🚀 go-pugleaf

yank@ionet.net (EllenSmith) wrote:

>jmorgan@galstar.com (Jerry Morgan) wrote:
>
>>>>rex@intr.net (Rex) wrote:
>
>>>>>jack@threeindians.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://justice2.usdoj.gov/vawo/
>>>>>
>>>>>Wow Jack.  You mean there is an actual office of the DOJ called the
>>>>>"Violence Against Women Office".
>>>>>
>>>>>I did not know this, until I visited the URL.
>>>>>
>>>>>This seems to be much more sexist than a simple law.  I didn't realize
>>>>>the scope of it before.
>>>>>
>
>>>>Yep the federal government and some state governments have sexist
>>>>offices, policies and regulations.  However, it's all "politically
>>>>correct"  if it favors women, at the expense of men. 
>
>>>>We all know how badly women have been treated throughout history. I
>>>>guess to some  it's simply a matter of "pay back time".
>
>>>>While there is a U.S. Department of Justice office named the "Violence
>>>>Against Women Office", there is yet to be and probably never will be a
>>>>"Violence Against Men Office".  
>
>>>>Isn't equality wonderful?  
>
>>>>Aren't pay backs a bitch??
>
>
>Probably just me, but this sounds sort of sarcastic? Is it? :)
>

Sarcastic, me?  Never.

I simply point out the tendency of humans, when moving to correct a
social ill, to over-correct, often tipping the scale in the opposite
direction rather than bringing it into balance.

We have seen this "over-correction" scenario in practically every
situation where actions have been taken by society to correct a
variety of discriminations.

This "over-compensation" has at times actually resulted in worsening
the problem it was intended to address.