Can a Patriarchy Practice Equality of the Sexes

[Jason]

I don't have to just as I don't have to define "good" or "justice" UNLESS we disagree AFTER using some reason. Since you are the one who is saying something is fair when it looks like it is pure sexism, then YOU have to say why this is a fair system.

I'm not saying any specific something is fair when it looks like pure sexism.

I am asking "does being a patriarchy mean a group can't value all of its members equally and show them equal respect?"

Your answer was "patriarchies can't be fair" but when I ask you what does justify authority (in the interest of sussing out why what I've described in a thought experiment isn't justified) you can't or won't provide me with any coherent criteria for what justifies authority, merely continuing to trumpet that what I've described isn't it. When I ask you if the one example you were willing to give me accurately represents your criteria you start getting evasive.

It's like asking you "how do I know if I'm looking at an elephant" and your only response is "well it sure doesn't have wings (you dummy)!"

[elguanteloko]

I'm not saying any specific something is fair when it looks like pure sexism.

Well, no, that's actually me saying it but YOU are saying Patriarchy can practice equality of the sexes. Since BY DEFINITION that is a contradiction, I would expect YOU to explain why it isn't.

I am asking "does being a patriarchy mean a group can't value all of its members equally and show them equal respect?"

and I already answered this.

Your answer was "patriarchies can't be fair" but when I ask you what does justify authority (in the interest of sussing out why what I've described in a thought experiment isn't justified) you can't or won't provide me with any coherent criteria for what justifies authority, merely continuing to trumpet that what I've described isn't it. When I ask you if the one example you were willing to give me accurately represents your criteria you start getting evasive.

Once again, Jason, if I was claiming that a Monarchy could practice equality of social classes I would need to justify why that can be the case SINCE IT IS A CONTRADICTION (at least at first sight). Saying a patriarchy can pactrice equality of the sexes is similar to saying a racist society can practice equality of races.

It's like asking you "how do I know if I'm looking at an elephant" and your only response is "well it sure doesn't have wings (you dummy)!"

Justifying something as fair is to show it is fair just as justifying that X is an elephant is to show X is an elephant either with reasons or with some other method. More evidence of your running away is that, while in the begining you didn't ask for "what is equality?" or "what is equal value?" but assumed basic understanding of what those things meant, now that you are asked to actually justify that a patriarchy is fair you resort to ask what "justification of fairness" is. Embarrasing, Jason...

[Jason]

I didn't ask "what is equality?" because I gave a working definition of equality for purposes of the thread in the OP: "treating both sexes as being of equal value and with equal respect."

A patriarchy practicing equality isn't a contradiction because you don't need equal authority to be treated with equal respect and as having equal value - to meet my working definition of equality.

A racist society treating all races as being of equal value and with equal respect would be a contradiction of terms, but only because "racist" describes specifically a society's (or person's) attitude of disrespect and devaluation towards one or more races.

"Patriarchy" does not in fact describe a soceity's attitude towards women. It merely describes who is in authority. There could be patriarchies that treat women as property to be beaten at will and other patriarchies that celebrate womanhood and protect women more than they do men. Or there might be one where both sexes are treated as having equal value and with equal respect, even if each sex has expected roles in that society.

It is in fact an intolerant society that pretends that everyone is the same and can be treated as such. Tolerant societies value and respect their members and accomodate their differences.

[elguanteloko]

I didn't ask "what is equality?" because I gave a working definition of equality for purposes of the thread in the OP: "treating both sexes as being of equal value and with equal respect."

Since this elucidates nothing on the concept of equality you didn't give a working definition.

A patriarchy practicing equality isn't a contradiction because you don't need equal authority to be treated with equal respect and as having equal value - to meet my working definition of equality.

Patriarchy is a system in which the primary factor for being in control of others is you being a male. Patriarchy is NOT a system where the most capable of leadership just happened to be a man and where a woman could potentialy have been the one in leadership if she just had been more capable than the man.

A racist society treating all races as being of equal value and with equal respect would be a contradiction of terms, but only because "racist" describes specifically a society's (or person's) attitude of disrespect and devaluation towards one or more races.

the same happens with a patriarchy. you don't even seem to know what a patriarchy is, bro.

"Patriarchy" does not in fact describe a soceity's attitude towards women. It merely describes who is in authority.There could be patriarchies that treat women as property to be beaten at will and other patriarchies that celebrate womanhood and protect women more than they do men. Or there might be one where both sexes are treated as having equal value and with equal respect, even if each sex has expected roles in that society.

Once again, why can't women be in authority if some of them happened to be more capable than some men? If they are so equal to men, why can't they be in leadership positions? This IS a contradiction. Saying women are equal to men while excluding women of certain positions of leadership just because they happen to be women is a contradiction.

It is in fact an intolerant society that pretends that everyone is the same and can be treated as such. Tolerant societies value and respect their members and accomodate their differences.

...

However, forget about everything I've said so far.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Look, Jason, we are not getting anywhere here and I propose that we start all over again so we can get to a nice agreement and finish this both of us with a smile on our faces. What do you say?

Here's what I propose: put forward your definition of Patriarchy under which you are working. So far so good?

[elguanteloko]

Here's my argument; tell me where you disagree:

P1 All social systems that are fair and equal are systems that will not discriminate based on morally wrong principles.

P2 Denying women of holding certain places of authority in society based on the fact that they are women is a morally wrong principle.

P3 Patriarchy is, by definition, a system in which women are not allowed to hold certain positions of authority in society based on the fact that they are women (if a woman happened to be a man then she would, potentially, be able to hold those positions of authority).

P4 (from 2 and 3) Patriarchy is a system that discriminates based on moraly wrong principles.

--------------------------

Therefore, Patriarchy is not a fair and equal social system.

[Jason]

Patriarchy is a system in which the primary factor for being in control of others is you being a male. Patriarchy is NOT a system where the most capable of leadership just happened to be a man and where a woman could potentialy have been the one in leadership if she just had been more capable than the man.

All of which is irrelevent to whether women are as valued and respected as men are in a group.

the same happens with a patriarchy. you don't even seem to know what a patriarchy is, bro.

Well, at least one of us seems confused as to what it is (or isn't).

Once again, why can't women be in authority if some of them happened to be more capable than some men? If they are so equal to men, why can't they be in leadership positions? This IS a contradiction. Saying women are equal to men while excluding women of certain positions of leadership just because they happen to be women is a contradiction.

You are using only one definition of equal - equal authority. That's not the definition of equality I'm working with, which is equal value and respect.

Excluding someone from a leadership position doesn't mean that you don't value and respect them as much as someone you accept to a leadership position.

Here's what I propose: put forward your definition of Patriarchy under which you are working. So far so good?

*Sigh* very well.

A patriarchy would be a group in which the top level of decision making authority for the group as a whole is held by one or more males.

[Jason]

Here's my argument; tell me where you disagree:

P1 All social systems that are fair and equal are systems that will not discriminate based on morally wrong principles.

A bit vague. What is meant by morally wrong principles? What is meant by discriminate? And again you seem to be defining a system only by what it isn't rather than by what it is.

I prefer my version "A social group that practices equality treats its members with equal respect and as being of equal value, despite their inherent differences."

P2 Denying women of holding certain places of authority in society based on the fact that they are women is a morally wrong principle.

Only if one measures the worth of a person by whether or not they have a position of authority.

P3 Patriarchy is, by definition, a system in which women are not allowed to hold certain positions of authority in society based on the fact that they are women (if a woman happened to be a man then she would, potentially, be able to hold those positions of authority).

More or less correct.

Your P4 doesn't follow because of the collapse of P2.

[elguanteloko]

A bit vague. What is meant by morally wrong principles?

Morally wrong principles are those principles that one ought not to do. All that's needed, really, is that you agree with premise 2; this is just a premise that can be applied to anything but is said to keep it in mind. If you have a problem with my usage of "morally wrong", then that will be reflected on premise 2.

What is meant by discriminate?

To discriminate, in this case, is simply to not allow someone to something while allowing others. By itself, there's nothing wrong to discriminate but the principles under which it takes place may be wrong.

And again you seem to be defining a system only by what it isn't rather than by what it is.

I'm obviously doing both (and that's normal). When one defines something as A, it is implicit that it is not non-A.

I prefer my version "A social group that practices equality treats its members with equal respect and as being of equal value, despite their inherent differences."

Do you accept or do you not accept the premise after I clarified what is meant by the terms you asked? if not, why not (be specific)?

Only if one measures the worth of a person by whether or not they have a position of authority.

I'm talking about DENYING women of certain positions of authority. For example, if 10 people from group A get the job because I discriminated on group B, who also applied and where qualified, IF this discrimination is based on immoral principles (i.e. they are black, they are white, they are women) then such denial of those in gorup B is morally wrong. If, however, those 10 I chose from group A were indeed more prepared than those in group B, then I discriminated in a morally permissible principle (those in group A were better qualified).

[elguanteloko]

?

[Jason]

Morally wrong principles are those principles that one ought not to do.

Because why exactly?

To discriminate, in this case, is simply to not allow someone to something while allowing others. By itself, there's nothing wrong to discriminate but the principles under which it takes place may be wrong.

So it again goes back to why it's wrong, not whether it occurs.

I'm obviously doing both (and that's normal). When one defines something as A, it is implicit that it is not non-A.

But your definition is not A, it is only not-A. I prefer a definition that is A and only implies not-A. Such is a more useful definition, like saying "an elephant has a trunk, four flat-bottomed feet, is large and gray with small eyes, largely hairless with a wrinkly hide, and a short tail with a tuft of hair at the end," which will actually help you identify if you have an elephant, instead of merely saying "elephants don't have wings," which will only tell you if you don't have an elephant, not what you do have.

Do you accept or do you not accept the premise after I clarified what is meant by the terms you asked? if not, why not (be specific)?

I do not accept that it is always morally wrong to deny a gender or a race of people positions of authority within a group because of their gender or race.

Please note the "always".

[elguanteloko]

Because why exactly?

For some reasons. At this point of the argument it is irrelevant what you think those reasons are as long as we recognize there are some reasons that do not justify this discrimination.

So it again goes back to why it's wrong, not whether it occurs.

read above.

But your definition is not A, it is only not-A. I prefer a definition that is A and only implies not-A. Such is a more useful definition, like saying "an elephant has a trunk, four flat-bottomed feet, is large and gray with small eyes, largely hairless with a wrinkly hide, and a short tail with a tuft of hair at the end," which will actually help you identify if you have an elephant, instead of merely saying "elephants don't have wings," which will only tell you if you don't have an elephant, not what you do have.

What are you talking about? I'm using YOUR defintion of patriarchy, bro. ---> "A patriarchy would be a group in which the top level of decision making authority for the group as a whole is held by one or more males." By definition patriarchy excludes women a priori whether you think it is justified or not (that's another issue).

I do not accept that it is always morally wrong to deny a gender or a race of people positions of authority within a group because of their gender or race.

Please note the "always".

Finally! So, why would be your justification of this that you just said? If a woman is just as prepared and willing to assume authority, why should a man be given the opportunity instead of her? Jason, when you reject a premise... you just don't state that you disagree with it but you have to give reasons for why you disagree.

[Jason]

For some reasons. At this point of the argument it is irrelevant what you think those reasons are as long as we recognize there are some reasons that do not justify this discrimination.

But what the reasons are is important to your argument. You could have two groups with the exact same policies as to who can be in authority and one will be fair and equal and the other will not be, because of the reasons each has for their policies.

What are you talking about? I'm using YOUR defintion of patriarchy, bro. ---> "A patriarchy would be a group in which the top level of decision making authority for the group as a whole is held by one or more males." By definition patriarchy excludes women a priori whether you think it is justified or not (that's another issue).

You have defined a fair and equal society only as "one that does not discriminate on unfair moral principles". Do you believe that all societies that do not discriminate are fair and equal?

Finally! So, why would be your justification of this that you just said?

The idea that equality (which I defined as "equal respect and value") does not depend on authority, which I have stated several times in the thread.

By this definition of equality a denial of authority is irrelevent to equality.

If a woman is just as prepared and willing to assume authority, why should a man be given the opportunity instead of her?

Perhaps the man needs the opportunity to exercise responsible authority (and learn the lessons such an experience gives) more than the woman does. Perhaps the woman is even better at other roles than leadership, and would therefore be wasted in a leadership post that she could, indeed, excell at but would thereby give up another equally or more important role. Perhaps the women needs to learn humility in accepting someone less competant than herself in a role of authority over her.

In short, there are any number of resaonable reasons, and it need not be only one.

[elguanteloko]

But what the reasons are is important to your argument. You could have two groups with the exact same policies as to who can be in authority and one will be fair and equal and the other will not be, because of the reasons each has for their policies.

....once AGAIN, all that is being stated there is that there are some reasons to discriminate that are wrong. That's it; we don't need more AT THIS POINT IN THE ARGUMENT.

You have defined a fair and equal society only as "one that does not discriminate on unfair moral principles". Do you believe that all societies that do not discriminate are fair and equal?

This doesn't even follow, bro.

The idea that equality (which I defined as "equal respect and value") does not depend on authority, which I have stated several times in the thread.

By this definition of equality a denial of authority is irrelevent to equality.

We are talking about denying women to hold places of authority here and NOT that one who has authority is considered unequal with those who do not have authority. Do you get the difference? The President has more authority than you do but you both may be considiered deserving "equal value and respect"... What we are talking about here is similar to DENYING you the opportunity of ever becoming a President or running for office even if you are just as capable or even more.

Perhaps the man needs the opportunity to exercise responsible authority (and learn the lessons such an experience gives) more than the woman does. Perhaps the woman is even better at other roles than leadership, and would therefore be wasted in a leadership post that she could, indeed, excell at but would thereby give up another equally or more important role. Perhaps the women needs to learn humility in accepting someone less competant than herself in a role of authority over her.

In short, there are any number of resaonable reasons, and it need not be only one.

But all of these excuses are useless and miss the point since it does not matter what a specific woman's capacities and preparation is, she will be denied the oportunity of holding such places of authority. I'll show you why:

Perhaps the man needs the opportunity to exercise responsible authority (and learn the lessons such an experience gives) more than the woman does.

Could it ever be that "the [WOMEN] needs the opportunity to exercise responsible authority (and learn the lessons such an experience gives) more than the [man] does" so that she is allowed the position of authority? No.

Perhaps the woman is even better at other roles than leadership, and would therefore be wasted in a leadership post that she could, indeed, excell at but would thereby give up another equally or more important role.

Could it ever be that "the [man] is even better at other roles than leadership, and would therefore be wasted in a leadership post that [he] could, indeed, excell at but would thereby give up another equally or more important role" so that the woman is given the position of authority? No.

Perhaps the women needs to learn humility in accepting someone less competant than herself in a role of authority over her.

Could it ever be that "the [man] needs to learn humility in accepting someone less competant than [himself] in a role of authority over [him]" and that such person over him is a woman? No.

In short, there are any number of resaonable reasons, and it need not be only one.

As I've showed, you have demonstrated nothing whatsoever since you are still missing the point by a whole lot.

[Jason]

....once AGAIN, all that is being stated there is that there are some reasons to discriminate that are wrong. That's it; we don't need more AT THIS POINT IN THE ARGUMENT.

If you insist. However, you will be unable to determine whether a group is fair and equal until you define what reasons for excepting someone from a leadership position are moral.

This doesn't even follow, bro.

Yes it does. You have defined a fair and equal group on a single negative criteria (by something it doesn't do). Any group that does not discriminate for immoral reasons by your definition is fair and equal, no matter what other actions they undertake. By your definition a group that tyrannized and brutalized all of its members equally would still be considered fair and equal.

You are defining an elephant solely by the fact that it doesn't have wings.

We are talking about denying women to hold places of authority here and NOT that one who has authority is considered unequal with those who do not have authority.

That is our main point of contention. You are in fact arguing that someone who has authority is not equal with someone who does not.

Do you get the difference? The President has more authority than you do but you both may be considiered deserving "equal value and respect"... What we are talking about here is similar to DENYING you the opportunity of ever becoming a President or running for office even if you are just as capable or even more.

That is what you are talking about, yes. But you are using a different definition of what "equality" means than I defined at the beginning of this thread. Your definition seems to be "everyone gets equal opportunity to have a position of authority". Mine is "everyone is treated as being of equal value and with equal respect." You seem to agree with me that by my definition a patriarchy can in fact be practicing equality.

But all of these excuses are useless and miss the point since it does not matter what a specific woman's capacities and preparation is, she will be denied the oportunity of holding such places of authority. I'll show you why:

The rest of your post is only relevent if the woman is in a group that treats someone in authority as being of different value and deserving greater respect than someone out of authority.

[elguanteloko]

If you insist. However, you will be unable to determine whether a group is fair and equal until you define what reasons for excepting someone from a leadership position are moral.

When I see your reasons for considering denying women of holding certain places of authority we will see if we really disagree with our moral intuitions... though I don't think we do.

Yes it does. You have defined a fair and equal group on a single negative criteria (by something it doesn't do). Any group that does not discriminate for immoral reasons by your definition is fair and equal, no matter what other actions they undertake. By your definition a group that tyrannized and brutalized all of its members equally would still be considered fair and equal.

You can't, by definition, have a tyrant without inequality. I said your question didn't follow because being "fair and equal" in something is not the whole criteria for being what we would call a good, moral, or just society but it is a necessary requirement.

You are defining an elephant solely by the fact that it doesn't have wings.

Again, since the begining we are focusing on only one aspect of patriarchy (the elephant) which has as a necessary ingredient from which it stops being a patriarchy if we take it away. If there was one specific condition in an elephant that made it an elephant and not an elephant if it didn't have it, then focusing on that specific quality is essential.

That is our main point of contention. You are in fact arguing that someone who has authority is not equal with someone who does not.

Nothing of the sort! I'm contending that if we deny someone from ANYTHING based on unjustified premises, then we are morally wrong (focusing this contention on the patriarchy issue). That's not the only condition for being morally right but it is a necessary ingredient.

That is what you are talking about, yes. But you are using a different definition of what "equality" means than I defined at the beginning of this thread. Your definition seems to be "everyone gets equal opportunity to have a position of authority".

I already said that DENYING someone of the opportunity to hold a position of authority without sufficient justifications is wrong. Are there wrong reasons to deny someone of the opportunity to become Presidents of the U.S.? Is it OK to deny someone of running for office just because they happen to be Hispanic?

Mine is "everyone is treated as being of equal value and with equal respect." You seem to agree with me that by my definition a patriarchy can in fact be practicing equality.

Jason, we are being specific here. Are there wrong reasons to deny someone of the opportunity to become Presidents of the U.S.?

The rest of your post is only relevent if the woman is in a group that treats someone in authority as being of different value and deserving greater respect than someone out of authority.

LOL. I explained already why this is a gross misinterpretation of what I'm saying. Let me repeat it and see if you catch it this time: "The President has more authority than you do but you both may be considiered deserving "equal value and respect"... What we are talking about here is similar to DENYING you the opportunity of ever becoming a President or running for office even if you are just as capable or even more." I'm agreeing in your definition of authority and of equality here, Jason. All I'm saying is that there are wrong reasons to deny someone of holding a place of authority even if we assume equal respect and value of each person regardless of the authority they hold.

[Jason]

So you are agreeing with me. A patriarchal group can in fact offer equal respect and value (my OP definition of equality) to all of its members, even though it is denying women the top leadership positions.

You also say you wouldn't call such a society fair and equal, because of that denial of position, but that's irrelevent to the OP. Glad we cleared that up. End of thread.

[elguanteloko]

So you are agreeing with me. A patriarchal group can in fact offer equal respect and value (my OP definition of equality) to all of its members, even though it is denying women the top leadership positions.

No and I don't know how you get this conclusion from what I've been saying here. I wonder if you read this: I already said that DENYING someone of the opportunity to hold a position of authority without sufficient justifications is wrong. Are there wrong reasons to deny someone of the opportunity to become Presidents of the U.S.? Is it OK to deny someone of running for office just because they happen to be Hispanic?" Is a society that discriminates on senseless grounds be said to be practicing equality of value and respect? How can you not even get that, Jason?

You also say you wouldn't call such a society fair and equal, because of that denial of position, but that's irrelevent to the OP.

You didn't get what I was saying.. unsurprisingly. ANY person/society can be "fair and equal" in imparting pain, suffering, money, or something else (it would take a pretty sick society where ALL of its members actually consent to it but could happen) but BY DEFINITION a Patriarchal society can't practice fairness and equality of value since it is unjustifiably discriminating against women... which is what we were talking about. We are not talking about imparting pain or money or anything else than value. You seem to be playing some stupid word game here where just because I said a patriarchal society can be equal in some other sense than value is somehow a win for your argument; no such thing.

Let me break it down for you:

"The President has more authority than you do but you both may be considiered deserving "equal value and respect"

This is an example of an institution that IN PRINCIPLE does not discriminate based on gender, that's why I'm using it. Both of you can very well be said to have equal value and respect because this institution does not discriminate based on immoral principles (hint: patriarchy does).

What we are talking about here is similar to DENYING you the opportunity of ever becoming a President or running for office even if you are just as capable or even more."

Which is what Patriarchy does and, because of this, Patriarchy is an immoral institution.

I'm agreeing in your definition of authority and of equality here, Jason. All I'm saying is that there are wrong reasons to deny someone of holding a place of authority even if we assume equal respect and value of each person regardless of the authority they hold.

If the reason to discriminate is unjustified then it can't practice equality of value and respect (such is the case of Patriarchy that, by definition, discriminates women based on unjustified grounds). If the reason to discriminate is justified, then it could practice equality of value and respect (Patriarchy CAN NOT do such a thing BY DEFINITION).

Glad we cleared that up. End of thread.

[Jason]

No and I don't know how you get this conclusion from what I've been saying here. I wonder if you read this: I already said that DENYING someone of the opportunity to hold a position of authority without sufficient justifications is wrong.

Which is irrelevent, since I wasn't talking about right or wrong, but whether such a group can offer equal respect to its members and treat them as having equal value. Which you agreed it can as long as its reasons are moral. End of thread.

But of course, you won't leave it at that.

You didn't get what I was saying.. unsurprisingly.

Yes I did. It just isn't relevent to the point I was making with this thread, at least until you can get a consistent argument together.

ANY person/society can be "fair and equal" in imparting pain, suffering, money, or something else (it would take a pretty sick society where ALL of its members actually consent to it but could happen) but BY DEFINITION a Patriarchal society can't practice fairness and equality of value since it is unjustifiably discriminating against women... which is what we were talking about.

You are contradicting yourself. You said yourself that positions of authority do not determine value.

Therefore not having a position of authority does not denigrate someone.

Therefore you can be equally valued and respected while being denied a position of authority.

This is an example of an institution that IN PRINCIPLE does not discriminate based on gender, that's why I'm using it. Both of you can very well be said to have equal value and respect because this institution does not discriminate based on immoral principles (hint: patriarchy does).

But you have failed to define what makes a principle moral or immoral, so you have no argument.

What if I consider popular election to be an immoral process for selecting a leader? In that case it would be immoral to give the President of the United States a position of authority where I do not get one, by your definitions.

Which is what Patriarchy does and, because of this, Patriarchy is an immoral institution.

You have failed to define what is or is not immoral, and therefore cannot make this argument (yet).

If the reason to discriminate is unjustified then it can't practice equality of value and respect (such is the case of Patriarchy that, by definition, discriminates women based on unjustified grounds). If the reason to discriminate is justified, then it could practice equality of value and respect (Patriarchy CAN NOT do such a thing BY DEFINITION).

Then your argument rests on whether or not it is justfiable to deny a gender or race a position of authority. I've already said that I believe it isn't always immoral. You have not made any argument of whether it is or not.

[elguanteloko]

Which is irrelevent, since I wasn't talking about right or wrong, but whether such a group can offer equal respect to its members and treat them as having equal value. Which you agreed it can as long as its reasons are moral. End of thread.

But of course, you won't leave it at that.

There are many types of societies. Some discriminate based on some principles, some on others, some don't. Patriarchy, by definition, discriminates based on something unjust. Thus, Patriarchy is unjust by definition. Clear enough?

Yes I did. It just isn't relevent to the point I was making with this thread, at least until you can get a consistent argument together.

...

You are contradicting yourself.

Let's see below why you think so.

You said yourself that positions of authority do not determine value.

Correct.

Therefore not having a position of authority does not denigrate someone.

Correct!

Therefore you can be equally valued and respected while being denied a position of authority.

Not correct. One thing is that there is an inequality of authority and another one is that a group is systematically denied of even running for office or holding positions of authority. Refer back to the "President" example and read it carefully. All may run for a position and someone is going to get elected. Patriarchy systematically denies a group of even considering this possibility regardless of preparation and ability. Patriarchy, BY DEFINITION, can't practice equality of value. Once thing is that you are denied of holding a position of authority because you were not prepared and another very different situation is that you were denied because you were a woman or an African American.

But you have failed to define what makes a principle moral or immoral, so you have no argument.

What if I consider popular election to be an immoral process for selecting a leader? In that case it would be immoral to give the President of the United States a position of authority where I do not get one, by your definitions.

You can't even say this since you can't get what I'm saying at all. If you did then it would be much clearer. Jason, the problem here is that you don't even get the diference between systematic discrimination against a specific group for no good reason (i.e. gender) for positions of authority and letting everyone that wants to run for office and then choose the most prepared be it of any race, ethnic group, gender, etc. Not recognizing this difference, Jason, leads one to view not letting women run for a political office as non-problematic, discriminating based on race as non-problematic, etc. Patriarchy, by definition, can't practice equality of value just as these examples I've given can't practice equality of value either.

You have failed to define what is or is not immoral, and therefore cannot make this argument (yet).

Just as you don't need to give a justification of what "equality of value" is for us to get to a practical agreement, I don't need to state what "moral" is. I could go the childish way of asking you for things so basic that we can't get anywhere but I'm not doing so and I go the more honest way of actually assuming BASIC understanding of moral intuitions and concepts.

Then your argument rests on whether or not it is justfiable to deny a gender or race a position of authority. I've already said that I believe it isn't always immoral. You have not made any argument of whether it is or not.

You see, this is very misleading. We are not talking about denying "a gender or race a position of authority" but denying them a position of authority BASED on their gender or race. Do you get the difference? You have explained nothing on why it may be moral to deny them of "running for office" based on their gender or race. Dude, I can't believe you don't even get this difference yet.

[Jason]

Not correct. One thing is that there is an inequality of authority and another one is that a group is systematically denied of even running for office or holding positions of authority. Refer back to the "President" example and read it carefully. All may run for a position and someone is going to get elected. Patriarchy systematically denies a group of even considering this possibility regardless of preparation and ability. Patriarchy, BY DEFINITION, can't practice equality of value.

Only if possession of a position of authority adds or detracts from value. If possession of a position of authority is irrelevent to value then being denied a position of authority makes no difference to your value, regardless of why you are being denied it.

Once thing is that you are denied of holding a position of authority because you were not prepared and another very different situation is that you were denied because you were a woman or an African American.

How is it different? That is what you have failed to illustrate.

Jason, the problem here is that you don't even get the diference between systematic discrimination against a specific group for no good reason (i.e. gender) for positions of authority and letting everyone that wants to run for office and then choose the most prepared be it of any race, ethnic group, gender, etc.

You have not demonstrated why one form of discrimination should be considered good while another should not.

[elguanteloko]

Only if possession of a position of authority adds or detracts from value. If possession of a position of authority is irrelevent to value then being denied a position of authority makes no difference to your value, regardless of why you are being denied it.

Notice you are just stating this giving no examples or reasons why this is the case. As counter-intuitive as this may sound, what you are saying is not the case and I provided examples and reasons why this is not the case. HAVING the position of authority does NOT add or detract value to the person but DENYING the position of authority based on unjust reasons does. Doesn't get any more clear, Jason. If I'm going to assing a position of authority to my 2 children and we all considered HAVING the position is irrelevant to their value, if I DENY any of them from holding such a position because one is black and the other one is white, then I'm devaluating one of them. Separate but equal is not equal at all, Jason.

How is it different? That is what you have failed to illustrate.

I've provided examples and reasons but you just don't get it.

You have not demonstrated why one form of discrimination should be considered good while another should not.

"Just as you don't need to give a justification of what "equality of value" is for us to get to a practical agreement, I don't need to state what "moral" is. I could go the childish way of asking you for things so basic that we can't get anywhere but I'm not doing so and I go the more honest way of actually assuming BASIC understanding of moral intuitions and concepts."

[Jason]

Notice you are just stating this giving no examples or reasons why this is the case.

You agreed with me. I see no reason to further illustrate it if you agreed.

If we both agree that a position of authority has no reflection on a person's value then we must also agree that lacking a position of authority has no reflection on a person's value, and therefore being denied a position of authority also has no reflection on a person's value. How could it, if authority is irrelevent to value?

As counter-intuitive as this may sound, what you are saying is not the case and I provided examples and reasons why this is not the case.

Which are?

HAVING the position of authority does NOT add or detract value to the person but DENYING the position of authority based on unjust reasons does.

How?

Doesn't get any more clear, Jason. If I'm going to assing a position of authority to my 2 children and we all considered HAVING the position is irrelevant to their value, if I DENY any of them from holding such a position because one is black and the other one is white, then I'm devaluating one of them.

How?

I've provided examples and reasons but you just don't get it.

Perhaps you had better try explaining them with better examples and reasons then.

"Treating all group members as being of equal value," means that regardless of an individual's differences in ability, responsibility, race, gender, or other criteria the group treats them as being of equal value to the group. Benefits provided by membership in the group are provided equally to all members in so far as they can make use of them.

For example, if I hire a number of day laborers in the morning, then hire more in the afternoon, and then hire more in the evening just before quiting time and I pay all of them the same amount of money at the end of the day then I have treated all of them and their labors as being of equal value. It doesn't matter which one I appointed the foreman or why I picked him (or her) as the foreman.

[elguanteloko]

You agreed with me. I see no reason to further illustrate it if you agreed.

I agreed with some things but obviously not with the most critical points and gave reasons for why. Do I really have to say this, Jason?

If we both agree that a position of authority has no reflection on a person's value then we must also agree that lacking a position of authority has no reflection on a person's value,

UP TO HERE we agree but what you say after this does not follow.

and therefore being denied a position of authority also has no reflection on a person's value. How could it, if authority is irrelevent to value?

Having job X does not add or subtract any value from you but if someone denies you job X because you are Black then that's indeed subtracting value from you. Do you get this? Can you count a society that discriminates based on race as treating all its members as having equal value? The same principle applies to a Patriarchal society.

Which are?

read above.

How?

read above the above.

How?

...

Perhaps you had better try explaining them with better examples and reasons then.

I gave another one. Tell me if you get that one.

"Treating all group members as being of equal value," means that regardless of an individual's differences in ability, responsibility, race, gender, or other criteria the group treats them as being of equal value to the group.

Sure.

Benefits provided by membership in the group are provided equally to all members in so far as they can make use of them.

Jobs and positions of authority may be considered as "benefits" for the case being. Sure.

For example, if I hire a number of day laborers in the morning, then hire more in the afternoon, and then hire more in the evening just before quiting time and I pay all of them the same amount of money at the end of the day then I have treated all of them and their labors as being of equal value. It doesn't matter which one I appointed the foreman or why I picked him (or her) as the foreman.

...

[Jason]

Having job X does not add or subtract any value from you but if someone denies you job X because you are Black then that's indeed subtracting value from you. Do you get this?

No. If whether or not you have a job is irrelevent to your value in a group then you lose nothing by being denied a job, regardless of the criteria used to deny you.

Jobs and positions of authority may be considered as "benefits" for the case being. Sure.

Wrong. Jobs and positions of authority are not considered benefits, in and of themselves.

[Jason]

You seem to be saying the following:

1. My value (V) = 10 points.

2. V + Job A = 10 points.

3. V - Job A = 10 points.

4. V if denied even the opportunity for Job A for moral reasons = 10 points.

5. V if Job A is denied to me because of immoral reasons = 9 or less points.

It doesn't follow logically.