Wouldn't gender equality be a positive thing for all?

[mkgal1]

To me...it seems like knocking down the typical stereotypes (like the narrow definitions of what it means to be "feminine" and "masculine") would be a *good* thing---a liberating thing---that would offer *more* choices....more ability to "color outside the lines" so to speak and still be accepted.

Doesn't it emasculate men to have the idea that the bigger and stronger....less emotional kind of guy that has an occupation like lumberjack is more of a man than a guy that has an ectomorph build...is a writer/poet that is fluent in both articulating and being aware of his own emotions as well as the emotions of those he loves....and has no interest in sports?

Wouldn't it be better for everyone if those ideas were something of the past?

What about child custody after a divorce? If the typical idea that women are the nurturers was taken off the table (which I think it has, in a lot of courts---thankfully) isn't that better for everyone? Shouldn't that be judged on more than just gender? Isn't there such thing as women that *aren't* the best sole custodial parent?

That's just the obvious things that come to mind.....but it really seems like more of a positive for everyone to be judged without these stereotypes than any possible negatives.

Are there even negatives?

 

[ValleyGal]

As a final result, gender equality is a good thing for all. However, getting to that point of equality will have a negative impact on both genders at some point.

 

[mkgal1]

As a final result, gender equality is a good thing for all. However, getting to that point of equality will have a negative impact on both genders at some point.

Can you explain that....or give an example?

 

[ValleyGal]

No. I did already in the other thread and think that kind of conversation never gets anywhere.

 

[mkgal1]

You hadn't given any examples or given any explanation. Certainly the discussion isn't going to "get anywhere" without any sort of response to that question.

Why bother even posting in this thread, I wonder....if you believe this kind of conversation never gets anywhere?

 

[Messy]

What about child custody after a divorce? If the typical idea that women are the nurturers was taken off the table (which I think it has, in a lot of courts---thankfully) isn't that better for everyone? Shouldn't that be judged on more than just gender? Isn't there such thing as women that *aren't* the best sole custodial parent?

Yes, I think it's very bad for kids when one of the two tries to steal them or one just doesn't care.

 

[mkgal1]

Yes, I think it's very bad for kids when one of the two tries to steal them or one just doesn't care.

Fortunately, one can't just go against the courts and take a child, when it's not their allowed time with the children (not that I'm aware of...anyway).

What I'm pointing out, though, is if the courts were to continue to use the typical belief that women are the natural nurturers.....wouldn't that work *against* the men? What if it was the father that was the "go to" parent? Doesn't eliminating those set presumptions allow for more fair treatment and better end results?

 

[ValleyGal]

I contributed because I felt it necessary to make a distinction that gender equality would be a good thing when it's finally reached, but nothing reaches maturity without growing pains.

I don't need to give examples in order to have an intellectual conversation. I have given them time and time again and it always has the same results. So...that is my contribution.

 

[Messy]

Fortunately, one can't just go against the courts and take a child, when it's not their allowed time with the children (not that I'm aware of...anyway).

What I'm pointing out, though, is if the courts were to continue to use the typical belief that women are the natural nurturers.....wouldn't that work *against* the men? What if it was the father that was the "go to" parent? Doesn't eliminating those set presumptions allow for more fair treatment and better end results?

With 'steal' I meant that a dad or a mom can't see the kids anymore on a regular basis, because the other got them from court. I hear that a lot, that most of the time dads are not allowed to see their kids anymore or just one weekend in two weeks. I like co parentship, we have that a lot in Holland.

 

[mkgal1]

I contributed because I felt it necessary to make a distinction that gender equality would be a good thing when it's finally reached, but nothing reaches maturity without growing pains.

I don't need to give examples in order to have an intellectual conversation. I have given them time and time again and it always has the same results. So...that is my contribution.

True....you don't *need to* give examples.....but that is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy as to the reason why the conversation doesn't "go anywhere", though. Also....I wouldn't exactly call it an "intellectual conversation" if nothing but exchanging unsupported opinions is happening.

When a person gives their opinion...and the other person asks for elaboration or an explanation....if the answer is, "I don't need to give an example"....the conversation sort of stops there.....doesn't it?

Actually....you are free to continue repeating that you've given an answer to my specific question (how does it harm men?)...but, I think we both know the truth is that you haven't given one answer to that yet (let alone "time and time again")---not a direct answer to the question, anyway. You're getting closer to an answer by now saying you meant, "growing pains"....but I still don't know what that means (and I'm not going to play 20 questions, either).

 

[mkgal1]

With 'steal' I meant that a dad or a mom can't see the kids anymore on a regular basis, because the other got them from court. I hear that a lot, that most of the time dads are not allowed to see their kids anymore or just one weekend in two weeks. I like co parentship, we have that a lot in Holland.

Right..... I hear that complaint a lot, too. I wouldn't call it "stealing", though....as it was court approved. In California...that's a bit of a thing from the past...(thankfully). When it *did* happen regularly, though....that was mostly due to stereotypes. It's actually gender equality that has helped to change that.

 

[Inkachu]

I am all for the two genders being viewed as equal in value. I am not for the two genders being viewed as synonymous or the same. They aren't. They're vastly different. God created the world that way. It works best when men are men and women are women, and they work together in their God-given capacities with each giving respect to the other.

 

[Hetta]

To me...it seems like knocking down the typical stereotypes (like the narrow definitions of what it means to be "feminine" and "masculine") would be a *good* thing---a liberating thing---that would offer *more* choices....more ability to "color outside the lines" so to speak and still be accepted.

Doesn't it emasculate men to have the idea that the bigger and stronger....less emotional kind of guy that has an occupation like lumberjack is more of a man than a guy that has an ectomorph build...is a writer/poet that is fluent in both articulating and being aware of his own emotions as well as the emotions of those he loves....and has no interest in sports?

Wouldn't it be better for everyone if those ideas were something of the past?

What about child custody after a divorce? If the typical idea that women are the nurturers was taken off the table (which I think it has, in a lot of courts---thankfully) isn't that better for everyone? Shouldn't that be judged on more than just gender? Isn't there such thing as women that *aren't* the best sole custodial parent?

That's just the obvious things that come to mind.....but it really seems like more of a positive for everyone to be judged without these stereotypes than any possible negatives.

Are there even negatives?

Interesting that I read on a different thread on another part of the forum today that equality and democracy have never led to anything good.

The history of the US is a history of change. I think I've written that before, lol, and in fact I'm probably plagiarizing one of my own papers whenever I repeat it. It's only recently that I had to work my way through US history and it was a fascinating study - as is all history of course - but what happened in the US happened in such a short period of time, historically speaking. From the first colonies to the present sophistication hasn't really taken that long. From subjugation and degradation, women have come to hold an almost equal position to men. Almost. Has that been painful? Darn right it has. Change is always painful. It was just as painful to many members of the white race when the black race was liberated. How could these slaves ever be their equal? Of course there are those - a vocal minority - who still believe that both racial minorities and women are lesser beings than white men.

I like the concept of equality, and I don't care if it hurts those who previously held all the power. They need to get over it.

 

[mkgal1]

I am all for the two genders being viewed as equal in value. I am not for the two genders being viewed as synonymous or the same. They aren't. They're vastly different. God created the world that way. It works best when men are men and women are women, and they work together in their God-given capacities with each giving respect to the other.

I think that along with abolishing stereotypes, that makes room for allowing people to be individuals. IOW....no two people are the same (let alone *all* people).

By "God-given" capacities....I am hoping you mean individual strengths and talents? For instance....one has a natural strength to be organized and they are allowed to make use of that "gift"?

 

[ValleyGal]

When a person gives their opinion...and the other person asks for elaboration or an explanation....if the answer is, "I don't need to give an example"....the conversation sort of stops there.....doesn't it?

It does for me. I have made my contribution. Anything more is not a safe place for me. And that is not a self-fulfilling prophecy; it is based on previous discussions just like this one in the last year plus.

 

[mkgal1]

It does for me. I have made my contribution. Anything more is not a safe place for me. And that is not a self-fulfilling prophecy; it is based on previous discussions just like this one in the last year plus.

Alright, then. I just wanted to point out the reason *why* the conversation doesn't go anywhere.

Thanks for your contribution

 

[ValleyGal]

Alright, then. I just wanted to point out the reason *why* the conversation doesn't go anywhere.

Except you were mistaken. It doesn't go anywhere because it's always the same-old, not looking at it through critical thinking and open-mindedness - which makes it unsafe for those who don't hold certain views here. That's why it doesn't go anywhere.

Thanks for your contribution

You're welcome.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Right..... I hear that complaint a lot, too. I wouldn't call it "stealing", though....as it was court approved. In California...that's a bit of a thing from the past...(thankfully). When it *did* happen regularly, though....that was mostly due to stereotypes. It's actually gender equality that has helped to change that.

What is it that "gender equality" helped to change? Visitation or custody rights? I tried to look up some stats on custody rates post divorce in California (i.e. mom vs. dad or joint) and came up empty. Maybe you can show me some links.

 

[mkgal1]

Except you were mistaken. It doesn't go anywhere because it's always the same-old, not looking at it through critical thinking and open-mindedness - which makes it unsafe for those who don't hold certain views here. That's why it doesn't go anywhere.



You're welcome.

Just noting.

 

[mkgal1]

What is it that "gender equality" helped to change? Visitation or custody rights? I tried to look up some stats on custody rates post divorce in California (i.e. mom vs. dad or joint) and came up empty. Maybe you can show me some links.

Sure....here you go:

Most parents in California are still under the impression that in a dispute “Mom gets the kids,” and that Dad gets “some visitation.” In reality, the California courts have changed the custody goals in recent years to rebut this old stereotype.

When it comes to custody matters, the goal of the courts – as prescribed in California Family Code Sec. 3040 – is to create a plan which is in the best interests of the children, and to aim for joint legal and joint physical custody. This often means an equal timeshare with both parents (sometimes historically referred to as a “50/50 split.&#8221 The important implication here is that Dad has just as many rights to equal time with the children as Mom. This intention to grant both parents equal time with the children is simply what the court system believes is in the best interest of children. Judges often stress in their courtrooms the benefits to children of having both parents involved in their daily lives.

Custody cases are far from black and white. With the diminishing stereotype that children belong only with their mothers, the courts are focusing on parents as individuals. While this may have the unintended effect of increasing an already complex litigation process, the court’s long-term goal of joint custody and equal timeshare is a reality that both parents need to understand when facing custody disputes.~When It Comes To Custody, Do California Courts Favor Mothers? | Heath-Newton-LLP