IWW - Equal Rights (Discussion)

[Tyzack]

 

 

4. Are there "bad" sides to equality ? (= situations where equality means more work/more efforts for a woman).

We already talked about some tests in relation to "jobs".

 

 

5. In what area would you like to see more equality ?

 

The ERA died for a lot of reasons, but one of largest red harrings was the if the ERA had been based, then women would also have to sign up for the selective service (ie, the agency that conducts the draft).

 

The selective service is all-but defunct now, and exists as a form that all male applicants for federal college loans have to sign, but that girls do not, so, in that case, equality would have meant also signing for selective service (in the states).

 

In general, though, I can't think of any way in which requring people of all sexes to be treated equally would be a burden on one sex or another.

 

5.) Pay equality, workplace equality, etc.

[Ryrin]

 

 

 

4. Are there "bad" sides to equality ? (= situations where equality means more work/more efforts for a woman).

We already talked about some tests in relation to "jobs".

 

 

5. In what area would you like to see more equality ?

 

The ERA died for a lot of reasons, but one of largest red harrings was the if the ERA had been based, then women would also have to sign up for the selective service (ie, the agency that conducts the draft).

 

The selective service is all-but defunct now, and exists as a form that all male applicants for federal college loans have to sign, but that girls do not, so, in that case, equality would have meant also signing for selective service (in the states).

 

In general, though, I can't think of any way in which requring people of all sexes to be treated equally would be a burden on one sex or another.

 

5.) Pay equality, workplace equality, etc.

 

 

It is not "defunct." Males at age 18 must register for the draft.

 

 It has nothing to do with "federal loans" although one is denied them as a consequence for failing to follow the law.

 

http://www.sss.gov/Registration/Why-Register

 

It is the Law

Virtually all male U.S. citizens, regardless of where they live, and male immigrants, whether documented or undocumented, residing in the United States, who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service. 

 

The law says men must register with Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthday. That means men are required to register with Selective Service sometime during the 30 days before their 18th birthday, their 18th birthday, and the following 29 days after their 18th birthday – that is a 60-day registration period. Men who do not register with Selective Service within the 60-day window are technically in violation of the law and should register as soon as possible. 

 

 

http://www.sss.gov

 

FEMALES & REGISTRATION: While there has been talk recently about women in combat, there has been NO decision to require females to register with Selective Service, or be subject to a future military draft.  Selective Service continues to register only men, ages 18 through 25. 

 

Personally, I think if males are required to register, females should as well.

[Tyzack]

Yes, girls should have to register as well.

 

Since there is no draft, the only consequence of the law is that if you want federal loans you need to register.

 

(though I registered and didn't take out any loans).

[Sooh]

Since this came up:

 

Norway has universal conscription as of January 1st 2015. You can read more here if you want to.

[Ryrin]

Yes, girls should have to register as well.

 

Since there is no draft, the only consequence of the law is that if you want federal loans you need to register.

 

(though I registered and didn't take out any loans).

 

There is no draft at the present.  There is still registration in case of a national emergency.  Being disqualified from federal loans is not the "only" consequence for not registering.

 

There are other consequences for not registering for selective service.

 

http://www.sss.gov/Registration/Why-Register/Benefits-and-Penalties

 

A young man who fails to register with Selective Service may be ineligible for opportunities that may be important to his future. He must register to be eligible for federal student financial aid, state-funded student financial aid in many states, most federal employment, some state employment, security clearance for contractors, job training under the Workforce Investment Act, and U.S. citizenship for immigrant men.

 

 

Penalties for Failing to Register

Failing to register or comply with the Military Selective Service Act is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 or a prison term of up to five years, or a combination of both. Also, a person who knowingly counsels, aids, or abets another to fail to comply with the Act is subject to the same penalties.

 

If a man fails to register, or provides Selective Service with evidence that he is exempt from the registration requirement, after receiving Selective Service reminder and/or compliance mailings, his name is referred to the Department of Justice for possible investigation and prosecution for his failure to register as required by the Act. For clarification, if a man is exempt from registering with the Selective Service System, his name is not forwarded to the Department of Justice. The federal law stipulates that names are to be submitted to the Department of Justice annually.

 

The more immediate penalty is if a man fails to register before turning 26 years old, even if he is not tried or prosecuted, he may find that some doors are permanently closed.

NOTE:  Some states have added additional penalties for those who fail to register. See STATE LEGISLATION.

 

IMO, it should apply to all.

[Ryrin]

Since this came up:

 

Norway has universal conscription as of January 1st 2015. You can read more here if you want to.

 

Thank you!

[Niniel]

Thanks to Red Ajah for hosting this event. I have read all the threads and there are some really great posts and discussions.

 

 

So we will start with a couple of questions.

 

1. What are equal rights to you?

 

2. Do you think it actually exists?  is something to keep the masses quiet? or is it actually starting to happen but not quite there yet?

 

3. is  it     to pick a common example     a man opening a door for a women demeaning? Can he expect the same?

 

 

 

1. That we all have the same choices to make. We can choose whatever we want but the choice is there for everyone.

 

2. Even though there are laws about equal rights in many countries I think we have a long, long way to go. For example, when I applied for my first job my boss asked me if I was planning on getting kids in the near future. Luckily I knew that he was not in his right to ask that question and I told him so. That is a question that women get but not men, because it´s assumed that women stay home longer with the kids than men. (This is unfortunately still true.)

 

3. I think it´s friendly to open the door to someone that carries a lot or the one that comes after you. Doesn´t matter if it´s a man or a woman or a child.

 

 

Thanks for your replies ! And i agree on both parts. When there are objective differences (like biological ones), this can lead to different treatments. So far, I have see a lot of help for pregnant women, job-wise (at least where I work). The pregnant woman can work half time but still be paid full time for the last two months of her pregnancy.

 

Now, the menstruation is completely overlooked (even if for some it hurts like hell).

 

On the other hand, like you said, sometimes a job asks for special skills... and to get it the person who applies need to have them (whatever the gender).

 

 

To go forward here are two more questions :

 

4. Are there "bad" sides to equality ? (= situations where equality means more work/more efforts for a woman).

We already talked about some tests in relation to "jobs".

 

 

5. In what area would you like to see more equality ?

 

4. I can´t see how equality could be bad. I have to read your answers.

 

5. In many areas. Fathers staying home with their kids. Men doing equal amount of household chores. Equal pay for the same kind of job. That courts doesn´t listen to girls that have been harrased because of their clothing. I could go on forever.

 

Since this came up:

 

Norway has universal conscription as of January 1st 2015. You can read more here if you want to.

 

This was really interesting.

[Panchi]

1. Equal opportunities in all fields. Gender being something that is not considered while choosing the right person for the job. Equal access to all facilities.

 

2. I think it is starting to exists but is far away from actually existing.

 

3. He can expect the same. If I am entering the room before a male friend and I open the door first, then I'll hold it open for him. To me, it's a matter of convenience, not gender stereotypes.

 

4. I don't see how it can be possible if true equality existed. But since it doesn't women have to work harder to prove themselves, especially in fields where women are less involved. They have to work harder to not be taken as silly due to gender stereotyping. In the process of obtaining equality, more work has to be done. If we obtain job equality for women but they are still required to do all cooking, cleaning, etc at their homes (what I see happening here), then it's not equality. It is more work for women if they have to do all household work and then contribute equal to men in jobs.

 

5. Jobs, scholarships, household work, leaves, clothing (as a friend pointed out, women wearing men's clothing is cute but men wearing women's is unmasculine, for equality's sake there should be no difference).

[Torrie]

1. What are equal rights to you?

2. Do you think it actually exists?  is something to keep the masses quiet? or is it actually starting to happen but not quite there yet?

3. is it to pick a common example a man opening a door for a women demeaning? Can he expect the same?

4. Are there "bad" sides to equality ? (= situations where equality means more work/more efforts for a woman).

5. In what area would you like to see more equality?

 

 

 

1) Equal rights to me is everyone being treated the same in every aspect of life. 

2) No, I honestly don't think it exists. Unfortunately (or really, in my mind, fortunately), we are all different. We can get close to equality but because we all have different needs, wants, cultures, backgrounds, goals, etc, etc, what works for one person will not work for another. I don't want to be treated like my husband in all factors of life. I have different needs than he does. There are many areas in life where I can and should be treated like him, but not all. 

3) I open doors for everyone. I don't see this as equality or chivalry. I had this conversation the other day with a friend. Chivalry was not an honor to women. Chivalry was knights and kings protecting their property. Opening a door is not chivalry, it's just courtesy and should be done for everyone. 

4) Unfortunately, anytime people are involved there is always a down side. The change to get closer to equality is just that: a change. We, as a people, are creatures of habit and will fight change. There will always be those people who want everything to stay the same because change is scary to them. There will be times when the fight for equality backtracks until all the people are comfortable with the change taking place. 

5) More equality in the workforce would be wonderful. I know anytime I go to an interview, I do not tell them I have children. Also, maternity and paternity leave needs to be better. I would like to see more equality for fathers too. I know at this point women in the US are fighting for rights in pregnancy and family support, but while we are fighting for it, we have to be careful not to take away many of the fathers rights. Ther are so many other ways we need more equality, it is hard to list. 

 

 

[Guest]

 

 

 

4. Are there "bad" sides to equality ? (= situations where equality means more work/more efforts for a woman).

We already talked about some tests in relation to "jobs".

 

 

5. In what area would you like to see more equality ?

 

The ERA died for a lot of reasons, but one of largest red harrings was the if the ERA had been based, then women would also have to sign up for the selective service (ie, the agency that conducts the draft).

 

The selective service is all-but defunct now, and exists as a form that all male applicants for federal college loans have to sign, but that girls do not, so, in that case, equality would have meant also signing for selective service (in the states).

 

In general, though, I can't think of any way in which requring people of all sexes to be treated equally would be a burden on one sex or another.

 

5.) Pay equality, workplace equality, etc.

 

ERA, what is it? Is it the military service ?

 

 

 

Equality in the workforce would be wonderful indeed. I was lucky to have my hubby take parental leave so we could take care of our last daughter from 2,5 months to 5,5 months, at home. But unfortunately it seems that it is still often the mother who takes that kind of leaves.

 

The paternity leave is only 15 work days. It is not much. The parental leave can last 4 months ... and it can be taken by the mother and by the father.

[Tyzack]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

 

It was a proposed (and failed) Constitutional Amendment in the US.

 

From wiki, as why it was defeated:

 

Opponents of the ERA focused on traditional gender roles, such as how men do the fighting in wartime. They pointed out that the amendment would eliminate the men-only draft requirement and guarantee the possibility that women would be subject to conscription and be required to have military combat roles in future wars if it were passed. Defense of traditional gender roles proved to be a useful tactic. In Illinois, supporters of Phyllis Schlafly, a conservative Republican activist from Illinois, used traditional symbols of the American housewife. They took homemade bread, jams, and apple pies to the state legislators, with the slogans, "Preserve us from a congressional jam; Vote against the ERA sham" and "I am for Mom and apple pie."^[50] They appealed to married women by stressing that the amendment would repeal protective laws such as alimony and eliminate the tendency for mothers to obtain custody over their children in divorce cases.^[51] It was suggested that single-sex bathrooms would be eliminated if the amendment were passed as well. Traditional women started to oppose the ERA.^[52] Schlafly said the ERA was designed for the benefit of young career women and warned that if men and women had to be treated identically it would threaten the security of middle-aged housewives with no job skills. They could no longer count on alimony. Women's colleges would have to admit men. Her argument that protective laws would be lost resonated with working-class women

At the 1980 Republican National Convention, the Republican Party platform was amended to end its support for the ERA.^[55] The most prominent opponent of the ERA was Schlafly. Leading the Stop ERA campaign, Schlafly defended traditional gender roles and would often bait feminists by opening her speeches with lines like, "I'd like to thank my husband for letting me be here tonight—I always like to say that, because it makes the libs so mad."^[56] When Schlafly began her campaign in 1972, public polls showed support for the amendment was widely popular and thirty states had ratified the amendment by 1973. After 1973, the number of ratifying states slowed to a trickle. Support in the states that had not ratified fell below 50%.^[57] Critchlow and Stachecki argue that public opinion in key states shifted against the ERA as opponents, operating on the local and state levels, won over the public. The state legislators in battleground states followed public opinion in rejecting the ERA.

Experts agree that Phyllis Schlafly was a key player in the defeat. Political scientist Jane Mansbridge in her history of the ERA argues that the draft issue was the single most powerful argument used by Schlafly and the other opponents to defeat ERA.^[58] She concludes, "Many people who followed the struggle over the ERA believed—rightly in my view—that the Amendment would have been ratified by 1975 or 1976 had it not been for Phyllis Schlafly's early and effective effort to organize potential opponents."^[59] Legal scholar Joan C. Williams argues, "ERA was defeated when Schlafly turned it into a war among women over gender roles."^[60] Historian Judith Glazer-Raymo argues:

As moderates, we thought we represented the forces of reason and goodwill but failed to take seriously the power of the family values argument and the single-mindedness of Schlafly and her followers. The ERA's defeat seriously damaged the women's movement, destroying its momentum and its potential to foment social change....Eventually, this resulted in feminist dissatisfaction with the Republican Party, giving the Democrats a new source of strength that when combined with overwhelming minority support, helped elect Bill Clinton to the presidency in 1992 and again in 1996.

[61]

Many ERA supporters blamed their defeat on special interest forces, especially the insurance industry and conservative organizations, suggesting they funded an opposition that subverted the democratic process and the will of the pro-ERA majority.^[62] They argued that while the public face of the anti-ERA movement was Phyllis Schlafly and her STOP ERA organization, there were other important groups in the opposition as well, such as the powerful National Council of Catholic Women, labor feminists, and (until 1973) the AFL–CIO. Opposition to the amendment was particularly high among religious conservatives, who argued that the amendment would guarantee universal abortion rights and the right for homosexual couples to marry.^[63][64] Critchlow and Stachecki say the anti-ERA movement was based on strong support among Southern whites, Evangelical Christians, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and Roman Catholics, including both men and women.^[65]

 

 

Most of the reasons listed seem as though they (the arguments) would fail on a modern audience and that therefore the Amendment might pass, but, that's my reading of it - as a liberal - who lives in a very liberal state. In truth, I doubt that it (the amendment) will ever be proposed again, or, if it was, that it would ever pass. The forces against - social conservatives - have too much power in too many states for ratification to pass.

[Sooh]

Equality in the workforce would be wonderful indeed. I was lucky to have my hubby take parental leave so we could take care of our last daughter from 2,5 months to 5,5 months, at home. But unfortunately it seems that it is still often the mother who takes that kind of leaves.

 

The paternity leave is only 15 work days. It is not much. The parental leave can last 4 months ... and it can be taken by the mother and by the father.

 

I... uh... you don't need me to tell you how it is here. I'll just say that it's better.

[Tyzack]

That there are no meaningful protections for parents in the US shocks me every time I talk to a friend about having a child.

 

It seems like the most logical thing ever - everyone (almost) has kids, therefore everyone should support paid parental leave.

 

But they don't, for reasons of which I have not been convinced.

[Ryrin]

That there are no meaningful protections for parents in the US shocks me every time I talk to a friend about having a child.

 

It seems like the most logical thing ever - everyone (almost) has kids, therefore everyone should support paid parental leave.

 

But they don't, for reasons of which I have not been convinced.

 

Totally agree here.  There is 3 months of FLMA that can be taken after the birth of a child.  Basically unpaid unless the woman accesses her 6 weeks of post birth disability of 8 weeks for a C-Section.  If there are continued health problems the physician can take you out longer.  If you are healthy, after that you can access your own paid leave at work like vacation, if you have it.  At my company if both parents work there you can split the 3 months if you want to but each parent does not get 3 months.  However, my employer will pay the monthly health premiums for 3 months.

 

I found this:

 

http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/maternity-leave

 

PAID MATERNITY LEAVE

The only federal law guaranteeing maternity leave in the U.S. is unpaid, and it only applies to certain employees at certain companies (more on that below). However some legislators and activist groups are backing a national paid leave program (like the FAMILY Act). And a few individual states have made their own laws (or have laws in progress), while companies have instituted their own paid leave policies.

A number of companies, large and small, have voluntarily opted to offer paid leave. Netflix now offers both mom and dads unlimited leave for up to a year with full salary; several other tech companies, including Adobe and Amazon, have followed suit. The Navy recently tripled the time it offers new moms, from six weeks to 18 weeks, and the Virgin Group offers some new dads and moms a year of paid leave. That said, only 12 percent of American workers have access to paid family leave through private employers, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

[Tyzack]

Yeah, which is crazy, but I don't see it changing anytime soon.

[Ryrin]

Neither do I.  When I hear about Europe's benefits it makes me so disappointed about the US.

[Sooh]

I think that the problem in the US, and this is speaking as a foreigner with limited knowledge, is that so much of the decision making in social issues is left to the corporations to decide. Instead of the government actively going in to protect its citizens with health insurance and paid maternity leave the corporations gets to decide who gets it and who doesn't. The society itself is in more or less economic crisis, and there's no shortage of workers in most professions, so the corporations gets to cut costs by not offering anything extra to their workers outside of pay. 

 

It's not a good model IMO. I don't know if it is possible with universal health care and paid maternity leave in the US, but it must be possible to get at least part of the way there.

[Tyzack]

I think that the problem in the US, and this is speaking as a foreigner with limited knowledge, is that so much of the decision making in social issues is left to the corporations to decide. Instead of the government actively going in to protect its citizens with health insurance and paid maternity leave the corporations gets to decide who gets it and who doesn't. The society itself is in more or less economic crisis, and there's no shortage of workers in most professions, so the corporations gets to cut costs by not offering anything extra to their workers outside of pay. 

 

It's not a good model IMO. I don't know if it is possible with universal health care and paid maternity leave in the US, but it must be possible to get at least part of the way there.

 

That's not exactly the issue, but it's a symptom.

 

People have been told, by elected representatives, that they cannot pass paid-family leave because it will cost jobs. Jobs are an obsession of the American electorate as if they were a qualitative entity (yes, i'd like to buy 3 jobs, a pair of socks and some soda). 

 

There are two lines of opposition:

1)

We cannot pass family leave because if we do it will cost corporations money, which means that in order to implement the new law, they will have to lay people off and that might be you!

 

Would you rather a job and minimal, if any, paid leave, or not have a job?

You want a job, therefore, we cannot pass family leave.

 

2.)

We cannot pass family leave because if we do it will cost you more in taxes, and since it will give people money for having kids people will abuse the system, and have more kids than they can afford and will live off your hard earned dollars.

 

Do you want to subsidize people living off the government?

No, then, we can't pass family leave.

 

...

 

Now putting aside that neither of these arguments, are, in my opinion, correct, a majority of the people in the US (or a least a majority of the voting public) is either a.) convinced that they are true or b) have more important issues, which overrule these, therefore, it will never pass.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

I think a more basic issue regarding paid maternity leave and extended childcare leave is that the people who don't have children... And there are many, male and female... Feel that this is something taken from them and given to others.

 

A childless worker or one who does not take the leave, slogs through year after year of work, while watching a parent take up to two years off, depending on the company, and have their job held in reserve the whole time, and come back with the same seniority and benefits as if they'd never left.

 

These benefits are paid, along with the increased health insurance costs of maternity, childbirth, and increasing family members, as well as free public schooling, in large part by single and childless people.

 

So it's not just that companies are making decisions that workers don't support. There's an element of fairness at play. Many workers do not support the option to opt out of work while raising a family while still retaining all the benefits that others must work without that break for.

 

There are tremendous benefits to society by having a system in place to allow parents to raise their children without resorting to daycare and too early schooling, and to raise generations that will be employable and pay taxes and keep the system working... but I don't see this country agreeing on the details.

[Ryrin]

It's just like medical insurance or the theory any way. Everyone pays in. Males won't need gynecological care and women won't have testicular cancer or need Viagra.

 

I think all of society benefits when children are given good care from birth onwards. Those who have children and take the time and expense of raising them provide future workers who will pay into a system that takes care of those who never had children.

[Guest]

^^ yes to that. Here, it is the people who work now who pay for the retirement of the elders. And we need a lot of new workers for the future, seeing how it goes with retirement...

 

speaking about which ...  seeing a lot of females take part times and not full paid leaves to raise their kids, they don't have the right to receive a full retirement pension/ allowance (?).

The pension depends on how many years you have worked. On top of that, the years when you have worked full-time give you more rights than the years where you had part-times and leaves.

[Ryrin]

Well, that seems fair to me.  They are using other paid benefits while they are off having children (in Belgium) right?  Paid time off?  So they are choosing to use a paid benefit now while those who don't use it contribute more to their retirement.

[Guest]

Depends on the kind of leave they take. Some are paid some not. WIth the parental leave for example you are paid 700 $ a month instead of your regular pay. So you have to think twice when you take it. With some other leaves you are fully paid and with some others, you aren't.

 

 

But we have pretty low pensions, it is not rare to have females with 800 $ a month (i tried to convert) to live... when a retirement home cost more than 1200 $ a month...As the men take less leaves, they tend to have a better pension. For a lot of my colleagues, it is normal for the female to take care of the kids and for the male to pursue his career.

[Guest]

A little thought about what happens at my kids school

 

The kids can do chores at noon for the teachers and they get paid for that. What  they do is quite easy : wash some dishes, clean up the tables, tidy up the place where they eat. Since the beginning of the year it seems that the only volunteers are girls...

When i asked one of my daughters why she replied : well the boys they have to go out to play football.

 

no comment on that one lolol

[Ryrin]

Depends on the kind of leave they take. Some are paid some not. WIth the parental leave for example you are paid 700 $ a month instead of your regular pay. So you have to think twice when you take it. With some other leaves you are fully paid and with some others, you aren't.

 

 

But we have pretty low pensions, it is not rare to have females with 800 $ a month (i tried to convert) to live... when a retirement home cost more than 1200 $ a month...As the men take less leaves, they tend to have a better pension. For a lot of my colleagues, it is normal for the female to take care of the kids and for the male to pursue his career.

 

Even when working, I had primary care of my sons.  If they were sick, I stayed home.  My husband works in a job 45 minutes away and the nature of the job means he can't take a partial day off like I can for a Dr. appointment and he must take the whole day.