That would be absolutely politically incorrect.
Politically correct or not, laws should be thought out logically and rationally instead of pandering to emotion. But yeah poltical correctness is getting too extreme nowadays
But the point is that affirmative action laws or whatever they are called in a particular country are enacted to correct perceived inequalities in certain segments of society.
There isn't any evidence provided that any workplace actively discriminates against women.
Can you imagine the chitstorm that feminists would raise if this were the case?
The fact that there are hardly any laws that favour men is probably because men have not historically been discriminated against on the basis of their gender (race, religion, etc are separate issues).
And how does the past affect us?
You really think there's true equality?
Women earn same as men.
Law after law favour women.
Judges and juries tend to favour women.
Yep, I too would say that isn't equality.
Equality isn't only about earning capacity and/or income; just because women earn roughly the same as men, doesn't mean that we afforded the same respect as men.
I don't quite grasp what you are saying here?
To give a very obvious example, the entertainment industry doesn't objectify men even half as much as it objectifies and exploits women.
No-one forces women to do these jobs. Women freely and openly accept these jobs and hence damaging their own image. The media also make men seem weak and incompetent, but I don't really care as these men have accepted to play/portray these roles. Who gives a fuk what the media says?
A woman who has worked hard and contributed to society, will receive the same amount of respect as a man who has also worked hard in and contributed to society.
On the other hand a woman who tried to get by in life solely on her looks and doesn't care about society/well being of others will not receive any respect and rightfully so. The same applies for men.
For every Abercrombie & Fitch advertisement of a half naked man, you'll see a disproportionate number of advertisements featuring scantily-clad women in suggestive poses.
Again, these women have made the decision to be in these adverts. Many feminists in fact say this liberates women.
Let's move out of our comfort zone for a second and consider the plight of women in backward shitholes like Saudi Arabia and African villages that still practice FGM. Let's consider Islamic laws that allow men to have up to four wives but nothing similar for women. Let's consider deeply-entrenched cultural perceptions that deem swearing "unlady-like", whatever the hell that means.
I am really only talking about first world countries.
But yeah most third world countries do treat women like chit.
There's only so much the law can do to promote gender equality; the rest of it - an overwhelming proportion - is a matter of social and cultural perceptions.
I'm pretty sure there are no laws in those countries to promote gender equalities.
Does that law really discriminate against men though? From what I read in the article, it gives employers the option to hire a candidate to fill certain quotas. It does not force all employers to set a quota of males, females, whites, blacks, etc in their workplace. It would plausibly lead to some discriminatory hiring policies, but it would not be on the same scale as denying voting rights to women, for example. For the record, I don't think it's a good law at all, but you're making it sound like it seeks only to protect women when its coverage extends to racial minorities and disabled people. There is a huge distinction in the impact of a statute that seeks to protect ONLY women and one that seeks to protect a group of minoritiies, INLCUDING women.
Again, like I said, there are initiatives taken like these which are made lawful for women yet none for men who are underrepresented in some areas of the workforce.
In any event, I don't agree with affirmative action at all. I am very Singaporean in this regard: I believe in pure meritocracy. You get the job that you deserve based on your skills and qualifications. Nothing else should factor in the equation.
Yep that's the way it should be and for the large part it is like this.