Gender equality is an asinine concept.

[Bombila]

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.

How did you manage to reach the age of 64 without noticing that some men are weaker than some women, and some women are stronger than some men? Without noticing that lots of women have quite a lot of body hair which they physically remove in order to conform socially? Without noticing that not all women are physically beautiful? have you just continually ignored those women and men who don't fit your stereotype? Do you turn your eyes away when a woman walks by who perhaps has thick eyebrows, a prominent chin, small eyes and bad skin?

In your next post, you qualify your woman/nurture scenario with a caveat: "Everybody agrees that woman should and must be treated equal if the work, or by law and so on." Does this mean that a working mother needs to come home and spend the rest of her time continually working for the family, with no help from her husband, because nurturing is not his role?

I think you need to clarify, if only for yourself, what you really mean by women not being equal to men, because agreeing with Autumnleaf pretty much puts you in that decaying-but-still-with-us camp.

 

[oneofthem]

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.

 

[wanderingone]

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.

Yup... cause body hair definitely defines the need for equality.... and speak for yourself on the hairy thing.. cause my hubby is just NOT hairy... thank goodness.. cause no offense to you hairy folks.. but it is just NOT appealing to contemplate laying my head down on a hairy chest.

Yes yes women and men are physically different... of course people are physically different from each other in a million ways... that shouldn't have any impact at all on opportunity and rights

 

[wanderingone]

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.

Umm no.. what you describe is like the doctors looking for symptoms of heart disease to be exactly the same in women as they are in men... equality means medical research provides the necessary funding to finding out what heart disease looks like in men AND in women and then treating it in both.. not diagnosing women with anxiety and sending them on their way.

 

[Bombila]

Umm no.. what you describe is like the doctors looking for symptoms of heart disease to be exactly the same in women as they are in men... equality means medical research provides the necessary funding to finding out what heart disease looks like in men AND in women and then treating it in both.. not diagnosing women with anxiety and sending them on their way.

I'm betting Autumnleaf is unaware that research in heart disease was done so exclusively wiith male subjects that it took decades for medical science to even recognize that women with heart disease present differently - he's already demonstrated that he is woefully uninformed about gestation and childbirth, despite having such an interest in women popping out every zygote that manages to cling to the uterine wall, or even the fallopian tube.

Autumnleaf likes to inform women of what he considers their moral duty, but apparently doesn't care to learn much about us as physical creatures.

 

[oneofthem]

test

 

[mpok1519]

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.

you heard it right folks; this is very sexist, and quite possibly one of the most ignorantly sexist things I've heard someone say.

So, because we have different sexual reproductive systems is a good reason to pay women less?

Ooookay. Thats not only weird, but creepy to hear someone admit.

 

[mpok1519]

yeh, men and women ARe treated differently; gender equality (and this term is wrong as well; gender refers to one's behavior as wither male or female; there are plenty of males out there who live as females, and vice vers. It really should be sex equality, because sex refers to the biological classification of either male or female, gender is a psychological characteristic) is a good thing. Sex equality is a very good thing; yes, women go to doctors for ther 'women parts' as do guys for their 'parts'; guys use different restrooms as gals; women and men are treated differently, yes, but in certain situations, for certain specific reasons.

But, what you seem to be ignorant of suggesting, autumnleaf, is thta men adn women should not be equal, and one should have POWER over the other, when in our society men and women must learn to share power equally. But, since I don't think you neccessairly have taken the required courses needed to understand these basic concepts of equality, I feel I'm wasting my time trying to educate you. but, if you're willing to pay me, I can teach you the basic fundamentals of sociology and anthropology so you don't have to post more things like this.

 

[KET20]

I feel I'm wasting my time trying to educate you. but, if you're willing to pay me, I can teach you the basic fundamentals of sociology and anthropology so you don't have to post more things like this.

I'll team up with you and teach him psychology. Maybe with all three we wouldn't have to read posts like this from Autumnleaf anymore.

 

[mpok1519]

The price has to be right though. =)

It irks me to think there are people out there who believe one should have power over anohter based upon what reproductive organs they have.

 

[KET20]

The price has to be right though. =)

It irks me to think there are people out there who believe one should have power over anohter based upon what reproductive organs they have.

Yeah, no kidding. The best two words I can think of for that point of view are ignorant and just plain ridiculous.

 

[morningstar2651]

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.

People that have different skin colors than me are different than me. To treat them the same as me is silly, isn't it?

 

[Athene]

I'm betting Autumnleaf is unaware that research in heart disease was done so exclusively wiith male subjects that it took decades for medical science to even recognize that women with heart disease present differently - he's already demonstrated that he is woefully uninformed about gestation and childbirth, despite having such an interest in women popping out every zygote that manages to cling to the uterine wall, or even the fallopian tube.

Autumnleaf likes to inform women of what he considers their moral duty, but apparently doesn't care to learn much about us as physical creatures.

What you need to be aware of is that in Christian circles a lot of old debunked male/female stereotypes are still spoken of as if they were true.

Take the concepts of masculine and feminine, most people know they are social constructs and change through time and from place to place, but in Christian circles an idealised 1950's media portrayal of masculine and feminine is held up as the gold standard, as God's will even.

 

[wanderingone]

I'm betting Autumnleaf is unaware that research in heart disease was done so exclusively wiith male subjects that it took decades for medical science to even recognize that women with heart disease present differently - he's already demonstrated that he is woefully uninformed about gestation and childbirth, despite having such an interest in women popping out every zygote that manages to cling to the uterine wall, or even the fallopian tube.

Autumnleaf likes to inform women of what he considers their moral duty, but apparently doesn't care to learn much about us as physical creatures.

I'm also willing to bet that Autumnleaf is of the belief that because women were treated like men when it came to heart disease that they were treated "equally".

 

[wanderingone]

What you need to be aware of is that in Christian circles a lot of old debunked male/female stereotypes are still spoken of as if they were true.

Take the concepts of masculine and feminine, most people know they are social constructs and change through time and from place to place, but in Christian circles an idealised 1950's media portrayal of masculine and feminine is held up as the gold standard, as God's will even.

What is truly bizarre is that of the various male/female stereotypes that have existed over time and in various cultures what has been latched on to by so many is the Father Knows Best media portrayal of middle class families. The very people who so often blame the media for corrupting society are willing to model their lives on a media image.

 

[Bombila]

What you need to be aware of is that in Christian circles a lot of old debunked male/female stereotypes are still spoken of as if they were true.

Take the concepts of masculine and feminine, most people know they are social constructs and change through time and from place to place, but in Christian circles an idealised 1950's media portrayal of masculine and feminine is held up as the gold standard, as God's will even.

The late 1940s and the 1950s were a peculiar period in North American history. One interesting effect, perhaps not as trivial as it superficially appears, was as follows (I had to research all this for recreator's costumes for a local museum, dedicated to the forties/early fifties).

During the war years of the 1940s, women's clothing changed dramatically for two major war related reasons. A shortage of fabric, because most was alloted to the war effort, resulted in actual ordinances detailing how much fabric could be used in a piece of clothing, resulting in dresses and skirts being made narrow and quite short. A 1940s house dress typically came to mid-knee, with a narrow skirt prone to riding up when a woman sat or bent. The other phenomenon was the womens' war effort, working in factories, in industrial jobs, and in active nursing/health/aid kinds of volunteer positions. All of these required the women to wear coveralls or trousers for comfort, ease of movement, and safety. Pattern books were full of designs to fulfil these particular requirements, and there was also a huge upsurge in the number of women who owned sewing machines and made their own clothing from these patterns.

Come the fifties, with plentiful fabric and a lot of fashion designers and manufacturers eager to expand their war-reduced market, plus the return of soldiers pushing women out of the jobs they had taken on in the absence of men to fill them, and women's clothing took a complete turn. Hemlines dropped considerably, skirts became impossibly full, utilizing yards of fabric and fussy decoration, and patterns became more complex, more difficult for a woman to sew at home. 'Slacks' became a strictly casual wear choice, no longer identifying a woman as a person working outside the home at an important job. 1950s typical, ordinary, women's clothing reflected high fashion to the extent of reducing women's ease of movement - you always had to be careful, wearing big, full skirts, to stay out of windy situations and to avoid your clothing getting caught in things, completely useless for most jobs outside of an office.

So it is interesting that particular subsets of Christians (and really, subsets of men in general) have come to think of the feminine image of the 1950s as an ideal, representing as it does a post-war return of women to a kind of confinement in the home, and symbolized by restrictive, extravagantly wasteful (in terms of fabric usage) clothing. You could say fashion designers bear some responsibility for creating that image.

 

[Corey]

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.

As the resident experimental psychologist, I'm going to weigh in.

First, any differences in structures are a matter of degree rather than quality (i.e., the structures do the same thing). As for performance, they may be some basic differences in information processing (e.g., faster vs slower image rotation in the mental space), but the differences are not deficiencies.

Moreover, equality means equality before the law. So right off the bat you engage in the fallacy of equivocation.

 

[~Wisdom Seeker~]

I've read some very good points on this thread. But, I think what has yet to have been said is this: Men and women are the same species. Even with the way you are trying to make sense of this in your own mind, Autumn, that fact can not be denied.

I think what you have to consider is this: the laws that exist were not set up to make people believe that men and women are physically "equal", but that they should be treated with an overall equal fairness.

I would also like to say that laws regarding equality of the sexes, do not exist in every place in the world still. And even where they do, they are somewhat new, and are not always adopted in practice, let alone accepted in the attitude or belief system of society.

 

[Maren]

I think hair color equality is an asinine concept. After all, it is well known that blonds are not capable of intelligent thought; they are only good for being models and bimbos. Or maybe work in Public Relations, for the smarter ones. (And if you didn't catch it, this is sarcasm).

 

[Meshavrischika]

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.

different is not the same as unequal/not equal

obviously insecurity would cause one to feel otherwise