Equality and Inequality?

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards!

Thank you Vaj, for the vote of confidence and the unpaid advertising. A great deal more to this is already posted on the capitalism vs communism thread.

Of course, that comes from me, and I am no expert.

Might I suggest instead a female expert on this? Read "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand, a woman author and political philosopher.

Ayn Rand is a nut case. Yes, I have studied her "philosophy" in detail having read not only the two books mentioned but also "The Virtue of Selfishness" and many miscellaneous works as well.

I suggest a much better read would be Marilyn Waring "Sex, Lies and Statistics". Her work is based on the real world, not a fanciful utopia.

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste gluadys,

thank you for the post.


well.. if you can't be consistent, what can you be?

so.. your plan would be for people to have leave time, either as a sabbatical or maternity/paternity?

Or better--everyone gets sabbaticals and some may choose to use it as a time to have children.

irrelevant to you, perhaps, but not to me... or i wouldn't have mentioned it. you claimed, and still do, that a given an equal income, a couple without kids has more disposable income than a couple with kids, to which i take exception. this is simply a gross generalization, each situation is different and it's unfair to paint everyone with the same broad brush.

what if the assumption is wrong? unfortunately, situations are not like this in the real world... everything isn't equilivant.. if it were... we wouldn't be having this conversation. it's a mistake not to take into account the unique situation of each couple, in my opinion.

You are still mixing apples and oranges. The point is that all things being equal i.e. no other difference than the presence or absence of children, the couple without children will have fewer obligatory expenses.

What you are doing---and understandably so---- is bring this undeniable mathematical truth down to specific cases. But when we get to specific examples we never find that all things are equal. So specific couples without children will be worse off than specific couples with children because of circumstances that are specific to them.

Ideally, these other circumstances, which do not relate simply to the fact of having or not having children, are dealt with through different provisions of the tax system which apply equally to all households whether or not children are present.

So, for example, two households both supporting a person with a disability, should both get similar recognition under the tax system for the extra expenses involved. That recognition ought not to vary because one family has children and the other doesn't.

besides... it doesn't matter who has the most disposable income... it's about sharing the burden equally, in my opinion.

And that is exactly why disposable income does matter. Equal treatment of unequals re-inforces inequality. That is why income tax is progressive. If it were not, it would re-inforce the inequitable distribution of wealth. Progressive taxation is intended to balance out the tax burden so that it does not fall more heavily on the poor than on the wealthy. The goal is to have after tax income more fairly distributed than before tax income, so that people end up on a more level playing field.

Besides, its a long-standing moral principle that more is expected from those to whom more has been given. (Luke 12:48)

the issue that you raised was that education was developed for the leisure class, to which i pointed out that this was only true from your perspective. this was not the case in the East. it's on point and on topic, in my opinion.

Are you thinking of the Confucian meritocracy? Good point. Nothing like that was established in the west. That isn't to say that there were NO means for a person to achieve upward mobility through education. Church schools were always available. But they were also limited in their reach. Higher education was largely the preserve of the leisured classes. Exceptions were just that: exceptions.

is that the purpose of higher education though? it is not my belief that higher education is for the purpose of succeeding at a job. that is the purpose of a trade or vocational school, in my opinion.

Good, now you are asking the right question and alluding to the right answer. The purpose of education is not to succeed at a job. Even though it is a help in doing so. So what is it for? And why does that make it wrong to restrict access to education for those engaged in menial labour?

nope... using a personal anecdote to illustrate a point.

Sometimes personal anecdotes work. This one didn't.

why? why should i educate as many children as i can afford to? why can't i use some of my money to provide a homeless shelter for adults without children? why is it always about the "children"?

Do both, of course.

why would i pay for someone to get a PhD or any type of degree? why can't they pay for themselves, like other people do? get a loan, get a grant, work a job. where did this mindset come from that you are "owed" something by society?

The whole point of public services is to get them to people who cannot afford private ones. You will note that in spite of the availability of public schools, the very rich still send their kids to private schools. (And this even when the public schools are good ones. It's not just a matter of avoiding bad schools.) And even when public transit is available, people who can afford it tend to use private vehicles. And even when public parks and beaches are provided, people who can afford them go to private clubs. And even with public libraries and art galleries available, people who can do so purchase their own private collections of books and art.

In a society in which everyone must pay for every service from their own pocket, then only those who can pay can get the service. But then we have what we had in the 18th century: an underclass of uneducated, unskilled illiterates who have no hope of ever getting out of poverty. (What we still have in too many parts of the world.)

Is that the kind of society you want to live in?

You pay for public services so that most people, no matter where they start in life, can hope for a good life. You pay for people to be educated so that they can develop their potential and become contributors to society and give back, whether as professionals or as skilled labour, or as self-employed entrpreneurs, what they received as children and youth.

It's called a social contract. Society owes individuals the opportunity to do well and individuals owe society the responsibility to use the opportunities offered. Any society which expects responsible action from its citizens has the obligation to provide its citizens with the means to carry out their responsibilities. Demanding that people earn a livelihood through work, for example, carries with it the obligation to be sure there is paying work available for that purpose, and that the pay scales are adequate for that purpose. It also carries with it the obligation to see that people are equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills to perform the tasks needed in their jobs.

continued......

[gluadys]

....continued

perhaps, you can come to know me before casting aspersions on my nature? it is quite clear that you have little knowledge of me and my perpetually positive outlook on life

Yes, I thought afterwards I should have added a smiley to that jab. I didn't intend it seriously.

you've not provided any compelling reasons for me to subsidize parks that i can't afford to go to, people researching products that i cannot afford to purchase or, for that matter, how i "indirectly" benefit from someone else going to the beach at the national park?

You should be able to afford to go to the parks. High user fees for public goods are an oxymoron. Wherever possible there should be no user fees. But in many cases it is a trade off between lowering fees and raising taxes.

Buying the products of research would depend on the research. If it is an improvement in aircraft, not everyone is going to be able to purchase the aircraft. But you can still purchase a ticket for a flight on one. And if it is an improved flu vaccine, perhaps you should get it for free. Our provincial government provided flu vaccine free to all comers last winter.

Indirect benefits are more difficult to evaluate and I won't attempt to. I just think it is self-evident that summer camps for under-privileged kids are likely to have a positive effect which may keep at least some of them away from drugs and prisons, and that that is a good thing to happen.

perhaps... you are a wealthy person and aren't concerned about your social security money.. or you live in a country where such a thing doesn't apply.. in any case, i'm not wealthy and it does concern me a great deal that the money i'm putting into my retirement account is being spent and will probably not be there when i'm ready to retire.

LOL. Far from it. I currently pay about the same rate of tax you do, but that is only within the last 7 years since I landed a secure job with benefits. And as a single mum with two kids I am deeply in debt paying for their post-secondary education and the mortgage I had to take out on my house so I could purchase my ex-husband's share of the property. So I don't have a dime to contribute to a retirement income account beyond the one provided me by the company. I will have barely 10 year's worth of contributions to non-government pension funds and expect they will provide less than one-third my current income. I also have a big 12-year gap in the compulsory contributions to the federal pension plan, since I was out of the work force that long raising the kids. So that will lower my income from that source. I want to hang onto my house, but I don't know if I will be able to.

I have spent most of my life either in poverty or on the verge of poverty and expect to spend my old age in (hopefully genteel) poverty. I don't go to the dentist except in an emergency (dentistry is not covered under medicare); and since the last car gave out I haven't replaced it (can't afford either car payments or insurance).

I don't say this to complain, because all things considered, I have an enjoyable life. The vicissitudes I have gone through have taught me, like the apostle Paul, to be content whether I have much or little. Having stuff doesn't matter a lot to me.

But, no, I am not wealthy by any means.

you assume an idilic world where people that are poor and receiving hand outs want to work.. read Juans post about this aspect.. many of these folks don't want to work... instead... they get more money for having more babies... so that's what they do and it perpetuates the cycle of poverty, joblessness and hoplessness. giving people handouts does not help them improve their condition. encouraging them to get gainful employment does.

Stereotyping and poor-bashing. You need to learn more about the realities of living in poverty. It is this kind of mis-information about people who are forced to depend on welfare that leads to such idiotic welfare policies. Policies that encourage the very behaviour you deplore.

By and large people in poverty work very hard. Even when they are not employed. Some of them work hard at raising their kids. Some of them work hard at series of part-time & temp jobs trying to latch onto the one that will take them permanently out of poverty. Some of them work hard studying so that they will be qualified for good work. Some of them work hard at criminal activities which pay a lot more than the legitimate jobs they can get. Some of them work hard at panhandling. And some of them work hard at learning how to squeeze more out of the welfare system--legally or illegally.

Very often they work under very trying circumstances. Lacking access to child care, they have to take their younger children with them everywhere they go--including hours spent in line at the welfare office and including job interviews. Lacking adequate food and decent housing, they often have to work while they are ill and exhausted. Subjected to constant stress, they often have to cope with emotional illness as well.

Claiming they don't want to work is a comfortable illusion to salve the affluent conscience. It is a claim denied every time people have a genuine opportunity provided them. It is denied every time news of a job opportunity draws thousands of people out for the hundred places available. It is denied when those exempt from compulsory workfare voluntarily enroll at three times the rate estimated by the tycoons in provincial cabinet. It is denied everytime someone takes advantage of educational and skill training opportunities voluntarily. It is denied every time someone steps up as a parent volunteer at school or Little League or at the hospital. These are all real situations I have personally observed.

I have lived and worked with people in poverty for over two decades. I have NEVER found some one who is genuinely unwilling to work. I have found hundreds unable to work--often made unable to work by the stress of poverty--and hundreds denied the opportunity to work, but never anyone unwilling to work.

Our treatment of the poor is still on the level of Pharoah's treatment of the Hebrew slaves. We demand they make brick without straw and castigate them for their laziness when they fail.

No, we do NOT need to encourage the poor to get gainful employment. We need to make it possible for them to be employed. But we are not going to do that. Our capitalistic system finds it more profitable to give them handouts and sustain a welfare industry and a prison industry than to invest in them by generating meaningful employment or extending credit for self-employment. It needs a readily available pool of cheap labour and handy scape-goats to keep the middle class in line when they want better wages and working conditions (such as not needing to fear being fired on a whim).

This is not to be unmindful of genuine efforts that are being made in many places. Micro-credit, for example, to help people launch a small business without standard collateral. And I agree that one of the good outcomes of workfare has been the creation of hands-on training, skills improvement, help with job searches, etc. My point, which I made to my provincial representative when it was introduced here, is that one could make all this available without making participation mandatory. People on welfare have been asking for these kinds of programs for decades. Wherever such programs did exist on a voluntary basis, they were always full. They just needed more of them.

Motivating welfare recipients was not the hold-up. They were already motivated. What was needed was injecting motivation into the system to provide these tools. But we non-welfare types could not justify providing the tools and trusting people would use them. Our stereotypes said we had to make sure the tools would be used by making it mandatory to use them. Making workfare mandatory is a largely useless addition to providing the opportunities of the workfare program. Its only justification is to provide an excuse for withdrawing assistance while heaping more humiliation and punishment on people for the crime of being poor. The programs associated with workfare would be, by and large, just as effective if they were voluntary.

this is not correct. the money was in the transportation fund... we've had report after report after report on this where i live.... the money has been misspent and misused and now it is gone... yet... the roads still have to be fixed and new ones built. it simply bothers me to have to pay twice for the same thing. i realize that you may not be able to empathsize with me on this, however, it is something that concerns me.

So, the problem is not really taxation at all. Its mismanagement of public funds. That is a legitimate problem. But name it for what it is instead of crying about high taxation.

no kidding. the last free lunch i had came when my boss took me to lunch... and then asked me to assume new duties at the company for the same pay.

congrats!

my contention is that both methods are being used and i don't feel that it would be necessary if government was fiscially responsible.

Agreed.

despite the evidece on this thread to the contrary, neither do i. the mindset that i do have is equal share of the burden distributed equally across all citizens.

As long as equality is understood proportionally. One does not expect an 80-year-old grandmother to lift as heavy a burden as an active professional football player. Same applies in economics. Each should bear the burden they are capable of bearing.

no, i've not heard of Mr. Wink. are there any sites that you could recommend?

Try this. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...96150?v=glance

His major work is the trilogy: Naming the Powers, Unmasking the Powers and Engaging the Powers. The Powers that Be is a one-volume summary of this trilogy.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste gluadys,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by gluadys

You are still mixing apples and oranges. The point is that all things being equal i.e. no other difference than the presence or absence of children, the couple without children will have fewer obligatory expenses.

fruit is fruit. in any case... all things aren't equal when we examine the situation of individual couples... which you allude to further down.

What you are doing---and understandably so---- is bring this undeniable mathematical truth down to specific cases. But when we get to specific examples we never find that all things are equal. So specific couples without children will be worse off than specific couples with children because of circumstances that are specific to them.

isn't this what we're talking about?

So, for example, two households both supporting a person with a disability, should both get similar recognition under the tax system for the extra expenses involved. That recognition ought not to vary because one family has children and the other doesn't.

i agree that it shouldn't, yet, it does.

Equal treatment of unequals re-inforces inequality.

i think you lost me here... equal treatment of all people reinforces inequality? this doesn't make sense to me. can you elaborate on this idea?

That is why income tax is progressive. If it were not, it would re-inforce the inequitable distribution of wealth. Progressive taxation is intended to balance out the tax burden so that it does not fall more heavily on the poor than on the wealthy. The goal is to have after tax income more fairly distributed than before tax income, so that people end up on a more level playing field.

it's a flat % of your income that you pay as income tax. if you make more money, your % may increase to the maximum, however, at either end of the spectrum, those that pay the highest % and those that pay the lowest % the actual numbers are not equal. 33% of 500,000 is not the same as 33% of 1,000,000.. and 18% of 19,000 is not the same as 18% of 15,000. i'm not sure what and where the % increases are in your system so these may not be applicable.

but this doesn't distribute the income at all... this is collecting money from people to pay for services and whatnot... it's not as if this money gets distributed to those that have less.

Besides, its a long-standing moral principle that more is expected from those to whom more has been given. (Luke 12:48)

pardon me if i don't find Christian moral principles all that influencing.

Are you thinking of the Confucian meritocracy? Good point. Nothing like that was established in the west. That isn't to say that there were NO means for a person to achieve upward mobility through education. Church schools were always available. But they were also limited in their reach. Higher education was largely the preserve of the leisured classes. Exceptions were just that: exceptions.

not really since this system didn't exist during Kung-Fu-tze's time.. it arose as the effect of his efforts though.

Good, now you are asking the right question and alluding to the right answer. The purpose of education is not to succeed at a job. Even though it is a help in doing so. So what is it for? And why does that make it wrong to restrict access to education for those engaged in menial labour?

if by restrict you mean "paid for by others" then i think it's obvious why that's not a good plan. the menial laborors aren't restricted from higher education.. they can do exactly what i did.. they can get a job and pay for it for themselves. granted.. this isn't easy and isn't practicle in all cases. nevertheless, this is a valid method that one can use that does not require anybody else to pay for their education directly. even this, however, does not relieve the tax burden of the citizen.. since their taxes are still used to subsidize the educational system. it reduces it a great deal, however, and that is a sound fiscial plan.

what is education good for? well.. that's acutally a very good question. i'm afraid that i cannot give a response to this query at this time as i've not spent a sufficient amount of time considering it.

The whole point of public services is to get them to people who cannot afford private ones. You will note that in spite of the availability of public schools, the very rich still send their kids to private schools. (And this even when the public schools are good ones. It's not just a matter of avoiding bad schools.) And even when public transit is available, people who can afford it tend to use private vehicles. And even when public parks and beaches are provided, people who can afford them go to private clubs. And even with public libraries and art galleries available, people who can do so purchase their own private collections of books and art.

what do you mean by "public" schools? the "public" schools in america are run by the government.. these aren't run by the "public". private schools, on the other hand, are run by the public. it may surprise you to know that one does not have to be very rich to send ones child to private school, at least where i happen to reside.

i suppose that i don't see much of a problem with people wanting to own some books... are you advocating that books should only be available in public libraries?

same with private beach clubs vs. public beaches. if someone wants to join a little club, what's wrong with that?

In a society in which everyone must pay for every service from their own pocket, then only those who can pay can get the service. But then we have what we had in the 18th century: an underclass of uneducated, unskilled illiterates who have no hope of ever getting out of poverty. (What we still have in too many parts of the world.)

Is that the kind of society you want to live in?

i'm not convinced that this isn't the case currently. i'll give you another personal anecdote, which i know that you enjoy

my boss recently bought a home in a suburb near our work. he pays his standard tax rates.. however, there is no public service to his street. he has to hire a private trash pick up service. if there is snow in the winter, the folks in the street have to plow it... no public service. taxes paid for public service yet, none of it is provided to him. so his tax money subsidizes public services of which he gets no benefit.

if we paint with broad brush strokes we often miss the actual individuals that we are discussing.

You pay for public services so that most people, no matter where they start in life, can hope for a good life. You pay for people to be educated so that they can develop their potential and become contributors to society and give back, whether as professionals or as skilled labour, or as self-employed entrpreneurs, what they received as children and youth.

hmm... well... that's not really why i do it. i pay for public services because i believe that they are needed. what i object to is the disparity between what i pay and what people with children pay. i object to the mismanagement of my tax money and then, due to said mismanagement, an increased tax burden that is not borne across the shoulders of all who take advantage of public service.

It's called a social contract. Society owes individuals the opportunity to do well and individuals owe society the responsibility to use the opportunities offered. Any society which expects responsible action from its citizens has the obligation to provide its citizens with the means to carry out their responsibilities. Demanding that people earn a livelihood through work, for example, carries with it the obligation to be sure there is paying work available for that purpose, and that the pay scales are adequate for that purpose. It also carries with it the obligation to see that people are equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills to perform the tasks needed in their jobs.

continued......

i completely disagree. society doesn't own anybody anything. this is a victim mindset and i don't share it. opportunities are those situations where a person sees an opening and takes advantage of it.. like anything in life. as you said yourself... there's no such thing as a free lunch. to encourage people to think that they are owed something by society.. which really means, you and i, is, in my opinion, not skillful action to help them change thier situation.

if you were to apply for a computer database administrator job.. is it the responsiblity of the company to ensure that you are trained for the job or it your responsiblity to be trained for the position to which you are applying? if there are two applicants for the job, one that knows how to perform the job and one that, though eager, does not have the skills, which applicant do you think the company will hire?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste....

Originally Posted by gluadys

Yes, I thought afterwards I should have added a smiley to that jab. I didn't intend it seriously.

tonal intonation and body language are sorely lacking in internet discourse.. which tends to make humor a bit tough

You should be able to afford to go to the parks. High user fees for public goods are an oxymoron. Wherever possible there should be no user fees. But in many cases it is a trade off between lowering fees and raising taxes.

yes, i agree that i should.. but i cannot. the fact of the matter is that there are too many people that use the services and not enough people paying for them... and then, the people that are honest and pay their taxes are given an additional tax burden to makeup the shortfall.

Buying the products of research would depend on the research. If it is an improvement in aircraft, not everyone is going to be able to purchase the aircraft. But you can still purchase a ticket for a flight on one. And if it is an improved flu vaccine, perhaps you should get it for free. Our provincial government provided flu vaccine free to all comers last winter.

Indirect benefits are more difficult to evaluate and I won't attempt to. I just think it is self-evident that summer camps for under-privileged kids are likely to have a positive effect which may keep at least some of them away from drugs and prisons, and that that is a good thing to happen.

i don't know about you... but i find airline tickets, in general, to be pretty expensive.... mostly out of my price range.. unless i save up money for awhile. i don't take flu shots... i'm not a big fan of purposefully infecting myself with anything... though i do understand it's benefits for some folks. our city area provided flu shots for childern and the elderly.. if you were a regular working adult, you had to purchase it for yourself.

summer camps, however, are not paid for by my tax dollars. these are paid for by the rich folks that can send their kids there. in the case of inner city plans... i'm not really sure how that works. i am led to understand that there are some states that provide these things for their citizens for free.

indeed.. if they go to prison, i have to pay for them as well. i'd much rather that they stay productive members of society and contribute to the overall health of the society.

Stereotyping and poor-bashing. You need to learn more about the realities of living in poverty.

why is it that you continually castigate me on issues of which you have no knowledge?

i grew up dirt poor. when i say dirt poor i mean to say that we had a dirt floor.... it was north africa after all. when we finally made it to the states, i was a teenager. when i was 16 i left home and lived on the streets of the city for nearly 2 years.. sleeping in bushes and apartment complex laudry rooms... hey.. the dryers will keep that place warm for several hours at a time. my actions during this time were very unskillful and, not to be pendantic about it, illegal in many respects..... i could go on and on about this.... but it's not a very pleasant topic. i did what i had to do to survive as terrible as those actions were.. but you know what? i did survive. and it wasn't because someone gave me something or society helped me. far from it in fact. when you're down and out events seem to transpire that keep you there... if you let them.

i chose another way. since i've done so, i know that anybody can do it as well... which is why i argue as i do. i am a supreme believer in the ability of humans to change thier situation for the better, should they sincerely wish to.

i think that it would behoove you to ascertain the background of the person with whom you are dialoging prior to claming that they have no understanding of the matter of which they speak.

Claiming they don't want to work is a comfortable illusion to salve the affluent conscience.

that's a facile statement if i've ever heard one. it's not an illusion.. which you allude to in your own post. perhaps, it's not indicative of every person on welfare.. and i didn't say that it was. again.. i'd ask that you read Juan's post about this aspect of the thing.

These are all real situations I have personally observed.

what was it you said about personal anecdotes?

I have lived and worked with people in poverty for over two decades. I have NEVER found some one who is genuinely unwilling to work. I have found hundreds unable to work--often made unable to work by the stress of poverty--and hundreds denied the opportunity to work, but never anyone unwilling to work.

however, i'm sure you would admit that you've not met everybody that is poor.. even in your own city, have you? based on your limited sample data, you've come to this conclusion. based on my limited sample data, i've come to a different conclusion. Juan, based on his sample data, has come to even another conclusion.

the fact is, each situation is unique and we do a disservice to all involved if we treat them as a statistic.

Our treatment of the poor is still on the level of Pharoah's treatment of the Hebrew slaves. We demand they make brick without straw and castigate them for their laziness when they fail.

if you think that Pharoah only castigated slaves when they didn't perform well.. i'd suggest that you visit your local library again and check this out more fully. we don't execute poor people, for being poor at any rate, here nor bury them with the people that they work for.

No, we do NOT need to encourage the poor to get gainful employment. We need to make it possible for them to be employed. But we are not going to do that.

how is this accomplished? if we don't encourage them to get off the dole, why would they? so.. we need to create jobs for them to have? i completely agree. perhaps.. there would be more jobs if that lousy NAFTA wasn't in place... but it is.. and here we are. in any event.. last time i checked, there was nothing in place that would prevent one from getting a job if they are poor.

Our capitalistic system finds it more profitable to give them handouts and sustain a welfare industry and a prison industry than to invest in them by generating meaningful employment or extending credit for self-employment. It needs a readily available pool of cheap labour and handy scape-goats to keep the middle class in line when they want better wages and working conditions (such as not needing to fear being fired on a whim).

agreed. though i'm unaware of a better system for a large population. i'm critical of the bourgeoisie and i support the proletariat at every opportunity... i am a dichotomy in this regard.

So, the problem is not really taxation at all. Its mismanagement of public funds. That is a legitimate problem. But name it for what it is instead of crying about high taxation.

do you see how they are related? if the funds are mismanaged the reasonable money that i've already paid into the fund it gone... yet, the services must be supplied and thus, my taxes increase. these are not seperate and the issue must be looked at as an organic whole. cutting into discrete bits, though useful for discussion, does not help to solve the problem.

As long as equality is understood proportionally. One does not expect an 80-year-old grandmother to lift as heavy a burden as an active professional football player. Same applies in economics. Each should bear the burden they are capable of bearing.

i suppose i have a fundamental issue with some people being more equal than others. equality is equality. it either is or is not.. there is no inbetween. if we are going to say that the very young and the very old are not as "equal" because they cannot perform the same physical tasks.. where is the line drawn? what stops it from becoming another method for one group to control another?

whilst it's true enough, in the scenario that you've outlined, that a healthy elderly woman isn't as physically strong as a professional football player, this is a stereotype as well. if the football player has suffered an injury and cannot walk.. whos to say which of the two is more fit?

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

With all due respect, you were properly quoted and in context. I even took the liberty of separating your name from the quotes so that it would not appear that I was verbally assaulting you.

So, I must conclude one of two things. Either you misinterpreted what I intended, or you understood completely and I hit a nerve.

No I was not properly quoted, nor was I quoted in context. Whether you have my name attached or not is irrelevant. I would prefer, in fact, that you leave my name attached. I am prepared to stand by my words.

Whether I misinterpreted what you intended or not, I don't know. I hope it was misinterpretation, because it reflects very badly on you if it is not. What I do know is that I understood what you said and it did hit a nerve because it was based on your improper use of what I said.

This is important to me. You have posted a lot of material which I want to reply to with seriousness. If I cannot count on you to read what I say properly, it is not worth my time and effort to do that.

If you continue to twist my words, even accidently, so that they mean the opposite of what was intended, the discussion is at a standstill. If you are doing so with intent, then you are guilty of deliberately misrepresenting my position so that it fits your preconceptions.

So, I am going to go over each of the (now) four out of context citations from my post and show that you have --designedly or accidently--misrepresented what I said.

I'll start with the last one, which is new and wasn't named before.

post #30 05-11-2004, 12:22 AM
juantoo3


*Why? The one girl who signed up for my auto shop class quit (of her own accord) on the first day. Her loss. Why must schools continue an attitude of segregation? If parents stood up to it, it would not be the norm, or a "necessary concession." I suspect the schools maintain the segregation to appease the parents, furthering the cultural biases instilled. Seems to me your daughter's school should catch up with the times, considering I graduated 25 years ago.

Emphasis added.

What you are doing here is conflating two different and distinct things which I said. One was that in some cases, classes are held in auto mechanics especially for girls and in home ec especially for boys. Both of these classes are quite popular, as they provide a "safe place" in which to try on a non-traditional role with others who are doing the same. I suggested that such classes, while not the ideal, are a good starting point and necessary concession while society is in transition from the dictated gender roles of my childhood to the gender equality we hope to see in the future.

I did not at any time say that such classes were the norm in my daughter's school. In fact, when speaking of her venture into auto mechanics I said:

Since home ec and auto mechanic classes were made available to all comers, the gender balance in both is equalizing rapidly in high schools. My daughter took auto mechanics and she was far from being the only female.

Emphasis added.

Here I am talking about a situation approaching gender balance. You do not have gender balance in a single gender class. It was in a situation of increasing gender balance that my daughter took auto mechanics. That would be impossible if she had enrolled in a girl's only auto mechanics course.

So in disparaging my daughter's high school for its approach, you showed that you had not read what I wrote correctly. You confused and muddled two different paragraphs and made an unfair accusation which was not warranted.


Now back to the other misquotes.

I said:
"No one is saying there are no relevant differences between men and women."

You responded:
"If there are no relevant differences, then discriminating against one in favor of the other is discrimination."

My statement came up in the context of midwives and obstetricians. I'll leave discussion of that issue until later. Here I want to show how your response misrepresents what I said.

It is possible you were confused by the double negative. I think that possibility is remote since you seem quite articulate enough to handle it. But let's unpack it anyway.

Let's leave off the preliminary phrase and get to the key statement.

"There are no relevant differences between men and women."

Do you agree with this statement? Do you think this is what feminists are saying? Many people do think this is what feminists are saying---that gender and biology can be ignored in all circumstances.

And, in fact, from your response, it appears that this is how you read my statement. For you begin, "If there are no relevant differences,....." as if this was a settled issue.

But it is not a settled issue. I do not agree that there are no relevant differences between men and women. And I don't know a single feminist who would say that gender differences are never, ever relevant.

That's why I began with that preamble: "No one is saying that...."

Now it appears I was wrong. You seem to be saying it. You seem to be agreeing that there are no relevant differences between men and women. But that is the opposite of what I was saying.

And when you insert that phrase "If there are no relevant differences,....." as if you were following along from my statement, it is like you are putting words into my mouth that are 180 degrees removed from my statement. You have completely reversed what I said.

Now if that is not quoting out of context, I don't know what is.

So let me make it clear now. I do believe that circumstances alter cases. I do believe that we have wrongly exaggerated the differences between men and women and locked both sexes into gender roles when that is unnecessary and discriminatory. But that doesn't mean it is always ok to ignore gender differences either.

In some circumstances, (not all or even most, but some) --- in some circumstances gender differences do matter. And in most circumstances (not all, but most) gender differences are irrelevant.

Now can I count on you not to misrepresent my position on this issue again?

I said
"Of course it's not. It is not anybody's experience. Because we live and have lived for centuries in a patriarchal society which distorts people's natural individual aspirations and limits them to what is acceptable for their gender."

You said
If "it is not anybody's experience," then why discriminate?

You had spoken about something I had said as not being true in your experience. And my response was to agree that it would not be true in your experience, because it would not be true in anybody's experience as long as we live in a society that discriminates.

Just what experience did you think I was referring to? Is it not clear that I was saying that all of us are immersed in an experience of a discriminatory society? We do not know what a society of gender equals looks like because we have never seen one. Men and women both are taught how to behave in a discriminatory society. Men and women both do what it makes sense to do in a society where discrimination is the norm. For women this often includes accepting quietly and without protest the limitations imposed on them in regard to education, profession and marriage. And for both men and women it includes living up (or down) to what is expected of them in an atmosphere of discrimination.

Yet you come back asking "why discriminate?" as if that is what I was supporting instead of what I see as the problem.

Your response made no sense in light of what I said, and I can still only conclude that you did not understand what I said.

If, as you asserted to the contrary, you understood "quite clearly and in no uncertain terms" then I can only conclude that you are engaged in a deliberate attempt to misrepresent my meaning.

I said:
"AS for who caused the disparities, who is responsible---the roots of the present lie in centuries of the past. None of us are personally responsible for creating it. What we are responsible for is correcting it."

You said:
If "none of us are personally responsible," why then are a select few to be held accountable?

It was you who inserted the concept of "a select few" being "accountable" presumably for the existing discrimination. Even though you actually quoted me as saying "none of us" are responsible.

And as for correcting the existing discrimination, I said "we" with no limitation or qualification, and that is exactly what I mean. All of us, of both genders, of every age, nationality, class, language, faith or whatever other qualifier you wish to name, "we" are all responsible to create justice to replace injustice, to create equality where there is inequality, to end illegitimate discrimination of all sorts. I do not agree that a "select few" only are to be held accountable, and for you to imply that I do is a misrepresentation of what I said.

I said:
"Again you seem to hear the opposite of what I said. I said specifically that no one deserves to have the burdens of society placed on their shoulders alone. At least that is the meaning I intended when I said that no one (at least no one of this generation) is responsible for creating gender disparities. The roots are too far in the past to apportion blame to anyone today. "

You said:
Uh-huh. I see...so you just freely discriminate because you feel like it, and that is somehow better?

And this is going well beyond any possible misunderstanding of what I said. This is entirely an invention out of your own mind which you are blatantly implying comes from me. How could you possibly draw from what I said that I am in favour of "freely discriminat[ing] because you feel like it"?

There is nothing at all in what I said that leads to this conclusion. And I completely and firmly repudiate that notion as utterly repugnant to me.

I said:
You are deriving a conclusion which assumes the opposite of what I said.

You said:
Do you not think that perhaps in your zealousness you might have overlooked the obvious in your own arguments?

No I do not think I have overlooked what is obvious in my arguments. I think you, in your "pent-up frustration" (as you called it in your post to Brian) have inserted concepts which are obvious to you into what I said whether the concepts are actually there or not.

But, however obvious these ideas seem to you, they are your ideas, not mine. I can understand that because these ideas are obvious to you, you are leaping to the conclusion that they are obvious to me too. But they are not. They come from your mind, not mine, and you are imposing your ideas onto my words.

Please, from now on, DO NOT tell me what I think. I do not think what you assume I think. Instead let ME tell YOU what I think. And try to read it without adding the images conjured up by your frustration.

And, from now on, I will take that frustration seriously. I have been flippant at times and maybe more provocative than necessary. But I think (considering I have 27 pages of posts from you) that the issues can make for a good discussion and are well worth persuing.

Just don't tell me what I think, please? And don't make any assumptions without asking.

[samabudhi]

So, indeed continue, but this time find as many prestige jobs for guys to aim for that are currently dominated by women.

Prestigious. Many prestigious jobs.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Gluadys!

I knew I should have run screaming when I had the chance.

You are a learned and well-spoken individual, I respect that. I can accept that my view is based on my experiences. This subject is very near to my daily existence.

I have a difficult time understanding people who claim the solution to their problems in life lies solely (or even predominantly) on others in our present Western cultures. It is my position that people can, for the greatest part, make their own paths, at least in developed societies. If we were talking of third world nations where opportunities for any are limited and heavy-handed subjugation of the female gender were the norm, there might be some basis in my mind as to what drives your position. Developed nations have made great strides beyond that, and opportunities do exist for the most part for any takers willing to do the hard work of applying themselves. I like to think my own life is serving as an example of the philosophy I espouse. I have a long way to go with a lot of hard work ahead, but slowly the path to success is unfolding. I wish I had begun much sooner, but wisdom sometimes comes the hard way, through experience.

Out of respect for you as a person, I am willing to begin this with a fresh slate and proffer an olive branch.

If I may, in the kindest terms I can think to use, try to present a simplified version of my understanding of your position, to which I expect you to correct me where I am off target.

I understand your position to be that women as a gender are deliberately held to a lower level of "success" than males, even in developed nations that have enacted legislation to counter this trend. That because this trend continues, males (specifically white males), must be legislated even further, encumbered and handicapped in order to "level the playing field." (This I have referred to as "responsibility," including but not limited to further taxation.) That empowerment of females is incumbent on this handicapping. (This I have referred to as "benefit," including but not limited to some form of quota system and preferential treatment, ostensibly paid for by the said taxes.) That women are not solely responsible for themselves in making their paths to success, that they are reliant specifically on the undermining of the male gender in order to achieve success. (And that the attitude this creates is no more than the "victim" attitude I enlarged upon, resulting especially among the lesser learned in the wholesale scape-goating of the male gender.)

Rather than introduce more of my personal thoughts into this issue at this point, I will end here so that we can begin again on better terms.

[juantoo3]

I suppose my offering was not accepted.

Perhaps because I did not specifically address the charges leveled at me?

If so, then I tender this:

Whether I misinterpreted what you intended or not, I don't know. I hope it was misinterpretation, because it reflects very badly on you if it is not. What I do know is that I understood what you said and it did hit a nerve because it was based on your improper use of what I said.
This is important to me. You have posted a lot of material which I want to reply to with seriousness. If I cannot count on you to read what I say properly, it is not worth my time and effort to do that.
If you continue to twist my words, even accidently, so that they mean the opposite of what was intended, the discussion is at a standstill. If you are doing so with intent, then you are guilty of deliberately misrepresenting my position so that it fits your preconceptions.

This is really not necessary, implying intentional misrepresentation and twisting of words. I am not motivated to deliberately twist words, I have no need when my position is sufficient. Spiraling deeper into minute details avoids the overall issue.
I find it disappointing that you have chosen to resort to a personal attack and selectively interpreting slights where they do not exist rather than stick to the issues. Since that reinforces a stereotype, I am surprised to see it used in this specific discussion, most especially from someone as learned as yourself.
If there is valid material worth replying to with seriousness, simply do so, which has been my point pretty much all along. You do not require my "leveling", you need to simply do for yourself. That would be egalitarian.
---

What you are doing here is conflating two different and distinct things which I said.

In part, this was a return of the poke taken at me concerning my previous work experience, regarding the portion of the quote emphasized, "Seems to me your daughter's school should catch up with the times, considering I graduated 25 years ago."
Regarding the remainder:

One was that in some cases, classes are held in auto mechanics especially for girls and in home ec especially for boys. Both of these classes are quite popular, as they provide a "safe place" in which to try on a non-traditional role with others who are doing the same. I suggested that such classes, while not the ideal, are a good starting point and necessary concession while society is in transition from the dictated gender roles of my childhood to the gender equality we hope to see in the future. (emphasis added)

I do not recall "my childhood" being in the original that I responded to. Considering the context and proximity, it was a natural consideration to believe segregated classes were being endorsed as a valid way of conducting education.
I addressed this elsewhere, which was either not considered or overlooked:

The greatest source of cultural knowledge and cultural perspective comes from Mom. That is, culture is taught at the supper table.
If an individual holds certain prejudices (or not), most likely this was instilled at a very early age by that person's parents. Prejudice can be overcome, but many go through life not even realizing it is in them. They in turn teach it to their children by example. If one truly values egalitarian principles, this must be taught by word and deed to the next generation. Lip service is not sufficient, children see right through it. It must be lived. And equality cannot be selective, children will see the schism and focus on it. -juan, (emphasis added)

As well as the balance of the quote under consideration:

Why must schools continue an attitude of segregation? If parents stood up to it, it would not be the norm, or a "necessary concession." I suspect the schools maintain the segregation to appease the parents, furthering the cultural biases instilled. -juan

In using the term "Mom," I am now, as then, speaking in the generic sense. It is not valid here to presume a personal slight, there is none intended. In light of the context of the discussion of segregated classes, it seems to me you were endorsing segregated classes with such terms as "necessary concessions," which implies to me that such are still required and desirable.

I suggested that such classes, while not the ideal, are a good starting point and necessary concession while society is in transition from the dictated gender roles of my childhood to the gender equality we hope to see in the future.

I will ask for a plain statement, do you believe that intentionally segregated classes are currently valid methods of demonstrating egalitarian behavior to our children?

I did not at any time say that such classes were the norm in my daughter's school.

Neither did you not say it, and in the context it was presented it was a natural conclusion.
Automatically taking offense over semantics and applied context is not conducive to discussion. Faulting the reader for not correctly reading an improper presentation is not conducive either. I like to think I have many talents, mind reading is not one of them.

Quote:
"There are no relevant differences between men and women."
Do you agree with this statement? Do you think this is what feminists are saying? Many people do think this is what feminists are saying---that gender and biology can be ignored in all circumstances.
And, in fact, from your response, it appears that this is how you read my statement. For you begin, "If there are no relevant differences,....." as if this was a settled issue.
But it is not a settled issue. I do not agree that there are no relevant differences between men and women. And I don't know a single feminist who would say that gender differences are never, ever relevant.
That's why I began with that preamble: "No one is saying that...."
Now it appears I was wrong. You seem to be saying it. You seem to be agreeing that there are no relevant differences between men and women. But that is the opposite of what I was saying.

To answer your question plainly, yes, if women desire to be culturally equal, then they should be treated equally in a wholesale manner. So yes, "There are no relevant differences between men and women.", or there should not be in a truly egalitarian setting.
Which is why I find it amazing and oxymoronic to make a claim such as "I do not agree that there are no relevant differences between men and women. And I don't know a single feminist who would say that gender differences are never, ever relevant."
This is the "have your cake and eat it too" selective equality I already spent a great deal of time on. In short, selective equality is still discrimination.
Not only is this amazing, but to take offense that I disagree for the reasons stated, and imply that I was intentionally twisting your words, is incomprehensible. If I misunderstood, it was for holding to truly egalitarian principles, not for not mind-reading selective equality as a viable option, since in my view it is unthinkably not.
Equal is equal. Anything otherwise is not equal. That is basic math. Hormonally induced selectivity might seem fine in a personal relationship (provocation of sexual tension), but it is not proper on a socio-cultural scale.

So let me make it clear now. I do believe that circumstances alter cases. I do believe that we have wrongly exaggerated the differences between men and women and locked both sexes into gender roles when that is unnecessary and discriminatory. But that doesn't mean it is always ok to ignore gender differences either.
In some circumstances, (not all or even most, but some) --- in some circumstances gender differences do matter. And in most circumstances (not all, but most) gender differences are irrelevant.

Who, pray tell, gets to delineate these differences? What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. We are not talking about physiological differences, no amount of legislation or social activism is going to change any of that (excepting perhaps homosexual marriage). We are talking (or at least I am) of the legal, political, social and cultural issues surrounding gender equality, and in a broader sense equality for all across the board. In that sense, pray tell, what gender specific differences do you have in mind?

Now can I count on you not to misrepresent my position on this issue again?

Provided you are clear and distinct in your presentation, and are not assuming that I am deliberately twisting your words for some nefarious reason.

I said
"Of course it's not. It is not anybody's experience. Because we live and have lived for centuries in a patriarchal society which distorts people's natural individual aspirations and limits them to what is acceptable for their gender."
You said
If "it is not anybody's experience," then why discriminate?
You had spoken about something I had said as not being true in your experience. And my response was to agree that it would not be true in your experience, because it would not be true in anybody's experience as long as we live in a society that discriminates.
Just what experience did you think I was referring to? Is it not clear that I was saying that all of us are immersed in an experience of a discriminatory society? We do not know what a society of gender equals looks like because we have never seen one. Men and women both are taught how to behave in a discriminatory society. Men and women both do what it makes sense to do in a society where discrimination is the norm. For women this often includes accepting quietly and without protest the limitations imposed on them in regard to education, profession and marriage. And for both men and women it includes living up (or down) to what is expected of them in an atmosphere of discrimination.
Yet you come back asking "why discriminate?" as if that is what I was supporting instead of what I see as the problem.
Your response made no sense in light of what I said, and I can still only conclude that you did not understand what I said. (emphasis added)

What do you call placing the burden of all of this on the shoulders of white males living now? Why deliberately single out white males? Why specifically penalize those who have no culpability in this cultural problem you invoke? If that is not discrimination, then the whole gender discrimination thing is a figment of imagination. This totally avoids the discourse I spent on mirror image discrimination, replacing one with the other. This is evading an unpleasant realization. I asked, "why discriminate," because so much of your discourse was spent, knowingly or not, on reverse discrimination. See above. Reverse discrimination is still discrimination. Period. Selective equality is still discrimination. Period.
What was the term used? Oh yes, blinkered. Don't blinker yourself. Open your eyes to include all of the other little things you said earlier, most especially about how the white male was responsible to bear the burden... Even if you here change the definition of responsibility from the use elsewhere in this conversation, it does not negate the inference of placing the guilt by association and attendant penalty on the white male only. Discrimination, by definition.

I said:
"AS for who caused the disparities, who is responsible---the roots of the present lie in centuries of the past. None of us are personally responsible for creating it. What we are responsible for is correcting it."
You said:
If "none of us are personally responsible," why then are a select few to be held accountable?
It was you who inserted the concept of "a select few" being "accountable" presumably for the existing discrimination. Even though you actually quoted me as saying "none of us" are responsible.

Talk about micro-criticizing to deflect attention from where it belongs. Translate "select few to be held accountable" as "place the burden squarely on the shoulders of white males." Yes, I introduced the term "accountable" so the sentence would not seem redundant with the term "responsible" in it twice. You, however, are the one who introduced and repeatedly advocates the burdening of the white male.
Kindly stop nit-picking and focus on the greater issue.

And as for correcting the existing discrimination, I said "we" with no limitation or qualification, and that is exactly what I mean. All of us, of both genders, of every age, nationality, class, language, faith or whatever other qualifier you wish to name, "we" are all responsible to create justice to replace injustice, to create equality where there is inequality, to end illegitimate discrimination of all sorts. I do not agree that a "select few" only are to be held accountable, and for you to imply that I do is a misrepresentation of what I said.

No, it is not a misrepresentation. I need only point to the first two quotes from the original series of quotes you are going on about here, and I can pull more besides if you like. You express, in no uncertain terms, that white males must bear these burdens. "Can't be helped..."
This is the first I recall you mentioning anything about anybody else sharing any responsibility. Even at that, it is some vague coverall without any specificity at all. Covering tracks?
Pray tell, what, specifically, are the responsibilities of the female gender in any of this? Any reference to the already expressed benefits is not to be considered. What responsibilities, accountabilities and burdens do you advocate for the female gender towards themselves and to others? I have seen you list none to this point.

[juantoo3]

continued-

I said:
"Again you seem to hear the opposite of what I said. I said specifically that no one deserves to have the burdens of society placed on their shoulders alone. At least that is the meaning I intended when I said that no one (at least no one of this generation) is responsible for creating gender disparities. The roots are too far in the past to apportion blame to anyone today. "
You said:
Uh-huh. I see...so you just freely discriminate because you feel like it, and that is somehow better?
And this is going well beyond any possible misunderstanding of what I said. This is entirely an invention out of your own mind which you are blatantly implying comes from me. How could you possibly draw from what I said that I am in favour of "freely discriminat[ing] because you feel like it"?
There is nothing at all in what I said that leads to this conclusion. And I completely and firmly repudiate that notion as utterly repugnant to me.

It is interesting, and possibly revealing, that you chose to end my quote where you did, rather than including the balance. I hope you won't mind...

Uh-huh. I see...so you just freely discriminate because you feel like it, and that is somehow better? If you cannot place the blame or culpability, what are you doing judging, convicting and sentencing? Why are you laying the burden upon the innocent, why are you making scapegoats out of guys like me who have nothing to do with this whole mess, whose only mistake is that we were born?
And you want me to agree with you about it, to boot? (emphasis added)

What disturbs you is that I called a spade a spade. You do not see yourself as what you demonstrate yourself to be. That is not my problem. I did not make you what you are, you did. I merely called you what you are. What you are will not change by deflecting the subject of attention.
If you are truly so against discrimination, then stop discriminating. It really is as simple as that. As long as you endorse selective equality and reverse discrimination, you are being prejudiced. Until you treat me as an equal, you will remain unequal in your own mind. I already treat you as an equal, so the onus is not on me, and I will not allow you to place it on me.

You said:
Do you not think that perhaps in your zealousness you might have overlooked the obvious in your own arguments?
No I do not think I have overlooked what is obvious in my arguments. I think you, in your "pent-up frustration" (as you called it in your post to Brian) have inserted concepts which are obvious to you into what I said whether the concepts are actually there or not.
But, however obvious these ideas seem to you, they are your ideas, not mine. I can understand that because these ideas are obvious to you, you are leaping to the conclusion that they are obvious to me too. But they are not.

Apparently. Reverse discrimination and selective equality are both still discrimination.

They come from your mind, not mine, and you are imposing your ideas onto my words.

They come from my mind digesting your words and your ideas, and mentally applying your concepts to their conclusions.

Please, from now on, DO NOT tell me what I think. I do not think what you assume I think. Instead let ME tell YOU what I think. And try to read it without adding the images conjured up by your frustration.

I have no need to tell anybody what YOU think, you do quite well yourself.

And, from now on, I will take that frustration seriously. I have been flippant at times and maybe more provocative than necessary. But I think (considering I have 27 pages of posts from you) that the issues can make for a good discussion and are well worth persuing.

That would be a help if this discussion is to proceed rationally instead of hormonally. I can be reactive and sarcastic when provoked. As well, I can be polite, level headed and even tempered when I am approached in a like manner. In the grand spirit of egalitarianism, of "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself," I can happily meet anybody halfway, sometimes I will even reach a little further. But I also happily return attitude targeted at me.

Just don't tell me what I think, please? And don't make any assumptions without asking.

Very well, if you agree to see things as they are, not how you imagine them in order to make them more palatable to yourself.

Over the course of our conversations on a couple of topics I have noticed, I have made concessions to you where such were right and proper, you have made none to me. I will not concede here because I am not wrong.

You are not my mother. You are not my sister. You are not my lover. You are my equal, and that disturbs you.

[IlluSionS667]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

...Something for discussion...

Healthy white right-wing men are the people most discriminated against in the western world.

[Mus Zibii]

I'm late to this thread as usual, but last night I was watching something on TV about sex in the mid-20th century. There were these short-haired uber-feminists talking about the revolutionaries in the field of birth control, etc. The funny thing was, the radical simplistic speech in the days where rights for women were non-existent was still being used by the militant feminists speeking from the here and now.

[amellcheney]

When I was 18 I joined the us army, went through basic training then ait. I was then stationed in Germany to use in ait training. The base I was at was overwhelmingly male. The men got the better housing. The 8 females were housed in one room on the fifth floor with one restroom, one shower no place to wash our clothes and had to pay to wash our clothes. The men had rooms by themselves with bathrooms, a place to wash their clothes for free. The men had access to their weapons and had one they had to maintain. The females on the other hand did not although we had training.
One dark night we were shipped to a undisclosed area and told that a fraction was invading a part of the base and that they had weapons and several soldiers had been killed. The men were given weapons and equipment, the females were not. I had the mobile phone and a stick. I did not feel safe at all. The male I was working with had a weapon. After a few hours in the rain with no poncho or weapon the enemy attacked us. I was captured and my partner was able to shoot his way out. At the end out of 8 women 5 were killed and three were captured. Out of 71 males 2 were killed and none were captured. This of course was an exercise but that got me thinking (what if it was real?) I did the same job as many of the males and yet I would have been left defenseless. After I left the military after 4 years and applied for my educational benefits I was turned down two times and had to get my congressman help to get them. Trying to get copies of my DD was a joke as I had married and had a different last name and was denied the GI bill because my husband could get a FHA loan but at a higher rate.
I have three brothers who also served and they never faced any of the problems as I. The man who started at the same time did the same job at the same place left the military as a E-6 and I as an E-5.

[Muslimwoman]

Forgive me but are we not just trying to 'have it all'? Why should men not have men only clubs? I have no desire to smoke cigars and discuss the cricket scores and I don't want men talking about football in my women only gym. If I do the same job as a man I expect the same pay but only if our capabilities are equal. For example if I decided to be a hod carrier there is no way I could do the same work as a male colleague but if we are both accountants then I want (no I demand) equal pay, if we do the same quality and quantity of work.

I read recently about a lesbian lady in the USA that is suing an internet dating agency because they do not cater for same sex couples. So is she suggesting that all the dating sites for gay people also be banned or forced to cater for hetrosexuals? Have we not become over sensitive, for example there are sites for coloured people only but if I put up a site for white people only I would be in prison in a week. I am not advocating discrimination in any way but should we be forced to cater for everybody in order not to offend or exclude anybody? We all seem to want our own little niche to spend time in but shout the moment someone else wants one. Just my opinion of course.