Gender equality is an asinine concept.

[morningstar2651]

I support equal rights and responsibilities for men and women.

Some examples:

Either women should be required to sign up for selective service, or men shouldn't be required.


The glass ceiling has got to go.

 

[LittleNipper]

I support equal rights and responsibilities for men and women.

Some examples:

Either women should be required to sign up for selective service, or men shouldn't be required.


The glass ceiling has got to go.

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.

 

[mpok1519]

I think autumn leaf is confused about the concept of 'physical variation' and 'equality for sexes'.

so, autumn, you think women making less money than men(in the same professions) is a normal thing? Is that what you're trying to say?

 

[Shemjaza]

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.

Okay, sorry if I was confusing.

For starters, if I accept you premise that men and women are different mentally, physically and I believe most importantly culturally (this one we can slowly fix) how do we get from them being different to them being treated in a particular way?

You idea:
1) Men and Women are different
2) Therefore they should be treated differently
3) The way they should be treated comes from XXX

How are you going to justify the XXX bit?
If you have idea for how men and women should be treated, why should we accept your particular idea?

 

[Shemjaza]

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.

Women have a higher pain tolerance and some studies have show that women are better and faster at communicating and being aware of the wellbeing of the people around them… these also sound like good traits in a unit of soldiers.

As to the rape issue, once we get to the point where we're debating the specifics of how they're going to be tortured when they get caught by the enemy I think if nothing else Abu Ghraib showed us that being male isn't a defense from being sexually dehumanized.

 

[Received]

Equality itself is a pretty problematic subject. Which criteria do you use to determine equality if, as the OP points out, men are women are on opposite poles? It isn't a matter of equality; it's a matter of complementing. Women are good at necessary things that guys are bad at; guys are good at necessary things that women are bad at. Indignation on this fact need not be; these are only generalities. Both sides are needed for a maximized world. Sexism is inferiority complexed imbecility.

 

[Received]

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!

 

[quatona]

Equality itself is a pretty problematic subject. Which criteria do you use to determine equality if, as the OP points out, men are women are on opposite poles?

How exactly are they on opposite poles? I see way more commonalities between men and women that I see differences.

It isn't a matter of equality; it's a matter of complementing. Women are good at necessary things that guys are bad at; guys are good at necessary things that women are bad at. Indignation on this fact need not be; these are only generalities.

To be precise, these are only stereotypes. While it is true that certain stereotypes can be supported statistically, statements like "women are good at..., while men are good at..." have no bearing on the individual. For each of these stereotypes you will find counterexamples. You will find a certain woman who is physically stronger than a certain man, you will find a certain man who has a stronger nurturing instinct than a certain woman.
And this is the actual key-question here:
Do stereotypes (even if they may be statistically supportable) justify prescribing individuals to fit those stereotypes?

 

[Received]

It's not a stereotype so long as you have generalities in mind. I'm not speaking of particulars.

 

[quatona]

It's not a stereotype so long as you have generalities in mind. I'm not speaking of particulars.

...but I am. It´s the only thing practically relevant to the discussion, imo.
If I am a small physically weak male who is not interested in hunting (or any modern substitutes for it), a man who is interested in nurturing kids and pets and housekeeping, I couldn´t care less for generalities to the opposite and "equality" based on those generalities.

Btw. so far I fail to see the difference between stereotypes and generalities - except that "generalities" maybe has a nicer ring to it.

 

[cantata]

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!

What I don't understand is what the worth is of making this general distinction at all with regard to the way people are treated.

It seems to me that there is more difference between individuals than between the sexes. I can find you men who are good at looking after children and women who are good at heavy lifting. In fact, we can find every possible personality/psychological trait, and nearly every physical attribute, in either sex, although of course you will find different proportions of different traits occurring in the two sexes. So it seems to me far more sensible to treat people according to their actual traits and attributes, rather than the traits and attributes expected of or most common to their sex. What is useful to the woman who is excellent at bricklaying but abhors children for us to know that women-in-general are better at raising offspring? Wouldn't it just be better to take this good-bricklayer-bad-parent person and treat them according to their needs and abilities, rather than taking this woman and treating her according to her gender stereotype?

It all depends what's relevant, in any case, to the reason for your interaction with this person in the first place. I quite agree that if you are casting a play, you will probably want women to play the female parts and men to play the male parts (unless it's a pantomime or Shakespeare, of course ). I also agree that if you're looking to offer free mammograms or prostate checks, the sex of the person you're talking to is quite important. However, if you're looking to hire a bricklayer, what you should be assessing is people's ability to build a good wall. And sexual stereotypes are worthless in that instance. If you have four candidates for the role, and one of them is a woman, and she happens to be the best at building walls, you should probably hire her. Does it matter that she's a woman and that men are better-at-building-walls-in-general? No! Because she's the best at building walls out of the people on offer, even though she's a woman.

 

[mpok1519]

but women are more likely to be psychic; and thus are more likely to have pyrokinetic powers; strength isn't much when Drew Barrymore can set you on fire.

(two points if you guess which movie is inferred)

 

[TheDag]

but women are more likely to be psychic; and thus are more likely to have pyrokinetic powers; strength isn't much when Drew Barrymore can set you on fire.

(two points if you guess which movie is inferred)

I didn't realise that was drew barrymore in firestarter which is my guess for the movie!

 

[IzzyPop]

but women are more likely to be psychic; and thus are more likely to have pyrokinetic powers; strength isn't much when Drew Barrymore can set you on fire.

(two points if you guess which movie is inferred)

Meh. Firestarter was a horrible movie based on an even worse book. And this is from a fan of Stephen King.

 

[Molal]

MOD-HAT

Tone it down - this thread is full of flaming, baiting and general rudeness.

If this continues this thread will be closed.

Debate the issue at hand, layoff the insults.​

 

[Isambard]

Equality itself is a pretty problematic subject. Which criteria do you use to determine equality if, as the OP points out, men are women are on opposite poles? It isn't a matter of equality; it's a matter of complementing. Women are good at necessary things that guys are bad at; guys are good at necessary things that women are bad at. Indignation on this fact need not be; these are only generalities. Both sides are needed for a maximized world. Sexism is inferiority complexed imbecility.

You realize that your "generalities", also apply to white people vs. black people. I'd say there is the same degree of variation. Now, continue with this logic to see the fun that it brings.

Next time, understand that generalizations are descriptive statements backed up by degrees of correlation. What you are doing is stereotyping, which involves normative and sometimes presciptive statements. Stereotyping doesn't necessarily need even a weak correlation for it to occur.

 

[mpok1519]

Meh. Firestarter was a horrible movie based on an even worse book. And this is from a fan of Stephen King.

well you get two points anyway. "It" was the bomb though. And "The Stand'. the book and the movies.


back on topic >> the thing is, men and women will always have different roles within society, but this shouldn't change equality, ie, women make a twenty-five percent less than men in the same professions on average; this should change, but the fact we go to separate bathrooms should stay the same.

 

[PassionFruit]

well you get two points anyway. "It" was the bomb though. And "The Stand'. the book and the movies.


back on topic >> the thing is, men and women will always have different roles within society, but this shouldn't change equality, ie, women make a twenty-five percent less than men in the same professions on average; this should change, but the fact we go to separate bathrooms should stay the same.

That's really the issue with equality are gender roles being placed on men and women, because of differences. It's like "women are like this, so they should be more suited for that."

 

[mpok1519]

its weird, however, women CAN do every profession a man can. Annie Get Your Gun >> "Anything you can do I can do better, anything I can do better than you," "No you cant" Yes I can" "No you cant" "Yes I can yes I can!"

so, we need to eliminate myths that men are suited for certain things and women are suited for certain things.

 

[nomoreillusions]

There is a difference between "same" and "equal".

Men and women are not the "same". Men and women are, however, "equal" and yes, they should be treated as such.

For anyone who has more than one child, this is a very simple concept. You treat your children equally, but you sure don't treat them the same because they are two very different people! You don't even treat one person the same as another of the same gender, let alone those of different genders.

So yes. Men and women are different. Men and women are not the same.

MEN AND WOMEN ARE EQUAL