2) In my opinion, life in the US is already better on the whole for women than it is for men.
I missed the actual list of this way back earlier. Addressing now.
First of all though, most of the points seem to rely not on UNJUST inequality with merely NUMERICAL inequality. I think you have to consider the question potentially both ways. Because somebody can fight for mere face value equality, sure. Or one can fight for equal justice. You can discuss either, though personally I think justice is the deeper and more meaningful version by far.
1) Custody - The main reason women win custody is because by far women are the primary caregivers of children, which is the main considered criteria. If and when a father is the one that actually spends more time with the child, they can and do win. You can't just look at the percentages and claim it to be an unequal bias. It's
unjust inequality only if you take men and women with all things equal in every way (from caretaking hour ratios to their partners down to earning potential ratios) and still find a bias toward women. Is this the case? Maybe, maybe not, we don't have any data in the thread on that, and I don't know where to find it.
2) College - Depends how many people are applying, and how good their grades are, etc. If more women get in because disproportionately more women apply, then that's unequal but not necessarily unjustly so. Or if equal numbers apply, but men have worse applications, same deal. Or a blend. Not enough data in the thread to say.
3) This is unequal, but if they're earning more because they're better employees and actually earn more promotions and things, then that's not necessarily unjustly unequal. This is why the rhetoric is always about "
equal pay for equal jobs" not "equal pay for giant demographic groups whose work circumstances might not remotely resemble one another" ... HAS pay for equal, parallel jobs begun favoring women? Maybe, but I don't see it in any of the links in the thread.
4) Living longer - This depends. Hypothetically, imagine this situation: There are 4 people in the world, 2 men 2 women. And I dunno, a robotic doctor. The men die at ages 45 and 55 from multiple gunshot wounds and sudden catastrophic heart attack. The women die at ages 65 and 70 from long, protracted cancer and from Alzheimers.
In this hypothetical example, the women are dying from characteristically more elderly diseases, which also happen to be vastly more expensive to treat, whereas the men died earlier, but it wouldn't have made sense to spend more money on them, because there's not much medicine could have done.
Does this have anything to do with the reality in America? No idea, but I'm pointing out that dying earlier and having less money spent on your healthcare do not, in and of those numbers themselves, guarantee unjust inequality. You need more information.
5) Homelessness and suicide are not even relevant to the discussion on either level - unjust or numerical inequality, unless you have associated data that less is being spent on their mental health, etc. Which might be the case, but I don't see it in the thread.
(I mean, more dying is numerically unequal in a sense, but only biologically so potentially. Not nec. from any sort of third party human decisions)
Author
Topic: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles (Read 56974 times)