I think a lot of these issues could be solved by overhauling the antiquated trial/jury system towards something which completely anonymises the parties involved.
....Double-blinding everything on a systemic level would alleviate much of the reliance on individual moral faculties in the first place.
I'm with you on this one. There's a TV show, co-produced by Dr. Phil, about 'trial science' - aka manipulating the journey by utilizing psychological factors to procure a jury more sympathetic to one side or the other - that sort of brings forth how a trial might be manipulated. Though the show depicts it in a way where the trial scientists are in the right, it's far too easy to see how readily the concept could be utilized for ill.
I agree that completely anonymising the individual on trial is important, but what if they're called to the stand in defense of their own case? Lawyers often utilize things such as microexpressions and vocal tone to consider their line of questioning of a witness. I wonder how else that might be altered, or if the whole process would have to be scrapped somehow.
Not sufficiently knowledgeable about this one. I've heard it said that the reason for the disparity is that women tend to have kids to take care of and the court wants them to do that but I'd have to look into it.
While understandable, I feel it still sets a precedent that a woman's sentencing is more lenient than a man's because of nothing more than her gender. It also implies that a man isn't allowed the same graces or that he is somehow incapable of taking care of children.
There's not really a pay gap per se (like a few percentage points when you actually narrow it to the same job) but the gap in promotions and in how household chores get divided once families have kids tends to create something similar. Promotion quotas or blind/"affirmative action" selection processes are good, as are paternity leave and a cultural shift through media (though the way this is typically done is kinda lacking--"house husbands" aren't seen in media outside maybe some anime and that would probably help, for instance).
So your stance on this is that, the more we normalize equality in gender roles via popular media, things will likely fall more in line with that equality by default. I'm for it, and something similar I've been passionate about. I'd be curious to see how LGBTQIA+ acceptance on a social level has also increased since same sex (and even polyamorous) relationships are making their way into prevalence in the media, but I understand that may be difficult to quantify.
Also if you've heard of "agree and amplify" that's a really interesting strategy women used to get their voices heard.
I haven't! But I'll definitely look into this in the near future. Thanks!
I dislike abortion conceptually, but I'm willing to support in most circumstances (21 weeks or so is where it starts getting iffy). We should provide contraceptives where possible.
100% agree with you. While I also dislike abortion, I am of the firm belief that there are situations where it is required not only for the future well-being of the child, but the quality of life they would receive and the overall mental health of the mother. If a woman is raped, should she be forced to carry a child to term when she didn't even consent to its creation? What of a minor in the same situation? I understand the argument to place the child into the care of the state, but then one has to bear in mind the nature of the state childcare system in question. Many questions and variables, to be certain.
On contraceptives - absolutely. I'm a huge advocate that sex-education be made a lot more available than it currently is, though I understand how difficult that is in certain demographics.
I don't know that much about this. I've heard it said before that we take abuse by men more seriously because men are physically stronger
I think that may be one way of looking at it, but with that also comes the idea that because a woman is smaller and can perceivably inflict less injury, it less of an affront for a woman to abuse a man or harder to believe. I've a very close friend who's been beaten by his wife, and she is of course
much smaller than he is. He didn't retaliate. He endured it. Does it make any more right or wrong depending on who is the aggressor in the situation genderwise? Are we weighing abuse on a scale of the amount of physical damage done to the victim? Please let me know if I'm broad-stroking anything at all, just bringing forth ideas to ponder!
Part of the problem is that people are quite diverse and aren't actually equal in very many ways, depending on how we look at things. That's not saying we shouldn't be equal under the law, say, or that we aren't equal in the eyes of God - but on the other hand, you already raised the issue of women's health with its different needs to that of men. Children aren't the equal of adults and we obviously treat them differently according to age. It gets trickier when we look at people's ability - should someone of great ability be held more to account, or be given greater power, than someone who isn't? We do accept this to some degree in the way we assign responsibility and blame.
These are very, very good points. All men aren't
created equal - we all have our diversities and strengths, but I agree that we should definitely be treated equally under the law for the same affront. I'm not saying that context doesn't matter - it absolutely does, especially when you're considering for example two murder cases. One of the murders was committed under the influence of some drug, the other was committed in a psychotic break. Context would very much dictate that these be tried differently, but trying on basis of gender, race, ability, age, so on and so forth oftentimes sways bias. I know it's mentioned here a couple times that a blind process would be a
lot easier if we were to make lawful calls on actions alone, but I understand that's tricky to quantify.
Then there are social differences - the forum has good examples of people who struggle at least to some degree socially in a world made for extraverted sensors, so social equality doesn't exist in certain ways depending on our type. This pales into insignificance alongside the social discrimination that comes from more obvious differences.
You're not wrong in this at all. It's a factor I definitely hadn't considered, because of that paling into insignificance you reference when compared to social discrimination, but it still doesn't make it less relevant. It again points out to us that people really
are very different and that values can (and likely will) vary widely from one person to the next.
So I guess egalitarianism comes down to how the essential values balance out in acknowledging and allowing for the innate differences between us all in order to make sure people are given equal opportunity and an equal access to and participation in our world.
Absolutely. That's basically the point I'd like to make, that in acknowledging the differences, we should be also accepting the similarities between us. There will always be exceptions to every rule and I know someone said somewhere recently that we are all neutral people that are prone to both good and evil behavior / things. I agree with that assessment in a lot of ways. Maybe that's the point in all of this - egalitarianism to the point of providing equal opportunity. It's a good all-encompassing value, but is the world ready for it...? Definitely not within our lifetimes, I don't think. Thank you so much for your input, John. ♥
I am honestly doubtful that it is possible at least with the current generations as there is just too much in the way of dog eat dog with some types of people having more say while others are left holding the bag. ...
I honestly would throw the current society in the dumpster or the burn pile if it were possible because it is just not fixable.
A reset button would be the most
efficient means of trying to fix what's inherently wrong, sure. But I think it adds more value to us as a race to work with what we have, no matter how hard it is, to try to make it better for those that succeed us. I'd argue that it all starts with trying to raise our children to be better than we ever were, and teach them to do the same going forward. A lot of these based norms are baked into us from childhood, so why not do it from there? (Of course, this isn't me pushing the idea of having kids on other people. Who does that?! Just speaking academically about a potential avenue for us to change things for the future.)
So, there's a part of me that really just wants to win. I want all of the resources, the entire damn board and I don't care who I have to crush or beat down to get what I want.
It's a gross instinct but I can't stand the idea of having less than the best even if what I get is comparable to others.
100% I appreciate your honesty, Pin. It speaks volumes to your strength to say something so vulnerable so openly, and I've got the utmost respect for you for it. Wish I could learn a little more of that sometimes!
Having standards isn't necessarily a bad thing, and I'm with Winter on her followup, regarding taming and harnessing that energy. Something we all struggle toward, too.
About egalitarianism. I won't get into the nitty gritty.
Something that troubles me though, is it often feels that people put forward these systems to right wrongs and balance the scales - all good & well, except that to me they lack humanity. Like that in an attempt to make things perfect, we've reduced people to numbers and could lose sight of the forest for the trees.
I understand we need systems and rules to implement goals. Along with whatever those are, we should work towards recognizing suffering when we see it, our empathy for that, and our ability to help on a person-to-person level. It wouldn't solve everything, but it feels like a step in the right direction.
I absolutely agree with this. I think what would help differentiate is the definition between egalitarianism in a social setting vs. a law setting. The latter, I think, would be the best way of enforcing it. I think the concept is designed for a more logic / process-oriented application than a humanitarian one, and I could definitely see your concerns with that. But on an unrelated note, there's a lot of humanitarian systems within our government (speaking purely from a US standpoint here, sorry other friends, but I'd love to hear your viewpoints on how it works where you are, too!) that desperately need development. There's even been popular media, films, music that have thrown light on the obvious flaws in things such as our funding for mental health care facilities, rehabilitation programs, and even caring for our homeless.
But reading your reply did bring forth one of my favorite quotes from Cloud Atlas.
It all starts with
one act of kindness. ♥ The hope is to create a snowball effect, and encourage people to pay it forward.
Thank you everyone for your replies! Sorry this is so long-winded.
