Over at the London Times ”Articles of Faith” section, there is an article by Sahar Khan about women in Islam. She goes on a bit about how Muhammad liberated women (tell me the old, old story!), and then this:
It is the Qur’an’s differing treatments of men and women in relation to inheritance, testimony and marriage that are viewed as inequalities; some of these teachings have been misinterpreted to justify Islam’s unjust treatment of women. It is myopic to assume that being treated differently is being treated unequally. Where the Qur’an does make a distinction; it does not mean that men are favoured over women. On the contrary, the Islamic law seeks to protect the interests of the woman. For example, the disparity in inheritance is consistent with variations in the financial responsibilities designated to a man and woman. A woman has no financial responsibilities even if she possesses wealth of her own; whereas a man is required to provide maintenance for the wife, children and close female relatives. Based on this, a man will receive twice the portion of a woman. This is not absolute in all cases though, in some situations men and women are allocated exactly the same shares.
In my opinion, women’s liberation should not be about competing with men and wanting to ape them, gender differences should [be] accepted; women should cherish their femininity as distinct and unique to them.
Think about the misogyny so clearly expressed in that, and then continue to the rest of the post. You probably see more wrong with it than I do, but I was horrified! And Sahar Khan thinks it’s Western stereotyping!
Well, of course, that’s what they all say! The truth is, though, that Islam is inimical to women practically everywhere it has been practiced. Notice that our friend Khan does not say anything about polygamy, and by enforcing the kinds of differences that the Qu’ran does impose it separates women into a category all by themselves, where they can and will be disadvantaged. And this is not just Western stereotyping. Different but equal does not work out in practice. Ask women in the Roman Catholic Church, or many Anglican Churches, the Orthodox Churches, or many Protestant churches. The “In my opinion, women’s liberation should not be about ….” is already to have disadvantaged women, is already to have separated them into a separate sphere — a separatism enforced by men, and by women like Khan who love their chains. So, of course, the title, “Muslim Women — Salient Emblems of Islam,” is true. Women are indeed salient emblems of Islam’s refusal to grant women equal rights. It’s not really possible that Muhammad should be thought now to be a liberator of women, even if we suppose that he did accomplish something like this for his own time and place, which was too long ago to be relevant now, and the evidence is not strong. And in any event, as Edmund Standing pointed out some time ago over at Butterflies and Wheels (see his essays “Women’s Rights. Inspired by Muhammad?“, or “On the Validity and Necessity of the Atheist Critique of Islam ”), the Qu’ran was written by and for men, and they are the ones who define who and what women are, and why they should be kept that way. Sahar Khan accepts it all withour demur, as if it makes sense to say that
A woman has no financial responsibilities even if she possesses wealth of her own; whereas a man is required to provide maintenance for the wife, children and close female relatives.
Who is she trying to kid? If women don’t have financial responsibilities, it’s often because they are socially disadvantaged, because they are excluded from social roles reserved for men. Khan has evidently fooled herself, but can this reasonably be thought convincing to anyone else? Heaven forfend! The article is behind a paywall, but this will take you to Sahar Khan’s contemptible bit of Qu’ranic rehabilitation, and it does not become less contemptible by having been written by a woman – if anything, more contemptible. An invitation to women to kiss the hand the strikes them, and to wear their chains with pride, with scarcely a thought for those who are victimised by the myopic Qu’ranic separation imposed on women — all to be resolved by women cherishing their femininity! The injustice that women suffer in the Muslim world is not only cultural. It’s built into the religious system, and there’s no way keep them apart. Sahar Khan’s article makes that very clear. It’s myopic, she says, to think that the Qu’ran stipulations regarding women are unjust, because being treated differently and unequally are not the same. Of course they’re not, not equal in meaning at all, but they almost always, in practice, lead to the same injustice. Someone always ends up with the short end of the stick. But never the men! The Times should be ashamed to pander so easily to misogyny.
I’m…sympathetic to the view that there is a happy medium between treating women as essentially equal and treating them as wards of their husbands, that would yield the best results for all involved. One rather glaring problem with women’s lib in the west is that the differences in fact between men and women have led to laws and policies that do not treat men and women equally in an attempt to counter-balance the inherent inequality of fact. Child support, alimony, and reproductive rights (i.e. viewing a fetus as basically the woman’s spleen), are three such examples in which men are disadvantaged from the word ‘go’. Now, clearly, I think these inequalities are necessary, but then, how does that fit with the “equal but equal” rhetoric?
Is it at least possible that women are disadvantaged by equal treatment in some regards?
Bitbandit, you speak as though it is up to men to decide what role women should have in society, business, politics, etc. Speaking about a happy medium between treating women as … or as …, is suggesting that we should be able to decide how women should be treated, and who is to do this deciding? If men, then it is an affront to women, if men and women together, then women are equal, and are not being “treated” this way or that. That’s not to deny that many people find it hard to work and family, or work and relationships. Nor is it to say that many of the jobs that women — and of course that men — have are routine, uninteresting, dull and unrewarding. But it also seems to be the truth that women are on the whole more intelligent than men, that they have a better work ethic, that they can excel in positions of great responsibility, and yet are excluded from many positions because the shop is still closed to women. There are differences in fact between men and women, but this need not mean that they should be treated unequally, or that they are not essentially equal. In what way does difference in biology imply essential inequality? As to the glaring problem, what is the evidence for that? Where is the evidence that foetuses are treated like a woman’s spleen? Just because women are the ones who have babies doesn’t mean that anyone should get to tell them when or if they are going to have a child, and how they regard the potential human inside them is the business of individual women, not of men or other women or of society generally. If they say no, why should anyone have the right to tell them they must? (Just as when a dying person says, “Now,” they should have a right to have assistance in dying. No one should get to tell them that they must die of their disease.) But it’s just not clear that the inequalities that you speak of are there. I brought up my children from my first marriage, and received child support from their mother. It can work both ways. Aren’t you just speaking from a position of assumed male privilege? Mind you, I don’t know that you are, but the way your word your remark suggests this to me.
Related article in the telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/divorce/9434099/English-law-is-fair-to-women-not-unfair-to-Muslims.html
I’d like to know the real answer to did Christ-addicts treat women any better than other Romans, and did their supposed love of one another, impress other Romans?
Egbert, bravo to British law. The supposition that there should be separate sources of law to govern different communities, is simply to give up the notion of a nation, of equality before the law, or of basic human rights. It is good to see that the courts will not give in to this kind of religio-cultural relativism.
When I speak about “how women should be treated” I’m not speaking as a man, rather, as a member of a society of men and women. Talking about how men should be treated does not imply that I am a woman, or that men shouldn’t be involved in the conversation. “Treated” in this context is like “treating” citizens under the law.
“how they regard the potential human inside them is the business of individual women, not of men or other women or of society generally.”
How about the father?
“Where is the evidence that foetuses are treated like a woman’s spleen? ”
You actually make this point for me in your analogy to assisted suicide. I agree with that position on AS, but in pregnancy, it isn’t just the woman’s body under consideration. That is, I think, why we don’t view AS as essentially analogous to, say, abortion. You aren’t making a decision about your body, you’re making a decision about another body, the work of one man and one woman in making another person. To view it as solely the discretion of one party doesn’t seem, at least to me, to give all involved a fair shake.
Lets suppose for a moment that, far into the future, children are not grown in a woman’s womb, but transferred to an external incubator. Would it then be fair to give the woman sole discretion in making choices about the product of two consensual adults? I submit that it would not. Since we are not in that position, the facts of biology make it the case that equal treatment, equal say for mother and father, disadvantages the woman. The current paradigm is a case of (albeit justified) inequality, but the fact that it is justified does not change the fact that it is unequal.
“But it also seems to be the truth that women are on the whole more intelligent than men,”
Statements like that get men fired when the advantages of men are highlighted (in math/science, for example). But leaving that aside, lets suppose for the sake of argument that the research(which appears to be a whopping 1pt difference on IQ tests) is conclusive: women just are smarter. Should we view equal treatment as fair? or should the facts justify unequal treatment based on the inherent disadvantages of the “dumber” sex?
My starting point is that all humans, male or female or whatever race should be equal before the law. The more enlightened parts of the world seem to have arrived at this position, at least in principle. This position may be in need of some fine tuning due to the fact that, in real life, men and women are actually different. The obvious differences are due to the reproductive process and are unavoidable. However, there are some who would claim that children are conditioned to like male or female things from birth. The fact is that little boys like motorbikes and little girls like ponys, and no amount of neutral upbringing will change that.
I am encouraged by the fact that the Islamic world is now being forced to justify its position on these matters rather than just take them as read. Being forced to think about such things is how the Western World managed to free itself from religion. There is hope.
Bitbandit, you say that, “in pregnancy, it isn’t just the woman’s body under consideration.” Well, we might argue about that, but you’ll have to give a reason for suggesting this. I understand about late stage abortions which might raise some external issues, but in general, it’s the woman’s body, and she may do with it as she pleases, and if she chooses not to host a blastocyst/zygote/embryo, then that’s her business. And there’s no father unless and until there is a child. So, he’s got no say either. You have to tell me what your presuppositions are that underlie you assumptions about “it isn’t just the woman’s body under consideration,” and give good reasons why anyone else should have a say.
Besides, just to add to that, if I say something about how “we” should treat men, then I assume that men are not being considered equally. It’s not the right way to refer to it. We speak about equality, or not, and if not, then how the group in question should be treated.
Oh, and I’m not really concerned about growing children in jars. When and if that day comes the whole situation will be different, and the moral questions will be different too. Irrelevant to present circustances.
The reason for mentioning recent “findings” about the intelligence of women are irrelevant to the question of equality, since this is just about equality of opportunity. Equally intelligent and skilled men and women should not be distinguished in respect of opportunity. As it is, women tend to be second-listed. You’d have to show that
I don’t think that’s at all true, but at least you’re bound to produce evidence.
Inquiring Lynn. As to Christian morality, it’s a long time since I read Wayne Meeks on the development of early Christian morality, but a lot was borrowed from the Romans, especially the Stoics. Indeed, Christianity took over stoicism and Christianised it. There is no developed morality in the New Testament, just a few expressions that can be translated into some moral priorities. By and large women lost ground with the coming of Christianity, over pagan women in the empire. That, of course, doesn’t apply to slaves, an institution which Christianity did very little to change. I think, from the standpoint of love you will find that Christians, who mainly came from lower ranks, did attract disadvantaged people who were assisted by the Christian community. So, I think, there were some gains there. But there were other developments not nearly so helpful, especially with respect to the permanence of marriage, for example, Women in the empire could initiate divorce proceedings, could own property, and live independently. A lot of those abilities were lost as Christianity took hold, and there was worse to come.
Sahar Khan would get along well with the pope – but then so did Sayeeda Warsi, so I guess that’s no surprise.
“And there’s no father unless and until there is a child. So, he’s got no say either.”
I see. So the man impregnates the woman in the second trimester? or do some instances of sexual intercourse result in the development of a spleen rather than a child, and since spleens don’t have fathers, we just have to wait and see what we get? Look, I’m not suggesting rapists should have a say, obviously. It just seems strange to pretend a potential human being is just some strange growth the woman might choose to host for a time, in the context of a mother and father with full knowledge of what they are up to, for a discussion about equality under the law.
“Oh, and I’m not really concerned about growing children in jars.”
My little thought experiment was an attempt to narrow the ethical window, so to speak, and clarify why women receive the go/no-go in the present biological circumstance. When we remove the biological facts from the picture, you notice the inherent disparity (or so I would have hoped).
“I don’t think that’s at all true, but at least you’re bound to produce evidence.”
Lawrence Summers, to give just one recent example. He claimed that men are over-represented at the highest and lowest IQ levels, and more inclined to excel in math and science, for which (among other things), he is forced to resign as Pres. at Harvard. Were his claims true? Well, it doesn’t really matter. There have been studies going both ways for years, and since 2005 was the year the irving/flynn paper came out, it seems plausible that he would have been in accord with what seemed to be the latest research.
Now you claim that women are “on the whole” more intelligent than men, which seems to be in accord with the latest research, and no one bats an eye. Granted, you aren’t the president of a university, but you’re not alone in making this claim. It seems strange that the (almost) identical statements are treated so differently based on who gets the, how did you say it? “short end of the stick”.
Women are dumber = sexist, misogynist.
Men are dumber = well, facts are facts.
“As it is, women tend to be second-listed.”
OK, your turn
Show me equally intelligent, equally skilled, equally experienced, equally dedicated, equally flexible, and unequal opportunity.
bitbandit,
Because a male provides less than 1/2 of a cell to a zygote which will become a trillion cells by birth, then males automatically can hold females hostage for 9 months for the pregnancy and another year or two for nursing? If you had a 50 cent share in Exxon-Mobil would you have veto power over the corporate board?
But that is all a distraction – even though females are disadvantaged by their ability to become pregnant and bear children – what matters is straight up equality under the law and religion is bound and determined not to support it.
Another thing, should males have veto power over women who want to continue a pregnancy? How do you decide?
As to Larry Summers, when women are overrepresented in universities and have greater pay for equal work, then we can come back and address a female university president claiming “men are dumber.”
Women are over-represented in universities, and the pay gap vanishes when you control for life choices.
At the undergraduate level sure, but not faculty and administration – so you are claiming it is women’s fault they don’t make as much as men?
Bitbandit, I’m not sure I catch your drift or what your concerns are. In mentioning that women (according to a recent survey) turn out to be slightly more intelligent than men, I wasn’t suggesting that, therefore, they ought to occupy a majority of higher positions. I was just reflecting that, given this disparity, however small, it’s odd that women tend to be shut out of higher positions. My suggestion never was meant to be taken in a sexist way. It certainly wasn’t said in that spirit.
The question of babies in jars is not helpful as a moral experiment, since pregnancy-motherhood takes up such a large fraction of a woman’s life, the decision whether to have children must be left up to her. Trying to control what she may and may not do is imposing a life plan on her that no one has a right to impose. It must be her choice. If you can raise babies in jars, the question would arise whether you should do it, and then, if you should and do, what status such entities have. Completely different to the situation as it exists, and does not throw any moral light on it, so far as I can tell.
Regarding the Summers case — which was a rather extraordinary one — I have little to say, but it certainly shouldn’t lead to male or female angst. Perhaps it was PC taken to extreme lengths, perhaps not. I don’t know enough, and since it was only one case in a particular situation, does it have much to tell us now?
Besides, I’m not sure how all this fits in with the issues raised by Sahar Khan, where women in Islam are treated in markedly different ways, and with different rights, and we are told with confidence that it is only natural, because women are treated differently, but equally, with the added suggestion that, because of their role, they have no financial responsibility, etc. I’m not sure that extended discussion of women vs. men in contemporary Western societies is really the issue, nor am I sure that you are not waxing a bit over-defensively in a situation where men are not significantly disadvantaged, but women still are, a lower position that is reinforced by the kinds of language that it is still thought appropriate to use about and to women. Ophelia discusses this issue over at Butterflies and Wheels, and it is relevant to the position of women — at least in the disbelieving community.
“My suggestion never was meant to be taken in a sexist way.”
Neither was his. I was just pointing out how the “kinds of language that it is still thought appropriate to use” aren’t as clearly opposed to women as you’ve indicated. He premised his comments with a pile of caveats, and you state yours without even hedging, then double down. Just sayin’. It’s not worth arguing over, though.
“The question of babies in jars is not helpful as a moral experiment, since pregnancy-motherhood takes up such a large fraction of a woman’s life, the decision whether to have children must be left up to her.”
Yes, since pregnancy-motherhood takes up such a large fraction of a woman’s life, the decision is hers. I agree with that, my point was only that we justify inequality even today on the basis of gender differences, thus different but equal isn’t the backward islamotard notion you make it out to be. There are plenty of catastrophic, misogynistic, abusive, blah blah bad ideas in Sharia Law, but I think this one has some value to it. Maybe I’m wrong. These ideas are still fresh for me, so I hope my enthusiasm hasn’t come off as preachy.
“I was just reflecting that, given this disparity, however small, it’s odd that women tend to be shut out of higher positions.”
Not to be pedantic, but I’m still waiting on the support for this claim. I don’t ask this cynically; if you really have this, it will shatter my narrative. Prove me wrong, make me learn
“Show me equally intelligent, equally skilled, equally experienced, equally dedicated, equally flexible, and unequal opportunity.”
Thanks. If you can show this, I have some serious rethinking to do, and I’ll be the better for it. If you can’t, you’ll understand why I don’t frequent B&W (the ban helps too).
“so you are claiming it is women’s fault they don’t make as much as men?”
Yes.
Both the business world and academic world are based on inequalities. I would say that social inequalities stem from business and academic inequalities, and so no amount of opportunity or education will change things, because they are still competitive, hierarchical and are driven as such.
The business world rewards difference or domination with bonuses, and the academic world with honours and reputation. When corruption goes too far, the government steps in to ‘clear’ things up, only for the inequalities to continue afterward.
I admit, to not knowing the solution to this. If you succeed in life, well you did so by dominating others, while if you try and lead a good or moral life, you’ll inevitably ‘fail’, at least in the eyes of society (but perhaps not in history).
So what do you make of the class-action suit against Wal-Mart for systematically picking men over women for management positions. And I love the equally flexible bit – that’s cute – leave the kids at the pool or home alone with a TV?
“So what do you make of the class-action suit against Wal-Mart for systematically picking men over women for management positions.”
Following a 9-0 decision against the suit, I’d say unfounded. As I said above, once you correct for other factors, the statistical basis for their case falls through.
“And I love the equally flexible bit – that’s cute – leave the kids at the pool or home alone with a TV?”
Employers don’t care. They hire, fire, pay, and promote based on performance on the job, not what you do with your children.
You have to go through a mini competition to get a job these days, based on how well you perform in a series of job interviews. However, even before the interview you get ‘selected’ by a third party job agency. Employers then make decisions based on their own personal biases, absurd personality tests, and other factors. Finally, they make arbitary decisions on wages.
This is not a fair system, but an absurd system, but that’s how it works in the real world.
Bitbandit, I still think you’re trying to hijack this discussion and bend it your way. What is your agenda? And why have you chosen this post on which to exercise it? Additionally, you keep asking for support for the claim that women are shut out of higher positions, but you offer no support for your own claims. Of course, women are shut out of higher positions. Just the disparity is enough to show that. Are you really claiming that, despite equal opportunity, it makes sense that only a small percentage of CEOs are women? But all this was not my original point, which was to question the claim of a Muslim woman that it makes sense to have separate restrictions on women that do not apply to men just because women are different.
“Bitbandit, I still think you’re trying to hijack this discussion and bend it your way. What is your agenda? And why have you chosen this post on which to exercise it?”
What discussion? We are the discussion; you, myself, and michael. A few others have dropped in to comment, but derailing? That’s a bit of a stretch.
“Additionally, you keep asking for support for the claim that women are shut out of higher positions, but you offer no support for your own claims.”
I supported the only claim you requested support for.
“Of course, women are shut out of higher positions. Just the disparity is enough to show that.”
Actually, it isn’t, any more than the 93% of elite scientists who are non-religious shows that religious people are being discriminated against. 92% of on the job fatalities are enjoyed by men. Is that because women are being systematically denied dangerous employment? or because men are seeking it out in greater numbers, for the increased pay that comes with such risk?
“But all this was not my original point, which was to question the claim of a Muslim woman that it makes sense to have separate restrictions on women that do not apply to men just because women are different.”
To which I have consistently responded that we have such inequalities within our own country, justified by those very differences. Ignoring those differences, as in the case of reproductive rights, results in an injustice. I began by saying I am merely sympathetic to the view Khan is offering, on that basis. I think, for example, that ignoring the differences in psychology and life choices that allow men to enjoy the success they have unquestionably earned, can result in a legislative injustice. Through our discussion, I asked whether “women being on the whole more intelligent” would justify unequal treatment of men, in the form of artificially providing them with an advantage to balance out the inherent difference.
You keep asking why this is relevant, I keep answering the same. Clearly we’re communicating through some opaque medium, so I’ll just leave you with the above thoughts as my final contribution (or derailing attempt, if you wish). Also, my apologies for whatever damage I’ve done to the previous discussion here, and thank you for the opportunity to engage.
Well, Bitbandit: (i) while you have made some assertioins, you haven’t shown either that it is true that there are the inherent differences assumed by the Qu’ran, and enforced by the Sharia, or that the differential treatment is equitable; (ii) nor have you shown that the discussion is just a few of us, since comment streams are read by many people who don’t comment, and may be interested, as I am, at what I consider the inherent ineqjuity of Qu’ranic declarations regarding women upheld by Sahar Khan. So far as men in dangerous jobs, that may be true, but many of those are not what you would call high-status or highly paid occupations, so your claim that I am “ignoring the differences in psychology and life choices that allow men to enjoy the success they have unquestionably earned, can result in a legislative injustice.” I do not think this is true. Many men who have achieved high levels of success, based on a study of women’s abillities in similar occupations, suggests that women would achieve success in these fields doo, and that the differentials between women’s success and men’s is not based on either intelligence, ability or any particular entitlement. Merely asserting that the Qu’ran is right, and that Sahar Khan is right to accept ancient prejudices does not do the job you think it does.
Your continued claim, to the last, that there is an inherent difference between men and women which entitles men to preference in employement and success does not seem to be justified by what we know about men’s and women’s abilities, and merely asserting that it does, does not achieve what you think it does. It does show one difference with a fair degree of clarity, that men will assert their priority no matter what the facts are — based on assessments of women’s skills, intelligence and abilities as compared to men’s or contrasted with them. It’s not so much the opaqueness of the medium as the simple refusal to accept assessments of women’s abilities that have been known now for several generations, assessments and evidence of women in business, law, medicine, and other fields, which are still not sufficient to overcome the preonderance of men in positions of authority, power and control.
@bitbandit
Legal consideration can be equal, even if situations are different. If you use a value like bodily autonomy, it can be applied uniformly to applicable situations. The value is equal, but the situation is different. The “father” of a zygote experiences no sacrifice of bodily autonomy, while the “mother” does. It makes sense, then, that the mother has more options regarding the position she is in. The results are different, but only because of the situations. An assault victim has the same rights as the assailant, but the assailant ends up in jail. The different results are not because of inherent differences between the two people.
As for it is women’s fault they are in the situation they are in, I doubt you apply such logic to all your own misfortunes. What a convenient trick. My rights as a potential father are subverted by an unfair gender system, but their problems are of their own making. If you cannot see the sexism in asserting that the natural order of things is for women to earn less than men in totality across the US, I don’t know what else to say. Racists often use similar arguments to deflect responsibility; I suggest you examine your position more closely.
The idea that things are “not unfair, just different” is amazingly condescending and repugnant. Strangely the “just different” circumstances are never exchangeable. Such things are not a linear scale, but any difference in rights due solely to circumstances beyond a person’s control are bound to cause inequality sooner or later.
Eric:
That’s fine troll you seem to have collected. Sadly, it’s a rather common troll these days. Not much intrinsic value in it, even though it’s all bright and shiny.
As you know, reasoning with trolls is like playing chess with pigeons. They just knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and then fly off. As I general rule, I do not recommend it.
Thank you Kevin. I suppose I knew that all along, but I am always hopeful that someone will actually change and start to reason, so that there is some purchase for further discussion. However, it was becoming obvious that it would not happen in this case. It was only to be expected: he did call himself the bitbandit. Just as well not to give him too many bytes.
Really, Eric? I’m a troll?
“Your continued claim, to the last, that there is an inherent difference between men and women which entitles men to preference in employement and success does not seem to be justified by what we know about men’s and women’s abilities, and merely asserting that it does, does not achieve what you think it does.”
That’s not my argument; in fact, most of what you accused me of failing to support, I never claimed to be true. Do you know the difference between a “life choice” and “ability”? between a “psychological” advantage in the business world and “skill” or “intelligence”? between “entitles” and “allows”?
If you can’t tell the difference between that drivel and what I wrote, no wonder you think I’m a troll.
Well, no, bitbandit, I didn’t call you a troll. But this latest shows that you may be. The trolling lies in laying down some scent, and then seeing if someone will take the bait. I’m not sure you’ve ever presented an argument. But I never used the language of trolling, but you, as John K. points out, you do go to a great deal of trouble to describe how men have earned their place, that women are different and don’t really belong in the fields dominated by men, and that, really, when you come down to it, Islamic separate but equal is the way it is in the West too, and the more power to it. I don’t remember one substantive argument in all of this. If you think you’ve been misunderstood, then try to explain yourself. but don’t set yourself up for misunderstanding, and then blame it on everyone else while you trash women. I really can’t speak as to your motives, but your contributions have been cryptic in place and repugnant where they are not cryptic. So, yes, indeed, you could be a troll. So far exhanges with you have produced exactly nothing.
On the subject of trolls, bitbandit displays many of the classic symptoms, notably among them the inversion of the burden of proof, demanding that he be shown proof that his claims are invalid.
And I use the masculine pronoun “he” without fear of error as it it obvious that like the air we breath and the water that fish swim in, bitbandit has marinated in male privilege for a considerable period of time to the point where he is incapable of detecting that the meat is tainted.
What I see bitbandit doing is akin to a multiple regression analysis on the factors contributing to the differences in equality between men and women and then upon finding the causal factors, claiming that if you ignore all of those factors, men and women are equal. Its like doing an analysis of the genetic and environmental factors contributing to lung cancer and then claiming, if they are removed, everyone has an equal likelihood of getting lung cancer.
He is also claiming that if women just played by men’s rules, then they would be equal. That it is entirely women’s responsibility to gain equality – the rules do not need to be changed (as if they are somehow fixed in stone). If you look at something like flexibility, employers could better serve employees (and themselves by retaining good employees) by offering extended maternity leave and onsite childcare. The stress of dealing with missed work reduces productivity and drives people out of the workplace.
How did the Wal-Mart case make it all the way to the supreme court without merit? The 9-0 ruling had to do with class action not with Wal-Mart’s discrimination.
…and my point is proved.