Gender equality is an asinine concept.

[InigoMontoja]

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.

And yet the feminists who railed against conservatives so vehemently for their rights somehow lack the same gusto when it comes to their responsibilities.

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!

Wow, my sexism meter just broke. And that feeling is not dizziness, it's cognitive dissonance when confronted with something that goes against your bigotries.

 

[cantata]

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

Ask some more women, then, if you like. Or maybe provide some actual evidence to support your claim. To the best of my knowledge, women have never marched to demand equal paternity leave. Does that mean they don't support it?

Unsurprisingly, we choose our battles. We are aware that the move towards sexual equality will inevitably lead to changes in the way that women are viewed in terms of military service as well as everything else. So while we're not marching for equality in the draft, I would argue that most feminists agree that if our goals are achieved in terms of sexual equality, sexual equality in the draft will be an inevitable consequence.

 

[cantata]

And yet the feminists who railed against conservatives so vehemently for their rights somehow lack the same gusto when it comes to their responsibilities.

No one marches to be given responsibilities! Would you?

And how can you possibly compare the right to vote, which is a fundamental part of living in a democracy, to the draft? It just doesn't make any sense.

Besides, I can absolutely guarantee that hundreds of women have marched in protest of the draft. Those are marches for equality.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDC143FF93BA35752C0A96F948260

 

[Maren]

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

From the results here, I'd say you've been proven wrong. I'm yet another woman who believes that if we have a draft that women should be included. Perhaps the reason you've not seen marches is because we haven't had a draft in over 35 years, so it hasn't been a real issue. In my experience, it is typically men that have more of a problem with women being drafted or in combat than women. The facts are that feminism has been one of the main forces pushing for women being allowed to serve equally in the military, including in combat.

 

[TheDag]

And yet the feminists who railed against conservatives so vehemently for their rights somehow lack the same gusto when it comes to their responsibilities.

Wow comparing a miltary draft which is a choice of individual governments to a basic human right. Thats amazing!

 

[Mling]

I can just see that parade

"What do we want?!"
"To be forced into battle and killed against our will!!"
"When do we want it?!"
"Umm.....wait a sec..."

 

[Bombila]

I can also assure you that when there was a draft, women marched alongside men in protest over it.

I think you'd also find some women would welcome the opportunity to engage equally in the armed forces. Of course, then you will complain that women aren't strong enough, they have periods and get pregnant, they endanger all those chivalrous men, so they shouldn't be in combat.

IOW, you will talk out both sides of your mouth on the subject, so that whatever women may do or want, in your eyes it will be 'unfair to men' in some way.

 

[Mling]

Really, demanding to be abused equally might be noble, but it sure isn't reasonable. Fighting the abuse that exists *is* reasonable.

I mean, Christians sometimes complain that they aren't allowed to force their religions on others in public, but gay people are allowed to go around existing as gay in public. I've never heard of a Christian arguing for the right to be raped and killed just for being Christian.

 

[Received]

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?

Yes I do, but I fail to see how this relates to anything I've said in the last few posts.

If I were you judging me (gheh, bear with me), I (that is, you) would be stereotyping if I blew off ol' Received without giving a moment to prove whatever "guy generalization" you may have. As it turns out, I'm, like, awesome at caring and relating, and this is why I'm pursuing a career in counseling. It isn't stereotyping to have certain preconceptions based on induction. It isn't stereotyping to validate these preconceptions when they appear to fit after multiple tests of the person in question. It is stereotyping if you don't allow the person to prove that he or she isn't beyond the generalization.

Imagine a person you've just met appears to fit a type -- say he fits the nerd type: he's clearly skinny, without muscles, he may stoop his head a little bit, and he doesn't say anything at all when conversation is appropriate. Your duty as a human being is to suspend your judgment until this person has been tested enough. And even if he fails the test -- and is by all appearances "just a nerd" --, you still have the duty not to absolutize your conclusion, but always be open to revision. You would be stereotyping if you let your preconception be projected onto this person without allowing him a chance to disprove this preconception -- to tread beyond generalization to particularity, in whatever way.

 

[SallyNow]

And yet the feminists who railed against conservatives so vehemently for their rights somehow lack the same gusto when it comes to their responsibilities.

You mean the draft? That thingy that hasn't happened in America in over 30 years? You mean that thing that millions fought against?

Women take on responsibilities just as equally as men.

Why does your measure of "responsibility" seem to be a gun?

Wow, my sexism meter just broke. And that feeling is not dizziness, it's cognitive dissonance when confronted with something that goes against your bigotries.

I tried to answer your post. And this is what I get?

What bigotry do I have? Towards people who reason that because women have been denied the draft they therefore shouldn't have full legal status because they can't be chosen in the draft?

Yes I do, but I fail to see how this relates to anything I've said in the last few posts.

If I were you judging me (gheh, bear with me), I (that is, you) would be stereotyping if I blew off ol' Received without giving a moment to prove whatever "guy generalization" you may have. As it turns out, I'm, like, awesome at caring and relating, and this is why I'm pursuing a career in counseling. It isn't stereotyping to have certain preconceptions based on induction. It isn't stereotyping to validate these preconceptions when they appear to fit after multiple tests of the person in question. It is stereotyping if you don't allow the person to prove that he or she isn't beyond the generalization.

Imagine a person you've just met appears to fit a type -- say he fits the nerd type: he's clearly skinny, without muscles, he may stoop his head a little bit, and he doesn't say anything at all when conversation is appropriate. Your duty as a human being is to suspend your judgment until this person has been tested enough. And even if he fails the test -- and is by all appearances "just a nerd" --, you still have the duty not to absolutize your conclusion, but always be open to revision. You would be stereotyping if you let your preconception be projected onto this person without allowing him a chance to disprove this preconception -- to tread beyond generalization to particularity, in whatever way.

I'm never making another lame joke on CF again. Somehow they always get taken seriously.

Wait, maybe I will keep making lame jokes on CF...

 

[Received]

Maybe I'm just lame.

And while we're at jokes:

If heat rises, heaven could be hotter than hell.

 

[Mling]

Well, according to Dante, Hell is freezing.

 

[TheDag]

Really, demanding to be abused equally might be noble, but it sure isn't reasonable. Fighting the abuse that exists *is* reasonable.

I mean, Christians sometimes complain that they aren't allowed to force their religions on others in public, but gay people are allowed to go around existing as gay in public. I've never heard of a Christian arguing for the right to be raped and killed just for being Christian.

of course christians do get raped and killed simply because they are christian but because it doesn't happen in the US then it doesn't seem noteworthy.

 

[TheDag]

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.

The difference being that I base my views on personal experience (which I can train myself to ignore) rather than on what society in general or more likely a bunch od people I have never met who have who knows what agenda think. remember the whole concept behind slavery. The view was that black people were not as good as white people therefore they aren't equal and they are second class citizens and it is fine to make them slaves.

 

[cantata]

of course christians do get raped and killed simply because they are christian but because it doesn't happen in the US then it doesn't seem noteworthy.

The question was not whether Christians are raped and killed for being Christian, but whether those who are not should be fighting for the right to be raped and killed, since some of them often claim that gay people are getting "special treatment".

 

[norbie]

Yep, you know what? I agree. We don't need to work. We should take care of the domestic side of things (assuming we're all in perfect, nuclear family settings of course).

And in fact, why should we even bother going to university? Or being educated at all? Because we won't be needing it if we're not going to work anyway.

And on the topic, why have the right to vote? Or have political opinions, or opinions on anything? Because we're uneducated and inferior for work, so there's no point of an uneducated person voting if they don't even understand who or what they're voting for.

And while i'm on the topic, how about we remove welfare benefits for single mothers? They should be leaning on a man to provide. But they shouldn't work either, because they're uneducated, and it's not their role anyway.

You know I thought that I stay out of this - but I can't. So tell me WHY are we turning everything around??
Nobody said that you shouldn't have education, going to UNi and so on,
Nobody said that you shouldn't have a political opinion,
Nobody said that you are inferior for work
Nobody said we should remove welfare benefits for single mothers
this silly list of yours could be going on forever.
What I said is that woman are equal, should have education and so on, should get married, have a good job to save for their goal with their husband.
BUT as soon as the woman takes her first child maternity leave she should be free to fullfill her role in life as mother untill the last child has finished the high school, which would be in most cases 18.
This is a time were children need the mother, and no father can make up for this.
Of course after the children left home our educated woman would be bored at home and will seek a carier again. Proof it with my own example, after my two boys left home, my wife studied at 50 at wagga wagga UNI IT and is today a very happy manager of a library.
This is the nature of life circle - and all this woman's lib. crap is so wrong.
If a woman is allowed to live for her calling as God created her - this is true woman's Lib.

 

[Paulos23]

What I said is that woman are equal, should have education and so on, should get married, have a good job to save for their goal with their husband.

I can agree with this provided the woman wants a husband.

BUT as soon as the woman takes her first child maternity leave she should be free to fullfill her role in life as mother untill the last child has finished the high school, which would be in most cases 18.
This is a time were children need the mother, and no father can make up for this.

That is bull. Both parents can rase children, not just the mother. And while the children are young it is a good idea to have a parent home at all times, once they go to school the parent can have a career again. That is what my mother did and I would not insist any woman stay home just for the children.

Of course after the children left home our educated woman would be bored at home and will seek a carier again. Proof it with my own example, after my two boys left home, my wife studied at 50 at wagga wagga UNI IT and is today a very happy manager of a library.
This is the nature of life circle - and all this woman's lib. crap is so wrong.

Most educated women would be looking for a career way before that. I am glad that you both are happy with the way things worked out (at least I hope your happy) but there is more then one right way to do things.

If a woman is allowed to live for her calling as God created her - this is true woman's Lib.

Hardly, a woman having the freedom to live her life on her terms, that is true woman's lib.

 

[Mling]

I certainly agree that a women or man should be free to stay home and do nothing but focus on their children for 18 years, if that is what they wish.

But that is a far cry from forcing them to if they don't.

Really, playing with little kids is fun for a while, and meaningful for a while, but everybody needs a break, and many, perhaps most, people will not be fulfilled by doing nothing but caring for kids, non-stop, for years on end. And it's the kids who will suffer most for that.

In the words of my thrown-weapons marshal, "My ability to be a good father has been greatly enhanced by not being a father *all the time*."

 

[cantata]

My mum went back to work when I was a baby.

I'm very, very grateful to my parents for putting me in childcare. I got the opportunity to meet other children in the daytimes, while my parents spent lots of wonderful time with me in the evenings. And it also happens to be the case that I am still very close to my third childminder - she's like a favourite aunt - and her daughter, who is exactly my age and with whom I have an enduring and lasting friendship

So... I'm delighted that my mum didn't feel obliged to stay at home. She was happier, I did well out of it, and the time that we spent together, we made the most of. She would have been terribly bored at home with me all day, and she absolutely detests housework...

Of course women should be able to choose to stay at home. So should men. And they should be able to choose to go out to work, just like men should.

 

[Received]

The difference being that I base my views on personal experience (which I can train myself to ignore) rather than on what society in general or more likely a bunch od people I have never met who have who knows what agenda think.

There is no difference; I do the same thing. Empirical induction, not secondhand induction -- through what farmer Bill or city slicker Sue says, etc.