Gender equality is an asinine concept.

cantana, have you read Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex?

Received said:

cantana, have you read Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex?

Click to expand...

I haven't. But I probably ought to.

I haven't either. I was a-wonderin' if you had. I'm also looking at The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan.

Autumnleaf said:

Men and women are two separate groups of people with two separate brain structures and physiologies.

Click to expand...

But then there are millions of men are very feminine and women who are masculine.

Everyone is somewhere on the spectrum.

norbie said:

...
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.

Click to expand...

What if she has no desire to get married? What then? What if she feels called to being single?

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.

Click to expand...

That has rarely ever been the case historically. Also, most children do not need their mothers home 24/7. And most need some time spent away from their parents to grow socially and to discover their own thoughts. There is no reason a mother can't have a career while her children are in preschool, school, doing afterschool activities, spending time with dad, spending time with other family members, spending time with friends...

This is a time were children need the mother, and no father can make up for this.

Click to expand...

Not 24/7! A child needs some time with people of both genders.

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.

Click to expand...

Many women would be bored staying home all day while their kids are still at home. Historically women have had to work all day cooking, cleaning, farming, gathering, getting water, you name it, they've had to do it. These days, women in developed nations do not have to work so much to keep up the home. So why should they have to sit around all day waiting for the kids to come home?

This is the nature of life circle - and all this woman's lib. crap is so wrong.

Click to expand...

You realize that women's liberation means that women are able to vote, have a political opinion, earn an education, have their own property, and be considered full persons under the law, correct?

If so, then you must see that women's liberation is not crap, it is what the Gospels present as Christian women.

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

Click to expand...

What if that calling is as a doctor? A nurse? A teacher? An astro-physisist? A pharmacist? An accountant? A bank teller? A flight attendant?

norbie said:

This is a time were children need the mother, and no father can make up for this.

Click to expand...

Rubbish. Kids need their fathers as well. It is not good enough that fathers don't spend quality time with their kids. I remeber going to childcqare to pick up my son and the massive smile on his face was fantastic. It would however be the exact same smile he gave on days when I worked and he was home with mum. It would also be the exact same smile he would give to mum on days when she worked and he had been home with me all day or at childcare. The belief that kids don't need their fathers as much stems from fathers not spending time with kids and then later in life having a closer bond with mum as a result.

norbie said:

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.

Click to expand...

but once again you have provided no evidence of this at all. In holding your views you have not taken into consideration the common and cultural practice of biblical times.

Received said:

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

Click to expand...

Ok let me give you an example. The first aboriginals I came in contact with (many of them over four years) both verbally and physically abused me. When I started a TAFE course and there was some aborigines in the class I did not for one second assume they would assault me. According to your view I should have assumed they would assault me but give them time to prove they wouldn't. From having done study on aboriginal culture taught by aboriginal people I can tell you if I had taken your view I would not today know these people for the wonderful people they are. They can sense when you make that initial judgement even if you are giving them time to prove otherwise. As a result they will not trust you.

Autumnleaf said:

There are lots of full blooded Cherokee indians in the world...

Click to expand...

Don't see what this has to do with masculine and feminine. The reason we have feminine men and masculine women is because some people for some reason (hopefully they know) put different behaviours into different categories. If I had a dollar everytime I've heard someone say a person must be gay because they like something in particular I ould be a very rich person indeed.

TheDag said:

Rubbish. Kids need their fathers as well. It is not good enough that fathers don't spend quality time with their kids. I remeber going to childcqare to pick up my son and the massive smile on his face was fantastic. It would however be the exact same smile he gave on days when I worked and he was home with mum. It would also be the exact same smile he would give to mum on days when she worked and he had been home with me all day or at childcare.

Click to expand...

Kids just love the adults in their life who have proven to love them (heck kids even love the adults who haven't proven it so well) Truly though there is just no such thing as kids have to have mom and dad won't due. Individual kids may have times they only want their mom or their dad but that's just not the same as the notion norbie seems to have that kids can not have their needs met at certain times by someone other than mom

The belief that kids don't need their fathers as much stems from fathers not spending time with kids and then later in life having a closer bond with mum as a result.

Click to expand...

Not to mention the idea of keeping women under control.

I am still amazed though at how many women coworkers of mine were constantly asking me how I got my husband to "babysit" all the time (I'll spare you all my speech about how the notion that men are "babysitting" when they take care of their own kids is part of the problem) It never occurred to me that my husband would not take care of our children with me. We both adjusted our schedules, we both took turns being the one to take off work for sick kids and special happenings. It has never been clear to me why anyone who is not a single parent would choose to live as if they were when it comes to providing care for their children.

All 'equality' is nonsense, it only makes any sense in terms of physics or mathematics. All distinct, complex objects in the Universe are unequal. To reject gender equality is simply to touch upon the fact that no two individuals are 'equal', precisely because they are not the same person.

WorldIsMine said:

All 'equality' is nonsense, it only makes any sense in terms of physics or mathematics. All distinct, complex objects in the Universe are unequal. To reject gender equality is simply to touch upon the fact that no two individuals are 'equal', precisely because they are not the same person.

Click to expand...

So are you arguing that because no two people are the same then women shouldn't have the right to vote and that they shouldn't have legal rights? If this is not what your saying then perhaps you could clarify exactly how what you have said relates to this topic. The topic mentioned in the OP is that women should not have equality because they are different to men. Equality has always been women being able to vote or women getting the same pay as men for the same job and things like that.

We speak of equality under the law, I believe. No one's arguing that Random Braud #2033 deserves the same amount of time playing basketball on TV as Derrick Rose.

norbie said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hi Norbs.

I respect your strong personal view that women who choose to be wives and mothers should be at home bonding with their children, and that you believe this is their role until their children are adults. I respect your heart behind this strong belief, as your heart is to uphold what you believe God wants for us.

However, i personally don't agree with you that this would be right or God's plan for every family.

As i mentioned in Aus/NZ, times and needs have changed. Back then, domestic duties and raising the children were full-time jobs. Husbands were able to bring home the bread.

And now, due to various technological advances and financial issues (partially depending on where you live), maintaining a family home is more time efficient, however a family living on one person's income is often not able to be done.

As i also mentioned in Aus/NZ, i have not seen anything in the scriptures that confirm that your personal conviction is fitting for every family's situation. I posted Proverbs 31, which shows how busy (and innovative and business savvy) the woman is in this picture is. And it is likely her children are under 18.

Regarding the post you quoted...I forget what i was actually responding to with that, but the point i was making....

The reason women were not to vote is because their opinions were not considered to be educated or valuable.

The reason women's opinions were not considered educated or valuable is because many of them were illiterate (except some of the very wealthy ones) is because they did not receive an education.

The reason women did not receive an education is because they were considered inferior for work, therefore educating them would be a waste of time and money. They needed to be trained instead in domestic affairs and stay out of "men's business".

The reason women did not work is because they were uneducated and considered less competent than men.

The reason they were less educated and less competent than men is because they didn't receive an education.

Do you see where i'm going Norbie?

I just observed a similarity in yours (and a couple of others) opinions, such as the idea of male and female wages, and the idea that women should't work because it's the "man's calling" to provide.

TheDag said:

When I started a TAFE course and there was some aborigines in the class I did not for one second assume they would assault me. According to your view I should have assumed they would assault me but give them time to prove they wouldn't.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. That would be a hasty generalization -- to use one case and generalize from there. If they did it a few more times, well, then, you'd be justified in thinking that aborigines are abusive.

Received said:

Not necessarily. That would be a hasty generalization -- to use one case and generalize from there. If they did it a few more times, well, then, you'd be justified in thinking that aborigines are abusive.

Click to expand...

Sorry to blow in, but is that what some call "reverse racism"? When you say "justified", would this be justified prejudice of aboriginal people, therefore being "justified racism"?

Gah, that's another thing. You always have to interpret your relations as relations -- i.e., between you and another (person, group, thing, etc.). That said, is racism founded when you say that a group of X is negative *to me* when this may be based in, say, abuse each and every time you come across this group? Or is it racism when you say that a group of X is negative outside of my relation to them?

That said, I don't think it's racism to make a generalization, so long -- very important -- as this generalization corresponds with reality. Well, so long as you're doing it without contempt. I don't think I'm a sexist, for instance, when I look at mean scores for biology and realize that women, in general, are less physically strong than men. It would be sexist if I were condescending when I said that. Same with racism.

Autumnleaf said:

You are using very complex terms I'm not familiar with. I'm pointing out men and women are different in how their brains are wired and how their physiology is made up. Those differences make them different by definition. To treat them the same despite such obvious differences seems silly to me.

Click to expand...

men and men are different too. same with women and women, kids and kids.

different is different. Lefties are different from righties.

People differ. Some christians think more than others, some atheists think more than others. ect...

your point? Im taller than most people. Im pailer, smarter, skinnier ect.... are you suggesting that we determine right of individuals based on these differences.

Received said:

Gah, that's another thing. You always have to interpret your relations as relations -- i.e., between you and another (person, group, thing, etc.). That said, is racism founded when you say that a group of X is negative *to me* when this may be based in, say, abuse each and every time you come across this group? Or is it racism when you say that a group of X is negative outside of my relation to them?

That said, I don't think it's racism to make a generalization, so long -- very important -- as this generalization corresponds with reality. Well, so long as you're doing it without contempt. I don't think I'm a sexist, for instance, when I look at mean scores for biology and realize that women, in general, are less physically strong than men. It would be sexist if I were condescending when I said that. Same with racism.

Click to expand...

So i could say "according to the Australian Board of Statistics, x% of indigenous Australians have received methodone treatment, as opposed to y% of non-indigenous Australians" rather than "i've met ten aboriginal people in my life, and they were all junkies. Therefore, all aboriginal people are junkies."

Do you think it's possible for one to make a choice, based on objective intelligence, that one cannot gain an accurate impression of an entire race of people purely on their own observation of a small number, and therefore challenge any generalisation that coul be made from their small number of encounters? And where a large number of people from a certain race happen to, say, like Vegemite, would it be fair to assume that a person of that race enjoys Vegemite without asking them or knowing them?

oneofthem said:

Do you think it's possible for one to make a choice, based on objective intelligence, that one cannot gain an accurate impression of an entire race of people purely on their own observation of a small number, and therefore challenge any generalisation that coul be made from their small number of encounters?

Click to expand...

Statistically, so long as the sample shares virtually the same characteristics as the population, making a generalization to a population isn't fallacious. I say "virtually" because there are a huge number of subtle differences that don't really matter -- like eye color when you're measuring suggestibility, for instance. It depends on the race of the people -- where they're located. If you have a race scattered throughout the globe, you really can't generalize to race given the different environmental factors that could account for certain behavior (rather than genetic ones relating to race). You'd be best off saying, for instance, "Caucasians in central Texas" than "Caucasians in general." It would be safe to assume that a person likes Vegemite if there is a perceived (significant) causal relationship unveiled through a study (preferably experimental, but it's hard to do this many times) relating to a specific population (people in central Texas, people in Texas, people in South Africa, people in Europe, etc.), of which this person is obviously a part of. Of course, it would be safe, but not certain. You always have deviations from the mean. If the average I.Q. is 121 in, say, south Texas, and only 2% of people fall outside of the 81-141 I.Q. range, it's still obviously possible to find someone who's a genius with an I.Q. > 141, just as it's possible to find someone with an I.Q. < 81. We're speaking of mean scores; and means always allow for exceptions, given that each person in the population is particular.

Saying "in general" allows for exceptions. Saying a group of people is a certain way -- not implying generalization -- is where stereotyping comes in.