The two types of Feminism

[Terrell]

Agreed. No one gets to pick their inborn characteristics. People who are innocent of the wrongdoing in question shouldn't be punished simply because others with similar inborn characteristics have done said wrongdoing. People don't have magical powers to control the actions of others.

We do have laws, though. They aren't magic.

The laws are only as good as the state's willingness & ability to enforce them. Those people who had nothing to do with said wrongdoing didn't break the law, and shouldn't be punished.

The magic I was referring to isn't the state, but the person being denied something they earned, based on how they were born. The state is responsible for upholding the laws and for making sure that it's done in a manner that's just & fair. Denying 25 year old males jobs or promotions that they've rightfully earned, because of the wrongful actions of men old enough to be their fathers, is no less wrong that what those older men did to the women that were treated unfairly. Don't do evil for evil; you simply become the same evil that you claim to be against.

The only redress that's reasonable, in my opinion, is a court judgment against the specific individuals/companies that can be proven to have wronged the women in question. The women in question could then recover the lost wages; in today's dollars. Perhaps sweeten their compensation with some interest on that money that they earned but were denied. I don't know what the most reasonable rate would be. Denying the most qualified applicant to a job, because of wrongs they personally had nothing to do with, only creates more discrimination. That discrimination will only foster more resentment.

 

[Arctish]

Group thinking detected.

People are individuals. Punishing one person for the acts of another is not proper--yet you're fine with it so long as the person being punished isn't from your group.

Projection detected.

Men are not being 'punished'. The younger workers are at the back of the promotion line because other workers, who should have been promoted long ago, are now being given their long-overdue promotions.

I get the feeling you think anything that inconveniences men is terribly unjust because it inconveniences men. You're perfectly fine with women being shortchanged their entire careers. You don't feel the slightest qualms about women being denied promotions they earned 30 years ago and have been qualified to receive ever since, but make a 25 year old guy wait another couple of years for his promotion, oh the humanity!

If men were discriminated against and weren't promoted even though they were the most qualified, experienced candidates, then addressing that injustice is appropriate. It's not automatically problem just because they're men.

Suppose the business is nursing. Suppose male nurses weren't being promoted to shift supervisors and managers despite being better qualified than the women who got those positions. Suppose the current plan is to promote those wrongfully passed-over men at first opportunity. How is that unjust?

You're justifying it based on what came before--but the people being punished were neither the perpetrators nor the beneficiaries.

Suppose Derec punches you out because of how women have treated him in the past. Should be fine--it was a woman, you're a woman.

Suppose Derec takes my house because you took his. You've argued in favor of that sort of trickle down injustice. But the difference here is that no one is being punished.

People are not being punished when well qualified employees who should have been promoted long ago are being given promotions now. The fact you see it that way, as a punishment to men (but apparently not to the 25 year old women working at that company) is entirely due to your own peculiar worldview.

 

[Toni]

Projection detected.

Men are not being 'punished'. The younger workers are at the back of the promotion line because other workers, who should have been promoted long ago, are now being given their long-overdue promotions.

I get the feeling you think anything that inconveniences men is terribly unjust because it inconveniences men. You're perfectly fine with women being shortchanged their entire careers. You don't feel the slightest qualms about women being denied promotions they earned 30 years ago and have been qualified to receive ever since, but make a 25 year old guy wait another couple of years for his promotion, oh the humanity!

You're justifying it based on what came before--but the people being punished were neither the perpetrators nor the beneficiaries.

Suppose Derec punches you out because of how women have treated him in the past. Should be fine--it was a woman, you're a woman.

Suppose Derec takes my house because you took his. You've argued in favor of that sort of trickle down injustice. But the difference here is that no one is being punished.

People are not being punished when well qualified employees who should have been promoted long ago are being given promotions now. The fact you see it that way, as a punishment to men (but apparently not to the 25 year old women working at that company) is entirely due to your own peculiar worldview.

Exactly.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed. No one gets to pick their inborn characteristics. People who are innocent of the wrongdoing in question shouldn't be punished simply because others with similar inborn characteristics have done said wrongdoing. People don't have magical powers to control the actions of others.

We do have laws, though. They aren't magic.

The laws are only as good as the state's willingness & ability to enforce them. Those people who had nothing to do with said wrongdoing didn't break the law, and shouldn't be punished.

The magic I was referring to isn't the state, but the person being denied something they earned, based on how they were born. The state is responsible for upholding the laws and for making sure that it's done in a manner that's just & fair. Denying 25 year old males jobs or promotions that they've rightfully earned, because of the wrongful actions of men old enough to be their fathers, is no less wrong that what those older men did to the women that were treated unfairly. Don't do evil for evil; you simply become the same evil that you claim to be against.

The only redress that's reasonable, in my opinion, is a court judgment against the specific individuals/companies that can be proven to have wronged the women in question. The women in question could then recover the lost wages; in today's dollars. Perhaps sweeten their compensation with some interest on that money that they earned but were denied. I don't know what the most reasonable rate would be. Denying the most qualified applicant to a job, because of wrongs they personally had nothing to do with, only creates more discrimination. That discrimination will only foster more resentment.

I'm not sure how it is evil to promote someone who has waited a long time for a well deserved promotion, even if it means promoting the person who has been waiting a long time over someone else who has not been waiting so long. Please note: all candidates are qualified in this example. The only persons who are supposing that the male candidates who might be passed over are more qualified than the female candidates who have been waiting a long time for their promotions are: surprise surprise: male. In fact, this is not the case. Heck, Jolly is so determined that males not be passed over that he refuses to accept longer tenure at a job as being perhaps a good reason to award one candidate a promotion over another candidate. All things being equal except genitalia.

 

[Terrell]

Exactly.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed. No one gets to pick their inborn characteristics. People who are innocent of the wrongdoing in question shouldn't be punished simply because others with similar inborn characteristics have done said wrongdoing. People don't have magical powers to control the actions of others.

We do have laws, though. They aren't magic.

The laws are only as good as the state's willingness & ability to enforce them. Those people who had nothing to do with said wrongdoing didn't break the law, and shouldn't be punished.

The magic I was referring to isn't the state, but the person being denied something they earned, based on how they were born. The state is responsible for upholding the laws and for making sure that it's done in a manner that's just & fair. Denying 25 year old males jobs or promotions that they've rightfully earned, because of the wrongful actions of men old enough to be their fathers, is no less wrong that what those older men did to the women that were treated unfairly. Don't do evil for evil; you simply become the same evil that you claim to be against.

The only redress that's reasonable, in my opinion, is a court judgment against the specific individuals/companies that can be proven to have wronged the women in question. The women in question could then recover the lost wages; in today's dollars. Perhaps sweeten their compensation with some interest on that money that they earned but were denied. I don't know what the most reasonable rate would be. Denying the most qualified applicant to a job, because of wrongs they personally had nothing to do with, only creates more discrimination. That discrimination will only foster more resentment.

I'm not sure how it is evil to promote someone who has waited a long time for a well deserved promotion, even if it means promoting the person who has been waiting a long time over someone else who has not been waiting so long. Please note: all candidates are qualified in this example.

If the person being denied is better qualified and is being denied because of an inborn characteristic then it is an example of doing evil for evil. We're also assuming that the women that lost their promotions 30 years before are still there they may have retired. That's why I said pay them the wages they lost, and perhaps add interest to them. That way they get some redress, and it doesn't penalize one generation based on something that the previous generation did wrong.

 

[Arctish]

Did you read my previous post responding to what you wrote again in this post? I don't feel inclined to go through this again if you ignored me last time around.

I have read every single thing you wrote. I have read every single link you have provided. I have sought out additional information in order to gain a greater understanding of the issue we're discussing.

These things take time. So does transcribing every single work I can make out from a confusing tangle of exchanges on a video clip. I do it because I think it's important. But if you're not interested in what people actually say, I'll stop.

I do not endorse the pulling of a fire alarm for anything other than a fire or dire emergency. I have mixed feelings about disrupting someone's get-together, but as someone old enough to remember the 1960s I don't think that chanting in the hallway was all that terrible.

As for Chanty Binx herself, she was being loud and rude. But after watching that video a couple of times and paying careful attention to what she actually said, I found nothing that wasn't in line with your espoused opinion of what the good kind of feminist does. I think you reject her as a type 1 feminist because she was 'mouthing off' when you would have preferred her to be quiet.

She wasn't just "being uppity". I already showed you the video of her screaming outside the meeting (that wasn't even an MRA meeting specifically), chanting along with the group that pulled the fire alarm to force the meeting to end, and cheering when the alarm went off, and then accosting people on the street by "reading her list" and "trying to agree with them" as yous say.

And you think she is trying to cooperate with them? As I wrote before, she was invited to the meeting. She could have attended, expressed her agreement or asked questions or expressed her disagreement and debated them a little. instead she pushed to shut them down, cheered when that succeeded and accosted people who had attended on the street.

Right. She could have STFU and listened to MRAs tell their stories about demonic rage flashing in the eyes of worldly feminists, burning tampons, and why women should be denied the right to vote. Because that's what good feminists do.

BTW, why don't you suggest the men should have listened?

They sure as heck aren't supposed to use foul language no matter how important they think their little girly issues are. They deserve to be called dick choppers like that one site does.

The people at that meeting said no such thing. Some reactions to Binx became hostile, and that isn't the slightest bit surprising. Reverse the gender roles and I would expect to see something similar. Send somebody like Milo into a feminist meeting screaming and shutting it down by pulling their fire alarm. Do you really think anybody would believe he is on their side when he then claims to be? When he then stands on the street and "mansplains" to them, claiming to know better what the women's problems are and why they are?

Chanty Binx is toxic, and is not cooperative and supportive of MRA issues, and I think you know it.

I disagree.

Chanty Binx is being given the GamerGate treatment. Death threats, rape threats, graphic descriptions of the torture some guys would like to see her suffer, being doxxed, having surveillance camera footage of her shared online, her picture part of a 'who should get a punch in the face' poll on Reddit, being a target of all that toxic misogynist hatemongering, and why? Because she had an opinion that differed from a MRAs and she was bitchy enough to tell them to STFU while she read her list of things they have in common in a rude tone of voice. She has to be viewed as an enemy because otherwise the MRAs would have to admit that yes, they do share common goals with feminists and yes, they really ought to stop hating on women so much.

Fuck that shit.

 

[Toni]

Exactly.

- - - Updated - - -

We do have laws, though. They aren't magic.

The laws are only as good as the state's willingness & ability to enforce them. Those people who had nothing to do with said wrongdoing didn't break the law, and shouldn't be punished.

The magic I was referring to isn't the state, but the person being denied something they earned, based on how they were born. The state is responsible for upholding the laws and for making sure that it's done in a manner that's just & fair. Denying 25 year old males jobs or promotions that they've rightfully earned, because of the wrongful actions of men old enough to be their fathers, is no less wrong that what those older men did to the women that were treated unfairly. Don't do evil for evil; you simply become the same evil that you claim to be against.

The only redress that's reasonable, in my opinion, is a court judgment against the specific individuals/companies that can be proven to have wronged the women in question. The women in question could then recover the lost wages; in today's dollars. Perhaps sweeten their compensation with some interest on that money that they earned but were denied. I don't know what the most reasonable rate would be. Denying the most qualified applicant to a job, because of wrongs they personally had nothing to do with, only creates more discrimination. That discrimination will only foster more resentment.

I'm not sure how it is evil to promote someone who has waited a long time for a well deserved promotion, even if it means promoting the person who has been waiting a long time over someone else who has not been waiting so long. Please note: all candidates are qualified in this example.

If the person being denied is better qualified and is being denied because of an inborn characteristic then it is an example of doing evil for evil. We're also assuming that the women that lost their promotions 30 years before are still there they may have retired. That's why I said pay them the wages they lost, and perhaps add interest to them. That way they get some redress, and it doesn't penalize one generation based on something that the previous generation did wrong.

I’m assuming that Arctish is accurate in her description of the scenario she described. She doesn’t mention any of the wronged women being retired.

If the previously wronged women receive the promotions for which they are qualified, how are the younger employees being ‘wronged?’

 

[Terrell]

Exactly.

- - - Updated - - -

The laws are only as good as the state's willingness & ability to enforce them. Those people who had nothing to do with said wrongdoing didn't break the law, and shouldn't be punished.

The magic I was referring to isn't the state, but the person being denied something they earned, based on how they were born. The state is responsible for upholding the laws and for making sure that it's done in a manner that's just & fair. Denying 25 year old males jobs or promotions that they've rightfully earned, because of the wrongful actions of men old enough to be their fathers, is no less wrong that what those older men did to the women that were treated unfairly. Don't do evil for evil; you simply become the same evil that you claim to be against.

The only redress that's reasonable, in my opinion, is a court judgment against the specific individuals/companies that can be proven to have wronged the women in question. The women in question could then recover the lost wages; in today's dollars. Perhaps sweeten their compensation with some interest on that money that they earned but were denied. I don't know what the most reasonable rate would be. Denying the most qualified applicant to a job, because of wrongs they personally had nothing to do with, only creates more discrimination. That discrimination will only foster more resentment.

I'm not sure how it is evil to promote someone who has waited a long time for a well deserved promotion, even if it means promoting the person who has been waiting a long time over someone else who has not been waiting so long. Please note: all candidates are qualified in this example.

If the person being denied is better qualified and is being denied because of an inborn characteristic then it is an example of doing evil for evil. We're also assuming that the women that lost their promotions 30 years before are still there they may have retired. That's why I said pay them the wages they lost, and perhaps add interest to them. That way they get some redress, and it doesn't penalize one generation based on something that the previous generation did wrong.

I’m assuming that Arctish is accurate in her description of the scenario she described. She doesn’t mention any of the wronged women being retired.

If the previously wronged women receive the promotions for which they are qualified, how are the younger employees being ‘wronged?’

Depends. Are the women in question still the best qualified applicants? If not then the younger applicants, assuming they're better qualified, are being penalized. Promotions aren't automatically permanent. One can be demoted or even fired if the performance in the higher job isn't up to standard.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Clearly you didn't, because I have answered that very question directly, regarding individuals.

As far as groups being treated unfairly (not sure why you are bringing that in now when Arctish's example doesn't do that), I don't buy into identity politics. Either a given individual has been mistreated or has not. Them having a characteristic in common with others who have isn't good enough.

In her scenario, the company had a history of promoting less qualified men (inborn characteristic) into supervisory or managerial positions instead of promoting women(inborn characteristic) with more experience and who had been working for the company longer.

Did you only read the part about whether it would be fair to right a past wrong by putting at the head of the line for promotions the group (women) that had been unfairly treated in the past?

Or did you not notice that a group had been unfairly discriminated against because they are female?

You need to stop thinking in terms of groups and start thinking in terms of individuals being discriminated against unfairly due to having a particular trait. You can do the same analysis but do it fairly without confusing group members and individuals who happen to have traits in common. As Loren said, the members of your group have likely changed over the years, and the members of the group you seek to discriminate against are not all all the members that you feel were discriminated for.

Unlike Loren, I actually do think that the individual women who were discriminated against due to their gender should be compensated for that. I just don't think you do that by creating FURTHER discrimination, now against some men who had nothing whatsoever to do with the original discrimination.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I get the feeling you think anything that inconveniences men is terribly unjust because it inconveniences men. You're perfectly fine with women being shortchanged their entire careers. You don't feel the slightest qualms about women being denied promotions they earned 30 years ago and have been qualified to receive ever since, but make a 25 year old guy wait another couple of years for his promotion, oh the humanity!

You are explicitly creating a straw man instead of listening. I can't speak for Loren, but I wouldn't feel any differently about this if you reversed the genders. I see no indication that he would either. You are projecting.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Heck, Jolly is so determined that males not be passed over that he refuses to accept longer tenure at a job as being perhaps a good reason to award one candidate a promotion over another candidate. All things being equal except genitalia.

Toni you are being rude here. I explained very clearly what I meant, and you are reading in some sort of sexism to it that was not there. I oppose hiring people simply due to seniority in ANY context, regardless of genetalia, race, or whatever else. Length of time spent on the previous job is ONLY relevant so far as it constitutes experience, expertise and skill towards the job being promoted to or hired for.

 

[Toni]

Clearly you didn't, because I have answered that very question directly, regarding individuals.

As far as groups being treated unfairly (not sure why you are bringing that in now when Arctish's example doesn't do that), I don't buy into identity politics. Either a given individual has been mistreated or has not. Them having a characteristic in common with others who have isn't good enough.

In her scenario, the company had a history of promoting less qualified men (inborn characteristic) into supervisory or managerial positions instead of promoting women(inborn characteristic) with more experience and who had been working for the company longer.

Did you only read the part about whether it would be fair to right a past wrong by putting at the head of the line for promotions the group (women) that had been unfairly treated in the past?

Or did you not notice that a group had been unfairly discriminated against because they are female?

You need to stop thinking in terms of groups and start thinking in terms of individuals being discriminated against unfairly due to having a particular trait. You can do the same analysis but do it fairly without confusing group members and individuals who happen to have traits in common. As Loren said, the members of your group have likely changed over the years, and the members of the group you seek to discriminate against are not all all the members that you feel were discriminated for.

Unlike Loren, I actually do think that the individual women who were discriminated against due to their gender should be compensated for that. I just don't think you do that by creating FURTHER discrimination, now against some men who had nothing whatsoever to do with the original discrimination.

What ‘discrimination’ do you think is being proposed?

In the past,there was discrimination: less qualified men were promoted over more qualified women. Because of their gender, not because of some individual characteristic pertaining only to a particular person.

What is asked now is if, among a group of equally qualified candidates, if the individuals who were previously discriminated against should be promoted over other, equally qualified candidates.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think you reject her as a type 1 feminist because she was 'mouthing off' when you would have preferred her to be quiet.

Again, she was more than mouthing off. She was protesting the meeting the people were in, cheered for the fire alarm terminating the meeting, and accosting them on the street. She is clearly not on their side. I ask you again how you would judge this if the genders were reversed and if a male shut down a feminist group only to then "mansplain" or lecture to them that he is on their side and has their interests in mind and that they should shut the fuck up and listen to him. I think I know you know he wouldn't be seen by anybody as on their side.

Right. She could have STFU and listened to MRAs tell their stories about demonic rage flashing in the eyes of worldly feminists, burning tampons, and why women should be denied the right to vote. Because that's what good feminists do.

That isn't what was being said at the meeting, and again, I think you know that.

Chanty Binx is being given the GamerGate treatment. Death threats, rape threats, graphic descriptions of the torture some guys would like to see her suffer, being doxxed, having surveillance camera footage of her shared online, her picture part of a 'who should get a punch in the face' poll on Reddit, being a target of all that toxic misogynist hatemongering, and why?

Because she put herself in the public eye and drew the ire of some angry people, who were by the way, not the same people who were at the meeting she disrupted. If you dig a little deeper, you will find that all sorts of provacateur type people get this treatment from the people they upset.

This draws an interesting parallel. I went out of my way to distinguish type 1 and type 2 feminists, but you seem to be blending all MRAs into one grouping here. Do you acknowledge that there is no evidence that the people in this meeting that she disrupted and opposed are the same people that attacked her?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What ‘discrimination’ do you think is being proposed?

You are seeking to promote a group of people based on their gender combined with number of years at the company. As Terrel said, if the new folks (male and female) are more qualified for the job being filled (ie, being hired from outside with more expertise or being more skilled) then you are discriminating against them. You haven't mentioned what to do with any qualified men who were passed over for whatever reason when the women you are pushing for were (due to whatever reason).

In the past,there was discrimination: less qualified men were promoted over more qualified women. Because of their gender, not because of some individual characteristic pertaining only to a particular person.

Gender is a characteristic pertaining to a particular person. Wrongly discriminating against multiple individuals instead of just one based on that doesn't change this.

What is asked now is if, among a group of equally qualified candidates, if the individuals who were previously discriminated against should be promoted over other, equally qualified candidates.

Yes, I know. And I disagree.

An instance of gender discrimination does not justify creating a perpetual never ending seniority system, which your logic implies, as the new group of equally qualified candidates being passed over for these women would not have to be preferred over the even newer applicants at the next round of promotions (for the same reason these women were).

Also, why have you not responded to my, and now also Terrell's suggestion of compensation that isn't discrimination against people not party to the wrong? Why aren't you on board supporgint the company being fined or paying damages to these women who were passed over due to gender? Why do you instead focus on screwing over people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the wrong?

 

[Toni]

You are seeking to promote a group of people based on their gender combined with number of years at the company. As Terrel said, if the new folks (male and female) are more qualified for the job being filled (ie, being hired from outside with more expertise or being more skilled) then you are discriminating against them. You haven't mentioned what to do with any qualified men who were passed over for whatever reason when the women you are pushing for were (due to whatever reason).

Not at all. What is being proposed in Arctish's scenario (drawn from real life) is that a group of people who have been discriminated against because of gender are now being given long denied promotions. Remember, in Arctish's scenario, all the candidates are qualified, the ones who had previously been discriminated against and newer hires.

It is a fact in Arctish's scenario that the discriminated group are women but the same would apply if they were bisexual Asians or left handed red heads. I personally don't care what the characteristic of the group of people discriminated against-and it was a group--a collection of individuals with one particular shared characteristic that excluded them from being promoted over less qualified persons with a different characteristic.

You keep wanting to interject some other scenario: hiring people from the outside, for example. Why? That's not the scenario being proposed. It seems as though you want to do anything except to promote well deserving, well qualified women over men. Why?

Gender is a characteristic pertaining to a particular person. Wrongly discriminating against multiple individuals instead of just one based on that doesn't change this.

Wrongly discriminating against multiple individuals based on gender is a pattern and it is against the law.

What is asked now is if, among a group of equally qualified candidates, if the individuals who were previously discriminated against should be promoted over other, equally qualified candidates.

Yes, I know. And I disagree.

How can you disagree with a question? I think you mean that in your opinion, the group who had been discriminated against should not receive the remedy of being promoted.

An instance of gender discrimination does not justify creating a perpetual never ending seniority system, which your logic implies, as the new group of equally qualified candidates being passed over for these women would not have to be preferred over the even newer applicants at the next round of promotions (for the same reason these women were).

It isn't 'my logic.' It's a scenario presented by someone who is not me.

If I understand you correctly, your logic is that correcting the wrong done to these women would create an unfair burden on younger or newer employees, and be discriminatory. Do I have that right? How is it discriminatory? What criteria should be used?

Also, why have you not responded to my, and now also Terrell's suggestion of compensation that isn't discrimination against people not party to the wrong? Why aren't you on board supporgint the company being fined or paying damages to these women who were passed over due to gender? Why do you instead focus on screwing over people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the wrong?

I'm not certain why it is 'screwing over' people with less tenure in the position.

It's extremely common for tenure in a company to be considered when evaluating persons for promotions or new positions. It certainly is at my current workplace.

When evaluating two equally qualified candidates for a position, what criteria do you think should be used to select the successful candidate?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It is a fact in Arctish's scenario that the discriminated group are women but the same would apply if they were bisexual Asians or left handed red heads.

Agreed, and I would still oppose your call for imposing a perpetual seniority system due to a past discrimination event.

It seems as though you want to do anything except to promote well deserving, well qualified women over men. Why?

It seems that way to you because that is what you are looking for and expecting to see. It isn't what I've said.

It isn't 'my logic.' It's a scenario presented by someone who is not me.

It is your logic applied to that scenario. You have stated that you want to rectify a past wrong by giving people promotions based on seniority (if we are assuming they remain as qualified as those they are being promoted instead of - which isn't a given).

If I understand you correctly, your logic is that correcting the wrong done to these women would create an unfair burden on younger or newer employees, and be discriminatory. Do I have that right? How is it discriminatory? What criteria should be used?

It is discriminatory on the basis of time spent in the company. It is a setting up of a seniority system. I have stated this numerous times. I oppose seniority systems.

It's extremely common for tenure in a company to be considered when evaluating persons for promotions or new positions. It certainly is at my current workplace.

It may or may not be relevant. I have addressed this multiple times as well.

You still haven't answered why you are not endorsing damages being awarded to these women who you are saying were unjustly held back.

 

[Toni]

Agreed, and I would still oppose your call for imposing a perpetual seniority system due to a past discrimination event.

It's not 'my call.'

I asked a question.

Since you are inventing this straw man that actually has nothing to do with anything I have said, you may as well complete it. Why do you imagine?

If you don't want to answer, then just say so.

It is your logic applied to that scenario. You have stated that you want to rectify a past wrong by giving people promotions based on seniority (if we are assuming they remain as qualified as those they are being promoted instead of - which isn't a given).

I haven't stated that I wanted to do anything. In the scenario presented, both the more senior employees and the newer employees are equally qualified.

If I understand you correctly, your logic is that correcting the wrong done to these women would create an unfair burden on younger or newer employees, and be discriminatory. Do I have that right? How is it discriminatory? What criteria should be used?

It is discriminatory on the basis of time spent in the company. It is a setting up of a seniority system. I have stated this numerous times. I oppose seniority systems.

What criteria should be used?

You still haven't answered why you are not endorsing damages being awarded to these women who you are saying were unjustly held back.

I'm not endorsing anything. I'm simply re-iterating a scenario presented by Arctish and asking questions about your responses to it.

Why do you keep insisting that these women have left the company when Arctish states that they have not?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If you don't want to answer, then just say so.

I can't tell you why you are seeing something that isn't there. That's only for you to truly know.

I'm not endorsing anything. I'm simply re-iterating a scenario presented by Arctish and asking questions about your responses to it.

Oh. I thought you were advocating for promoting these women over others because still others were unfairly promoted over them. If you are just asking the questions I've already answered then I just point you to previous posts.

What criteria should be used?

Merit and skill as I said before. If these women are the best qualified with the most merit and skill, then they should get the promotion. I said that a long time ago. So did the others you have been asking.

Why do you keep insisting that these women have left the company when Arctish states that they have not?

I don't keep insisting that.

 

[Arctish]

I get the feeling you think anything that inconveniences men is terribly unjust because it inconveniences men. You're perfectly fine with women being shortchanged their entire careers. You don't feel the slightest qualms about women being denied promotions they earned 30 years ago and have been qualified to receive ever since, but make a 25 year old guy wait another couple of years for his promotion, oh the humanity!

You are explicitly creating a straw man instead of listening. I can't speak for Loren, but I wouldn't feel any differently about this if you reversed the genders. I see no indication that he would either. You are projecting.

Loren spoke of men being "punished". He said making 25 year old men wait a few more years for a shot at a promotion was a punishment for something other men had done. He made no mention of 25 year old women also waiting a few more years, and apparently he doesn't care about women waiting 30 years for a shot at one.

No, Jolly. Men are not being "punished" when women receive their long overdue, well earned, and thoroughly, utterly, and unmistakable merited promotions. It takes a special kind of chauvinism to think that they are.

I gave Loren an example of a work environment in which men might be unfairly denied promotions. He hasn't responded with a reason why it would be unfair to a young woman if an older guy got a promotion he was fully qualified to receive instead of her, perhaps because he doesn't have a problem with that.

 

[Toni]

I can't tell you why you are seeing something that isn't there. That's only for you to truly know.



Oh. I thought you were advocating for promoting these women over others because still others were unfairly promoted over them. If you are just asking the questions I've already answered then I just point you to previous posts.

What criteria should be used?

Merit and skill as I said before. If these women are the best qualified with the most merit and skill, then they should get the promotion. I said that a long time ago. So did the others you have been asking.

Why do you keep insisting that these women have left the company when Arctish states that they have not?

I don't keep insisting that.

Can you point to me where you stated that those with the most merit and skill should get the promotions? I can't seem to find that.

 

[Arctish]

I can't tell you why you are seeing something that isn't there. That's only for you to truly know.



Oh. I thought you were advocating for promoting these women over others because still others were unfairly promoted over them. If you are just asking the questions I've already answered then I just point you to previous posts.

What criteria should be used?

Merit and skill as I said before. If these women are the best qualified with the most merit and skill, then they should get the promotion. I said that a long time ago. So did the others you have been asking.

I said these women were fully qualified for those positions when I presented the scenario. They have all the merit, experience, and skill the job requires. They've had it for decades. They've had more of it than the men who were promoted over them.

So where's the beef? What's wrong with a policy of righting that wrong by promoting them at the first opportunity into positions they are fully qualified to hold? It seems to me that some folks don't like it because they think the young men are being unfairly treated, as though the men deserve the promotions more than the women simply be virtue of being men.