Gender equality is an asinine concept.

[mpok1519]

not all gangstas are bad homey! =)

 

[Received]

Den dey frontin'! And that hurts my crunkolating intellect!

 

[jgarden]

Jesus said men can divorce women for infidelity. He spoke as God being his father and Mary his mother. Jesus was not ignorant about the differences between men and women and their place in society.

Christ does no describe a Kingdom of Heaven which distingushes between those in Paradise based on male or female.

If gender equality is not an "asinine" concept in Heaven, how can one argue that Christians (in their infinite wisdom) should presume to dictate to men and women "their place in society" on earth

 

[TheDag]

We have a reason to transcend our generalities when the person we're considering doesn't fit our preconceptions. I don't think we have any power at all over the generalizations themselves, but over our willingness to have then knocked down by the person in consideration who has the potential to transcend these generalities. If I see a person who fits a type -- the typical gangster in the ghetto, for instance -- and enough time passes without this person transcending the type, I can safely conclude that this person fits the type.

The examples you use don't really fit thediscussion here imo. Here is a better example. Your at church and the heaviest object to be lifted is a bible. You see a woman carrying a few bibles. Are you going to conclude she is physically weaker than men or that she doesn't fit the type and is physically stronger. Why would you conclude what you have? Your conclusion is that she must be weaker than men untill she proves otherwise. Is that reasonable to do? I would say not. I would approach it and think hey those bibles need moving I'll go help or Hey I'm glad somebody is moving those bibles because I sure couldn't be bothered.

Sexual generalities are mostly worthless in relation to such things you've mentioned. But if it's biologically or psychologically proven that women generally act a certain way, and men generally act a certain way, there's nothing stereotypical about using these generalities, so long as there's nothing that indicates particularity. I can't walk through the ghetto at night and see a deadpan African American in gangster attire and be totally objective by wiping clean any preconceptions or generalities I have based on this presentation. But imagine the first thing he does is (totally random) pulls out a bible and tells you how useful it's been for him to speak to the unconverted by decking himself out in the fashion he's in. Well then, goodbye generalizations!

With your gangster example what I actually do is if I see someone and they are behaving in a dodgy way then I'm careful. I keep my distance if possible. I don't go black guy must be dodgy. I don't look at their clothes because so often these styles of clothes are fashionable and people just like them (like all those people who have tattoos and don't realise it means you are a slave if you have one!). So I haven't got pre-conceived ideas from the skin colour even though plenty of people have tried to teach me to be racist. I haven't judged them on the clothes they wear. I am only reacting to their behaviour. Ok so sometimes there have been dodgy people who have tried to attack me and I wasn't on guard because they wearn't behaving in a dodgy way but I think it is better than starting with an assesment. According to what you say imagine a man and woman going for a bricklaying job. According to you the woman would have to prove she is capable of doing the job while the guy wouldn't. Now in this day and age when they like to spend the least amount of time possible on interviews this would mean the woman doesn't stand a chance because they don't have time to test her. Sounds like a recipe for a lawsuit rather than good sense to me.

Another unarguable point. I would say, nonetheless, that generalities become relied on if a person refuses to take the "leap" by interacting with someone as if these generalities didn't exist. We constantly test our beliefs, if you wish. We're continually willing to update them. Unwillingness to do so is that is dangerous. It's dangerous when a man meets a woman that appears to follow a certain type and not give her a second to "prove herself" -- that is, prove that she transcends the type, that she has particularity. It's not dangerous, say, if he tries over and over and fails.

And it isn't dangerous if he waits to see what she is like rather than starting with assumptions. People can often tell through your behaviour if you have started off with a certain negative view of them. That then will affect how they interact with you. If your a manager you may never get the best out of that worker or you may get great work but a miserable work enviroment because they are reacting to you initial opinion of them.

 

[quatona]

That´s why I hate it when posters here don´t have any icons, don´t mention their gender, their age, their faith, their marital status, their nationality, the number of their kids, the political party of their preference, their race etc.: I can´t operate from generalizations and simply have to listen to what they say.
Then again, there´s always the possibility of creating a new generalisation category:
Posters without icons.

 

[Isambard]

I fail to see how this strict criteria doesn't negate the power of generalization.

No. I said proper analytical generalizations are based on these. I said before what you were doing was merely stereotyping. The problem with starting with an assumption usually leads too all sorts of fallacies.

 

[Received]

Isambard, can you start from the beginning -- and explain how your stance relates to the discussion? I'm having the darndest time grasping what you're saying.

How am I stereotyping? How do you define stereotyping? How does this relate to generalization in the statistical sense? (Most importantly) what assumption am I making?

 

[mpok1519]

it feels good to be a gangsta

 

[Isambard]

Isambard, can you start from the beginning -- and explain how your stance relates to the discussion? I'm having the darndest time grasping what you're saying.

How am I stereotyping? How do you define stereotyping? How does this relate to generalization in the statistical sense? (Most importantly) what assumption am I making?

If you remember, you were discussing what you described as "generalities" earlier, not generalizations. My point was that your definition for generalities was really stereotypes.

As per my position on men/women equality, physical and pyschological differences matter little in post-agricultural societies. The big swing in differences in what you see in extremes, such as sex of most brilliant mathmeticians being male, matters little for society at large as even in the male group, mathmatical genius is the exception, not the norm. Generalizations we see about women in white non-immigrant North American mainstream culture, has more to do with the other factors I mentioned than it does with sex.

 

[Received]

Are you saying that sex carries with it no inherent qualities? If not, then we have no problem.

What is your interpretation of my definition of generalities, and how does this relate to stereotyping? And what assumption was I making?

 

[Received]

And it isn't dangerous if he waits to see what she is like rather than starting with assumptions.

But that's the thing: it isn't an assumption; if anything, it's more an extraction. You're basing a conclusion on certain things you interpret through experience that relate to the person in question. This is where induction comes in. If you've never experienced a frat boy, you'll only see a guy decked out in polo, deadpan face, talk of drink, sex, angry at women for not giving them sex, etc. Eventually you come across many more of these instances where all these things correlate (but not necessarily precisely; there is room for deviation among variables, but not extreme deviation), and you come to associate the different variables. Reasonably so. That's the point of induction: the more a thing recurs, the more likely it's burned into the structure of whatever context we're talking about. It's not assumption; it's extraction based on induction.

 

[StarCannon]

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.

WARNING: Assinine opinions and the giver of such opinions will be shoved into the incinerator.
WARNING: Being shoved into an incinerator is scientifically proven to be harmful to humans.
WARNING: Continuing to give assinine opinions will results in being shoved into the incinerator.

Congratulations, Autumnleaf! You have been shoved into the incinerator!

 

[SallyNow]

Well, I feel that women have serious monthly health concerns. I also recognize that men generally are outwardly physically stronger ---- not that hand to hand combat is a major issue anymore, but it is still an issue. So that even if a woman isn't raped, there are more concerns surrounding women physically then there are with men. Each gender comes with its pros and cons.

According to that criteria, though, many men have health issues upon waking up in the morning, upon a person passing them on the street, upon buying groceries...

Let me explain further. Equality makes sense only with relation to criteria in comparison. When there are no criteria to compare, you can't have equality. Men and women can be compared across shared criteria; the thing is, generally speaking, women are better at certain things that men aren't, and vice versa. Point scored for men's physical strength -- Men 1, women 0. Check one for women's capacity for care (utterly, utterly necessary in this world -- men 1, women 1. Another point for women with regard to relatedness (they're better than men) -- men 1, women 2. The problem is that, given the finite nature of scientific discovery, if we were to chart out every single advantage for each particular sex, a conclusion could never be reached -- nobody can say when the last criterion has been found and compared. It's the arrogant, shallow, almost always insecure people who espouse an *absolute* criterion and judges things according to this. For instane, physical strength is the best criterion. And men clearly have it over women. Therefore, women are inferior to men!

And that's coming from a man, who, as you just siad, aren't really good about relating information or caring. So why should anyone listen to a man about anything?

See how silly stereotyping can be?

 

[TheDag]

That´s why I hate it when posters here don´t have any icons, don´t mention their gender, their age, their faith, their marital status, their nationality, the number of their kids, the political party of their preference, their race etc.: I can´t operate from generalizations and simply have to listen to what they say.

Listen to what people have to say. Whats the world coming to hey! loved the post.

 

[InigoMontoja]

Black people and white people are also different, and as such should be treated differently. In lieu of evidence or examples, I'm just going to assert that this is obvious.

There is no difference between black people and white people. There are great genetic, physical, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women. But in the eyes of the law men and women should be treated equally. Notable exceptions are letting men into women's bathrooms, etcetera. Of course, this means women should be forced to register for the draft, as men are. Of course, we saw women marching in the streets even after gaining suffrage to encourage each other to vote "and start doing as men could do for over a century", but no marches have ever been witnessed for the same principle only applied to dying in battle; this, in my opinion, shows that by and large women don't give a fart about equality. The only equality they are interested in is equal privilege and rights, but not equal responsibility.

 

[cantata]

There is no difference between black people and white people. There are great genetic, physical, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women. But in the eyes of the law men and women should be treated equally. Notable exceptions are letting men into women's bathrooms, etcetera. Of course, this means women should be forced to register for the draft, as men are. Of course, we saw women marching in the streets even after gaining suffrage to encourage each other to vote "and start doing as men could do for over a century", but no marches have ever been witnessed for the same principle only applied to dying in battle; this, in my opinion, shows that by and large women don't give a fart about equality. The only equality they are interested in is equal privilege and rights, but not equal responsibility.

By this argument, the majority of men weren't interested in equality either, since they weren't marching for women's rights.

Who on earth would march to be given a life-threatening responsibility? Clearly, no one with any sense. This argument is all kinds of silly.

 

[InigoMontoja]

By this argument, the majority of men weren't interested in equality either, since they weren't marching for women's rights.

That's right. Most did not care.

Who on earth would march to be given a life-threatening responsibility? Clearly, no one with any sense. This argument is all kinds of silly.

Silly and right.

 

[cantata]

Silly and right.

I am a feminist. I wish to see equality in every sphere, including the draft. Hey, look! I proved you wrong.

 

[SallyNow]

There is no difference between black people and white people. There are great genetic, physical, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women. But in the eyes of the law men and women should be treated equally. Notable exceptions are letting men into women's bathrooms, etcetera. Of course, this means women should be forced to register for the draft, as men are. Of course, we saw women marching in the streets even after gaining suffrage to encourage each other to vote "and start doing as men could do for over a century", but no marches have ever been witnessed for the same principle only applied to dying in battle; this, in my opinion, shows that by and large women don't give a fart about equality. The only equality they are interested in is equal privilege and rights, but not equal responsibility.

In fact, one of most talked-about "reasons" given by conservative anti-equal-rights pundits is that women can't be drafted because of the complications arising from pregnancy and childcare.

Women are endowed with a natural responsibility for bringing a child into this world. This is amazingly used as both a reasoning for that women should not be drafted, and how the fact that they are not drafted is therefore showing a lack of responsibility, which should entail a lack of rights.

Sorry, but that's just unreasonable thinking. Women statistically go into the underpaid careers that are so vital to running of society, whether at peace or war, and support the troops in so many ways, that the arguement is just unreasonable on so many points, that my head is spinning and I'm unable to type anything more on this subject!

 

[InigoMontoja]

I am a feminist. I wish to see equality in every sphere, including the draft. Hey, look! I proved you wrong.

No you didn't. I said "by and large". Duh.