Are men being disenfranchised?

[USU78]

43 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yes, technically the statement would be true if only 49% of people got their jobs because of their race, since the majority, 51%, did not. But that would be a silly argument to make: there is no racism because only 49% of people got jobs based on race...

... or sex.  I've seen, however, far more men getting left on the sideline, especially among people my children's age, than women.

With my daughters, I really encouraged them to take advantage of these preferments while they last, which I told them not to expect.  My granddaughters probably won't see these preferments, as pendulums tend to swing back.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

This is where the analysis falls off the rails for me. I am a white male. My dad had an 8th grade education and grew up in rural NW Florida. He had to quit school to work as a day laborer working in the fields to help support his family. His father was an alcoholic that eventually was sent to prison for running/making moonshine in the early 1940s. His parents divorced in the mid-1940s. Grandma lived her entire life in a wood shack where anyone could look out and see the grass on the lawn. My father joined the Navy for WWII and afterward switched to the Air Force.

He met my mother in Bremerton, Washington while working in the shipyards prior to joining the US Air Force. She was born to a Swedish father, an immigrant, and my grandmother was from Missouri. He met her while she was in a home for unwed mothers in Seattle, WA. She was divorced and had three children. Mom graduated from high school and then became and served as an RN during the war at Tacoma General hospital. She never worked again as a nurses while raising seven children until my parents divorced in 1975.

Dad got his GED in 1964 while we were living in Omaha, Nebraska. He was transferred about every three years around the USA and Newfoundland in Canada. In the Air Force, he worked in the Department of Transportation - a bus driver. He retired after serving 22 years in the military at the rank of a Tech Sergeant. After retiring we living in NW Florida where his family was from. 

I attended a school with a graduating class of 83 seniors. It as the largest high school in the county. The three other high schools had graduating classes of between 13 and 42 students. Everyone in the that county was poor; some were more comfortable than others, but the majority of each class qualified for free lunches at school - my siblings and I all got free lunches. 

I worked hard in school and went to junior college on a Pell Grant prior to going on a mission to France. At this time my mother was divorced and had returned to working as an RN at the local hospital. I had worked in the summers since the 7th grade (when we arrived in Florida) bailing hay, tossing watermelons and cantaloupes, and anything else I could do. I tried to get other jobs, but we were Mormon where Mormons were few - our church building was the old five story cat house by the railroad tracks that we rented - and Mormons were looked at as the scum of the world thanks to the constant efforts of the First Baptist church's preacher to constantly warn his flock about the perversions of the Mormon people. 

When I was a senior, I did get a job working at the IGA as a stock boy - I was actually hired to tutor the owner's son, but that fizzled out after three months, but my work was sufficient to keep the job at the store. He was not a member of the First Baptist Church; may God bless him.

Briefly, after my mission I got married, then entered BYU on scholarship, our first child died of SIDS, dropped out of BYU, worked for a year to get over losing our son, returned to school at the U and graduated with a degree in Finance. My wife and I worked our tails off to survive. The first year of our marriage we lived in a one bedroom house (it was very cheap) in Mapleton, Utah - our bed was purchased from DI, a card table was our dining table and we had one chair in the living room. We both worked a variety of jobs and we were happy. Poor does not equate to unhappiness and never has.

I never got an MBA. I never got a job because I was white. My family did not make $500 K a year. I represent the vast majority of white men in America. There is a difference between the classes - it exists and will always exist. The world is NOT divided strictly by gender, race, or religion. I reject any notion that I or the majority of other individuals got their jobs because of their race. We got our jobs and made careers by taking risks, moving to where jobs could be obtained, and working extremely hard. My story is the same for almost my entire graduating class for both blacks and whites. A few never left the county, but the majority had to leave to get an education and to find a job. Life is hard for everyone regardless of race. I don't accept the strictly racist picture you often draw because my life does not fit within your picture. 

There is something ironic about your complaining about discussions of institutionalized racial economic discrimination with the example of your life which is meant to be an example of being “self-made” where you spend some time talking about how you were held back to some degree and could not get a job due to institutionalized economic discrimination due to your religion.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Briefly, after my mission I got married, then entered BYU on scholarship, our first child died of SIDS, dropped out of BYU, worked for a year to get over losing our son, returned to school at the U and graduated with a degree in Finance. My wife and I worked our tails off to survive. The first year of our marriage we lived in a one bedroom house (it was very cheap) in Mapleton, Utah - our bed was purchased from DI, a card table was our dining table and we had one chair in the living room. We both worked a variety of jobs and we were happy. Poor does not equate to unhappiness and never has.

I'm terribly sorry that that happened. I can't imagine.

[california boy]

13 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I think it is a good counter-argument if you think all men are white and over 50 - the ones that are CEOs, upper management, and reside on the two coasts. However, if you are not over 50 then the argument begins to crumble and the younger you are then it just falls completely apart. I also think you will find that white men in blue collar jobs also are not feeling like they have been handed an entitled life. 

I enjoy talking about the pay disparity for hollywood stars - because I really care about these people that make millions to entertain the masses because they, far more often than not, have a pretty face (both male and female). They are so often prime examples of a willingness to work for less and then after the fact that accuse you, the producer/director (whoever the woman in charge is), for not paying her more; as if it is a charity. I have run a few businesses in my life and for all jobs, except one that I can remember, did I begin a payscale at the top rather than at the bottom. I was tighter on salaries, but big on bonuses based on performance. My companies were in investment management and no one, from the receptionist to the investment manager, felt underpaid. I don't think my experience fits with the vast majority of businesses in the USA. 

 

You don't even see the irony of what you are writing about do you.  You talk about the big bonuses you were paid because you brought a lot of money into the investment business compared to others that didn't perform as well.  Yet you degrade hollywood stars that make more money for the exact same reason.  Big name stars bring big money into the business.  That is the sole reason they are paid higher salaries than the rest of the people in the film.  The only difference between your bonus and a Hollywood star is the vast difference they bring in, hundreds of millions of increased dollars. Believe me, if you brought in hundreds of millions of dollars in the business you were in, you would have made a LOT more money.

My career started out in the motion picture industry.  My first job, I got asked back for a second interview.  The first question that I was asked was "Would you have a problem working under a woman?"  I was surprised by the question.  Frankly, I cared more about getting a job than the gender of who was my boss.  But she felt that the question had to be asked because of attitudes towards women, especially in that industry.  The director never asked if I had a problem working for him because he was a man.  In fact no other male in the business ever asked me if I had a problem working for a man.  

And, the vast majority of actors in the film industry make very little money.  For every star making spectacular amounts of money, I would say there are thousands of actors that get paid a very minimal wage. Knock off the first two or three names on the credits and you will find the salaries drop like a rock.  Until you get a fan base, people that go to a film simply because you are in it, no matter how good of actor you are, you are not going to have the kind of salary you scorn.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

So.... Jim Crow laws never existed? It's the fault of all those blacks in the south and elsewhere that they didn't have upward social mobility? They should have just worked harder?

I can't believe that you are denying institutionalized racism.

I'm not going to speak to your individual experience. I'm speaking about society in general. And American society has a tremendous history of racist and sexist injustice that makes it very difficult for people from minority backgrounds to overcome. Life is hard, as you say. That doesn't mean it is equally hard for everyone.

Again, tell me how a black man living in Birmingham Alabama in 1962 has equal opportunity and access as a white man there. If you admit that he did not, then you are admitting that context has a role to play in someone's success in life, regardless of how passionate they are and how hard they work.

My classmates did not grow up under Jim Crow laws - they ended in 1965. I am old, but not that old. My friends, the black ones, worked with me in the fields (some of them). They are working and are just now retiring from working for the state, Curtis; Bennie is still working in south Florida. 

I am denying institutionalized racism as the ONLY cause of upward mobility. Having lived in the south I know for a fact that racism exists and significantly impacted the lives of black individuals. The point is that individuals - both black and white - overcame their challenges regardless of where they came from. 

You dismiss my life experiences and then want to make a broad generalization based on the lives of two individual men in 1962 Birmingham, Alabama - do you see how that creates a conflict for me? Don't tell me that me, a white man, is racist simply because I am white. Life's challenges are far more complicated than just racist individuals.

While my dad was in the Air Force, he would tear us up if we even insinuated any degree of racism. Mom and dad had black friends that came to our home. I have seen my dad pick up hitchhikers, black men, and give them $20 when he stopped to drop them off. Twenty dollars back then was real money and in our family it meant something. Yet, I have also heard my dad, in his old age, tell a few really horrible jokes about black people. Was my dad racist?  I don't think so; but he was certainly one that would tell a joke that was not at all acceptable...even to him when he was in the military. 

I guess what I am trying to say is that you are painting with too broad of a brush stroke and you are using examples of a period that does not exist any longer. 

Edited March 15, 2019 by Storm Rider

[california boy]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is the ideal, but the system is not ideal. The playing field is not level. The opportunities are not equal and that cuts across a wide swatch of territory, from gender to race to economic status. Take the college entrance cheating scandal, for instance. Or even better, legacy admissions, where the children of alumni get preferential treatment for admission (especially if the parents are rich and pay for a building), thus insuring a cycle of elite families at elite institutions.

Child A could be 5 times more passionate about a topic than child B, but if child B is white, male, and rich, then child B has a much greater chance of success. We like to point to examples of success like Ben Carson, but we use them as examples precisely because they are exceptions.

A black kid born in the housing projects in Chicago with no father and a heroin addicted mother has a much harder time realizing his dream than a white kid born to a fully college educated family living in Boston making $500k a year. And when the kid in Boston tells the kid in Chicago if he would just be more passionate or work harder, it shows a SERIOUS lack of understanding of the social system and how much the context in our lives matter to the success we have. It also shows a serious lack of compassion. The Boston kid might as well have asked, "Master, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

Taking credit for the situation (be it gender, race, economic status, country, whatever) we were born into is arrogant because that is something we have no control over.

I think the discomfort some men are feeling in this time (and I am male) is that the context of our success is being pointed out -- it historically has been and probably still is easier to have success when you are male because of the system -- and that seems like perhaps people are simultaneously questioning our personal role in our success. Once I acknowledge that I had some sort of advantage by being born into a white, college educated (both parents and all children have graduate degrees), upper middle-class family, does that diminish my own personal success? That's an uncomfortable feeling to sit with, for sure. One response to lash out against it and say that context doesn't matter and where I am at now is because of my own personal attributes, not because of the context. Or, as you put it, individuals rise to the top, regardless of who they are. The problem is, looking at it closely, is that statement is just not true. The Chicago kid is at a distinct disadvantage and it is not his fault.

Once we acknowledge that the context of lives matters, then to try to have a more just society, we need to take that context into consideration. A couple of people pointed out that I was bringing religion into a discussion of a secular issue. But that's exactly what we as Christians are supposed to do. We are supposed to try to make our society more just, more equitable, especially for those who are at a disadvantage.

Nailed it.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I don't know how many jobs you've had in your life, but I'm not sure how you can possibly say "never" here.  Do you know the race of all other applicants or the thinking of all those who hired you?  

I hope I was not ever hired or favored because I was a white male (for any of my jobs starting in high school on), but I cannot say it "never" happened.   I actually think it most likely did.  I can say that I believe I was not ever hired for a job that I didn't feel I was qualified for....but there may have been women who applied or others who applied that were just as qualified (or maybe even more so). 

I should probably have said, solely because I was white. 

When these kinds of topics come up the discussion often turns into absolute statements - the only reason a person was not hired was because of racism. Having grown up in the south I can point to many friends and I can also point to others that were not my friends. Among both sets you will find members of almost all races I came into contact with. Why? Well, to me it was because we went to school together, we played sports together and we learned about each other. Some of us clicked and some of us did not. I am still in touch with my black friends on facebook. Funny, as I was writing this I realized that I am in touch with my high school friends, but not those I went to college with; I cannot answer why except to say that I am in touch with very, very few of my college friends regardless of their race or gender. 

[Storm Rider]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

You don't even see the irony of what you are writing about do you.  You talk about the big bonuses you were paid because you brought a lot of money into the investment business compared to others that didn't perform as well.  Yet you degrade hollywood stars that make more money for the exact same reason.  Big name stars bring big money into the business.  That is the sole reason they are paid higher salaries than the rest of the people in the film.  The only difference between your bonus and a Hollywood star is the vast difference they bring in, hundreds of millions of increased dollars. Believe me, if you brought in hundreds of millions of dollars in the business you were in, you would have made a LOT more money.

My career started out in the motion picture industry.  My first job, I got asked back for a second interview.  The first question that I was asked was "Would you have a problem working under a woman?"  I was surprised by the question.  Frankly, I cared more about getting a job than the gender of who was my boss.  But she felt that the question had to be asked because of attitudes towards women, especially in that industry.  The director never asked if I had a problem working for him because he was a man.  In fact no other male in the business ever asked me if I had a problem working for a man.  

And, the vast majority of actors in the film industry make very little money.  For every star making spectacular amounts of money, I would say there are thousands of actors that get paid a very minimal wage. Knock off the first two or three names on the credits and you will find the salaries drop like a rock.  Until you get a fan base, people that go to a film simply because you are in it, no matter how good of actor you are, you are not going to have the kind of salary you scorn.

Cal, you misunderstood what I was saying. As the owner of the company, I paid large bonuses to my staff.  When I worked in a company as a portfolio manager I was given bonuses based strictly on a formula built on my return performance to clients and the additional monies I brought to the firm as a result of my performance. 

The rest of your comments escape me. This seems more of an issue that you have than the intention of the topic. 

[Buffy]

4 hours ago, Buffy said:

The playing field isn't level.  If a resume discloses the race or gender of the applicant they are treated differently, even if the content is exactly the same.  John Smith's resume is going to be viewed as superior to Joan Smith's resume and especially Juanita Perez's resume, even if the content is exactly the same.   In musical tryouts men are "better" musicians, until we put up a screen and carpet the floor so you can't tell the gender of the person playing the instrument.  Then magically, it turns 50-50. 

Claire Foy didn't negotiate for a higher salary because she had been taught all her life that women that cause a ruckus are b*tches and "difficult" and her duty, above all else, is to make sure other people, particularly men, like her.   Girls are taught to be agreeable and to get along.  Boys are taught to fight for what they want. 

 

And I have been in legal recruiting on the law school side for 20 years and I'm telling you what industry studies are showing.  Not just personal experience.  And yes, these were law student resumes that were used in the experiment. 

[Buffy]

1 minute ago, Buffy said:

And I have been in legal recruiting on the law school side for 20 years and I'm telling you what industry studies are showing.  Not just personal experience.  And yes, these were law student resumes that were used in the experiment. 

And I'm new to the board and still trying to figure out the technology. 

[Buffy]

3 hours ago, let’s roll said:

As someone who regularly reviews resumes, I can tell your first  premise is false, at least in the legal field, where female applicants are favored over their male counterparts and have been for at least the last 20 years.

As to your second point, I don’t know Claire Foy, and I suspect you don’t either, so if we’re going to speculate on why she didn’t think she needed to negotiate, I’d suggest that her life experience has been that people take care of her and she’s received preferences because of her talents, so she hasn’t been accustomed to having to negotiate.   The same is true for many young athletes.  That’s why they both hire agents.

And I have been in legal recruiting on the law school side for 20 years and I'm telling you what industry studies are showing.  Not just personal experience.  And yes, these were law student resumes that were used in the experiment. 

[Calm]

18 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

It is the constant social engineering to push girls to the top in every subject, every field of study, and every job. No boys are ever, ever, encouraged in the same manner. It just doesn't exist in Western society. Boys have to fend for themselves. If an INDIVIDUAL - regardless of gender - is passionate about a topic they rise to the top. Not because they are a boy or a girl, but because they are passionate about the topic. 

Do you consider this the way things always are or just now?

And if they have changed, do you consider the possibility that there still may be attitudes and lack of supportive nextwork for women.

My dad was an engineer as was his dad.  Myself I was leaning to physics, but went engineering.  My brothers went engineering as well.  He had them working on home renovation projects learning basic skills over summer.  Me, he taught how to change a plug the day before I left college even though I was the one asking for chemistry sets and to go to museums and reading the how to books.

My female friends in the engeinerring school were much the same.  I would help my fellow male students with their math issues and then when we turned to the electrical stuff or programming I was lacking in, suddenly they are aware of the time and needed to go home to their wives.

Sure, I could have thrown a fit, but it didn't help that I was already shy and my parents had pounded into me by sheer repetition, outside of personal spiritual studying and seeking God, service is the most important thing for a person to do...women did so by being personal, day after day, men did so by going out and getting money to support others as well as help set things up so they could then be self sufficient.

Looking at my brothers and me, I was the one making the home projects, reading physics books, etc.  But that made no difference to who got pegged to be taught by Dad.  And my brothers would have shown enough passion to satisfy my dad if the option was renovate the bathroom or scrub the toilets, but apparently to do it just for curiosity...perhaps they showed interest when it wasn’t Dad doing the teaching  

I saw this kind of stuff for decades, women had passion, but as long as men had enough interest, they got pulled for the stuff that helped build a better foundation for work.  Protesting just made it so others didn't want to work with you.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

Testing something....

I don't see a good case for the generalized displacement of men...at least in this definition of the word via google: the state of being deprived of a right or privilege, especially the right to vote.

In my personal view, being deprived a right or privilege.....or at least a great inequality would need to be tied specifically to being of the male gender in order to hold weight. I have 8 brothers and my husband. Though some of them have experienced discrimination or disenfranchisement it was not specifically related to their experience as a man. So, for example, I'm the most educated out of all of them in terms of types of degrees received. Which would fit a lot of the education stats. BUT the reason for why my brothers do not have equivalent degrees entail delayed schooling due to childhood issues that bled into adulthood (not gender specific), personal decisions for their careers that often entail less schooling (not a barring from choice), and disenfranchisement tied with being an international student (my husband had to repeat his undergrad degree when he was expecting to come for a master's program because they wouldn't recognize his previous degree).

When forms of discrimination do entail to some degree their gender, it's not JUST gender that's pulling the problem. My black brothers and father, for example, have faced more fears and scrutiny from cops/others.  More so than my half white siblings, some of which look very white. Being male does not entirely encapsulate the disenfranchisement. Rather, being visible men of color does.

[BlueDreams]

THe only way I could post this was in 2 posts for some reason and without the quote of the OP. Sorry if this seems out of place. 

To me, the case for male disenfranchisement only works when the data is cherry-picked. When there's a more general survey, the results are less straight-forward. The examples you give don't make a lot of sense of proving disenfranchisement to me. Women are 51% of white collar professionals and are overrepresented to the end of white-collar work that's lower pay in comparison.

Captain marvel is captain marvel. I love marvel movies and am not sure how she stands out from the superhero crowd in your mind. Sure, she's uber powerful....but the marvel cinematic universe is heavily male. I don't see her on a pedestal. She's another superhero...with superhero powers....like a lot of other superheroes.

As for #metoo repercussions, from what I see, the overreactive tip-toeing is not just a metoo movement phenomenon....people unversed in gender or race issues often can suddenly get very nervous about their behaviors and how they come off. It doesn't say much about the movement, to me, but about the people who do not understand the experience of sexual harassment, assault, etc. And the work still ahead in changing cultural and structural problems that have been overlooked. 

 

With luv,

BD

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, Buffy said:

And I have been in legal recruiting on the law school side for 20 years and I'm telling you what industry studies are showing.  Not just personal experience.  And yes, these were law student resumes that were used in the experiment. 

I understand that the majority of the next entering class of the BYU law school are women.  If you had anything to do with that, I congratulate you.

If you’re in the placement office at a law school, I would expect your experience has been that female graduates in the top half of the class have been much more in demand than males in the top half.  As a lawyer who has recruited at over a dozen law schools, that has certainly been my experience.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Do you consider this the way things always are or just now?

And if they have changed, do you consider the possibility that there still may be attitudes and lack of supportive nextwork for women.

My dad was an engineer as was his dad.  Myself I was leaning to physics, but went engineering.  My brothers went engineering as well.  He had them working on home renovation projects learning basic skills over summer.  Me, he taught how to change a plug the day before I left college even though I was the one asking for chemistry sets and to go to museums and reading the how to books.

My female friends in the engeinerring school were much the same.  I would help my fellow male students with their math issues and then when we turned to the electrical stuff or programming I was lacking in, suddenly they are aware of the time and needed to go home to their wives.

Sure, I could have thrown a fit, but it didn't help that I was already shy and my parents had pounded into me by sheer repetition, outside of personal spiritual dos overt, service is the most important thing for a person to do...women did so by being personal, day after day, men did so by going out and getting money to support others as well as help set things up so they could then be self sufficient.

Looking at my brothers and me, I was the one making the home projects, reading physics books, etc.  But that made no difference to who go pegged to bectaught.  And brothers would have shown enough passion to satisfy my dad if the option was renovate the bathroom or scrub the toilets.

I saw this kind of stuff for decades, women had passion, but as long as men had enough interest, they got pulled for the stuff that helped build a better foundation for work.  Protesting just made it so others didn't want to work with you.

I  think if we look back at history, we will find other examples. However, I find that the gender politics of the last forty years has come to its strongest fruition now. 

To focus the issue on women, you have talked about the past. Do you think the last few hundred years there was less abortion? Do you think the secular world paid more attention to the importance of the family unit? To having children? What value was there to a family unit where the children were cared for and one of the parents worked? Did it ever make sense to have roles based on gender? What was gained by such a system? What was lost? 

Today's economic world is based on consumption and luxury. In the first world, it demands both parents to work and for the majority they do. What is the cost of such a situation? What is the cost to raising children? What is the value of a child?

I recognize your story and I would expect this to be the standard. Yet, there were also women that excelled in their field of passion. Madame Curie comes to mind. I don't' think she was alone, but throughout history we see these examples of women that led nations, countries, kingdoms, and empires. I also think there are women who made impacts on many areas of trade and manufacturing whether in the home or professionally. 

For me at university, I also found some peers that were takers. I would tolerate it and if it continued, I cut the individual off. I don't think takers are germane to gender; rather they are germane to selfish individuals regardless gender. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Buffy said:

And I'm new to the board and still trying to figure out the technology. 

25 posts and you can edit and start threads

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Madame Curie comes to mind. I 

Who apparently had a very supportive father who taught her as well as having the luck to live in .Warsaw with its Flying University and then a husband who was willing to work by her side.

 

The vast majority of women and likely most men of that time never had those kinds of advantages.  Passion is just one ingredient for success.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie

Edited March 16, 2019 by Calm

[Nofear]

Anecdotes abound in the failings of society with respect to the genders – for both men and women. And even if one is in the statistical minority of recipients of injustice, it serves no purpose to invalidate their experience with cries of but you have male privilege (or female privilege).

Instead, what matters are solutions that improve society with the resulting fewer individual injustices. The principles taught by the Gospel of Jesus Christ will do that. Sadly, society is *not* taking that route.

As latter-day saints how much more should we be wise and not caught up in the wave of rhetoric and hysterics that the Adversary uses to turn brother against sister, wife against husband, society against family. Sadly, in groups I watch from a distance this very thing happens all too frequently.

[Yirgacheffe]

22 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

for example-underrepresentation is still a serious concern. It’s important that girls don't view STEM subjects as "men's fields" where they don’t belong, and mentorship plays a powerful role in changing that narrative."

Quote

They used to say that cream rises to the top. The common sense of the saying took for granted that not 100% of milk is cream. Only a portion of it is and the majority of milk is not. There are some individual that are passionate about music; others writing; still others, astrophysics. In those respective fields, not everyone will be on top, but the cream will rise to the top. 

Nothing in  your quote from the article contradicts your point or implies that women should be given preference over men just that they should be mentored as men are.  It is simply stating that women should not be made feel that they do not belong in STEM, that is more like  women being told,  you are not dairy you are vegetable so don't even bother trying to be cream, silly girl vegetables can't be cream.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Who apparently had a very supportive father who taught her as well as having the luck to live in .Warsaw with its Flying University and then a husband who was willing to work by her side.

The vast majority of women and likely most men of that time never had those kinds of advantages.  Passion is just one ingredient for success.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie

There is no disagreement between us. My point was that there is some drive that gives a person the desire to overcome challenges. I labeled it passion, but I could use a lot of different synonyms with the intent of calling it the same thing. We agree completely that there is never a single thing that defeats any individual regardless of race, gender, etc. 

Yes, we also agree that almost everyone has challenges. Some of us have more extreme challenges than others, but the challenges are there for almost everyone. A poor white boy can have gigantic challenges in the same white any other boy of any other race could have. What I reject is saying that because you are white then you have the golden path before you without any problems and jobs just fall out of the sky because you are white. I reject that in the same way that I reject because someone is a member of any other race the cards are stacked against them and they will fail. When you have passion, desire, hunger for success, then through the grace of God, you will win the race. 

[Storm Rider]

37 minutes ago, Yirgacheffe said:

Nothing in  your quote from the article contradicts your point or implies that women should be given preference over men just that they should be mentored as men are.  It is simply stating that women should not be made feel that they do not belong in STEM, that is more like  women being told,  you are not dairy you are vegetable so don't even bother trying to be cream, silly girl vegetables can't be cream.

You mind showing me where all those mentors of young boys are? I would like to meet them and thank them for doing so. 

No, it is not encouraging children (females) to follow their dream; rather, they are actively trying to enroll females in a fields that few have interest in. That is a wholly different approach then encouraging children to follow their dream. 

Edited March 16, 2019 by Storm Rider

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, Storm Rider said:

There is no disagreement between us. My point was that there is some drive that gives a person the desire to overcome challenges. I labeled it passion, but I could use a lot of different synonyms with the intent of calling it the same thing. We agree completely that there is never a single thing that defeats any individual regardless of race, gender, etc. 

Yes, we also agree that almost everyone has challenges. Some of us have more extreme challenges than others, but the challenges are there for almost everyone. A poor white boy can have gigantic challenges in the same white any other boy of any other race could have. What I reject is saying that because you are white then you have the golden path before you without any problems and jobs just fall out of the sky because you are white. I reject that in the same way that I reject because someone is a member of any other race the cards are stacked against them and they will fail. When you have passion, desire, hunger for success, then through the grace of God, you will win the race. 

The point I'm trying to make is that two people may have the same desire/passion, but because one of them is a favored class (be that gender, race, economic status, country of birth, whatever), the one in the favored class will have a greater chance of success than the one in the not-favored class, even though their desire is the same. So yes, of course, all can win the race, but the one in the not-favored class has to work harder at it than the one in the favored class. Or, to use your terms, the one in the not-favored class has to have more passion, desire, hunger for success.

And that is not just.

[3DOP]

43 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The point I'm trying to make is that two people may have the same desire/passion, but because one of them is a favored class (be that gender, race, economic status, country of birth, whatever), the one in the favored class will have a greater chance of success than the one in the not-favored class, even though their desire is the same. So yes, of course, all can win the race, but the one in the not-favored class has to work harder at it than the one in the favored class. Or, to use your terms, the one in the not-favored class has to have more passion, desire, hunger for success.

And that is not just. 

Hi Miserere. God bless. I hope you are having a wonderful Lenten season.

Do you believe there is any solution, political, or religious, that can provide an actual just society on earth that can eliminate individuals from experiencing important advantages and disadvantages that they inherit from their interior dispositions and external environments?

I do not believe that there is a just solution to the advantages and disadvantages. in fact, I think the advantages and disadvantages are part of God's plan. The beauty of a mixture of advantages and disadvantages is that it makes it IMPOSSIBLE to correctly judge our neighbors for their condition of life. I believe that the only reason for this life is to end up dying in a state of grace. Some would argue that there is not even equality in that area. I disagree in that I think God will demonstrate at the Final Judgment that He has been just regarding the diverse situations of every soul he has created. He will judge according to the graces He bestowed and which were accepted or rejected. Everyone will be judged by a just standard unique to the individual soul. He will show how He loved everyone, including those who can seem to be in the meanest condition. No one is forsaken of God.

I would listen to you before almost anybody if you could explain how a just society can legislate equality of opportunity for all individuals without actually suppressing any advantages that many brought with them by God's good providence at birth. To support potential political intervention, I need policies that would take in to consideration the purpose for our short time here. Apart from this, I cannot believe in trying to establish an earthly utopia of equal opportunity with no advantages or disadvantages. It has to happen without causing further hatreds and resentments and misunderstandings. It seems like it would have to be voluntary. "Love" that is legislated, seems to remove the possibility of merit for good parties who really do wish to help the oppressed. It has to happen without further exciting the passions of souls to find their ultimate happiness on earth, pursuing vain ambitions and "treasures" that will be an obstacle to salvation. But I must discontinue my own misgivings with your apparent ideas. Maybe I even misunderstand. For now, I step aside and await your reply, my friend.

Regards, Rory   

 

Edited March 16, 2019 by 3DOP

[Nofear]

On 3/16/2019 at 12:57 AM, 3DOP said:

I do not believe that there is a just solution to the advantages and disadvantages. in fact, I think the advantages and disadvantages are part of God's pla

"Perhaps thou shalt say: The man [or God] has brought upon himself his misery ..." Mosiah 4:17
"For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things; " D&CC 78:6

That doesn't mean that your assertion that it advantages and disadvantages are part of God's plan is incorrect. But it does change how we are to respond to the inequities of mortal societies.