Gender equality is an asinine concept.

[jayem]

I think on balance, women are probably superior to men. They definitely live longer. There's evidence females may handle stress better (at least in rat studies.) Men have higher rates of suicide than women. Men show higher mathematical and spatial ability, but women usually test higher in many areas of verbal intelligence/language use:

http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/essayrev/sexdiff.html



Women are now more likely enroll in college:

http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/de/Becky_Brodigan_1031.ppt#283,27,Fall 2004 Freshmen by Gender and Region



And women have higher grades:

http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/de/Becky_Brodigan_1031.ppt#285,29,Fall 2004 Freshmen Average HS Grades by Gender


Men are also much more likely to be convicted of major criminal offenses.
If our laws treated us differently based on merit and accomplishment, men would be second class citizens.

 

[TooCurious]

It's bad logic to try to derive an "ought" from an "is."

There are some differences between men and women. Okay, fine. But Autumnleaf, unless you can tell us which of those differences mean that men (or women) should be treated better or worse than the other, and why, you have no argument.

Remember, "equal" and "identical" are not the same thing. Men and women don't have to be exactly the same in every way, in order to deserve to be treated just as well as one another.

 

[Maxwell511]

Men and women are two separate groups of people with two separate brain structures and physiologies. To say they should be treated the same is to discount those differences which is to deny the obvious.

While I agree with you that men and women do think differently in some contexts, I believe these differences are in a limited realm of social interactions.

When it comes about 99.99999999% of all forms of employment the required thinking processes are gender neutral. I am pretty sure that what gender equality is about is just the recognition of this "obvious" fact and recognition that people performing the same in the same job should be paid the same.

 

[Isambard]

Men and women are two separate groups of people with two separate brain structures and physiologies. To say they should be treated the same is to discount those differences which is to deny the obvious.

Being super obvious, it should be easy for you to demonstrate the study that correlates having a penis with competence of office work.

 

[Stinker]

Well, of course women cannot be assigned to work where lifting objects all day of 50 to 75 pounds is required. If a woman applies for a job as this they cannot be denied it or they can sue the company for discrimination.

 

[Braunwyn]

Well, of course women cannot be assigned to work where lifting objects all day of 50 to 75 pounds is required. If a woman applies for a job as this they cannot be denied it or they can sue the company for discrimination.

My company gave me a physical to determine if I could do the job. I work in a lab so I have to do some physical stuff. If I wasn't capable of doing it they wouldn't have offered the position and I don't see how I could sue them. Try again.

 

[wanderingone]

How does being different have anything to do with equal treatment?

Equality doesn't deny difference, it just denies superiority

 

[Archer93]

My company gave me a physical to determine if I could do the job. I work in a lab so I have to do some physical stuff. If I wasn't capable of doing it they wouldn't have offered the position and I don't see how I could sue them. Try again.

Some women are good at heavy lifting (you should have seen my sister move full kegs of beer around when she was working in a pub!) and some men are not.
That, as you say, is where physicals come in to it- to find out if this particular individual is physically capable of doing a given job.
Refusing to even consider a woman's application simply because she's female- yup, that's discrimination right there.

I'm with John Stuart Mill on this one- among other things he argued that there is no reason to pre-emptively ban women from any type of employment because, if for some reason they simply are not capable of it, they won't get the work in the first place.
You don't need a law to ban blind people from being copy typists, but a blind audio typist of my aquaintance is faster and more accurate than many of her sighted counterparts.

 

[Autumnleaf]

I doubt that the the request for gender equality postulates that they "should be treated the same".
No two persons (regardless of their gender) have the same brain structures and physiologies and therefore shouldn´t be treated the same.

Gender equality rather postulates to give everyone the same opportunity to act upon their individual make up, regardless of their gender.

Nice try, though.

But it does not succeed because it treats both sexes the same. It would be like feeding cats and dogs kitten food and saying you are doing it to be fair.

 

[KET20]

But it does not succeed because it treats both sexes the same. It would be like feeding cats and dogs kitten food and saying you are doing it to be fair.

And instead of treating the sexes the same, you propose what, exactly?

 

[quatona]

But it does not succeed because it treats both sexes the same.

No, it allows them the same rights, opportunities and chances.
I repeat what you seem to have not noticed in my previous post: Everyone is an individual and is to be treated as such, yet equality (not: uniformity or sameness) is the constitutional prescript.

It would be like feeding cats and dogs kitten food and saying you are doing it to be fair.

Well, we are talking not about cats and dogs here but about humans, and we are not talking about feeding them anything but about allowing them equal rights, opportunities and chances.
Any dog (woman) and any cat (man) are still allowed to eat what (to pick the role that) they want (feel suits them best).

The "feeding" analogy is more suitable to your approach that by decree and law restricts men and women to what you feel is man-like and woman-like.

 

[Mling]

*What* treats men and women the same, exactly?

If you give both dogs and cats cat food, you are not treating them as equals. You are treating the cat as a superior because you are using it as the standard of what proper food is, and ignoring the nutritional needs of the dog. That is not equality. For a short period, during the second major wave of feminism (what most people consider the first wave, because they forget about the suffrage movement around the turn of the century), *some* people proposed that there was absolutely no difference between the genders.

If you are using that as the basis of your opinion of gender equality, you are about 40 years behind the times. Very few people are arguing that anymore and, in the past few decades, there has been more of a movement away from treating women as men, and towards valuing those things that are considered feminine to the same degree that we value things that are considered masculine.

 

[oneofthem]

The verses refering to this are not in ht eoldest and most reliable documents. Out of the 4 major families of ancient documents it is only in one of them.

Much as I like the story I would not rely on it as either factual or written at or near the time of Christ.

I am aware of that fact. It even states that in the footnotes of my study NIV. However, i do give it some weight, and certainly more weight than the Apocrypha and other "later" versions of the Bible, as it made it into the protestant canonised bible.

 

[norbie]

Men and women are two separate groups of people with two separate brain structures and physiologies. To say they should be treated the same is to discount those differences which is to deny the obvious.

Fully agree with you, and to say that woman have to be "equal" to man is putting woman down. God gave man a strong, muscular, hairy body for his role as the hunter. While our woman are beautyful, with smooth skin and physically weaker then man, her role is to norture, taking care of the family, be a good mother - and be able to lean on her husband. So woman deffently not equal - but the supplement each other, as the creator had intended it.

 

[norbie]

BTW reading just through all 42 posts, I think there is a complete miss understanding here (like in the Australian Thread).
Everybody agrees that woman should and must be treated equal if the work, or by law and so on.
But I think our thread starter refers more to the natural role of woman as I stated above. So we talking 2 complete different things here: the 21st century working woman and the biblical, home maker woman.
Just my 5 cents

 

[stan1980]

Fully agree with you, and to say that woman have to be "equal" to man is putting woman down. God gave man a strong, muscular, hairy body for his role as the hunter. While our woman are beautyful, with smooth skin and physically weaker then man, her role is to norture, taking care of the family, be a good mother - and be able to lean on her husband. So woman deffently not equal - but the supplement each other, as the creator had intended it.

BTW reading just through all 42 posts, I think there is a complete miss understanding here (like in the Australian Thread).
Everybody agrees that woman should and must be treated equal if the work, or by law and so on.
But I think our thread starter refers more to the natural role of woman as I stated above. So we talking 2 complete different things here: the 21st century working woman and the biblical, home maker woman.
Just my 5 cents

How should we treat women differently then? Tie them to the kitchen sink?

 

[Paulos23]

How should we treat women differently then? Tie them to the kitchen sink?

I think the term your looking for is "barefoot and pregnant".

Now I have to go wash my hands after typing that.

 

[Paulos23]

BTW reading just through all 42 posts, I think there is a complete miss understanding here (like in the Australian Thread).
Everybody agrees that woman should and must be treated equal if the work, or by law and so on.
But I think our thread starter refers more to the natural role of woman as I stated above. So we talking 2 complete differes nt things here: the 21st century working woman and the biblical, home maker woman.
Just my 5 cents

Why is home making the natural role for a women? It is a cultural arrangement that is losing its value in our society.

I for one think that is a good thing.

 

[TheDag]

Fully agree with you, and to say that woman have to be "equal" to man is putting woman down. God gave man a strong, muscular, hairy body for his role as the hunter. While our woman are beautyful, with smooth skin and physically weaker then man, her role is to norture, taking care of the family, be a good mother - and be able to lean on her husband. So woman deffently not equal - but the supplement each other, as the creator had intended it.

Seem as you haven't answered in the other thread but have posted the exact same view here I will also repeat myself. Where is your biblical backing for how you see roles should be? In the other thread I've pointed out how Genesis 2 does not support your views at all. I have also pointed out how things were done in biblical times and how that does not match up with your 1950's view of what women should and shouldn't do.

 

[KET20]

Fully agree with you, and to say that woman have to be "equal" to man is putting woman down. God gave man a strong, muscular, hairy body for his role as the hunter. While our woman are beautyful, with smooth skin and physically weaker then man, her role is to norture, taking care of the family, be a good mother - and be able to lean on her husband. So woman deffently not equal - but the supplement each other, as the creator had intended it.

This... is just sickening honestly.