Religion changing Canadian law

[HOZ]

Oh, and allow me to be the ogre again. There is a culture in Indonesia that if a relative dies early by "unexplained" reasons. And the local voodoo doctor/wiseman/shaman decides that a neighbouring village's member is the culprit. Then the relatives of the deceased can hunt this person down and EAT HIM!

I would hope that this would be unacceptable. As much as I hate the Flames I do not feel the need to hunt down DFF or CP and eat them for any Oiler loss!

That said...why would we accept the laws of a culture that values it's women slighly higher than dogs and lower than camels?

Burca anyone?

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by HOZ@Sep 10 2005, 07:19 AM
That said...why would we accept the laws of a culture that values it's women slighly higher than dogs and lower than camels?

Burca anyone?

Well summarized if ineloquently stated . . . .

I would hope that this would be unacceptable. As much as I hate the Flames I do not feel the need to hunt down DFF or CP and eat them for any Oiler loss!

Thank you for not hunting me down and eating me after Oiler losses . . . . as I'm sure there will be many of them this year.

Cowperson

[transplant99]

Originally posted by HOZ+Sep 10 2005, 10:12 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (HOZ @ Sep 10 2005, 10:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-transplant99@Sep 10 2005, 01:58 PM

Funny I would read this today.

just yesterday i was the local red Cross helping load some relief supplies. One of the guys that was there is a poli-sci major and is wanting to specialize in constitutional law when all is said and done.

he made it very clear at one point that the "seperation of church and state" is penned NO WHERE in the US constitution.

I obviously haven't had the time to do any research on it, but i was astounded to hear this...anyone else heard such a claim before?

No he is wrong. It is the ONLy constitution to have is stated explicitly! [/b][/quote]
Have done some quick looking around...and it seems he was right.

Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State". Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut.

Might just be semantics, or yet another issue for a supreme court to determine, but the term itself, was from one man and appears no where in the consitution.


http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Sep 9 2005, 09:31 PM
Mike - fair enough on your second point, but on your first, I am not convinced.

Certantly the panels would be subject to the charter, just how much attention does the Ontario government actaully pay to these panels? Is it the responsibility of a person who feels that they are mistreated by such a panel to complain? If that is the case, then the charter goes right out the window.

Assuming that this tribunal works the same as others established in Canada, then every decision will be written and published and most likely accompanied by written reasons for judgement -- you can bet these will be scrutinized by womens groups, legal academics, etc. if not by the gov't.

But on a more general point, if a woman can be forced to appear in front of a Sharia tribunal instead of a regular court and can be forced to abide by a ruling that violates her human rights without complaint, then I would say that there was 0% chance that she would have ever made it to a regular, secular court in the absense of these tribunals.

I.e. this won't increase the abuse of women in some Muslim marriages, but could decrease it by providing some avenue of mediation where none was available for all practicle purposes before.

[Cain]

Originally posted by FireFly@Sep 10 2005, 02:45 AM
And when a man and a woman both get the same job with the same qualifications, and the woman makes (on average) only 80% of what the man does, yes, that's sexist.

There are examples of sexism going both ways too. This isn't 30 years ago anymore.

One of my dad's colleagues remarked that while applying at an educational institution, he was handicapped because he was male, and the faculties were trying to increase their female numbers. Even if he were to be slightly better qualified, he would be looked over in case of a woman.

Post secondary is mostly female in the student body. I would imagine that it would be a big issue if the situation were reversed. Instead, since it is the men that aren't making it in as much, everything is fine and dandy.

I know you didn't go on a poor women crusade...I just wanted to point out that in this culture it goes both ways more than you think.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by Cain+Sep 10 2005, 09:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cain @ Sep 10 2005, 09:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FireFly@Sep 10 2005, 02:45 AM
And when a man and a woman both get the same job with the same qualifications, and the woman makes (on average) only 80% of what the man does, yes, that's sexist.

There are examples of sexism going both ways too. This isn't 30 years ago anymore.
[/b][/quote]
This still exists today. I've studies this recently in Uni and they still make less than men in almost every industry.

Can't comment on your dad's situation but as for most post-secondary institutes, the higher enrollment of females has nothing to do with sex, but just the fact that they qualify with higher grades.

edit:also to add: In post-graduate studies, the trend reverses and male enrollment far outnumbers female for whatever reason.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates@Sep 10 2005, 06:58 PM
Can't comment on your dad's situation but as for most post-secondary institutes, the higher enrollment of females has nothing to do with sex, but just the fact that they qualify with higher grades.

edit:also to add: In post-graduate studies, the trend reverses and male enrollment far outnumbers female for whatever reason.

Only brought up the enrollment because there is an official "measure" of sexual equality that takes into account various things, and one of them was the enrollment in university and other post secondary. The ironic thing was, that I heard this in a gender sociology class, and the prof skipped over the fact that canada had a reversed statistic compared to many other places, with women getting in much more frequently than men.

Just seemed funny that this sociology prof made huge deals out of other things, yet skipped over something that showed the opposite. (Do not take the gender sociology class at u of c...it was horrid)

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by FireFly@Sep 9 2005, 07:45 PM

And when a man and a woman both get the same job with the same qualifications, and the woman makes (on average) only 80% of what the man does, yes, that's sexist.

Isn't this why you have a union, so you can get 100% of pay and benefits of what a man makes.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Cain+Sep 10 2005, 02:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cain @ Sep 10 2005, 02:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Winsor_Pilates@Sep 10 2005, 06:58 PM
Can't comment on your dad's situation but as for most post-secondary institutes, the higher enrollment of females has nothing to do with sex, but just the fact that they qualify with higher grades.

edit:also to add: In post-graduate studies, the trend reverses and male enrollment far outnumbers female for whatever reason.

Only brought up the enrollment because there is an official "measure" of sexual equality that takes into account various things, and one of them was the enrollment in university and other post secondary. The ironic thing was, that I heard this in a gender sociology class, and the prof skipped over the fact that canada had a reversed statistic compared to many other places, with women getting in much more frequently than men.

Just seemed funny that this sociology prof made huge deals out of other things, yet skipped over something that showed the opposite. (Do not take the gender sociology class at u of c...it was horrid) [/b][/quote]
Do you know where I can see this official measure? Sounds interesting.

[Hakan]

At my universty enrollment is 60:40 female/male. I know the enrollment officers and gender has absolutely nothing to do with a succesful applicant. What does matter? Grades. And female high school students just have better grades.

Does that make the entire school curriculum reverse sexist? Hardly, I remember my high school days when I had no one to blame but myself for bad grades, not inherent reverse sexism of the teachers, classes, or matriculation.

And the statistics show that we still live in a very sexist society. Want proof? Pick up that Maxim in your bathroom and flip through a couple pages. Just do it as an exercise, see how women and men are portrayed in popular media. Denying that our society is sexist and patriarchal in like denying that Hockey Night in Canada has unbalanced coverage.

[Loosh]

Originally posted by FireFly@Sep 10 2005, 01:18 AM
[

And men still make more money.... your point? The right to even HAVE a divorce is something that women don't get in Muslim religions, unless I am wrong... only the men can ask for one if their wife is perceived as sleeping around. [/quote]
That is incorrect, a Muslim women can ask for a divorce but it is a complicated process. Many Muslim women get intimidated by tradition, family, and renouncing their financial rights in order to get divorce.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Hakan@Sep 10 2005, 09:04 PM
At my universty enrollment is 60:40 female/male. I know the enrollment officers and gender has absolutely nothing to do with a succesful applicant. What does matter? Grades. And female high school students just have better grades.

Does that make the entire school curriculum reverse sexist? Hardly, I remember my high school days when I had no one to blame but myself for bad grades, not inherent reverse sexism of the teachers, classes, or matriculation.

And the statistics show that we still live in a very sexist society. Want proof? Pick up that Maxim in your bathroom and flip through a couple pages. Just do it as an exercise, see how women and men are portrayed in popular media. Denying that our society is sexist and patriarchal in like denying that Hockey Night in Canada has unbalanced coverage.

I am not saying that universities target girls. The study I was referring to implied that the ration of males and females in post secondary is partially a result of how they are taught. This reveals sexism when an underdeveloped country sends only males to school, or holds back females, or something of that nature. So here in canada, we have a majority of females in post secondary. I have no doubt that they deserve to be there, but according to the study, its an indication of something being a bit off in the schooling to get there...interesting nonetheless, as when the prof went over that, she skipped right through that part and got back onto where women were being screwed over.

I do wonder why more women get into university and such than guys. Are they just fundamentally smarter/more motivated/harder workers? I wouldn't think so. And the ratio is skewed more than it would be by chance normally. Maybe there is something worth investigating.

So long ramble short...not saying that universities pick students based on gender. But the fact that there is a disparity regarding marks and success in school prior to university to the extent that there is...is a little disconcerting.

Edit:

Expanding on the rest of what you said...flip through a maxim to see how sexist society is? Is that a great way to view things? How about the female magazines as well? Maxim is a guys magazine, and shows things how guys want to see things. Vice versa in the female magazines. Popular media being sexist? Sure, some of it is. You will always be able to pick something out of whatever you choose, and could argue that it is sexist.

But to think that it only goes one way is just as crazy as thinking that there is nothing there.

[Hakan]

Ok, how are men, as a result of gender bias, negatively depicted in popular media?

I'm not saying it's not possible I'd just like to hear some examples.

[Cain]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 10 2005, 08:56 PM
Do you know where I can see this official measure? Sounds interesting.

I've just looked around on the internet and couldn't find it (can't remember for the life of me what the study was called...been about 3 years since I took this course).

I might find my old textbook, and if I do, I'll look around in it...gotta be mentioned somewhere...although most of the course was over the internet (blackboard?).

The study measured things like incomes (which can be sketchy in my opinion, how they did it anyway), ratio of sexes at post secondary, ratio of sexes in government and so on. It actually was fairly interesting how the rankings did. I think overall canada was top 10 maybe? I think Iceland/Norway/Sweden were the big three. But its been a long time.

Spelling is tough.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Hakan@Sep 10 2005, 10:53 PM
Ok, how are men, as a result of gender bias, negatively depicted in popular media?

I'm not saying it's not possible I'd just like to hear some examples.

How are women negatively depicted? Because they are attractive? In skimpy clothing? What are you referring to?

A woman that appears ditzy in the media? Because there are examples of all of those for men as well.

I don't really know what you are asking for...

[Resolute 14]

If I had a guess, it is the supposed negative stereotype of portraying attractive young women as attractive young women...

Of course, the "sexual degredation" of people does go both ways. One only has to consider the attitude of most everyone in Alberta right now seeing as Brad Pitt is filming a movie here. The high level of attention The Assassination of Jesse James is getting relative to other major movies filmed here is exclusively because of Pitt's sex appeal.

Human society is incredibly shallow and superficial. The media is merely a reflection of what people want to see.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by Cain+Sep 10 2005, 01:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cain @ Sep 10 2005, 01:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Winsor_Pilates@Sep 10 2005, 06:58 PM
Can't comment on your dad's situation but as for most post-secondary institutes, the higher enrollment of females has nothing to do with sex, but just the fact that they qualify with higher grades.

edit:also to add: In post-graduate studies, the trend reverses and male enrollment far outnumbers female for whatever reason.

Only brought up the enrollment because there is an official "measure" of sexual equality that takes into account various things, and one of them was the enrollment in university and other post secondary. The ironic thing was, that I heard this in a gender sociology class, and the prof skipped over the fact that canada had a reversed statistic compared to many other places, with women getting in much more frequently than men.

Just seemed funny that this sociology prof made huge deals out of other things, yet skipped over something that showed the opposite. (Do not take the gender sociology class at u of c...it was horrid) [/b][/quote]
Funny that your prof skipped that part. As a Soci major at the UofC I've heard countless times about that skipped part, and even gone into much more details as to why it might be.
We looked at it as a counter-arguement against sexism as you have brought up, but it was easily ruled out due to other explanations of the enrollment ratio.
Who was your prof?

[Cain]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates@Sep 11 2005, 12:00 AM
Funny that your prof skipped that part. As a Soci major at the UofC I've heard countless times about that skipped part, and even gone into much more details as to why it might be.
We looked at it as a counter-arguement against sexism as you have brought up, but it was easily ruled out due to other explanations of the enrollment ratio.
Who was your prof?

I hate to disappoint, but I cannot remember the prof's name...Its been a few years now. She was a woman of foreign descent though. She had an accent...maybe an arabic accent? I have no idea anymore.

What were the other explanations of the enrollment ratio?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by Cain+Sep 10 2005, 03:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cain @ Sep 10 2005, 03:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Hakan@Sep 10 2005, 10:53 PM
Ok, how are men, as a result of gender bias, negatively depicted in popular media?

I'm not saying it's not possible I'd just like to hear some examples.

How are women negatively depicted? Because they are attractive? In skimpy clothing? What are you referring to?

A woman that appears ditzy in the media? Because there are examples of all of those for men as well.

[/b][/quote]
Women are negatively depicted because they are overly sexualized and depicted far too often only for their image.
There are far less examples of that in men. However, that is changing. There is a huge increase in male sexualiztion of late, which can be seen through increases in male fashion, cosmetics and objectificaiton.
I'm sure many of you older posters, never went through all the effort that young guys do now to put out an attractive image. With all of the body sprays, deoderant, cologns, body washes, aftershaves, hair products, etc. that many men use today. Even in the last few years, we can clearly see a huge expansion of male cosmetics.
We will see more and more sexualiztion of men as women become less and less reliant on males. With females making more of their own money, men will become objectified too.
Get used to seeing more half naked men, on you TVs and in magazines.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by Cain+Sep 10 2005, 05:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cain @ Sep 10 2005, 05:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Winsor_Pilates@Sep 11 2005, 12:00 AM
Funny that your prof skipped that part. As a Soci major at the UofC I've heard countless times about that skipped part, and even gone into much more details as to why it might be.
We looked at it as a counter-arguement against sexism as you have brought up, but it was easily ruled out due to other explanations of the enrollment ratio.
Who was your prof?

I hate to disappoint, but I cannot remember the prof's name...Its been a few years now. She was a woman of foreign descent though. She had an accent...maybe an arabic accent? I have no idea anymore.

What were the other explanations of the enrollment ratio? [/b][/quote]
Simple. Better grades.