|
FAUXTON posted:Because "fails to consider the practicalities" is what comes out of the maws of the mewling garbage who deny the effect of humanity on the global climate (among other science and theory to be clear). It's code for "Because I disagree politically with your conclusion, I am going to assert your knowledge and research aren't valid and instead claim this plumber/secretary/trucker/old shithead is more authoritative on <complex academic topic> because <platitude.>" The fact that those same filth level the same charge against law professors rather than climate scientists doesn't suddenly validate it any more than some dickhole's job in middle management validates their mutterings about the constitution's treatment of emergency powers. The basic problem here is that you don't appear to know anything about the subject being discussed so you're blindly substituting in subjects you do understand. Law professors have a very specific problem about their credibility considering most of them are career academics who didn't practice law. Not only that, but the selection process is not terribly well done (it's highly biased towards Supreme Court clerks, who are highly biased towards people who did exceptionally well in exceptional law schools) - in other words, your skill at getting good grades is the largest determinant in how high you rise. Those professors are generally brilliant, but they do not have a strong base of real-world knowledge or the like. This isn't like climate scientists who do real-world studies all the time: they write things about the law that are not falsifiable. They propose things that will never be implemented, so again they are not falsifiable. Because they lack that corrective "well that hypothesis did not hold water, let's try again" cycle, are not expected or encouraged to do real-world activities that would give them critical experience for proposing real-world things, they often are amateurs at whatever subject they're opining on but who are very convinced they're right because they're very smart and know a little about the subject. That's not generally a good combination. In addition, their expertise generally is extremely narrow: excellent at contracts, excellent at property, etc. Basically, what you've done here is exactly what the 'filth' you're raging against supposedly do: assume they're an expert and their opinion is relevant compared to the actual experts. Virtually any practicing lawyer will immediately understand the issue with law professors opining on subjects because they're aware of how wide the gulf is between law school theory and actual practice. Sometimes the law professor's stuff is great, but you need to understand the flaws and the bias they're going to bring to the table.
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 01:18 |
|
|
Right, but the initial argument was that a proposal for a guaranteed minimum income for caretakers of dependents was an a priori ridiculous policy. I mean, you can make the argument that it's not in the realm of possibility given the current make-up of Congress, but it seems unnecessarily dismissive to just write it off as an "insane theory of how the law works" when it would likely be legal, and not necessarily even bad policy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
I disagree, evilweasel. Fauxton's original comment (further upthread) demonstrates that his original assertion was characterizing, rather than categorical. It was also in response to a conflation of two issue sets- one that I think you're performing as well. There are two sets of "issues" here- 1. the theory and formal problems specific to the legal academy like the ones you mention, and 2. the idea of academics without real world experience speaking to issues that they just don't get cuz they're ivory tower eggheads with crazy policy ideas. The first is legit, but the second is worthless and meaningless without a context- it becomes exactly the sort of overbroad experience claim that characterizes the broader anti-academic argument, which is why fauxton brought it up. Remember, this got started in response to a professor's claim that dropped out of the conversation because hey presto it wasn't that crazy. Folks are treating fauxton's "filth" post as if it defines his argument when it really colors hie argument, better stated in his original post. The filth thing was after posters doubled down on the professional experience as categorically superior insight model. My worst profs with the craziest ideas were a judge and a highly experienced civil attorney. My best profs with the most nuanced ideas were the A. a guy with a very short professional CV and a list of theory publications a mile long, B. a prof working primarily in the academy, writing on stuff like legal semiotics, and C. A practicing attorney who delivered his classes by videophone from DC. The experience problem is an epiphenomenon, and a distractor from the formal issues that do a better job of actually explaining the causes of poor legal scholarship and pedagogy. Crazy legal/policy ideas, and good or bad teaching, can be the product of both the trenches and the ivory tower. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Dec 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Right, but the initial argument was that a proposal for a guaranteed minimum income for caretakers of dependents was an a priori ridiculous policy. I mean, you can make the argument that it's not in the realm of possibility given the current make-up of Congress, but it seems unnecessarily dismissive to just write it off as an "insane theory of how the law works" when it would likely be legal, and not necessarily even bad policy. You can argue about if that specific criticism was warranted for that policy or not, but FAUXTON mounted his charger against filth who question the judgment of law school professors in general rather than just in that specific instance. There are very serious real-world complications with such a policy that I'd have to read the article to see if it recognized and dealt with or not to discuss if that criticism was warranted in that instance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Kalman posted:This is incorrect, which is a problem for your position. Legislative policy is absolutely in the realm of law school/law profession. How do you figure?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:How do you figure? .... administrative law? ...
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:How do you figure? Legislation is the basic stuff attorneys and courts litigate in all practice fields, as altered by caselaw. It makes up as much or more of the content of legal practice in a number of fields. My state is making new developments in family and elder law- most of this is coming from a group of family law profs, practicing or not, who can do better interstate and international comparison research than the legislature, or the folks just in practice. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Dec 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:How do you figure? Because legislators do look to the academy for suggestions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:How do you figure? Most litigators spend a fair amount of time parsing and conducting statutory construction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Right, but the initial argument was that a proposal for a guaranteed minimum income for caretakers of dependents was an a priori ridiculous policy. I mean, you can make the argument that it's not in the realm of possibility given the current make-up of Congress, but it seems unnecessarily dismissive to just write it off as an "insane theory of how the law works" when it would likely be legal, and not necessarily even bad policy. That's not why I think it's ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
fosborb posted:.... administrative law? ... You're going to have to give me more than that. My firsthand experience with "Administrative Law" in the class room didn't include anything about legislative policy. My secondhand experience hearing about lawyers practicing administrative law hasn't included anything about legislative policy - only representing clients in various investigatory and adjudicative proceedings. Discendo Vox posted:Legislation is the basic stuff attorneys and courts litigate in all practice fields, as altered by caselaw. It makes up as much or more of the content of legal practice in a number of fields. Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Most litigators spend a fair amount of time parsing and conducting statutory construction. Yup. But are y'all qualifying this type of implementation of statutes (which is firmly in the realm of law school/law profession) as a type of "legislative policy" - that is, falling under the umbrella of "normative values about how statutes should constructed"? I don't see the two things as being the same: there's a distinction between creating legislation (legislative policy - perhaps better labeled political science?) and implementing legislation (litigating a statute in court). Discendo Vox posted:My state is making new developments in family and elder law- most of this is coming from a group of family law profs, practicing or not, who can do better interstate and international comparison research than the legislature, or the folks just in practice. I wonder, however, to what extent this is simply political science bleeding into the legal field? Edit: Kalman posted:Because legislators do look to the academy for suggestions. This is very interesting! I haven't given thought to whether an audience (legislators) can define the speaker (the law profession). My initial reaction, though, is that I still see a distinction between creating legislation (policy/political science) and working within the law already established - or even pushing the common law to benefit a particular client, rather than society at large (the "legal field"). To the extent law professors are being asked for legislative policy, I don't know whether their input actually falls within the scope of the "legal profession"! Maybe this is too artificial of a distinction? We don't trust non-JDs to do the implementation side. And we trust non-JDs to do the policy side. There does seem to be a distinction to be made. Edit x2: I didn't see your post below, but here's something else for you to chew on. ^^^ Green Crayons fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Dec 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:This is pretty cool, and does blend the line between what is the "legal field" and what is legislative policy. No true legal field.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:That's not why I think it's ridiculous. Unfortunately, most of us here are not clairvoyant, and the only indication you gave of why you think it's ridiculous is that you believe it to be an insane theory on the part of someone who doesn't understand how the law works. Since such a policy (e: guaranteed minimum income for caregivers of dependents) is neither insane nor illegal (though certainly debatable on its merits), you're going to have to clarify your objection. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
I believe I said no understanding of how the law works or should work. I also did not say she supported wages for caregivers. I said she supported a federal wage for stay at home mothers. (and you assumed the professor was a he.) As it was more or less a throwaway comment, I didn't anticipate you wanting to turn it into a major policy discussion. however, the context in which the policy was suggested was as follows: "Society undervalues homemaking based on latent sexism. To counter that institutional bias, women should receive a federal income for being a stay at home mother and homemaker in recognition of their valuable contributions to society. Specifically, the advancement of the non-stay at home spouse's career and the well-being of their children who are essentially better off raised by their parent." First off, as the child of a working mother, I take exception to the idea that children raised by a stay at home parent are so much better off to the point of justifying a government subsidy to encourage women to stay home. (Not to mention the irony of the extremely sexist implications of this theory advanced by a self proclaimed expert in feminist jurisprudence) Second, the policy suggested was centered around the idea of a two parent family in which a stay at home spouse was helping advance the career of the working spouse by being a homemaker. In this arrangement, the stay at home spouse is already compensated by shared equity with the working spouse. If that isn't how the relationship is working, that is a private failure of that partnership in which the government should not be intervening. Third, having already established that this was based on the "valuable contributions of homemakers" to the "traditional family," what happens to dual income working parents for whom a subsidy, unless it was at or above minimum wage, would not be enough to justify losing one income stream? and if that isn't complicated enough, what about the single mother/father? Fourth, who the hell is going to pay for this? I have no opposition to transitional welfare to get people back on their feet, or even long term welfare for people who truly can't join the workforce, or even unemployment benefits for people who are looking for work but can't find it. but what she was suggesting was essentially expanding welfare to include a living wage for people who are fully capable of working but are choosing not to. (the majority of whom would be already socio-economically advantaged) Her argument boiled down to "the government should pay mommies so that people recognize how important mommies are." I don't think that's the government's job. this is vastly different from the straw man scenario you mentioned where a qualified family member can receive caretaker payments for doing something the government would be paying someone to do anyway (e.g. taking care of a disabled or geriatric indigent family member)
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I don't think that's the government's job. this is vastly different from the straw man scenario you mentioned where a qualified family member can receive caretaker payments for doing something the government would be paying someone to do anyway (e.g. taking care of a disabled or geriatric indigent family member) We didn't have any way of knowing any of this without you providing the context and comments. It wasn't possible to tell, from your iniital post, that what the prof was proposing was even unreasonable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
It seems to me, as a Not A Lawyer, that this argument of academic law scholars vs practicing professionals is kind of a class case of "should" vs "does", aka apples to oranges. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
I think everyone agrees with that premise: legal academia is "should," legal profession is "does." I think the disagreement is over to what extent legal academia, as it currently exists, is useful to the legal profession. Which contains further disagreement over what constitutes "legal academia," "legal profession," and "useful." Man we get insufferable when opinions aren't being issued.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
Phobeste posted:It seems to me, as a Not A Lawyer, that this argument of academic law scholars vs practicing professionals is kind of a class case of "should" vs "does", aka apples to oranges. Thoughts? It's the why versus the how, or (book, not news) author versus editor. They have different roles which occasionally overlap and while the editor may offer criticism of specific word choice or grammar, the arc of the story is the purview of the author and exists as a concept until printing. The editor doesn't get to stop Tolkein in his tracks and complain that his story is just too fantastical for printing and explain how Gandalf should have just sent the ring to the volcano by eagle first instead of recruiting a couple hobbits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:"Society undervalues homemaking based on latent sexism. " It's no wonder her idea wasn't convincing considering the founding principle is wrong. Society doesn't value homemaking for the same reason it doesn't value elder care: the people you are working for have no or little money to pay you with. I'm not discounting that sexism plays into it, but even if wiping a baby's butt was traditionally a masculine role it will still be unpaid because it has no place in the market economy and that's all American society really cares about. ActusRhesus posted:First off, as the child of a working mother, I take exception to the idea that children raised by a stay at home parent are so much better off to the point of justifying a government subsidy to encourage women to stay home. (Not to mention the irony of the extremely sexist implications of this theory advanced by a self proclaimed expert in feminist jurisprudence) I'm the child of a working mother too and I say you're nuts if you take exception to that idea. Of course it's better to have a parent who can focus all of their energy on raising a child and it definitely justifies the government to encourage a parent to stay home, but a much smarter way to do it is to force employers to actually pay someone enough to raise a family. For (white and middle class) people in the past this was just expected to be the case, but stagnating wages and unnecessary costs have priced a lot of people out of that lifestyle. The richest country in the world can afford to make sure that wage earners are making enough to rear their children. This might also head off the fears down the road of what we are going to do as a society when/if automation reduces the number of available jobs by cutting the workforce. None of this will happen though because it relies on the government making employers give their employees more money while the government is getting giant canvas sacks with dollar signs painted on them by those same employers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Haven't there been studies on the childhood benefits of full-time parentage?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Maarek posted:I'm the child of a working mother too and I say you're nuts if you take exception to that idea. Are you male or female? A number of recent and reputable studies have found that, when things like quality of care, socio-economic class etc. etc. are controlled for, there is no difference between the opportunities and development of children of working moms vs. stay at home moms. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/06/23/3451313/working-mothers-children/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/08/7-key-findings-about-stay-at-home-moms/ http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/jul/22/working-mothers-no-harm-children But, you know, it's not like a disproven myth that women who leave the home are "bad mothers" doesn't have a huge negative impact on the mental health of working women or anything... ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Maarek posted:It's no wonder her idea wasn't convincing considering the founding principle is wrong. Society doesn't value homemaking for the same reason it doesn't value elder care: the people you are working for have no or little money to pay you with. I'm not discounting that sexism plays into it, but even if wiping a baby's butt was traditionally a masculine role it will still be unpaid because it has no place in the market economy and that's all American society really cares about. <ignores nannies, au pairs, and the numerous other ways rich people turn money into attempts to value caring for their children> <is wrong>
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
So did we finally agree that most legal scholarship has no direct, immediate bearing on most of day-to-day law practice? It may inform my practice, but I'm not citing to critical race theory articles when in telling the judge how much this property is worth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:So did we finally agree that most legal scholarship has no direct, immediate bearing on most of day-to-day law practice? It may inform my practice, but I'm not citing to critical race theory articles when in telling the judge how much this property is worth. This. Law review articles are interesting, but I can't recall the last time I cited one in a brief for anything other than "I like this sentence."
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Kalman posted:<ignores nannies, au pairs, and the numerous other ways rich people turn money into attempts to value caring for their children> Thanks for pointing out the gaping flaw in my argument about how society doesn't value caring for people who don't have money to pay you with by pointing out that some folks care for the kids of people with lots of money. I will make sure to bring this point up the next time I'm at the laundromat with the au pair who takes care of the McDonalds fry cook's children. ActusRhesus posted:Are you male or female? I am a man and I am also going to carefully avoid talking about those studies because they say things I don't agree with and no, I don't see how those two things are related and I'm offended at the implication.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
You made the erroneous point that we don't value this labor because the people being cared for don't have money. They do, by proxy (as shown by the au pair example) ergo your thesis was flawed. That's all. The market values it just fine, but what it doesn't value is the equivalent care performed by the parent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Maarek posted:I am a man and I am also going to carefully avoid talking about those studies because they say things I don't agree with and no, I don't see how those two things are related and I'm offended at the implication. Won't someone please think of the men! You don't see how your gender perhaps influences your view on whether or not the government should enact policy that reinforces the perception that a woman's place is in the home? And I'm not sure it matters whether or not you "agree" with things said in the studies or not. You may "feel" that kids with a stay at home parent are better off, just like I "feel" that my less than 2 year old is mature enough for time outs, despite what others may say to the contrary. But you are confusing what you "feel" is best as a parent with what the studies have empirically shown...which is that the success of the child has a lot more to do with the parent than whether or not the parent works outside the home. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You don't see how your gender perhaps influences your view on whether or not the government should enact policy that reinforces the perception that a woman's place is in the home?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
twodot posted:I really don't like this phrasing, and it's pretty common. Of course their gender influences their views on everything. What they had for breakfast also influences their views on everything. By asking the question you are implying their gender is influencing them incorrectly (we wouldn't care if the influence led to a correct position), but if their position is incorrect, you can just directly state why they are incorrect instead of implying they are incorrect via bad influence. Additionally even if they did possess various bad influences, they could still come to the correct conclusion. Analyzing individual influences is good psychology, but it is pointless for law and policy. Except it comes up all the time in context of laws and policy written by a majority that has a disproportionate impact on the minority. In that context, it is not unfair to point out when a person is perhaps displaying some subconscious bias. I find the notion that a woman needs to stay home to be a "good mother" extremely sexist (and I recognize there are stay at home fathers too, but generally, in the US, when one parent stays home to raise the kids, it's the mother.) I was told I was "nuts" for not believing that stay at home mothers are superior. I don't, for the record, believe they are inferior either. I believe it's a matter of personal choice (usually) in family planning...just like another hot button political issue where laws and policy that effects women only is written overwhelmingly by white men...
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Kalman posted:You made the erroneous point that we don't value this labor because the people being cared for don't have money. Yeah, what I was saying in my original post, maybe not very eloquently, was that society doesn't view raising your own children or taking care of your elderly parents as 'work' and thus they have no value to society. Your baby or senile grandpa were the people who have no money to pay you with that I was referring to. ActusRhesus posted:You don't see how your gender perhaps influences your view on whether or not the government should enact policy that reinforces the perception that a woman's place is in the home? I was making a joke about men being stubborn, but I explicitly used the word 'parent' and not mother because I think having a stay-at-home-father is just as beneficial as a stay-at-home-mother (which, according to the stuff you posted, is not much at all!). My view is that the government should enact policies that make sure families don't get priced out of the stay-at-home-parent market. quote:Won't someone please think of the men! For too long we have been held back by the matriarchy, I agree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Maarek posted:I was making a joke Jokes are supposed to be funny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I find the notion that a woman needs to stay home to be a "good mother" extremely sexist (and I recognize there are stay at home fathers too, but generally, in the US, when one parent stays home to raise the kids, it's the mother.) I said you were nuts for not believing that having a person full time rearing a child was superior. I guess science proved that is wrong, but I don't feel too bad for making that mistake considering how people who have tons of money often use a chunk of it to hire a person to rear their kids full time while they work. My theory was that having a parent at home was better but economic conditions priced people out of that. If that arrangement is no better at all and is just left over from ~the patriarchy~ that's fine too, people can just send their kids to daycare and spend the extra money on an underground pool or something. ActusRhesus posted:Jokes are supposed to be funny. How dare you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Except it comes up all the time in context of laws and policy written by a majority that has a disproportionate impact on the minority. quote:In that context, it is not unfair to point out when a person is perhaps displaying some subconscious bias. I find the notion that a woman needs to stay home to be a "good mother" extremely sexist (and I recognize there are stay at home fathers too, but generally, in the US, when one parent stays home to raise the kids, it's the mother.) twodot fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
the problem was your "theory" has been disproven, but perpetuating that theory has an extremely negative mental health consequence to working mothers who are treated by a significant chunk of society as unfit or selfish for remaining a whole person with goals and ambitions that didn't vanish into the ether the second a child tumbled out of their vagina. That's why I asked your gender, because as a male you will, luckily, not be subjected to that kind of bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
twodot posted:No, laws and policy that have disproportionate impact on minorities are bad because they have disproportionate impact on minorities. If I see a law with disproportionate impact on minorities, I don't say "This law is bad because the writers were influenced by institutional racism (as everyone's actions are all the time)" instead I say "This law is bad because it has disproportionate impact on minorities." (edit: The fact that you seem to acknowledge that writers with racist influence can sometimes write laws with disproportionate impact and sometimes write laws without is essentially my point. The possession of bad influence is not evidence of bad policy. The bad influence argument is literal ad hominem, you are arguing their argument is wrong by talking about a characteristic of the person presenting the argument.) That wasn't my point at all. You are putting words in my mouth. I asked if he were male or female because his statements seemed, to me, to be very male, but I did not want to presume. Having identified that he was, in fact, male, it was worth pointing out that he, as a male, was likely unaware of some of the implications his views had for women...implications which he, as a male, was likely unaware of, just like I was unaware of how institutionalized racism felt until I moved to a country where I was a racial minority. We all like to think of ourselves as empathetic beings, but there are some things you just can't truly understand unless you have lived them. My point is that a person's status can lead to sexist (or racist, or ableist or whatever) thinking that they are not consciously aware of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
twodot posted:No, laws and policy that have disproportionate impact on minorities are bad because they have disproportionate impact on minorities. If I see a law with disproportionate impact on minorities, I don't say "This law is bad because the writers were influenced by institutional racism (as everyone's actions are all the time)" instead I say "This law is bad because it has disproportionate impact on minorities." Disproportionate impact versus intent is something that circles right back around to the whole theory vs practicality argument, with practicality often being cited in favor of requiring proof of intent since it would be impractical to consider nuances when drafting/amending legislation, whereas a theoretical approach supports such deliberation since it would be unethical to ignore de facto unequal treatment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Disproportionate impact versus intent is something that circles right back around to the whole theory vs practicality argument, with practicality often being cited in favor of requiring proof of intent since it would be impractical to consider nuances when drafting/amending legislation, whereas a theoretical approach supports such deliberation since it would be unethical to ignore de facto unequal treatment. This isn't really accurate, since there are theoretical and practical arguments for and against impact and intent. In fact, the most common arguments (and, in my opinion, the strongest arguments) in favor of impact versus intent are practicality arguments: that showing discriminatory intent is impractical in light of how easily discriminatory intent (or what the courts consider discriminatory intent) can be disguised and that the real impact makes intent irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Disproportionate impact versus intent is something that circles right back around to the whole theory vs practicality argument, with practicality often being cited in favor of requiring proof of intent since it would be impractical to consider nuances when drafting/amending legislation, whereas a theoretical approach supports such deliberation since it would be unethical to ignore de facto unequal treatment. ActusRhesus posted:My point is that a person's status can lead to sexist (or racist, or ableist or whatever) thinking that they are not consciously aware of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:the problem was your "theory" has been disproven, but perpetuating that theory has an extremely negative mental health consequence to working mothers who are treated by a significant chunk of society as unfit or selfish for remaining a whole person with goals and ambitions that didn't vanish into the ether the second a child tumbled out of their vagina. That's why I asked your gender, because as a male you will, luckily, not be subjected to that kind of bullshit. You are certainly right because male or female no one in my family or most of my peers growing up or today had to worry about being judged for choosing their career/self-actualization over caring for their children. Most of us needed both parents working (assuming they're even still married) to get along and being a stay-at-home parent was viewed as something that many people wished they could do but simply couldn't afford. I have never in my entire life heard someone suggest in person that a woman was a bad mother for working and the idea seems fairly 'nuts' to me. twodot posted:This is a generally true statement, but it's not useful to apply to a specific stranger on the Internet who is supporting or not supporting a policy (which is why you had to ask their gender in the first place). The policy is either good or bad regardless of the influences of people arguing about it. I think it's useful in the sense that "people will judge me for choosing my career over being a stay-at-home-parent" is so far out of my life experience that it sounds like one of those made up problems that the protagonists of a romantic comedy suffer from. I know this is a real thing, but it might as well be happening on the moon to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 01:18 |
|
|
Asked as a courtesy only. Was pretty sure I knew the answer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:36
|
|