Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Perfxion

MX hot botton topic series: True Equal Rights

Recommended Posts

Since 1923, many have tried to pass and ratify the ERA. Since the early 1970s, there has been Affirmative Action. Women who aspire to be firefighters have a test that is different then men because women, on the whole, are weaker than men. There are many who debate that AA is reverse discrimination. Others think AA is needed to protect people who might not have it fair. The debate over equal rights has been raging on since the 1820s with the slave issue. It is known that until the 1950s, huge discrimination was going on in this country. It was not only a southern issue.

 

If a true ERA was put into effect it would have to be worded more in a sense to include genders and races. It would have to be more down the lines of this roughly:

 

“Section I: No business, school, or Governmental facility could infringe on the Constitutional rights and freedoms based on race, gender, or Creed.

 

Section II: Congress shall have the power to protect the rights of people if such infringes occur.

 

Section III: This would come into effect 2 years after ratification from the states.”

 

On the two thirds ruling for ratification of the states, 38 states would have to agree to this for it to go into effect. If in effect, here are some pros and cons for both sides.

 

Pro: It would allow for equal pay for both sexes for doing the same job. It would allow for an amendment that allows the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. It would allow for to Affirmative Action to come off the books, since this says the same thing, but does away with the “quota scale” of it.

 

Con: (for some women) it takes away the female version of the firefighters test (poundage lifting and carrying). It forces companies who are currently in the red to either cut salaries of workers to meet laws or having to spend more. Most of the things under this ERA would be under state ruling, thus congress would be infringing on states rights..

 

What is your opinion on this issue? Should the ERA as I stated, or in its current form be passed? Or should congress stay out of State’s issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
Since 1923, many have tried to pass and ratify the ERA. Since the early 1970s, there has been Affirmative Action. Women who aspire to be firefighters have a test that is different then men because women, on the whole, are weaker than men. There are many who debate that AA is reverse discrimination. Others think AA is needed to protect people who might not have it fair. The debate over equal rights has been raging on since the 1820s with the slave issue. It is known that until the 1950s, huge discrimination was going on in this country. It was not only a southern issue.

 

If a true ERA was put into effect it would have to be worded more in a sense to include genders and races. It would have to be more down the lines of this roughly:

 

“Section I: No business, school, or Governmental facility could infringe on the Constitutional rights and freedoms based on race, gender, or Creed.

 

Section II: Congress shall have the power to protect the rights of people if such infringes occur.

 

Section III: This would come into effect 2 years after ratification from the states.”

 

On the two thirds ruling for ratification of the states, 38 states would have to agree to this for it to go into effect. If in effect, here are some pros and cons for both sides.

 

Pro: It would allow for equal pay for both sexes for doing the same job. It would allow for an amendment that allows the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. It would allow for to Affirmative Action to come off the books, since this says the same thing, but does away with the “quota scale” of it.

 

Con: (for some women) it takes away the female version of the firefighters test (poundage lifting and carrying). It forces companies who are currently in the red to either cut salaries of workers to meet laws or having to spend more. Most of the things under this ERA would be under state ruling, thus congress would be infringing on states rights..

 

What is your opinion on this issue? Should the ERA as I stated, or in its current form be passed? Or should congress stay out of State’s issues.

The ERA is a redundant amendment and the Constitution should not be littered with redundant amendments.

 

As for the pros:

 

Men and women ARE paid virtually the same for the same job. You need to take into account hours worked (women, by and large, are not as willing to sacrifice their lives for a job), any time missed due to pregnancy/family issues (taking time off, while perfectly legal, DOES negatively impact one's work as it takes time to get back up to speed --- and you never fully catch up), etc. On a COMPLETELY equal basis, men and women's pay differences are mathematically insignificant. It would also make affirmative action Constitutionally protected (as opposed to the current legal, but completely ANTI-Constitutional, status) which makes it a bigger can of worms.

 

And the cons won't come to pass since they will impact women and other "minorities" more, it will be viewed as being unfair and they will, in turn, be kept.

 

The amendment is quite unnecessary and it was defeated for a good reason.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb

Females SHOULD have the same firefighters test. If they can't handle it too damn bad. Letting inferior firefighters run around is just going to end up costing people's lives. If my family were in danger I wouldn't want someone who passed a dumbed down test going in after them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Years ago there was this video someone took of a bunch of chicks trying out for fireMEN jobs -- man was it F-U-N-N-Y.

 

I'm not too good when it comes to the Equal Rights debate. I teat everyone the same -- like sh*t.

 

There's plenty of other reasons to hate someone other than their skin color or genitals.

 

I love responding to people that ask me "Do you treat everyone like this?" by saying, "yes."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, there is another angle to look at it from.

 

White men have benifited from AA more than any other race or sex and would continue to if current AA policies are done away with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
You know, there is another angle to look at it from.

 

White men have benifited from AA more than any other race or sex and would continue to if current AA policies are done away with.

OK, I'll bite, how have white men benefitted from AA?

 

White women, yeah, I'll buy.

 

White MEN? Umm, nah.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you consider legacy admissions to colleges as AA (which it really is), then the argument is a decent one.

I'm not really for those either, and wouldn't those benefit those people on a non-racial basis? I mean, it's anyone who went to the college, so its not as though its restricted to usage by white Americans or Black americans or Latinos or etc etc. I see the argument, but I really wouldn't call it a solid one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Brian
White men have benifited from AA more than any other race or sex and would continue to if current AA policies are done away with.

If AA laws are the same in every other state as they are in Washington, they also consider age, disability, class, and veteran status, in addition to race and gender. I think, though I don't have the numbers, that white women draw the most benefit followed by white men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, you've got it, and it is a class issue over all else.

 

It's still Affirmative Action, though.

Then again, AA by class (If done progressively), is far more acceptable. At least, that way, we KNOW someone who needs it is getting it. When done by Race, though, it doesn't help the people it should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
If you consider legacy admissions to colleges as AA (which it really is), then the argument is a decent one.

Of course, you ignore the whole de facto v de jure part of the argument, which makes the comment null and void.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
Regardless of whether it's on the books, it still exists and it's still affirmative action.

No, it is not.

 

Affirmative action are GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED programs. U. of Michigan is an example of that. The problems of the California state system is an example.

 

The admissions you speak of have NO government sponsorship or support whatsoever.

 

They are not the same thing.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regardless of whether it's on the books, it still exists and it's still affirmative action.

So what you're saying is that anyone that gets anything in their life via connections is AA?

 

That's many things, but AA isn't one of them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus

AA is interesting because it only applies to "federally recognized underrepresented minorities." In other words, if you're any type of Asian, you don't benefit because there are too darned MANY of you on college campuses. So, even though I'm of middle eastern descent, I get no benefit from AA, neither does my neighbor who is of Indian decent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
AA is interesting because it only applies to "federally recognized underrepresented minorities." In other words, if you're any type of Asian, you don't benefit because there are too darned MANY of you on college campuses. So, even though I'm of middle eastern descent, I get no benefit from AA, neither does my neighbor who is of Indian decent.

But women --- who do outnumber men both in real life and, increasingly, on college campuses (or is it campii?) --- ARE protected.

 

Funny, huh?

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But women --- who do outnumber men both in real life and, increasingly, on college campuses (or is it campii?) --- ARE protected.

 

Funny, huh?

-=Mike

But they're not protected in the REAL majors like computer science -- at least that's what the feminazis are saying...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus

So the femnazis don't want women as liberal arts majors? Geez they're controling...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know, there is another angle to look at it from.

 

White men have benifited from AA more than any other race or sex and would continue to if current AA policies are done away with.

OK, I'll bite, how have white men benefitted from AA?

 

White women, yeah, I'll buy.

 

White MEN? Umm, nah.

-=Mike

If we are going to say that AA is the practice of using race as the deciding factor to hire, admit, etc. then no other race has benifited more than white men. Although it isn't called a AA policy, lets not pretend that plenty of minorities and women haven't lost jobs to lesser qualified white men. For what ever reason, be it the boys club complex or the legacy issues.

 

Since we want to live in fantasy land where all these over qualified whites are losing jobs to barely literate blacks, we should also look at the reality that AA was put into practice because of the already existing, AA policies that not only still exist, but were the LAW not 45 years ago.

 

Current AA policies guarentee that some of this goes the way of women and minorities. When seeing the minute numbers that it makes up in the overall scheme of things, I still don't see how it can be made into a big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
If we are going to say that AA is the practice of using race as the deciding factor to hire, admit, etc. then no other race has benifited more than white men.  Although it isn't called a AA policy, lets not pretend that plenty of minorities and women haven't lost jobs to lesser qualified white men.  For what ever reason, be it the boys club complex or the legacy issues.

 

Ah, back to "two wrongs make a right"?

 

That kind of AA tends to be, you know, ILLEGAL and suits about it don't seem to all that rare.

 

RIGHT NOW, which is what we're discussing, affirmative action is IDENTICAL to Jim Crow in terms of giving minorities a leg up on "non-protected minorities" when it coems to gov't contracts and college admissions --- and that so many minorities like it shows that they have no problem with racism and prejudice, as long as they can use it to hurt others.

 

If he could see how it all turned out, I wonder if Martin Luther King Jr. would feel it was really worth the effort. Then again, before his death, the "civil rights movement" didn't much respect him, so it's probably moot.

 

Since we want to live in fantasy land where all these over qualified whites are losing jobs to barely literate blacks, we should also look at the reality that AA was put into practice because of the already existing, AA policies that not only still exist, but were the LAW not 45 years ago. 

 

Small difference --- like it or not, the whites that beat out the blacks for those jobs WERE better qualified. They HAD better education at the time.

 

That's not even up for debate. It wasn't FAIR, but it was the case.

 

Now, blacks and whites have similar educational opportunities (meaning how much money your parents make dictates how good it is) and less qualified "minorities" ARE being given positions over more qualified "non-protected minorities".

 

Current AA policies guarentee that some of this goes the way of women and minorities.  When seeing the minute numbers that it makes up in the overall scheme of things, I still don't see how it can be made into a big deal.

 

So, again, you have NO PROBLEM with Jim Crow --- as long as the "correct" people are the victims of it?

 

Gotcha. I don't see whites saying that Jim Crow was OK, but "protected minorities" not only say Jim Crow in their favor is OK --- it is NECESSARY and "fair".

 

And "minorities" wonder why so much of the country doesn't take their concerns seriously whatsoever. Hypocrisy isn't exactly a winning formula for any group.

 

BTW, when YOU lose your position due to "racism", tell yourself you're a "minute number" (which you would be) and that you "don't see how it can be made into a big deal".

 

Somehow, I doubt you'd be so cavalier --- but you might surprise me.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×