"A recognition of differences is not equivalent to a mandate to discriminate...."

[aneeshm]

The quote in the thread title is one of my own.

It relates to the principles to be followed when formulating policy. I came up with it when posting to that last thread about feminism.

The question here, a question which I consider quite important, is this: When making policy, do we work under the assumption that men and women are EQUIVALENT, and therefore that all laws relating to them must be exactly the same, and that gender should play no role at all? Or do we work under the assumption that they are not equivalent, and that therefore laws and policies must be formulated keeping in mind, and accounting for, all differences?



Note that if we assume equivalence, then things like the man paying alimony and child support go out the window. There is also no division of assets or income mandated between the two partners in a marriage in case of divorce.

OTOH, if we do not assume equivalence, then this affects ALL matters of policy, not just one, and we cannot have assumptions of equivalence in one sphere and those of non-equivalence in another. This will most likely piss feminists and (hypocrite-type) liberals off tremendously.

The statement "A recognition of differences is not equivalent to a mandate to discriminate" posits one solution to this problem.





What are your views on this?

[Cyclotron]

We do neither. You are constructing a false dilemma; the two solutions you have proposed are not the only ones available, and don't even really frame the debate in a meaningful way.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
We do neither. You are constructing a false dilemma; the two solutions you have proposed are not the only ones available, and don't even really frame the debate in a meaningful way.

OK, then. Please tell me of a third solution which is internally logically consistent.

[MJW]

After 20 or so posts this thread might as well be called. "Is the f-word always bad part 2" by aneeshm...

Everyone should stop wasting his time.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by aneeshm
OK, then. Please tell me of a third solution which is internally logically consistent.

Your peculiar definition of "internally logically consistent" precludes any such solution. Indeed, we can "have assumptions of equivalence in one sphere and those of non-equivalence in another." As long as you believe we can't however, the only solutions that are going to seem "consistent" to you are the ones you've presented us with.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


Your peculiar definition of "internally logically consistent" precludes any such solution. Indeed, we can "have assumptions of equivalence in one sphere and those of non-equivalence in another." As long as you believe we can't however, the only solutions that are going to seem "consistent" to you are the ones you've presented us with.

No, I'm not talking about acknowledging differences in on area but not in another, I'm talking about whether or not we assume such differences can exist in the first place.

[BeBMan]

Easy answer - when making policy you count in the differences in certain fields, and not in others, depending on the issue. There is nothing inconsistent about it.

Example:

Equal: voting rights for men/women

Different: special protection or benefits for pregnant women

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by BeBro
Easy answer - when making policy you count in the differences in certain fields, and not in others, depending on the issue. There is nothing inconsistent about it.

Example:

Equal: voting rights for men/women

Different: special protection or benefits for pregnant women

So you acknowledge that policy must take differences into account, and therefore implicitly accept that such differences exist, and must base itself on this acceptance?

[Cyclotron]

So what's the problem then?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by aneeshm
So you acknowledge that policy must take differences into account, and therefore implicitly accept that such differences exist, and must base itself on this acceptance?

I think you'll find that most people acknowledge that policy must sometimes take difference into account, and that some differences do exist, especially the obvious physical ones.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by aneeshm


So you acknowledge that policy must take differences into account,

Differences are taken into account where they matter. They are not taken into account where they don't matter (or in fields where there are really no differences - ). It's just that.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Note that if we assume equivalence, then things like the man paying alimony and child support go out the window. There is also no division of assets or income mandated between the two partners in a marriage in case of divorce.

What kind of Idiocy is this?? Child Support and Alimony do not go out the window in any way. Child Support is based on the principle that anyone who creates a child must continue to provide for their financial care after a divorce. Its only because of the wage rates of males are typically higher and woman typically receive custody in a divorce that you assume Child Support is always payed by fathers to mothers but their is nothing in the principle that says this must be so, I would not be at all surprised to find examples of 'reverse' child support though they would certainly be very rare. Likewise Alimony is based on the principle of supporting ones former spouse in the lifestyle they have become accustomed too and I believe it is becoming increasingly common for it to be payed by women to men.

I recognize that equivalence is not in reality true but I feel that it should be the goal of our legal system and society in general to archive as much equivalence as is practical. The example of special protection/benefits for pregnant women such as guaranteed maternity leave is a good example ware it might be argued we cant have equivalence, we can all agree men don't physically NEED maternity leave but theirs no real harm done to give it to them as well to archive equivalence before the law, that should be the spirit of the law in my opinion.

[Cyclotron]

The real problem that aneeshm has in these threads is the conflation of two types of differences.

"Having ovaries" is an attribute of all women, barring some genetic defect. Policy that relates to such attributes, like maternity leave, has a very good reason to apply to all women - childbearing is something all women have in common, and all of them in an essentially equal capacity. Men, in contrast, have zero capacity in that regard.

The "other differences" that we spend a lot of time arguing over in the last thread, in contrast, are all averages. It's alleged that women are "more emotional," for instance. Even if we accept that as true, however, and even if we accept that as something "innate" to women, it's still an average. Individuals will vary; many men will be "more emotional" than many women. It doesn't make sense to base policy off of difference here, because all that exists are tendencies - actual difference depends on individuals.

Thus, for things like maternity leave, policy based on equivalence isn't a good idea, because women universally have a capacity that men universally do not (again, barring genetic defect). But for other policies, in which both sexes have a capacity for X and all that may exist are certain tendencies, assuming equivalence is the only good choice.

[MJW]

I feel that the feminists are wrong but I don't know what to think.

[aneeshm]

Let us leave aside the contentious issue of averages and average differences and all that.

If one of the assumptions which must be made while deciding policy is that differences exist, then does this not also mean that the objectives to which policy strives are also affected by said differences, and that the differences must be taken into account when deciding what objectives policy and law is supposed to have?