🚀 go-pugleaf

Pierre Breton (breton@McRCIM.McGill.EDU) wrote:

>In article <1993Sep1.234651.1783@mdivax1.uucp>, 
>mdivax1!robinson@pobox.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>|> Pierre Breton (breton@McRCIM.McGill.EDU) wrote:
>|> 
>|> >The notion of equality is very attractive although it remains vague.  
>|> >What are the quantities that are meant to be equal?  
>|> 
>|> Equality of opportunity and equality before the law wrt race, gender and
>|> religion. The latter is easy enough to do. The former requires quite a bit
>|> more work to define and implement. 

>Your "Equality of opportunity" is a valid answer.  But "Equality 
>before the law wrt race, gender and religion" is not an answer to 
>my question.  This remains an attractive but vague principle.

>When facing the law, what should be compared?  The act or (the 
>Supreme Court's choice) the meaning of the act.

>Should a four year old armed with a knife yelling "I'm going to 
>kill you!" to an armed policemen two meters away be treated just
>like your favorite mafiosi in same circumstance?  Why?  

This is a straw man. Nobody has brought up the notion that a 4 year old
should be considered to be equal to an adult before the law. What has been
brought up is the idea that males and females should be considered to be
equal. So, in the above example, substitute "adult woman" for "four year
old" and "adult man" for "favorite mafiosi" and *you* tell me what the
answer should be.

In other words, all else being equal, there should be *no* difference in
treatment before the law due to gender (unless biology is relevant to the
issue at hand). Thus, all else being equal, a woman that stabs her husband
to death, should be treated in *exactly* the same manner as the man who
stabs his wife to death.

>|> For example, I would argue that a child
>|> who does not have access to a decent education is being denied equality of
>|> opportunity; others would probably disagree w/ me. This is admittedly a
>|> grey area, but the calendar issue and the SC ruling are not grey at all.
>|> They are both clear examples of double standards wrt gender; and such
>|> double standards, by definition, deny equality.

>The calendar issue is not hate literature, it is an eye for an 
>eye response to millennia of abuse, not nice but not surprising.  
>There is no double standards there except in the way that some
>people react to it.

The calendar may be an eye for an eye response, but *if* it is attempting
to bring contempt (or some such similar wording) to an identifiable group
(i.e., men), then it is indeed hate literature. The former does not
preclude the latter.  Pierre, it seems to me like you are saying that two
wrongs make a right. 

At any rate, let me make sure I understand your point: you are claiming
that the hypothetical "all women are slime" calendar would probably be hate
literature, but the "all men are bastards" calendar would probably not be
hate literature because in the past, and to a lesser extent today, some men
have abused and/or oppressed women. From this you conclude that it is not
a double standard to denounce the "all women are slime" calendar while not
denouncing the "all men are bastards" calendar. And, you say this is *not*
a double standard.

This is my Webster's definition of a double standard:
  1: BIMETTALLISM  2: a set of principles that applies differently and 
  usually more rigourously to one group of people or circumstances than to
  another; ......

Now it seems to me that we have almost almost identical circumstances w/
the real and hypothetical calendars. And yet you are coming to a different
set of conclusions based on the membership of the target group. Surely you
cannot say that that does not fit definition 2 above?

>The act of Frisking can take a different meaning depending who
>is frisking who.  If you only look at the act, you will imagine
>double standards which might not be the case if you consider 
>the meaning of the act.

The meaning of the act is supposed to be to determine whether there are any
concealed items on the body of the person being frisked. It is very
straight forward. I can accept the some female prisoners may be
uncomfortable being frisked by male guards, so I have no problem w/
disallowing this.  Why can you not accept the some male prisoners may be
uncomfortable being frisked by female guards? Are these men not worthy of
the same human dignity granted to female prisoners? I would hope that you
are not just stereotyping them *all* as sex starved jailbirds who should be
happy to have a female touching them, but it does seem that way.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson