3 ms·
> if women are being disproportionally affected, then clearly either there's some kind of bias in the process, which should simply be fixed instead of disbandin
by RHSeeger 1y ago
> if women are being disproportionally affected, then clearly either there's some kind of bias in the process, which should simply be fixed instead of disbanding the whole process, or women are simply less skilled at dealing with situations like this and need more help
Or they're more comfortable breaking that particular law (under the same conditions). I'm not saying that _is_ the case, but it is one of the possibilities.
- xienze 1y agoIt’s right there in the article: >The ministry’s report admits the chief reason why so many women wind up being prosecuted is because they are more likely to open the door to inspectors. Men literally or figuratively tell the inspectors to fuck off, women don’t. It’s not bias, systemic issues, or whatever. It’s entirely on how women handle the situation that explains the difference.
- naijaboiler 1y agoThey need to figure it a different way to do enforcement that’s not as discriminatory. The current approach leads to disparate outcomes and is therefore inherently discriminatory
- RHSeeger 1y agoIt's not necessarily discriminatory just because it winds up impacting one group more than another. For example, if you have 2 groups of people and one of the groups is doing something wrong twice as much, and you enforce the law on everyone... it's fair, not discriminatory. (Ignoring the fact that what is labelled "wrong" can be done in such a way as to be discriminatory. I'm assuming a neutral view of what is wrong )
- RHSeeger 1y agoRight, but the post I was responding to was listing out reasons that women might be prosecuted more, including being targeted more. So, unless you mean that they are targeted more _because_ they are more likely to open the door to inspectors, my point stands.