Reply to Re: Human Rights
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Oooh, a topic about ethics! Somebody stop me! 
Is this tiny right of yours worth fighting for?
That is up to the person choosing to fight or not. In my opinion "I would react to injustice this way, so if you react differently you're wrong" is nonsense. The person doing the injustice is wrong. The person suffering from it can react in any way they want; they are the victim. I read a piece about racism which I'm too lazy to look up; it explained the choice for a non-white person to ignore a racist comment to keep a party "nice", or to defend against it thereby ruining the evening. Whatever they choose, it's good. If the party is ruined, they are not to blame; the racist is. If they ignore it, that is their choice and doesn't make the racist right. If someone else would speak up on their behalf, that would also be great. The only thing wrong is the racist comment that caused the dilemma.
Also worth noting is that while for an outsider it may seem like a small thing (why would you ruin a party over one inappropriate joke), but for the victim this may happen every day, and they might get sick of it. So even though the thing itself may be small, it may not be so small for them.
It's the male workers who need to change, not the female. Yes.
But it wont happen.
Interesting. So you're saying that the women shouldn't even try to get justice, because the men are too stubborn? I strongly disagree on that. With that attitude nobody should ever fight for anything, because fighting is hard and you won't win immediately. While that is true, it doesn't mean things shouldn't change. And if people want to fight against injustice, more power to them.
There's actual people who fight for LGBT rights, and then there's the shitty tumblr people who refuse to have any contact with "CIS SCUM".
Trans people are heavily discriminated and are thus the victims. The ones you're talking about (which I don't know) are apparently more comfortable in a safe environment than between people they consider threatening. As I wrote above: that is their choice. If they would fight, I would support them. If they want to "flee", I support that as well. They are not the people doing the wrong here. Why would you get upset when people choose not to talk to you? Are you entitled to their attention?
Like soldiers, cops, firefighters.
the words in bold are not heroes. at least, not ours. what about yours?
Having lived in the US for a few years, I disagree about the soldiers. They are risking their lives for the country. They are sent to fight unjust wars, but that is not their fault. Of course it messes with their head, but that doesn't mean they're not heroes. I would suggest: support the troops, therefore oppose the wars.
Your cops do seem to be horrible people, and not heroes. The situation in Standing Rock is yet another demonstration of that. I have a different view of the cops here in the Netherlands; they are good people. Not all of them are great heroes, but they are certainly trying to make society better, and I appreciate that. They also get lousy pay, which is shameful; they deserve better.
Actually, this video explains it pretty good.
I would summarize her position as "there is a reason for the inequality, therefore it is justified". At no point does she disagree with the premise "life is more expensive if you are a woman". Regardless of the reason, that can reasonably be called a tax on being a woman, and is unjust if you believe that men and women should have equal opportunities in life.
But in the 1800's to the 1900's
And indeed, historically the view that they should have equal opportunities is relatively new, and still not held by everyone (in particular religious fundamentalists are opposed to it).
I believe that equality for the genders is not a given; different cultures may disagree about it and have different rules. But if you claim to strive for equality, as the US and the Netherlands do, then having a gender tax or wage gap is a problem that requires action to fix it.
It's not like there wasn't a time when they didn't give a shit about it.
Actually, it is. The price for speaking out was very high, and it wouldn't be very effective anyway, so not many women did. But strong women speaking out against inequality (and often being punished for it) has always happened.
But that's only a part of it. When it comes to construction, that used to be a field where the jobs required strong people and most women just don't have the muscles. That is no longer true; we have machines for doing the heavy lifting.
So in some fields it makes sense that women wouldn't be hired there before the machines were built. But for many others (in particular in leadership positions, like mayors and CEOs) women were simply kept out because men liked it better that way.
Is this tiny right of yours worth fighting for?
That is up to the person choosing to fight or not. In my opinion "I would react to injustice this way, so if you react differently you're wrong" is nonsense. The person doing the injustice is wrong. The person suffering from it can react in any way they want; they are the victim. I read a piece about racism which I'm too lazy to look up; it explained the choice for a non-white person to ignore a racist comment to keep a party "nice", or to defend against it thereby ruining the evening. Whatever they choose, it's good. If the party is ruined, they are not to blame; the racist is. If they ignore it, that is their choice and doesn't make the racist right. If someone else would speak up on their behalf, that would also be great. The only thing wrong is the racist comment that caused the dilemma.
Also worth noting is that while for an outsider it may seem like a small thing (why would you ruin a party over one inappropriate joke), but for the victim this may happen every day, and they might get sick of it. So even though the thing itself may be small, it may not be so small for them.
It's the male workers who need to change, not the female. Yes.
But it wont happen.
Interesting. So you're saying that the women shouldn't even try to get justice, because the men are too stubborn? I strongly disagree on that. With that attitude nobody should ever fight for anything, because fighting is hard and you won't win immediately. While that is true, it doesn't mean things shouldn't change. And if people want to fight against injustice, more power to them.
There's actual people who fight for LGBT rights, and then there's the shitty tumblr people who refuse to have any contact with "CIS SCUM".
Trans people are heavily discriminated and are thus the victims. The ones you're talking about (which I don't know) are apparently more comfortable in a safe environment than between people they consider threatening. As I wrote above: that is their choice. If they would fight, I would support them. If they want to "flee", I support that as well. They are not the people doing the wrong here. Why would you get upset when people choose not to talk to you? Are you entitled to their attention?
Like soldiers, cops, firefighters.
the words in bold are not heroes. at least, not ours. what about yours?
Having lived in the US for a few years, I disagree about the soldiers. They are risking their lives for the country. They are sent to fight unjust wars, but that is not their fault. Of course it messes with their head, but that doesn't mean they're not heroes. I would suggest: support the troops, therefore oppose the wars.
Your cops do seem to be horrible people, and not heroes. The situation in Standing Rock is yet another demonstration of that. I have a different view of the cops here in the Netherlands; they are good people. Not all of them are great heroes, but they are certainly trying to make society better, and I appreciate that. They also get lousy pay, which is shameful; they deserve better.
Actually, this video explains it pretty good.
I would summarize her position as "there is a reason for the inequality, therefore it is justified". At no point does she disagree with the premise "life is more expensive if you are a woman". Regardless of the reason, that can reasonably be called a tax on being a woman, and is unjust if you believe that men and women should have equal opportunities in life.
But in the 1800's to the 1900's
And indeed, historically the view that they should have equal opportunities is relatively new, and still not held by everyone (in particular religious fundamentalists are opposed to it).
I believe that equality for the genders is not a given; different cultures may disagree about it and have different rules. But if you claim to strive for equality, as the US and the Netherlands do, then having a gender tax or wage gap is a problem that requires action to fix it.
It's not like there wasn't a time when they didn't give a shit about it.
Actually, it is. The price for speaking out was very high, and it wouldn't be very effective anyway, so not many women did. But strong women speaking out against inequality (and often being punished for it) has always happened.
But that's only a part of it. When it comes to construction, that used to be a field where the jobs required strong people and most women just don't have the muscles. That is no longer true; we have machines for doing the heavy lifting.
So in some fields it makes sense that women wouldn't be hired there before the machines were built. But for many others (in particular in leadership positions, like mayors and CEOs) women were simply kept out because men liked it better that way.
