Because Boobs.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Comments

[trog.livejournal.com]

What does he mean by "treated equally"? Would feminists under his definition oppose affirmative action, for instance? I like that he has attempted to clarify this issue and I did learn something today from him -- the bra burning thing -- but I think he needs to drill down a little deeper since "treated equally" is rather bromidic.

[new-wave-witch.livejournal.com]

Affirmative action's purpose is to compensate for the current state of inequality, so no.

[trog.livejournal.com]

See the issue then? Is the goal "treated equally" or "equality"? Because those are two completely different things. Treated equally, to me, means you (woman) and I (man) both have to pay car insurance if that is the law. Equality, to me, means we pay the exact same premium on the exact same car -- something which might be completely unfair.

[new-wave-witch.livejournal.com]

Sounds more like a semantics argument to me.

[trog.livejournal.com]

Not really. Is it equality, for instance, that women pay lower car insurance and life insurance rates? I would say that it is certainly "treated equally" since both can drive and both have to buy car insurance. But it's not equality. Equality is if they paid the same rates.

In other words, the goal should be equal treatment -- the same rights. The goal should not be equality -- the same results.

[new-wave-witch.livejournal.com]

Your original comment was less toward the fundamentals of feminism itself and more toward how radically one word this guy used would change the meaning of his message.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

you're going to argue actuarial tables = bias?

Ok.

[new-wave-witch.livejournal.com]

But for what it's worth, regardless of its apropos, I'm with you on your rant considering the similar yet deeper inequality that exists in health insurance premiums for men and women.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"Is it equality, for instance, that women pay lower car insurance and life insurance rates?"

Just as a point of interest; the European Court of Justice's judgement against this comes into effect this December in the EU.

Somewhat disappointingly, the immediate effect for this seems to be higher premiums for women drivers, nice that it's equal and everything but still a bit 'cutting off your nose to spite your face' at this point in time.

I'm not sure it's very comparable to the AA situation anyway (which is still allowed in UK law although not so often applied). The issue there is often nothing more than trying to counter-balance discrimination so as to end up with something approximately resembling equal treatment.

[lilenth.livejournal.com]

Except women make less money overall, so making women pay the same costs would price many of them out of having cars or life insurance, thus burdening their families with additional costs and pricing them out of yet more stuff.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

no, and they shouldn't, since Affirmative Action balances out a playing field already tilted in favor of straight white men.

[thebigbadbutch.livejournal.com]

*rolls eyes*

I'm sure this will be lost on you but "same" =/= equality =/= equity

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

I found this piece (http://diannaeanderson.net/?p=1590) to be a good dissection of the difference between the "Straw-feminists" that so many decry, and actual feminists:

http://diannaeanderson.net/?p=1590 (http://diannaeanderson.net/?p=1590)