Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Men and women are equal

Announcements Posted on
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by duharvalgt)
    Not really.
    and what about Rosalind Franklin?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Look this has been said time and time again. Men and Women be equal socially, in terms of rights etc.

    But they are NOT equal emotionally or physically. Everyone knows that Men are superior physically with the odd exception.

    Oh and whoever brought up Women's football earlier and why it doesn't get much air time etc. Have you ever watched Women's football? It's terrible and is played at a very low standard. That's why.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    I'm not seeing your point. Why should we lower the standards of what's best for the child just because society tends to make this the women? Men still have a opportunity to change, if they want to. The amount of women who are housewives has drastically reduced since 60s. I am not saying their sex is a factor. I'm simply saying that women tend to be better caretakers than men. Just like men tend to be stronger. I'm not saying that a women can't be stronger or a man can't be a better match merely that this isn't the case generally. The person who connects with the child plus spends most time with them should get primary custody. If this happens to be the women often, so what? Why should we change the standards? Even if we allow women in the army, it will still be a male dominated job due to the fact that men tend to fit the criteria needed more than women. I agree sex shouldn't be a factor. Doesn't mean we should lower the standards needed to join the army.
    I agree with you, actually. I was never saying that the mother shouldn't get custody if she's best able to take care of the child. I was always saying that the person who should get custody should be the one who is best for the child, I'm just not saying you should assume that women are more nurturing or whatever. If you do that, then you're replicating gendered stereotypes that are not inherent to sex, but socially constructed. And in most cases, equal custody is probably the right thing to do... just because the mother stayed at home more and the father worked more when they were a family, doesn't mean the mother should necessarily get custody. Because usually that was an arrangement arrived at between parents, when they get divorced the mother probably should work more and the father perhaps a bit less (if he wants to see his kids) and have equal custody. Unfortunately, when most couples get divorced, children become a bit of a bargaining chip like cars, boats, houses, etc...

    And yes, I do agree that requirements for the army and other 'physical' careers should be the same. Sex shouldn't be a factor. There's studies shown that girls do better in school than boys, doesn't mean men/boys should have lower entry standards into academia and such. True equality is gender blind.
    • 11 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mc1000)
    Correct - and in other areas of the world, in many areas of society, men are not treated as equals to women. Your very failure to mention this point is in itself one-sided and stereotypically feministic.
    Not really, I acknowledge mens troubles, but it's not my main priority...On the basis that women appear to have it worse...
    It's like race, arguing for racial equality, highlighting that one race has it worse e.g the blacks, and then you saying,, but whites have it bad too...
    It doesn't make me one sided for saying that one race evidently has it harder- but, realistic.
    What's wrong with feminism?

    Heinous crimes against women are sickening, don't get me wrong. But campaigning against this (and for other bad things women face) is campaigning solely for equality that suits women, and equality that suits women just appears to form the basis of your argument.
    No, It's not. It's campaigning for equality amongst all genders, on the basis that if women were being treated as inferior beings, then getting equality for women would mean that they are on the same level as men...
    No.

    Circumsision of unconsenting infant boys, for non-medical reasons - throughout the whole world, even in developed countries. Equally horrific, exactly the same practise of female genital mutilation, yet widely practised throughout all societies as opposed to just a few backwards nations.
    Female circumsision has no health benefits, where there are benefits associated with the same "procedure" on men. Obviously, I completely disagree with the non consent of the infants, because to be honest- I'm sure it can be very traumatic and it's disgusting and barbaric and I would not wish it onto any non consenting person- unless it was for the greater good, but It's not the same as FGM. FGM's sole purpose is to remove sexual pleasure for women and girls (so they can remain pure), and also to make sex more pleasurable for the man, have you seen some of the images of what they do (In some cases they remove the outer labia and allow the wound to fuse causing a narrower vaginal opening- this increases the pleasure for men. Can you imagine how painful this must be for the women, in some cases they have to cut her to allow for any kind of intercourse because her opening is so small. Their aim is to oppress women through crap cultural beliefs. I'm sorry but this issue is of an barbaric nature. MGM tends to occur in sanitised environments under anaesthetic , and there's usually follow ups etc, but not with FGM. No, not with the females.
    You can accuse me of being one sided, but just look at what surrounds both procedures on each gender. MGM +FGM= disgusting, but, MGM=/= FGM... no I don't think so at all. Clearly we need to highlight how bad this issue more so because it's more brutal to females. They are both appalling. But FGM is brutal.
    And don't pretend that this is me just being one sided, and going for the whole equality thing when it suits us, because that is a repulsive thing to say.
    It has to be taken into context.

    Yes, it absolutely awful that this inequality happens in certain parts of the world. But what you're doing here is just exacerbating your one-sided argument...
    ....

    I never disputed that women have an extremely raw deal in certain countries; there is no dispute that this needs to change, and that they have it much worse than anyone who is widely discriminated against in a Western country. All I'm saying, though, is that if you want to argue for equality, you have to argue for both sides. You can’t just pick and choose.
    Why?
    When one side sometimes has it worse than the other, why should we defend the side that inflicts it on to the other.
    We should look at the issues individually and see where one side needs to be treated differently, in order to achieve balance.
    There is not point arguing for both sides if one side clearly has it better in some cases.


    (What do you mean by underlined statement.
    I don't understand. I don't want to jump to conclusions and say something out of context. )

    What I'm saying is that in the UK, men are often discriminated against for no reason - just for being men - whereas there are no 21st-century examples I can think of in which women are discriminated against just for being women. And your argument is thoroughly one-sided because male rights (and inequality at the expense of men) is something that you haven't even mentioned.
    You can't think of any examples of women being discriminated against in this century?
    Sex trafficking..
    Rape..
    Slavery..
    Infanticide- more common in females..
    Dress code laws etc.
    Driving laws ...
    have you seen the recent sexist trouser remark?

    It's one sided because you are leading it the direction of one sidedness by trying to argue against everything I try to say about equality for women...

    But please, if you can think of any valid examples - from the UK - where women are discriminated against just for being women in the 21st Century, without any justified social or economic reasoning to go along with it, then mention them to me. Much like unjustified inequality at the expense of men, any such instance involving a woman is also wrong and needs to be changed.
    Does it make it less valid if it's not from the uk?
    Sex trade.. ?

    So basically... "Clearly I'm not trying to argue the case for equality when it suits women, I'm just trying to make life better for women who are oppressed; all the while neglecting to even mention equality in which women would lose their societal advantage over men."
    I don't understand the last part to what you said.
    Men and women should be equal, there are cases in the world where women are treated differently.
    There are cases in the world where.. men are treated differently.
    We should seek to eradicate all inequality amongst the sexes.
    We're all the same, we're all human beings and so all should be treated as equals.
    I don't want to seem like i'm ignoring male issues, but as a woman that has experienced the differences of treatment, I can understand more so the issues that are affecting women.



    Don't get me wrong, male discrimination in developed countries is nowhere near as bad as female discrimination in certain less-developed countries. But that’s beside the point.

    Why is it besides the point?

    It appears so.
    yes.
    Come off it. How many divorced women have you met who ‘have the children every other Sunday’?

    I have a friend whose parents divorced when he was little. His mum got everything; even though his dad had been the breadwinner of the household, and was a thoroughly decent guy; it is clear that he is a loving father, and an all-round good guy, but he was barely allowed to see his children at all in the years after the divorce. Why was this?
    1)When you get married, don't you share everything... so what do you expect? (I don't know enough about divorce laws to make a full comment)
    2) I'm sure it would work the same if she was the larger earner.
    3) Prenuptial agreement?
    4) I'm sure they decided what was best for the circumstances.


    I would think that men only win custody cases when the woman is a heroin addict; it really is biased in favour of women, and automatically assumed that because they’re female they’ll parent the child better.
    I don't know, is there evidence to support this?
    I think it was you that earlier said, higher proportion does not equal discrimination.
    How can you say that just because men overrepresented in top jobs = evidence of discrimination against women?
    Yes – it’s called Movember. Actually, I guess that is in many ways biological discrimination against women because they can’t grow facial hair and technically can’t take part. But that’s wholly biological, and in any case why shouldn’t a man grow a moustache to raise some money? Besides, women can’t get prostate cancer.
    Okay.


    Contrast this to Race for Life – in which only women are allowed to enter. THIS is an injustice. Cancer affects everyone – not just women; and stopping men from taking part in a race to raise money for a cause which also affects them is neither biological nor socio-economic discrimination – it is outright gender discrimination just because someone has a penis. It’s disgusting.
    I'm not entirely sure why, perhaps because it affects more women?? But, I don't know, anyway..

    This is their answer...
    http://raceforlife.cancerresearchuk....ent/index.html


    No-one’s forcing a woman to join a gym. If she joins a gym, she should anticipate that part of joining a gym may be some intimidating sexual attention from repulsive men (which is, incidentally, a problem that also needs to be dealt with).

    What if my biceps are small and I feel humiliated about them in the gym? What if I feel the critical eye of all the women looking at me and thinking… “Look at him!” Not much I can do about it as a man, is there? There’s no male-only gym I can go to. If male-only gyms existed then this would be more equal.

    But ultimately, if you don’t want to receive such attention or feel intimidated, then don’t join a gym!
    I'm sure there are male gyms.
    Sometimes each gender prefers to be separated from one another for comfort sake. She shouldn't have to deal with unwanted intimidation if she doesn't want to.
    Women also, statistically have a higher probability to suffer from eating disorders, so perhaps being with only women, who too may feel self conscious about their looks would make them feel better about themselves? As in, they're not alone etc..
    To be honest, I can't speak for all women, but for me personally. I feel uncomfortable going to the gym in the presence of anyone, on the basis that I feel uncomfortable about myself. I personally don't care that much about the gender, because women can judge you as much as men. I feel uncomfortable more so with men because, I don't know why. Perhaps, vulnerability.
    Anyway, I agree to an extent, with what you have to say on this issue.
    If you replaced women only, with whites only, or jews only etc then it would be perceived disgusting, so why not with gender.
    Point understood.


    Predominance of female teachers in classrooms; an emphasis on ‘sit-down in a classroom and listen to the teacher’ learning as opposed to outdoors hands-on learning from a young age; a heavy emphasis on handwriting from a young age… I could go on.
    Why don't more men become teacher then?
    I don't know?
    Remember high proportion and all that...
    Oh, so hands on learning is more so beneficial to ***boys than girls? really?
    Go on... Please, do.
    ***yes I wrote it wrong.
    Yes anyone can take advantage of their opportunities, but these opportunities do tend to be presented in typical ‘female learning’ ways – making it easier for girls to do take advantage and do well than boys.
    So would you be against single sex education then?


    Example?
    http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...gap_facts.html (2012) Pointers...
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/orga...gender-pay-gap (2012) Short article...
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...ns-day-pay-gap (2011) pictureeees...


    Not in Western society. Even the tradition of heir to the throne was changed last year, such that it works wholly on age and closeness of relation to the heir, and doesn’t take gender into account at all.

    perhaps, but in many societies they do have preferences for male children..

    Actually agree with you on this one – but do bear in mind that women can theoretically play top-flight football; there’s no specific gender discrimination on women joining a Premier League club. It’s just that biologically there are no women who can physically compete with the best men, so simply-put there aren’t any women. The same cannot be said of the opposite; men are not allowed to play women’s football at all; although I do admit that this is a bit of a biased point.
    But in fact, in recreational sports, in men’s events, both women and men can compete against men; but in women’s events, only women can compete against other women. This is wrong.
    You agree with me somewhere! Rejoice.
    which sports are you talking about..
    Perhaps they can't play against each other due to their biology?


    In terms of the media coverage of football, I think the best thing to do would be to heavily slash the wages of all league players such that they match women’s
    . Also, broadcast women’s football just much as men’s. Hell, withdraw all football coverage from the TV (although now I’m just getting facetious with my intense dislike of football).
    Agreed.

    I’m not hiding that at all! I’ve mentioned discrimination against women many more times than you’ve mentioned discrimination against men.
    Not really fair.



    Agreed – but in saying this, then you must also agree that gender-specific facilities such as women-only gyms should be outright banned.
    Hmm.
    She should be paid just as much. Same level of experience as her male counterpart; stamina, fitness, and overall ability to run fast for whatever reason, are entirely arbitrary, and vary from man to man just as much as from man to woman.
    Nice.


    Anyway.

    I believe in equal treatment amongst all beings.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
    and what about Rosalind Franklin?
    Yes she is very significant in the pursuit of knowledge , I meant it about the cookie statement.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by duharvalgt)
    Yes she is very significant in the pursuit of knowledge , I meant it about the cookie statement.
    Just trying to establish that there are women who have made important discoveries/accomplishments as opposed to what some said.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChunkyFudgeLover101)
    Not really, I acknowledge mens troubles, but it's not my main priority...On the basis that women appear to have it worse...
    Wow.

    Firstly, before I start, let me emphasise the crucial distinction here between Western Society and the Third World. Sexism against women in the third world is rife, and it is thoroughly abhorrent. It is much worse than any Western discrimination of men or women. In certain countries, men have it all - and that is entirely wrong. It's sickening. But that's already widely acknowledged and widely publicised as a problem. I'm not arguing in favour of men at all with this particular aspect of the debate. I'm all for women here.

    What you need to realise is that all of the points I make about sexism against men are based around Western Society. For the sake of argument, and with my views on third-world treatment of women firmly established, I shall henceforth centre my argument solely around the UK.

    A lot of the points I make deal with my well-founded belief that in many aspects of WESTERN SOCIETY, women have it very good in relation to men; and that men are often discriminated against just for being men - whereas the latter is rarely (if ever) true, as far as I can tell.

    Crucially, I am a feminist (in what is the true sense of the term), just as much as I am an advocate of men's rights.

    So I feel you've misunderstood most of what I've said...



    It's like race, arguing for racial equality, highlighting that one race has it worse e.g the blacks, and then you saying,, but whites have it bad too...
    They do... in Zimbabwe. Racism against whites is rife in Zimbabwe, and I'm thoroughly opposed to it and disgusted by it - just as much as I'm thoroughly opposed to and disgusted by discrimination of black people in the UK, or any ethnic minority in any country.

    It doesn't make me one sided for saying that one race evidently has it harder- but, realistic.
    In the UK - as we've established? I don't think there's much difference between the genders, really; not in the grand scheme of things anyway. But if one gender has it more difficult in terms of pointless discrimination, than the other, in the UK, I do believe it is men for the reasons I give.

    What's wrong with feminism?
    Nothing. Feminism - in its true form - is the promotion of equality for men and women in all areas.

    Promotion of true equality for men and women should include promotion for more women to be street cleaners and rubbish collectors, IN ADDITION TO promotion for more women to have high-powered jobs.

    The Suffragettes are a classic example... they fought for women to have the vote, which was a fantastic thing to happen. But that's all they campaigned for... there wasn't a simultaneous Suffragette campaign for women to go and fight in the First World War, was there?

    This is mainstream feminism; "Campaigining for equality whenever it suits women, yet conveniently not campaigning about equality whenever it doesn't suit women."

    No, It's not. It's campaigning for equality amongst all genders, on the basis that if women were being treated as inferior beings, then getting equality for women would mean that they are on the same level as men...
    No.
    See above.



    Female circumsision has no health benefits, where there are benefits associated with the same "procedure" on men. Obviously, I completely disagree with the non consent of the infants, because to be honest- I'm sure it can be very traumatic and it's disgusting and barbaric and I would not wish it onto any non consenting person- unless it was for the greater good, but It's not the same as FGM. FGM's sole purpose is to remove sexual pleasure for women and girls (so they can remain pure), and also to make sex more pleasurable for the man, have you seen some of the images of what they do (In some cases they remove the outer labia and allow the wound to fuse causing a narrower vaginal opening- this increases the pleasure for men. Can you imagine how painful this must be for the women, in some cases they have to cut her to allow for any kind of intercourse because her opening is so small. Their aim is to oppress women through crap cultural beliefs. I'm sorry but this issue is of an barbaric nature. MGM tends to occur in sanitised environments under anaesthetic , and there's usually follow ups etc, but not with FGM. No, not with the females.
    You can accuse me of being one sided, but just look at what surrounds both procedures on each gender. MGM +FGM= disgusting, but, MGM=/= FGM... no I don't think so at all. Clearly we need to highlight how bad this issue more so because it's more brutal to females. They are both appalling. But FGM is brutal.
    And don't pretend that this is me just being one sided, and going for the whole equality thing when it suits us, because that is a repulsive thing to say.
    It has to be taken into context.
    In the context of the UK...

    FGM is frowned upon in the UK.
    FGM is considered immoral in the UK.
    FGM is considered repulsive in the UK.
    FGM is a crime in the UK.

    ...Circumcision of boys is acceptable in the UK.



    (What do you mean by underlined statement.
    I don't understand. I don't want to jump to conclusions and say something out of context. )
    What I mean by the underlined statement is that women in third-world countries have it much worse than pretty much everyone who lives in a Western country. Discrimination against third world women, as I've said many times, is absolutely appalling.

    You can't think of any examples of women being discriminated against in this century?
    Sex trafficking..
    Rape..
    Slavery..
    Infanticide- more common in females..
    Dress code laws etc.
    Driving laws ...
    have you seen the recent sexist trouser remark?
    Sex trafficking.. Not acceptable in the UK

    Rape.. Not acceptable in the UK

    Slavery.. Not acceptable in the UK

    Infanticide- more common in females.. Not acceptable in the UK

    Dress code laws etc... Not acceptable to discriminate in the UK

    Driving laws ... Not acceptable to discriminate in the UK (until last year, that is, when insurance premiums for men were dropped to equal women's)

    have you seen the recent sexist trouser remark?
    Yes, it wasn't appropriate, but just imagine what would have been the reaction if the roles were reversed - if the joke had been a sexist joke aimed at men. Nothing, is the answer to that. Just watch the Oven Pride adverts - with a condescending woman and an imbecilic man; with the tagline "So easy a man can do it". Somehow that was deemed acceptable to be shown on the TV.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrnOqwXWJDA

    Also, the Sheila's Wheels adverts from a few years back... with generalised assertions such as 'Women make the safest drivers' - somehow this was acceptable... but reverse the genders, and suddenly it's sexist.

    It's one sided because you are leading it the direction of one sidedness by trying to argue against everything I try to say about equality for women...
    I'm absolutely not.


    Does it make it less valid if it's not from the uk?
    Not at all. See my various points above.


    Sex trade.. ?
    As in... selling women for sex? Horrifically illegal in the UK.

    If you're talking about prostitution, that's got nothing to do with discrimination.



    I don't understand the last part to what you said.
    It's the same point I made about modern feminism - refer to the Suffragettes example.

    Men and women should be equal, there are cases in the world where women are treated differently.
    There are cases in the world where.. men are treated differently.
    We should seek to eradicate all inequality amongst the sexes.
    We're all the same, we're all human beings and so all should be treated as equals.
    Agree with all of this. But it does seem to contrast with your general way of seeing things...

    I don't want to seem like i'm ignoring male issues, but as a woman that has experienced the differences of treatment, I can understand more so the issues that are affecting women.
    As a man that has experienced the differences of treatment, I can understand equally the issues that are affecting men and women.


    Why is it besides the point?
    It's beside the point of this argument - distinction between developed and under-developed countries.


    1)When you get married, don't you share everything... so what do you expect? (I don't know enough about divorce laws to make a full comment)
    What I mean is... men always seem to get one or two days a fortnight with their children - and that's if they're lucky. I.e., my facetious comment "I have my children every other Sunday". Women usually get most of the time with the children, from all the evidence I've seen.

    2) I'm sure it would work the same if she was the larger earner.
    3) Prenuptial agreement?
    4) I'm sure they decided what was best for the circumstances.
    Then why does it so rarely seem to be the man who benefits more from a divorce?



    I don't know, is there evidence to support this?
    I think it was you that earlier said, higher proportion does not equal discrimination.
    Just speculation - but this really is the way it seems to me.








    I'm not entirely sure why, perhaps because it affects more women?? But, I don't know, anyway..
    No it does not! If anything, the differences will be insignificant; and the likelihood is that cancer affects marginally more men than women.

    Do you have any idea how much that destroys your argument? They don't want men to join, because they consider all men to be perverted, chauvinistic pigs.

    All that link shows is that Race For Life is supported by a large number of outright sexist women: "We don't want men to join us in race for life... because we don't want men to join us in Race For Life."

    In addition, the Race For Life organisers are sexist for agreeing with this and pandering their supporters' sexist agenda; and the government (in spite of being predominantly men) is sexist for allowing this kind of organisation to be so discriminatory for no good reason.




    I'm sure there are male gyms.
    I've never seen one.

    Sometimes each gender prefers to be separated from one another for comfort sake. She shouldn't have to deal with unwanted intimidation if she doesn't want to.
    Then if it's that much of a problem for her, she shouldn't join a gym.

    Women also, statistically have a higher probability to suffer from eating disorders, so perhaps being with only women, who too may feel self conscious about their looks would make them feel better about themselves? As in, they're not alone etc..
    Suppose my biceps are smaller than average. Maybe I want a gym where I can go and train with lots of other men with small biceps to show me I'm not alone.

    Also, women in a mixed-gender gym are also training with other women in a mixed gender gym, so this is a completely invalid point.

    To be honest, I can't speak for all women, but for me personally. I feel uncomfortable going to the gym in the presence of anyone, on the basis that I feel uncomfortable about myself. I personally don't care that much about the gender, because women can judge you as much as men. I feel uncomfortable more so with men because, I don't know why. Perhaps, vulnerability.
    I feel uncomfortable, more so with women. Probably because I'm sexually attracted to them and this makes everything I do feel more awkward. Maybe I don't want to have this awkward feeling when I'm working out in a gym. Why, then, should women specifically be given preferential treatment in the form of their very own gym, instead of me?

    Anyway, I agree to an extent, with what you have to say on this issue.
    If you replaced women only, with whites only, or jews only etc then it would be perceived disgusting, so why not with gender.
    Point understood.
    Yes, but the consideration of racical discrimination, now, does seem to undermine the validity of many of your previous points.



    Why don't more men become teacher then?
    Irrelevant. This is out of each man's choice and has nothing to do with discrimination.

    It just so happens that a female teacher is more likely to bond better with the girls in the class, though, which is one advantage the girls have over the boys, but I guess is something that in this regard can't really be helped.


    Oh, so hands on learning is more so beneficial to girls than boys? really?
    Go on... Please, do.
    No... it's the other way round. There's a much greater emphasis on 'sit-down-and-listen-to-the-teacher-read-a-story' (female) kind of learning at Primary School, as opposed to actually going out into the countryside and observing nature with an active and hands-on (male) kind of learning.

    Also, handwriting and spelling (at least when I was 5 years old) was always given priority to numeracy - English and Mathematics being female and male strengths respectively - so this naturally gave girls the first advantage in education.


    And at secondary school, there's an emphasis on classroom learning for exams - which is proven to be a system which benefits girls. This is, as opposed to research for coursework - which is a system which is more typically masculine.


    So would you be against single sex education then?
    Fundamentally, yes. I'm against single-sex schools; not necessarily single-sex classrooms, though. And only up to a certain age, I'd say.


    Not entirely unbiased proof. Women bearing children - therefore lacking experience and accumulating a lower pay - really brings the average down on these statistics.

    If a woman has exactly the same experience as a male counterpart, she will be paid as much. If not, that's in breach of the law (and rightly so).


    perhaps, but in many societies they do have preferences for male children..
    Not in the world's most developed countries, generally speaking.


    which sports are you talking about..
    All the ones I can think of. Heh.

    Rowing, specifically. I rowed a boy's race when I was 11 - an age that girls are stronger than boys. My crew raced against a crew of girls, because they were allowed to row in a boy's race. They won considerably, because they had the advantage of earlier puberty. Not fair at all.

    Perhaps they can't play against each other due to their biology?
    Thing is, they can - but only when its women in a men's event. Not the other way round. Somehow this is considered acceptable.

    If women want to compete against men (why would they?), then there should be a mixed category. A men's race should be for men against men only, just like a women's race should be for women against women only.




    Not really fair.
    Perfectly fair, and a correct (and relevant) point.





    Hmm.
    By what logic do you not completely agree with what I said there? If you truly believe equality, then you would absolutely agree without hesitation.
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others"
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    Why do women lack men's testosterone levels?
    That is as biased as asking: why do men lack women's testosterone levels?

    Men and women function different at a biological level, how can you expect their testosterone levels to be the same?
    • 11 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mc1000)
    ...
    So we're just talking about the UK now... okay then...
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xotol)
    I remember this from somewhere...

    "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" :rolleyes:

    Not that I necessarily disagree. Socially, politically and economically, males and females should definitely be treated equally. However, the average male is physically stronger than the average female (statistically and biologically). Not to say that this means males are better than females, but there are obviously some genetic differences between the two - on average.
    Heh, that's Animal Farm and really has nothing to do with the subject of equality of men and women. The book is more to do with equality in communist Russia.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No two people are equal. That is why it is essential that all people are viewed equally under the scrutiny of the law.

    (Original post by ZOMFG_it'sCaiters)
    Heh, that's Animal Farm and really has nothing to do with the subject of equality of men and women. The book is more to do with equality in communist Russia.
    Congratulations on completely the missing the point of his post.
    • 11 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mc1000)
    Wow.
    At the end of the day, I don't see the point of arguing about this. It will not make a real difference to the treatment of women in the world.
    (Although* The examples I gave of discrimination weren't legal in the UK, they still do occur. And I wasn't defending what the RFL people said, I just gave an answer to a question..)
    I accept that males suffer from discrimination too (ethnic minority males, I've noticed more so), I should take them into account more so when looking at discrimination. I accept.
    However, It doesn't make me a bad person for highlighting the problems women faced more so than men. At the time It seemed relevant to what was being said..

    Taking a look out of the box, I think that gender discrimination is bad yes, but there are other kinds of discrimination that are rife and still not being tackled as well as gender discrimination has been in some western societies.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    No two people are equal. That is why it is essential that all people are viewed equally under the scrutiny of the law.



    Congratulations on completely the missing the point of his post.

    To be quite honest, I don't even remember what his post said.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NB_ide)
    any questions?
    How much troll could a troll troll troll if a troll troll could troll troll?
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OMGWTFBBQ)
    How much troll could a troll troll troll if a troll troll could troll troll?
    you sexist pig
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I've seen a thread like this before with posts which recommended the the slicing of womens chromosomes in half to make them 'equal' when compared to mans. Like some people on here, this is not what we mean by 'equality'. The way we're born and our body composition as women really have no input on this subject, I think. Why should our abilites and disabilities (physical) affect what we can do in society? eg, womens suffrage, attaining certain jobs? So yeah, little rant over, I've probably strayed from the thread but just wanted my opinion out there.

    :bl:
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZOMFG_it'sCaiters)
    IWhy should our abilites and disabilities affect what we can do in society?
    Exactly! What someone can actually do has no actual impact upon what they can actually do, so imo the most important factor when giving people jobs or roles in society is for it to be fair and equal (e.g. 50/50 m/f, and mixed skin colour people). The idea of guiding people into roles that best suit their abilities and mindsets is outdated patriarchal bull****.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NB_ide)
    Exactly! What someone can actually do has no actual impact upon what they can actually do, so imo the most important factor when giving people jobs or roles in society is for it to be fair and equal (e.g. 50/50 m/f, and mixed skin colour people). The idea of guiding people into roles that best suit their abilities and mindsets is outdated patriarchal bull****.
    Right! We also discriminate too much against people based on intelligence. It's really not their fault they're born stupid. We really should have quotas for such positions, like for doctors, lawyers, professors, and all other careers that discriminate against dumb people: 25% of positions should go to people with IQs <50, 25% to people with IQs from 51-100, 25% for 101-150, and 25% for 150+. That's true equality, innit?
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aftrglw)
    Right! We also discriminate too much against people based on intelligence. It's really not their fault they're born stupid. We really should have quotas for such positions, like for doctors, lawyers, professors, and all other careers that discriminate against dumb people: 25% of positions should go to people with IQs <50, 25% to people with IQs from 51-100, 25% for 101-150, and 25% for 150+. That's true equality, innit?
    um, no, because way fewer than 25% of people have an IQ over 150. That would still be discriminating against people of low intelligence.

    btw intelligence is determined entirely by how someone is raised and what opportunities they had while growing up
    If you don't believe me, try googling what "science" is and then see if you still want to argue

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: June 3, 2012
New on TSR

Naughtiest thing you did at school

Did you get away with it or were you punished?

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.