Religion changing Canadian law

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates+Sep 10 2005, 05:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winsor_Pilates @ Sep 10 2005, 05:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

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)

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? [/b][/quote]
Uh, lets hear these counter-arguements. You can't just get off by stating that there are.

[FireFly]

Originally posted by Hakan@Sep 10 2005, 04:53 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.

Ron Jeremy?

[Cain]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates+Sep 11 2005, 12:18 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winsor_Pilates @ Sep 11 2005, 12:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

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?

Simple. Better grades. [/b][/quote]
Granted. I said that was probably the reason. But doesn't that indicate something? Or are you satisfied that females are just naturally smarter than us guys? If the reverse were true, you can be damn sure it wouldn't just be passed off as "guys are smarter".

Maybe the education system caters to females. Maybe males aren't encouraged enough to do well, or continue. Maybe things are slightly sexist. I'm not claiming to argue fully any one of these...but the way it gets passed over and brushed off by yourself and others is somewhat alarming. Sort of a, "who cares, it isn't females getting screwed over " attitude.

[Cain]

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.

I'd say things are getting fairly even. Point out the very attractive woman in an ad, and there will be one right beside it showing the same kinda guy. I would say that every ad goes out of their way to put good looking people in it, whether they be male or female. It gets attention. Nobody really wants to see ordinary people in an ad.

But that goes both ways. And yes, many guys in ads are half naked and sexualized, just like women are in some ads. You can argue that "well way more are women!!!" but frankly...I am not sure that that argument holds anymore. And I doubt either of us could convince the other to see it our way.

Edit: cut down quote size.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates+Sep 10 2005, 08:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winsor_Pilates @ Sep 10 2005, 08:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

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.

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. [/b][/quote]
hmmm...you mean things like Brylcreem, Aqua Velva and that hair color stuff that a certain French hockey player advertised?
If anything today it seems young guys want to shave their bodies more...other than that theres always been "products" for stimulating the opposite sex.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by Cain+Sep 10 2005, 05:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cain @ Sep 10 2005, 05:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Simple. Better grades.

Granted. I said that was probably the reason. But doesn't that indicate something? Or are you satisfied that females are just naturally smarter than us guys? If the reverse were true, you can be damn sure it wouldn't just be passed off as "guys are smarter".

Maybe the education system caters to females. Maybe males aren't encouraged enough to do well, or continue. Maybe things are slightly sexist. I'm not claiming to argue fully any one of these...but the way it gets passed over and brushed off by yourself and others is somewhat alarming. Sort of a, "who cares, it isn't females getting screwed over " attitude. [/b][/quote]
Who said I was brushing it off. I never said I was satasfied with anything. I agree that there are likely reasons males are doing worse in school and they should be examined. Whether or not they have anything to do with sexism, should be examined too. I never ruled that out.

You are making assumptions about me, that are simply not true. :angry:

[Cain]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates@Sep 11 2005, 01:45 AM


You are making assumptions about me, that are simply not true. :angry:

Well you gave an exceedingly simple answer to a somewhat complex question. That seems like brushing it off to me. If I am wrong I apologize, but your answer seemed to lack much thought in it.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by Cheese+Sep 10 2005, 05:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cheese @ Sep 10 2005, 05:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='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.

hmmm...you mean things like Brylcreem, Aqua Velva and that hair color stuff that a certain French hockey player advertised?
If anything today it seems young guys want to shave their bodies more...other than that theres always been "products" for stimulating the opposite sex. [/b][/quote]
There has always been products, but not nearly as many. The wide variety of items, and demand for these items has sky rocketed.
Instead of a shelf in the drug store, men now have entire isles.

The reality is, that women now have the convienience of being just as shallow as men, and shopping around for a hottie. This forces men to compete.
The modern man is becoming much more feminin because it appeals to many modern women.

Do you think there were metro-sexuals 20 years ago? straight guys watching Queer Eye...?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by Cain+Sep 10 2005, 06:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cain @ Sep 10 2005, 06:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Winsor_Pilates@Sep 11 2005, 01:45 AM


You are making assumptions about me, that are simply not true. :angry:

Well you gave an exceedingly simple answer to a somewhat complex question. That seems like brushing it off to me. If I am wrong I apologize, but your answer seemed to lack much thought in it. [/b][/quote]
I should have given a more detailed answer. Fair enough. Hope my view is somewhat clearer now. B-)

[Vulcan]

Heh Winsor+P, I'm not an expert but probably young guys have been feminizing themselfs a long time. This way they may appear less threatening to young women. In the 60's and 70's I had long hair but I look at many young guys today and shake my head at their blonde highlighlites etc. Which is more feminine? Look at pictures of young fops during the 16th and 17th centuries. They're hilarious. Adult women seem to like men to look like men and adult men like women to look like women.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by Vulcan@Sep 10 2005, 07:43 PM
Heh Winsor+P, I'm not an expert but probably young guys have been feminizing themselfs a long time. This way they may appear less threatening to young women. In the 60's and 70's I had long hair but I look at many young guys today and shake my head at their blonde highlighlites etc. Which is more feminine? Look at pictures of young fops during the 16th and 17th centuries. They're hilarious. Adult women seem to like men to look like men and adult men like women to look like women.

Perhaps feminizing was the wrong word. I don't mean looking like women. I am talking about men doing things that traditionaly were done by women, such as highlighting their hair as you have mentioned.
Anyway, the main point that I am trying to get at is that I think men are becomming more sexualized then they used to be. It's just a theory that I have heard and agree with. If you disagree, that's fine. It's just a theory.
I feel bad for taking a strong role in a clear thread hijack anyway.

[HOZ]

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


And there we have it people. Written....separation of State and church!

[transplant99]

Im not arguing with you HOZ...but how does that equate to "seperation of church and state"?

Clearly the first amendment ensures that no religion is to be prevented by any government...but is that the same thing? It does not state that governments cannot base laws/decisions etc based on faith based standards, in fact its just the opposite.

The ENTIRE federal system is based on the bible...from laws to the way the 3 branches were established. Read the link i provided from start to finish (yes its a long read) and you will be clear on the fact....no where in the constitution of the United States is it written anywhere that there must be a seperation of church from state....period.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by transplant99@Sep 11 2005, 02:38 PM
Im not arguing with you HOZ...but how does that equate to "seperation of church and state"?

Clearly the first amendment ensures that no religion is to be prevented by any government...but is that the same thing? It does not state that governments cannot base laws/decisions etc based on faith based standards, in fact its just the opposite.

The ENTIRE federal system is based on the bible...from laws to the way the 3 branches were established. Read the link i provided from start to finish (yes its a long read) and you will be clear on the fact....no where in the constitution of the United States is it written anywhere that there must be a seperation of church from state....period.

Agreed. I read the 1st as allowing for the establishment of religions, not curtailing the limits of their political power. It makes no mention of separating the two institutions so much as cementing the fact that religious institutions and organizations can not be expressly legislated against.

Though, I'm surprised myself, I would have bet a lot on the fact that separation was spelled out somewhere in the constitution a little more explicitly.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by transplant99@Sep 11 2005, 07:38 AM
Im not arguing with you HOZ...but how does that equate to "seperation of church and state"?

Clearly the first amendment ensures that no religion is to be prevented by any government...but is that the same thing? It does not state that governments cannot base laws/decisions etc based on faith based standards, in fact its just the opposite.

The ENTIRE federal system is based on the bible...from laws to the way the 3 branches were established. Read the link i provided from start to finish (yes its a long read) and you will be clear on the fact....no where in the constitution of the United States is it written anywhere that there must be a seperation of church from state....period.

Yes, it's true that the words "separation of Church and State" aren't in the US Constitution, but the rest of that article had me rolling my eyes so hard I got a glimpse at my brain.

Many, if not most, of the author's arguments are based on horribly flawed logic -- If there is a coincidence between A and B, then A must have caused B.

For example:

"An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive."

Ridiculous. As outlined here, the separation of powers is a centuries old political philosophy going back to Aristotle, with the US founders being largely influenced by Montesquieu.

Another:

"Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?"

So because the Bible says Thou shalt not commit murder, prohibiting it must be a Biblical idea? Because no one ever thought to prohibit murder without reading it in the Bible, right?

[HOZ]

It is so simplistic that it is ingenious.


The govenment cannot make a law RESPECTING an establishment of church.


What does that mean? I am sure a lawyer can come up with a 1001 meanings.


But what it has meant is that no government can make laws putting one religion at supremacy to another. So if you and your fanatics get control of the Congress and Senate...you cannot make a law making your religion the only religion. As a matter of fact you cannot make a law purtaining to ANY religion.

[Tower]

Originally posted by FireFly+Sep 10 2005, 02:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FireFly @ Sep 10 2005, 02:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flaming Homer@Sep 9 2005, 07:59 PM
When a women can sit on her ass for 10 years while her husband is working hard and saves up a small fortune, then they decide to divorce because now the man is home and with increased time together they don't get along, they go to divorce and she get's half that money,the house and the car. How is that percieved as fair? If a women wants to make more money than a man than she can get off her royal ass and get a job. When women get the job over men it's equal opportunity, when they don't it's because of sexism, how does that one work too?

Bitter much? Women don't generally 'sit on their ass' for 10 years while men make small fortunes. Generally they are busy taking care of children. And if you don't think that's a full time job, boy are you sadly mistaken. And if you don't think a woman deserves half after putting up with a man's BS for 10 years, you're sadly mistaken.

I have a job, and I've supported boyfriends before. It goes both ways. 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.

Dude. One female who would take you for everything does not the sex make. Get over your bitterness and find someone who isn't like that. Not all of us are. [/b][/quote]
And are you also aware that a woman can stop working all together and claim welfare and STILL keep the children. You say it is choice dear, but all it takes is one man or woman to end it. Not both so don't say it's a choice like you have been through it. (uless you have been) I've taken mine up the tail pipe hard, and you know what it takes for the law to help me - money. 10 000 is a good beginning. I've seen my kids 4 times in 4 months - I've lost my car my house and she also wants my RRSP! So now you tell me how this is fair. Oh and our wage is about $2.00 difference an hour. At any rate this gets me all upset and stuff. I'm not directing and anger toward you, as we are well aware you know nothing about my life. Look up P.A.S., and Look at F.A.C.T.ca just to understand a bit more.

Edit for links
FACT
PAS

[habernac]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2005/...1212487-cp.html

Premier McGuinty told The Canadian Press on Sunday that Ontario would not allow a centuries-old set of Muslim rules known as Shariah law to be used to settle family cases through arbitration. But McGuinty caught everyone off guard when he also announced he would introduce legislation to end other faith-based arbitration, which has been allowed since 1991.

[MarchHare]

Originally posted by habernac@Sep 12 2005, 02:55 PM
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2005/...1212487-cp.html

Premier McGuinty told The Canadian Press on Sunday that Ontario would not allow a centuries-old set of Muslim rules known as Shariah law to be used to settle family cases through arbitration. But McGuinty caught everyone off guard when he also announced he would introduce legislation to end other faith-based arbitration, which has been allowed since 1991.

Good. You can't allow one but not the other, so it's best that all of them be disallowed.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Well that's a complete 180.
Sounds good to me.