Originally posted by Tom
You raise interesting points that I don’t know enough about to discuss. I am not convinced that the US is as equal as you claim but I do agree with you that setting up rules that favour women over men is the wrong way to achieve equality. Perhaps later I will have time to look into and discuss the state of equality in the US.
Thanks Tom.
A further clarification on my part is called for, I think, as that post of mine was rather emotionally charged.
As I stated earlier on in this excellent thread, I am an equal opportunist. Peronally, I don't ascribe to such concepts as "gay rights" or "women's rights." I believe that by pushing forward with these basic concepts a fatal error is committed: one becomes the "enemy" they despise, by participating in the cycle of division and prejudice that bred such injustices in the first place. In my eyes, it truly is a matter of replacing one wrong with another. Enacting legislation which endows any part of the populace with a "favored" status is indeed such an injustice; for it goes beyond the mere realization of true equality.
This is where the issue becomes touchy...for as most of us, regardless of our general outlook and fiscal leanings, agree in the concept of equal treatment by law for every human being, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. In this we are all in one accord, I believe. Speaking from personal experience, I have come to know a broad slice of humanity during my life (I was a military dependent), as I have traveled and lived in numerous places worldwide. I was not raised in an environment where there were "black neighborhoods," for example. Military bases are quite blind to such things, and as a military dependent I had friends of almost every ethnic and cultural stripe. My parents *never* discouraged me from having such friends, unless the individual in question was a troublemaker at school.
I believe where modern efforts for the achievement of equality go disasterously wrong is when social engineering is attempted by force of law. There is simply no "right" way to change people's personally held opinions; it offends something inside of me when I see things like this come to pass. I believe the scope of law lies in the sphere of what is common to all of us. It needs to stay clear of our minds and personal freedoms, for that is something under our own direct control by virtue of being the thinking beings that we are.
However, as history in my own country has demonstrated, change does indeed happen at every level if it is simply given enough time to establish itself. Change is almost always gradual, "snowballing", if you will, and evolving into a full state of being as people grow accustomed to the new environment. I posted extensively about the state of gender related affairs in the US Army in this thread to show everyone a picture of this in action, for it is true that the old male military fraternity is indeed going through it's final death throes. Though the establishment of quotas has left a bitter taste in my mouth, nevertheless it is coming to pass as females entrench themselves in the Armed Forces.
I believe that as civilized beings, we are empowered to overcome the basic animal instincts which drive us to dominate the environment we find ourselves in, in the interests of *true* equality. This is a driving force behind any social group, be it a minority in a culture, or the majority. IMO, true equality simply removes the ability of a majority to surpress a minority, nothing more. It does not afford the minority the ability to supress the majority as I feel activist groups in my own country have accomplished in the past 40 years or so.
The rallying cry has been one of equality and blindness to race, creed, and sex....yet these very groups encourage such things by identifying themselves as a distinct group, and jockeying for special favors in the eyes of the law. This is not equality; rather, it is a group striving for dominance by playing upon the sympathies of a populace, and using a democratic system of government to establish an elite by manipulating the laws of a country. The ability to do this does indeed exist in the United States, and it is something that I feel more Americans need to be on their guard against.
Perhaps I am a hopeless romantic, or a foggy-headed idealist...but I believe Justice only sees the deeds of an individual, and nothing else. While I lived in Atlanta, Georgia, I worked for a corporation that was quite diverse in the compostion of their workforce. I personally knew the President and Vice-President, as they were the ones who hired me in the first place (it was a smaller company). Though "liberal" by definition, they nevertheless struck me as being hard-working people who honestly believed in what they were doing. While I worked for them, I had a number of homosexual co-workers, as well as fellow employees of African-American heritage. They strove to only hire the best people they could...yet, when a "minority" (defined by the law, mind you) employee proved to be a liability rather than an asset, they were hard-pressed to rid themselves of said person. They faced a quagmire of legal perils if they fired such an individual, for it was too easy for such a person to claim they were "discriminated" against upon their termination. By law, the state and Federal government was required to investigate each and every such claim, costing all involved thousands of US dollars. Yet, if they fired me, for example...too bad. I am male and caucasian. If I claimed discrimination, I would be laughed out of the Department of Labor office.
Btw, this is not a complaint; it's simply an illustration of the "equality" that has been achieved by activist groups in this country, the Feminist movement being one of the chief culprits of the re-engineering of law to establish minorities as the "elite."
EDIT - I failed to mention a very important example of the sort of inequality that's been achieved by activist groups in my country earlier today, and I feel it deserves to be pointed out here. Specifically, Federal law was changed not too long ago to afford employers tax breaks if they hired applicants who met certain criteria outlined by this law. If I am not mistaken, this law was introduced with the blessing of President Bill Clinton during his last term in office. In fact, if memory serves, he was a big proponent of this legislation.
Unfortunately, I do not recall the exact nomenclature of the form supplied to employers for potential hires to complete. However, as I was recently in the job market, I filled out a number of these during my search for employment. This Federal form asks the following questions: your race...sex...address...social security number...and the following:
1. Did you, or your household, make under a specified amount of income the previous year?
2. Do you currently use, or have you ever qualified for, Medicaid, Medicare, or Food Stamps?
3. Are you a disabled veteran?
A litany of other questions are asked, which all pertain to one's socio-ecomonic status, in addition to the initial questions regarding color of skin and sex. In order to qualify your employer for a Federal tax break, you need to meet most of the specified criteria on the form. Although it is claimed the completion of this form is stricly voluntary, most employers include a flyer attached to the form which essentially tells you that the completion of said form isn't voluntary from their standpoint...after all, you just might qualify, and they just might get a tax break for hiring you.
While the Feminist movement in my country is not solely responsible for travesties such as this, they are nevertheless part of a larger political block which lobbies for such laws in Washington, a block which pools their resources together as they each stand to benefit from the passing of such laws. A number of groups are represented in this block...feminist organizations such as NOW (the National Organization for Women), various gay rights activist groups, the NAACP, etc...