Feminism - Frightbats Galore!

[Athias]

people discriminate all the time in various contexts.

sure. why should competition on the labor market be burdened with irrational discrimination such as animus based on sex, as opposed to rational discrimination, such as selection based on bona fide occupational credentials? does not the former impede market efficiency, whereas the latter enhances it?

You're correct. And, I agree completely. Nevertheless, the discretion to rationally or irrationally discriminate rests with the involved parties in the labor contract, n'est-ce pas?

[Littlefingers In The Air]

It is problematic from a parent's perspective, I suppose. But why does the increase costs in child care inform a right to inexpensive/free care? That is, why does the parent have a claim at the expense of the vendor selling the goods and services? Unless by free, you mean coverage by taxation -- in which case it would not be free/inexpensive. It would just be a diversion of financial obligation.

I guess when I think about implementation to make it free/inexpensive, it would come as a cost to the tax payers. But society says that children are the future and if that's really the case, society should be providing for the children. I think diverting the costs of childcare will, long term, go a very long way towards addressing poverty. At least from an individual standpoint; poverty has structural roots that need addressing.

[Athias]

I guess when I think about implementation to make it free/inexpensive, it would come as a cost to the tax payers. But society says that children are the future and if that's really the case, society should be providing for the children. I think diverting the costs of childcare will, long term, go a very long way towards addressing poverty. At least from an individual standpoint; poverty has structural roots that need addressing.

So would you find it disagreeable if I were to suggest that those who desire to see a reduction/elimination in child care costs volunteer the funds themselves as opposed to forcing that financial obligation to unwilling taxpayers?

[Littlefingers In The Air]

So would you find it disagreeable if I were to suggest that those who desire to see a reduction/elimination in child care costs volunteer the funds themselves as opposed to forcing that financial obligation to unwilling taxpayers?

Yes, I would. Reason being is that a productive service like Planned Parenthood received government grants that are funded via tax payer dollars, and I don't think most people would say that child care is less important than that. If we can pay for contraceptives, we can pay to take care of the children. Fair is fair, I say.

[sologdin]

discretion to rationally or irrationally discriminate rests with the involved parties

the involved persons generally have the ability, but not the right, to discriminate on the basis of sex.

[Athias]

Yes, I would. Reason being is that a productive service like Planned Parenthood received government grants that are funded via tax payer dollars, and I don't think most people would say that child care is less important than that. If we can pay for contraceptives, we can pay to take care of the children. Fair is fair, I say.

If you don't think that most people would say that child care is less important than that, why can its finance not be voluntary?

the involved persons generally have the ability, but not the right, to discriminate on the basis of sex.

Legally? Yes, I suppose you're correct. It's rather coercive and lacking of uprightness.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

If you don't think that most people would say that child care is less important than that, why can its finance not be voluntary?

Legally? Yes, I suppose you're correct. It's rather coercive and lacking of uprightness.

Because that otherwise we set a precedent that says sure, we tax payers will pay to help avoid conception, but once you get pregnant and have that baby, you're on your own. That is morally reprehensible and sexist, in my opinion.

[sologdin]

Legally? Yes, I suppose

oh, you weren't attempting to state the law? what other statement could be made regarding rights, then?

is it not coercive for an employer to deny employment on the basis of sex? why is it "coercive" when the state compels access to the labor market, but "freedom" when a privately owned organization denies access?

not sure what 'uprightness' might be. is that a moralist's criticism of the anti-discrimination statute?

[DreamSongs]

Yes, I would. Reason being is that a productive service like Planned Parenthood received government grants that are funded via tax payer dollars, and I don't think most people would say that child care is less important than that. If we can pay for contraceptives, we can pay to take care of the children. Fair is fair, I say.

Taxpayers in the US already do this. Its called the Child Care Credit.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

Taxpayers in the US already do this. Its called the Child Care Credit.

I'll read about it immediately.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

Taxpayers in the US already do this. Its called the Child Care Credit.

I'll read about it immediately.

[Athias]

Legally? Yes, I suppose

oh, you weren't attempting to state the law? what other statement could be made regarding rights, then?

is it not coercive for an employer to deny employment on the basis of sex? why is it "coercive" when the state compels access to the labor market, but "freedom" when a privately owned organization denies access?

not sure what 'uprightness' might be. is that a moralist's criticism of the anti-discrimination statute?

I guess it would be a "moralist" criticism. In the case where a privately owned organization denies access, I would not characterize that as coercive. Any prospective worker wishing to enter the labor market neither has a preexisting nor inherent claim to that organization's cooperation. So when an organization denies access, it is merely refusing to yield its assistance. On the other hand, when the State--a third party--enters itself into a contract and forces--by threat of imposing a sanction--cooperation by the P.O.O.--participation that should be determined by the P.O.O.--then yes, I would, indeed, call that "coercive."

[Lyanna Stark]

OK, last warning,

This is a thread for discussing FEMINISM. Hence the title. If the discussion is not about FEMINISM it is off topic and should be taken elsewhere.

The SCOTUS decision is fine to discuss from a point of view of feminism, but this is a thread for discusing FEMINISM and issues within feminism, it's not a generally political thread. For people who don't believe in feminism or think oppression is fine, this is not the correct thread.

[DreamSongs]

I wasn't aware that we were off-topic.

[sologdin]

well, aren't you a coercive third party all of a sudden, cerys.

athias--

isn't the state entering into the negotiation on behalf of one of the parties thereto, i.e., to protect the rights of the prospective employee against unlawful treatment by the employer? the state is already in that negotiation insofar as it protects the employer from thefts by the employee, say, or provides various services necessary for employer's operation. I can't see how employer avails itself of state assistance and then complains that the state is infringing its rights.

[Fragile Bird]

Just getting caught up. Great conversations. :)

I have some complicated feelings about this.

<snipped for length>

Very, very unfortunate.

I thought that was well said.

Given that I was raised as a boy I'm not sure that my experience is particularly useful in a general sense. My mother was of an age that places her as part of the 2nd wave, although I don't know that she was ever particularly active with it rather than just being supportive of it. She was a very big fan of Germaine Greer for a long time, but went off her after some more recent remarks (and my trans status combined with Greer's stance on trans women pretty much ensures that isn't changing back). The only area that I can recall Mum's feminism playing an explicit role was advocacy within the Catholic Church, for about 5 years she was going to Church with a priest that I'm pretty sure would be classified as a feminist these days although I'm not sure that he was back then. He was ultimately excommunicated by the Church and that was the last straw for her (and gave me an excuse to get out too).

Oh crap. I see that my linking the speech given by GG in Winnipeg in the last thread went down like a boatload of brown stuff. :p So sorry about that karaddin, I was unaware of that. I'll have to look that up. GG was a big influence on me in my university years, and while she's usually introduced as "always controversial" they don't usually go into details of the latest controversies.

Just so we are all clear, the Scotus explicitly declined to reach the constitutional question in Hobby Lobby. The majority based its opinion on a reading of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act and found it trumped the ACA mandate in the case of "closely held corporations" (whatever the hell that means). So this case can in theory be nullified by congress passing a law that changes the Rfra. So this is explicitly not a statement of constitutional rights, it is a statement of which statute trumps (not to say I think they reached the correct answer - haven't digested the opinions enough).

When you see a good analysis, can you post it? Maybe in the US Politics thread, though. :) Although that can move so fast it's hard to keep up with it.

Sorry for the derail, I'll go back to lurking now.

[DreamSongs]

OK, last warning,

This is a thread for discussing FEMINISM. Hence the title. If the discussion is not about FEMINISM it is off topic and should be taken elsewhere.

The SCOTUS decision is fine to discuss from a point of view of feminism, but this is a thread for discusing FEMINISM and issues within feminism, it's not a generally political thread. For people who don't believe in feminism or think oppression is fine, this is not the correct thread.

Personally, I agree with the SCOTUS decision. Adults should be responsible for their own reproductive decisions and expenses. The choice to use birth control or not is an individual one and both Hobby Lobby and Chik-Fil-A are well known to be corporations based on Christian principles. If I don't want to be hammered over the head with their OPENLY Christian principles, then I don't have to work or shop there.

That does not mean that I don't believe in feminism. It simply means that I believe that women should be in control of their reproductive decisions and not give away their right to that control. Once birth control is subsidized by health insurance, that begins to chip away at the feminist gains over their reproductive rights over the past 50 years IMHO.

[Athias]

I was not aware that we were off topic, either. Given the fact that you, Lyanna, voiced a desire to have an "industrious individual" provide information on the pay-gap, which I provided by the way, why is it suddenly "off-topic" when sologdin and I are discussing discriminatory pay? Or is it your perception of my alleged "libertarian" philosophy that irks you? If I'm violating any rules, I'll volunteer to end my participation, myself.

athias--

isn't the state entering into the negotiation on behalf of one of the parties thereto, i.e., to protect the rights of the prospective employee against unlawful treatment by the employer? the state is already in that negotiation insofar as it protects the employer from thefts by the employee, say, or provides various services necessary for employer's operation. I can't see how employer avails itself of state assistance and then complains that the state is infringing its rights.

That's a misconception. That is, the State enters on behalf of a party other than itself. And by unlawful, are we talking about the legal prohibition of sex-discrimination? A rather arbitrary extension of an unjust State prerogative? If a white woman, for example, wishes to not be employed by a black employer--or she decides to bid up her reservation wage with black employers--is that not her right? If the company in which she works hires a Jewish manager and she holds that manager in contempt by reason of his/her ethnicity/religion, is it reasonable to void said employee's ability to quit because her racism is socially intolerable? The entrance of the State in a capacity to "protect rights" is tenuous if its actions are undermining the agency and discretion of either party. Employers' solicitation of government services is a moot since it does not in any way qualify their rights.

What if these "protections" were applied to sex, would you still consider it reasonable?

[Fragile Bird]

Oh my. I would not travel down that road, DreamSongs. Getting birth control coverage was a fight to begin with, I wouldn't want to turn back the page 50 years. So many times in different threads over different topics, the argument comes down to the fact that only women get pregnant. And if you are going to argue about choices, why should companies provide coverage for lung cancer caused by smoking, or high blood pressure or diabetes caused by being overweight?

[Deedles]

Yep. I'd go along with Fragile Birds stance. If I am prescribed medication that can only be accessed through a doctor, then this should be covered by health insurance. So, re reproduction, condoms would not be covered. The cop, coils and implants should.