Reply #55: Thanks for your responses -- not sure why the post raised controversy.... [View All]

[Sparkly]

These really are matters of debate. Those who answered fully and thoughtfully SHOWED that they are areas for debate.

Within each response, I think there was consistency. One seemed to emphasize pragmatic concerns in some areas, and another based one "no" on a practical concern; other "no's" had to do with fairness (excess advantage) and another asked fairly for clarification. Another was a clear "all yes."

In my mind, the differences among these have to do with inherent "disadvantages" if you will -- physical limitations, socio-economic limitations, etc. Others are about SOCIETAL biases -- and ways of making up not just for past injustices, but also for CURRENT prejudices and the unequal burdens they create.

(Personally, for whatever it's worth, my answer is "yes" to all.)

It was the "Debra LaFave" debate that got me thinking about this. The MAIN argument against my proposition that the effects of the case are not easily-reversed by gender was that it's "anti-feminist" to suggest that things aren't all equal. (As if the whole fight is simply to be "treated equally," period.)

And that, to me, seemed like the same argument that rightwingers use against affirmative action (as I said in that thread). It's "racist" to treat blacks and other minorities "differently," they claim! It's "sexist" to treat women "differently," goes the argument!

It's the argument against a definition for "hate crimes." ("All murder is hate," they say!) It's the argument against women-owned business advantages. ("Equality means being treated equally," they rant!) Other matters of "preferences" I listed could be considered from an entirely different perspective (inherent differences, apart from the difference of societal biases).

Why some people are SO uncomfortable with discussions of these issues, I have no idea.