How is this statement contraversial?

[Hal 9000]

I never said it was. It's a social problem that's worth contemplating and raising awareness about. More men should stay at home with the kids, so women have better opportunities for employment. It shouldn't be the expectation that the mother stays home and rears the children. Both men and women should do it, such that the norm becomes people saying, "so which one of you is staying home this year?" without any assumptions at all.

So, who's to blame? And...What should we do about it?

[Bonam]

I never said it was. It's a social problem that's worth contemplating and raising awareness about. More men should stay at home with the kids, so women have better opportunities for employment. It shouldn't be the expectation that the mother stays home and rears the children. Both men and women should do it, such that the norm becomes people saying, "so which one of you is staying home this year?" without any assumptions at all.

It shouldn't be the expectation that the mother stays home, or that the father stays home. Rather, it should be up to individual families. But there is no reason that one should expect that it would be a precisely half and half split of mothers and fathers that stay home. If some day the situation stabilizes at, for example, the mother staying home in 60% of cases and the father in 40% of cases, or vice versa, who are you to say that that is a bad result that has to be modified through government policy?

Furthermore... regarding expectations and how they may influence people and affect trends like this. Seriously, various people will always expect various things of various other people, that's not going to change and is just a part of society. Some expectations may be reasonable, others may be idiotic, but people are free to hold whatever opinions they want to hold, that's part of living in a free society. Expectations are just part of life, and people are free to try to live up to them or to ignore them. The fact that some expectations may exist in the minds of some people, and that some other people may or may not be influenced to some extent by these expectations, is not indicative of discrimination, patriarchy, bias, or a sexist society. People are free individuals, able to make their own decisions, and should stop blaming their own choices and life paths on the influence of media and the expectations of others.

[cybercoma]

So, who's to blame? And...What should we do about it?

I don't understand your question.

[Hal 9000]

I don't understand your question.

"It's a social problem that's worth contemplating and raising awareness about."

If you think there's a problem, what should be done to rectify it?

[-1=e^ipi]

I never said it was. It's a social problem that's worth contemplating and raising awareness about. More men should stay at home with the kids, so women have better opportunities for employment. It shouldn't be the expectation that the mother stays home and rears the children. Both men and women should do it, such that the norm becomes people saying, "so which one of you is staying home this year?" without any assumptions at all.

Okay. Fair enough. I was unclear about your position regarding employer compensation for pregnancy.

[Hal 9000]

Union and Government jobs move a person up the seniority ladder in cases like maternity and WCB claims, but private employers don't (and shouldn't) have to guarantee anything other than your returning to your prior job posting and status. Therefore, when promotions and/or raises come around, a recently returning mother should not have any expectations, and shouldn't consider this discrimination in any way.

P.S - If a man takes parental leave...same thing, so maybe that becomes a conversation about whose career is gonna be affected less when the baby arrives.

Section 54 provides that an employer cannot terminate an employee or change a condition of employment without the employee's written consent as a result of a leave under this Part.

[Rue]

Actually I have to totally back Wes on this with respect to you. Rape is rape. The degree of violence used in rape, is not material to its definition in law and should not be. Lack of consent is lack of consent. There is no degree of lack of consent hat predicates wether irs rape or not in the legal definition. You don't have consent, its rape, period.

That is the legal position and so it should be. Getting a reduced sentence because of how much physical force or what type of physical force was used is not how the law defines rape nor should it. Lack of consent is lack of consent.

Some would argue the sentence should be lowered if the type of rape did not cause as much harm. What does that mean?

Yes let's use logic for a second and not emotion. How is lack of consent somehow made better by the degree of violence used? Its still rape.

Any rape is rape.

To mitigate the sentence for rape because a person drugged someone as opposed to beating them unconscious does not mean the one who used the drug should get a lower sentence.

No that would in fact be illogical.

The above is the legal argument in a nut shell.

Now let's talk rape victim. A rape victim is no less a rape victim because they were beaten to a pulp or drugged.

The consequences to their emotions, psyche, life, spirit, etc.,is not defined by the degree of physical force,

The scars left behind can be very similar and sometimes worse. It depends on the individual make up of the victim not the degree of violence used.

Now Guyser gets upset when I say I am a lawyer but I only throw it in Hal to assure you I am disagreeing with respect. My perspective comes from having prosecuted rape and also counseling rape victims. Its an open bias that I give you. It's why I have said what I have. Its just from being exposed to rapists and rape victims. I mean no patronization to you or anyone. I am saying it in a totally respectful way but to say, its not an angry feminist issue.

Rape is not a feminist issue. Its a human issue. Feminists have played a major role in questioning unfair laws as to rape yes and believe it or not a very constructive role in law in this respect, but its not their issue. Its our issue. Rape is not just of angry feminists. Its of people, women, men, children, the elderly. Its a form of violence using sex.

Now this guy made a comment. However I do not think for a second he was condoning date rape. I am sure if he had it to say again he would have said, date rape is bad ENOUGH, but these guys that beat people well I hate them even more.

I really think that is what he meant. I do not think he meant in any way to condone date rape

Not everyone has a great command of the English language.

So that is that Hal. You know I respect you. Just on this one I have to back Wes 100%.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Rue

[Rue]

-1 I have to address simply your comment that academic feminism is b .s. went a little foo far.

Feminism simply means using a perspective that asks does the law or rule or regulation or service create a difference in treatment between the genders. That is it in a nutshell.

As for the other points you raised, I think what you are criticizing is extremism, i.e., making sweeping generalizations or inferences when examining whether there is a difference in treatment in genders.

That difference does not always mean its unfair or negative, it might just mean there is a difference.

I think its crucial yes when examining differences in treatment we be careful in asking-is that difference problematic, and iif so why.....yes someone asking that question with a preconceived bias will probably generate an answer to that question reflecting their observational bias.

So on that point I get you.

I am just saying there are people in all movements that have "biases" that colour their judgement and perception rendering their conclusions suspect.

I mean you bring up some good points of course. How much of our behaviour is genetically predisposed and how much of it is socially conditioned, who knows right?

Also society constantly changes and mutates and so do its values towards many things including gender difference so we have to keep challenging our beliefs or they become stagnant or outmoded.

In terms of whether women face the same challenges in Canada today as they did say in the 1950's in the work force, one would have to say no, they are different, but does discrimination still exist? How can it not?

I think what we forget is most discrimination is not deliberate or intentional. Sometimes discrimination is not a bad thing either. Certain forms od discrimination are beneficial, i.e., we know certain medical diseases are discriminatory, i.e., sickle cell anemia, arthritis, tay-sachs disease, sometimes by focusing in on one group of people it helps us better understand the disease. Take for example high blood pressure. Learning why it is so prevalent in blacks compared to whites helps us better understand it.

We live in a society now where we have witnessed reverse discrimination to address discrimination and that has led a lot of people feeling bitter depending on what side of the power balance they find themselves.

In an ideal world we would not have reverse discrimination being used to address discrimination because we would not have discrimination.

Has reverse discrimination gone too far. sure in some cases but is that particular to or caused by feminists? Is it particular to them. Is that what they are asking for?

That remains the discussion.

All I can say is the law used to take certain approaches in regards to real estate, wills, divorces, sexual assault that have been changed from what they once were because they were unfair to women. I also know men today feel family law discriminates against them. I hear the comments/

I just think feminism is one approach to asking questions. More then that I leave to others to discuss.

[BC_chick]

Rape is rape is like saying to kill is to kill. Sure the victim of rape will have scars in the same manner that the loved ones of the deceased will grieve their loss forever but as far as the criminal system goes, we do take circumstances into the sentencing. There's manslaughter, second degree and first degree for a reason and likewise we have different levels of sexual assault.

I agree with the system.