a member of the KKK, the John Birch Society, a Dittohead? Dan

LotusSong -> RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality (8/4/2006 10:21:08 AM)
I don't think I'd argue with this guy ----> (somethndif) He just might know something..being a lawyer and all :)

somethndif -> RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality (8/4/2006 10:25:47 AM)
I should have posted this earlier, but for those actually interested in the topic of men and society's efforts to control/repress women's sexuality, I highly recommend this book, Nymphomania: A History, by Carol Groneman . It was published in 2001 and is available on Amazon. Dan

MasDom -> RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality (8/4/2006 7:32:43 PM)
Something tells me, this was the wrong place to ask that question. Smiles warmly....[;)]

LotusSong -> RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality (8/4/2006 7:47:55 PM)
I've always wondered..does anyone ever go back to the job they fought for after they won though? I would think the harrasment would continue but under a much more subtle radar. ?

amastermind -> RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality (8/6/2006 5:23:45 PM)
LadyEllen, I am not recommending being apathetic to injustice. It is just that one has to think things through more. I do believe that an employer has a right to hire or fire anyone for whatever reason he wants consistent with contracts. Fortunately, the law of supply and demand favors those who hire and fire based on performance and not on prejudice. The last thing I want is the government telling people how to run businesses and making preferred groups which may or may not have anything to do with the prejudices.

amastermind -> RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality (8/6/2006 5:58:42 PM)
Dan, You sound like a legal expert. However, expertise of the law doesn't give your opinions on what is justified or not justified more weight. In fact, in the court of public opinion, lawyers' opinions have little weight. Thus, although you "think that in some cases affirmative action makes sense and should be an available remedy", your "thinking" has little legitimate basis. As I said in an earlier post, if affirmative action is dead it is mostly because all defenses of it have been shown to be empty. I am not a member of any of the organizations that you mentioned, but that is not the point. Nor do I care much what members of congress say, nor about what labels you give people. Yes I do believe an employer, not receiving government funds should be able to "discriminate" on whatever basis he likes. I also believe that probably 90% of government contracts shouldn't exist. You can "think that in some cases, affirmative action makes sense and should be an available remedy" but that doesn't make your "thinking" valid. Moreover, there is nothing misleading about my characterization of affirmative action as unfair discrimination, or even better as institutionalized cheating.

caitlyn -> RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality (8/7/2006 7:39:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom In my experience, men only mock women they want to sleep with but can't. You have a wonderful habit of cutting to the chase. [;)] Much of this probably revolves around self interest. If men try to control women, it must be bacuase they are getting something out of it ... and vice versa. While not sure what putting a woman in a burka (sp) accomplishes, it must be in someone's own self interest. It would seem to me that if a man had a hot woman, he would wan't everyone to know it. I'm also not sure what pussy whipping a man to the point that everyone laughs at him, actaully accomplishes, but I know some girls that do that to their boyfriends/husbands, etc ... To me, all it does is say that the only man that you could attract, is a needy one ... but it must have meaning to someone, or girls wouldn't do it. My favorite part of this thread was the guy that told people to stop whining, and then went on a rant against affirmative action for women. This has been brought up in other threads ... you notice right away that most of the examples given to support one side of the discussion, are very old, dating back to the 70's. Now, I don't doubt that some women get a little "help" in various areas ... but quite frankly, so do some men. At the University I attend, the boys on the baseball and football team get lower admission requirements to get in, and then get tutors paid for out of the tuition from students that actually got in the old fashioned way, by having top grades in High School. It's not so bad for the baseball team, because they at least win a lot. The football team ... don't get me started. [;)]

LotusSong -> RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality (8/7/2006 2:03:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom In my experience, men only mock women they want to sleep with but can't. Much of this probably revolves around self interest. If men try to control women, it must be bacuase they are getting something out of it ... and vice versa. While not sure what putting a woman in a burka (sp) accomplishes, it must be in someone's own self interest. It would seem to me that if a man had a hot woman, he would wan't everyone to know it. This is more along the idea I was thinking of. What's with the burkas?

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125