[manchesterunited15]

(Original post by NB_ide)


uh, no. They'd both win/lose equally, because they are equal.

No they wouldn't look up olympic times/scores for any event...

[anonymouspie227]

(Original post by mc1000)
The one-sidedness of this argument suggests to me that you hold the typical feminist perspective of things here... promotion of equality for women whenever it suits women.

Yes, you're correct that in certain areas of the world women are treated as inferior to men - and yes, this is absolutely wrong. But you make no mention of Western society, where increasingly men are discriminated against in many aspects of society. Child custody; Race for Life; a far greater promotion of breast cancer awareness than prostate cancer (in spite of the fact that similar numbers of people are affected by each); women-only gyms; an education system that benefits girls. I could go on, yet I can think of no such social aspect, based on gender alone, which stands in favour of men. And you say you're all for equality - as do all British women I know - and yet, when the car insurance laws changed such that men and women pay equal amounts, most of the women I know complained about unfairness and discrimination.

And what about Wimbledon, for example? Women are paid the same as men for playing less tennis. The maximum women play is the absolute minimum men play; it's possible for men to play more than twice as much tennis as women, which is considerably more physically and emotionally draining. As you're a female who uses such a one-sided argument in a gender-based debate, the statistics would suggest to me that you're fine with this the way it is... when in fact, a better system - absolutely equal - would be a pre-defined price for each set - and the average number of sets played for each gender as a whole throughout the tournament (i.e. added up and divided by the total number of players in the men's and women's tournament separately) would determine the prize money for the winner - and then pre-defined percentages of the winner's prize money for each round. Either that or have women play up to 5 sets... if women can run marathons, why can't they play 5 sets of tennis?

I'm also for equality that suits women at the expense of men -as long as it's absolutely equal. And I don't believe that biological differences alone play any part in this whatsoever, when it comes to women; I don't think this is a valid point at all (I personally can't think of any way in which women are widely discriminated against for their gender alone). In a way, I guess you could argue that biological differences play a role to an extent; men don't get pregnant, for example, and so they can stay at work, gain more experience, and accordingly get paid more than a woman who takes several years' maternity leave. But (with a few unfortunate exceptions) is it not the woman's choice to have sex in the first place? Women can't complain about this; if they choose not to have children, and gain more experience accordingly, then surely they're paid as much as an equally competent male counterpart. If not, there really is something wrong.

I do not see how what I said was one sided. I was merely pointing out the observations that are clearly seen in the world. Women are not treated as equals to men in many areas of the world- and that can not be denied.
I don't see how in anyway I can be accused of the whole 'equality when it suit women' agenda/ belief. Have you seen the heinous crimes against women these days? Genital Mutilation- (and not for hygiene reasons obviously, but to oppress women's sexual desires) Forced Marriages (yes, It works both ways, but having seen what many girls in my girls school experienced, It's evident it's much more worse for women) and this sudden Uprise of Acid Attacks, Women being stoned whilst being buried to their necks, and men to their waist.
Clearly I'm not trying to argue the case for equality when it suits women, I'm just trying to identify the injustices that women face today all over the world still. I understand that men can have tough times too, but I don't think It is as bad as women. Tell me, if you think men have it worse than women, and where..


Men discriminated against, in a society that is ruled by men?
Child custody? The courts decide what they believe is right by the child. In the cases where the battle favours the mother, perhaps it is better suited that the child stays in the care of the woman. Perhaps they can nurture the child more, or provide a better environment. Anyway, I don't think this is linked to gender, but who will provide a better upbringing for the child. I believe what you said to be a little too general. Men do win custody cases too.
With regards to the breast cancer awareness.. Men too could highlight the issue and raise it more so, if they are dissatisfied with the publicity it is being given.
Women only gyms, I see nothing wrong with them, they are for comfort and to allow a woman to feel at ease with herself without perhaps feeling intimidated. Please tell me how the education system benefits girls? Anyone can do well, and make the most out of what they have, so long as they take advantage of the opportunities and actually are willing to work.
In society some men still get paid more than women doing the same jobs. In societies a male first born is still favoured over a girl.
Women's football anyone? There's a difference in the response to women doing a 'male dominated sport'...

I am all for equality of all human beings, I just don't see the point in hiding the masses of discrimination that women have faced and some still do today. If we accept there is a problem then we can think of ways to stop the problem and over come it.
Likewise in some of your apparent cases of male discrimination, given that they truly affect men, then we should look at how we can make both genders be regarded equally.

Women are built differently to men obviously, and so it's only fair to level the playing fields, so to, not put anyone to a disadvantage.

For example, If a woman was an officer of the law, and she couldn't chase criminals as fast as her fellow male colleagues, on the basis not that she was unfit, but she wasn't able to because of her structure. Should she be paid less even though she is clearly working as hard as her colleagues and is doing the same job. Or should she be paid less?

[sh'bobble_x]

In different ways. Woman have not got the same Physical strength and build as men, but Men haven't go the same emotional determination and stamina (child-birth etc) as women.

So, no we aren't equal, but both genders are equally important!

[maccy]

Men and women should have equal rights and opportunities but there are fundamental differences between them that should be appreciated

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by ChunkyFudgeLover101)
(1)Men discriminated against, in a society that is ruled by men? (2)In society some men still get paid more than women doing the same jobs. (3)In societies a male first born is still favoured over a girl. (4) Women's football anyone? There's a difference in the response to women doing a 'male dominated sport'...

(1) - Correlation doesn't equal causation. Society isn't ruled by men, we don't like a patriarchy society anymore. You could say that men are overrepresented in top jobs. But, this doesn't prove anything. Whites are also overrepresented as are the rich and I'm sure if you try to add in heights/hair colour you'd see a correlation. How can you say that just because men overrepresented in top jobs = evidence of discrimination against women? That's like saying men overrepresented in prison = evidence of discrimination against men?

(2) And again, so what if they're paid more? You criticize me rightly for saying that just because girls do better in education doesn't mean there's any discrimination against boys. So, why does difference in pay = evidence of gender discrimination? Have you got any evidence of men and women who both have exactly the same amount of qualifications and do exactly the amount of work and type of work (e.g both are cashiers) and exact amount of work experience and have had exact amount of sickleaves/absentees and also exact amount of overtime and are of the exact same age? You probably won't find such evidence because there rarely exists such similar people. So unless you can erase all these factors, it's a pointless statement.

(3) Where's your evidence for this statement? The WHO reported that in Germany, boys were favored 14% of the time and women 10%. But, what does this prove? Why can't people have preference over which sex of child they'd like first? Would it make it better if it was 14% for girls and 10% for boys?

(4) Can't really compare the two. Men's Wimbledon is more famous than women's and attracts more fans. Men's football attracts more customers = more money generated = higher pay. It's like comparing salary for working in X luxury shop vs salary working in Asda. Even though you're doing the same stuff, the luxury shop generates more money ergo you get a higher pay than a Tesco worker. There's no reason to allow women to earn similar amounts to men. The only reason that it happened was due to pressures that were being presented by feminist movements.

Are you saying that a women isn't capable of playing that amount? The whole point of top athletes is that they're above-average, men and women are different on an average. There are more millions of women who defy these averages e.g. women who are 6'0+. There are many women who are capable of playing that amount. A business is a business. If women sport players aren't generating as much income as men and are working less than they deserve less.

[AspiringGenius]

(Original post by TieMeUp)
It doesn't matter either way; for the purposes of the law, they *are* equal.

except in terms of rape. Woman can't rape men in the eyes of the law.

Sorry for the drop in tone, just another example of inequality. I'm not saying it's mindless, nonsensical inequality though.

[snozzle]

(Original post by NB_ide)
any questions?

Different nominally. That is all one can say though.

[snozzle]

(Original post by maccy)
Men and women should have equal rights and opportunities but there are fundamental differences between them that should be appreciated

As platonic universals sure but if you take actual persons - one with a dick and one without - can you say for sure there will be anything different regarding their needs or what makes them happy or how they behave?

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by AspiringGenius)
except in terms of rape. Woman can't rape men in the eyes of the law.

Sorry for the drop in tone, just another example of inequality. I'm not saying it's mindless, nonsensical inequality though.

So what? Technically that's right because rape is defined as:

1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

So following that logic, using a dildo wouldn't be rape even if it's by a man. Who cares really? It's semantics. As long as women who use dildos to rape men are punished and sentenced appropriately I don't see the problem/

[anonymouspie227]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
(1) - Correlation doesn't equal causation. Society isn't ruled by men, we don't like a patriarchy society anymore. You could say that men are overrepresented in top jobs. But, this doesn't prove anything. Whites are also overrepresented as are the rich and I'm sure if you try to add in heights/hair colour you'd see a correlation. How can you say that just because men overrepresented in top jobs = evidence of discrimination against women? That's like saying men overrepresented in prison = evidence of discrimination against men?

(2) And again, so what if they're paid more? You criticize me rightly for saying that just because girls do better in education doesn't mean there's any discrimination against boys. So, why does difference in pay = evidence of gender discrimination? Have you got any evidence of men and women who both have exactly the same amount of qualifications and do exactly the amount of work and type of work (e.g both are cashiers) and exact amount of work experience and have had exact amount of sickleaves/absentees and also exact amount of overtime and are of the exact same age? You probably won't find such evidence because there rarely exists such similar people. So unless you can erase all these factors, it's a pointless statement.

(3) Where's your evidence for this statement? The WHO reported that in Germany, boys were favored 14% of the time and women 10%. But, what does this prove? Why can't people have preference over which sex of child they'd like first? Would it make it better if it was 14% for girls and 10% for boys?

(4) Can't really compare the two. Men's Wimbledon is more famous than women's and attracts more fans. Men's football attracts more customers = more money generated = higher pay. It's like comparing salary for working in X luxury shop vs salary working in Asda. Even though you're doing the same stuff, the luxury shop generates more money ergo you get a higher pay than a Tesco worker. There's no reason to allow women to earn similar amounts to men. The only reason that it happened was due to pressures that were being presented by feminist movements.

Are you saying that a women isn't capable of playing that amount? The whole point of top athletes is that they're above-average, men and women are different on an average. There are more millions of women who defy these averages e.g. women who are 6'0+. There are many women who are capable of playing that amount. A business is a business. If women sport players aren't generating as much income as men and are working less than they deserve less.

I don't see the point in picking individual things that I say, to criticise when my overall point was in my opinion good.
There is discrimination against women in the world today. We can see that in many cases...

--You ask me where my evidence is, then provide evidence?
Anyway, gender preference, is this not discrimination?

---My point was simply there is inequality amongst the genders, and we should recognise this and try to resolve the problems.
It seems to me that instead of picking up on the positive aspect of what I was saying, you were seeking out anywhere to disagree with me and cause an argument over nothing.

Quick point, you say that you can't see anywhere in society that favours men, yet you say that mens football attracts more customers- clearly this is a place where men are favoured more. That is not fair, there should be an equal attraction for both genders in sports- in my personal opinion, so that all players are equally appreciated.

In general there are physical difference between men and women (their statures etc) hence why they do not compete against one another, It would not be fair...

With regards to society being ruled by men..have you seen how many women are in cabinet?
Just saying.


*do you have two tsr accounts, i was talking to MC1000, not annoying mouse...yet you say i criticised you..

[AspiringGenius]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
So what? Technically that's right because rape is defined as:

1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

So following that logic, using a dildo wouldn't be rape even if it's by a man. Who cares really? It's semantics. As long as women who use dildos to rape men are punished and sentenced appropriately I don't see the problem/

You misunderstand. The thread claimed men and women are equal. I gave an example of inequality. Then I actually said (if you read my post) that I didn't think that inequality was nonsenical- which implies I agreed with you anyway.

[TheHansa]

(Original post by NB_ide)
uh, no. They are equal physically. Just different.

What? How does that even work?

[CJM13]

(Original post by ChunkyFudgeLover101)
For example, If a woman was an officer of the law, and she couldn't chase criminals as fast as her fellow male colleagues, on the basis not that she was unfit, but she wasn't able to because of her structure. Should she be paid less even though she is clearly working as hard as her colleagues and is doing the same job. Or should she be paid less?

Let me pose a scenario to you. I'll use the army, because I'm more familiar with the entry requirements.

A female potential officer needs to attain 8.1 on the beep test.
A male potential officer needs to attain 10.2 on the beep test.

A female potential officer needs to reach 21 push ups.
A male potential officer needs to reach 44 push ups.

Why does the male candidate need to reach the higher targets, if the higher ups have decided that the job can be done with the lower fitness requirements that women have to hit?

You asked whether a women should be paid less if she is working as hard, but cannot perform physically. I'd go further. If the women cannot chase criminals, they she cannot perform a key role in her job. She should therefore be sacked; in the same way an obese police officer should be sacked.

[ConnorB]

So long as you understand the difference between "Equal" and "Sexual dimorphism differences" Then yes.

[NB_ide]

(Original post by CJM13)
Let me pose a scenario to you. I'll use the army, because I'm more familiar with the entry requirements.

A female potential officer needs to attain 8.1 on the beep test.
A male potential officer needs to attain 10.2 on the beep test.

A female potential officer needs to reach 21 push ups.
A male potential officer needs to reach 44 push ups.

Why does the male candidate need to reach the higher targets, if the higher ups have decided that the job can be done with the lower fitness requirements that women have to hit?

You asked whether a women should be paid less if she is working as hard, but cannot perform physically. I'd go further. If the women cannot chase criminals, they she cannot perform a key role in her job. She should therefore be sacked; in the same way an obese police officer should be sacked.

it's more important that people try hard rather than do a really good job. Because of how they're raised, most women aren't as good at pushups as most men. So to level the playing field they're not asked to do as many. Otherwise it wouldn't be fair, because men are better at them. It's like if you had a maths exam, where some students are really good at maths and some aren't. Do you think it's fair that those who are worse at maths get a lower grade just because they happen to not be as good as the others? It's not their fault, so no, it's not fair, and that's why we give them calculators and extra time, etc.

[Cerdog]

This first post has already been replied to, but I'll try not to have any overlap with responses.

(Original post by ChunkyFudgeLover101)
Genital Mutilation- (and not for hygiene reasons obviously, but to oppress women's sexual desires)

Female circumcision is worse than male, but the fact that the latter is considered normal (even routine in places like America) for babies is obscene enough.

Child custody? The courts decide what they believe is right by the child. In the cases where the battle favours the mother, perhaps it is better suited that the child stays in the care of the woman. Perhaps they can nurture the child more, or provide a better environment. Anyway, I don't think this is linked to gender, but who will provide a better upbringing for the child. I believe what you said to be a little too general. Men do win custody cases too.

Custody cases are overwhelmingly won by women, to the point where the father often has to work tirelessly to even have a chance at winning.

This isn't directly in reply to what you said, but men also get longer sentences for equivalent crimes.

With regards to the breast cancer awareness.. Men too could highlight the issue and raise it more so, if they are dissatisfied with the publicity it is being given.

What about breast cancer charities who ignore breast cancer in men?

Women only gyms, I see nothing wrong with them, they are for comfort and to allow a woman to feel at ease with herself without perhaps feeling intimidated.

What about men who don't feel comfortable in gyms with women? Why are female-only gyms so much more prevalent?

Please tell me how the education system benefits girls? Anyone can do well, and make the most out of what they have, so long as they take advantage of the opportunities and actually are willing to work.

The vast majority of teachers (particularly in primary schools) and other school workers are female. The severe lack of male role models in education is one of the reasons boys are falling behind girls in recent times. Furthermore, there seems to be a social idea that boys doing well in school is "uncool" or otherwise bad, which encourages this gap further.

In society some men still get paid more than women doing the same jobs.

If this ever actually happens, it's either a very isolated case or because of other factors (experience, etc). This is especially the case in slightly older people, where the discrimination from however many years ago still has repercussions, which are fading out (and essentially non-existent in today's society).

Women's football anyone? There's a difference in the response to women doing a 'male dominated sport'...

Women's football (and tennis, although that's been covered) has nowhere near the market appeal of men's. There simply isn't enough revenue in it. The reason male footballers can be paid so much is that huge numbers of people are willing to pay large sums of money to see them.

For example, If a woman was an officer of the law, and she couldn't chase criminals as fast as her fellow male colleagues, on the basis not that she was unfit, but she wasn't able to because of her structure. Should she be paid less even though she is clearly working as hard as her colleagues and is doing the same job. Or should she be paid less?

It depends. If she is doing a worse job to a noticeable degree, then her employers are justified in paying her less. The employer wants to hire the employees to do the best job possible, and that could be down to anything. If, for example, a job position is up for grabs and it comes down to a nineteen-year-old and a forty-year-old, and the latter is far more experienced, it makes sense to take them, even though neither had any control over their age.

(Original post by ChunkyFudgeLover101)
Quick point, you say that you can't see anywhere in society that favours men, yet you say that mens football attracts more customers- clearly this is a place where men are favoured more. That is not fair, there should be an equal attraction for both genders in sports- in my personal opinion, so that all players are equally appreciated.

This isn't something that can be controlled, though. We can't just make the population as interested in female football as they are in male football. This is even more striking in tennis. Not only do women in tennis do far less work (as has been pointed out), but the quality is noticeably worse from an objective standpoint (unforced errors, etc) and the matches generate far less revenue. Despite this, they get paid the same amount. If anything, that's sexist against men.

In general there are physical difference between men and women (their statures etc) hence why they do not compete against one another, It would not be fair...

Why not have women playing up to five sets against each other? Just because (on average) female tennis players couldn't necessarily keep up with male players for the whole match, it doesn't mean they couldn't against each other.

With regards to society being ruled by men..have you seen how many women are in cabinet?
Just saying.

Women tend to strive less for positions in power. It comes down to what women and men are generally interested in when it comes to work. Men are more likely to prioritise high pay, power and influence, sacrificing other things if necessary, whereas women are more likely to prioritise things like flexible hours. Furthermore, jobs like construction work are almost never taken by women for various reasons, but they can be quite well paying.

[CJM13]

(Original post by NB_ide)
it's more important that people try hard rather than do a really good job. Because of how they're raised, most women aren't as good at pushups as most men. So to level the playing field they're not asked to do as many. Otherwise it wouldn't be fair, because men are better at them. It's like if you had a maths exam, where some students are really good at maths and some aren't. Do you think it's fair that those who are worse at maths get a lower grade just because they happen to not be as good as the others? It's not their fault, so no, it's not fair, and that's why we give them calculators and extra time, etc.

When lives are on the line I don't give a damn how hard you try; if you can't do the job, you're gone. Instantly.

Yes, if a student is worse at Maths of course they should get a worse grade. The whole point of the exam is to measure you Maths skill.

You are either an imbecile, or a troll; at this stage I can't tell.

[aftrglw]

I have no problem conceding that women are treated horribly in the third world, at least by Western standards. I also have no problem in acknowledging that in the Western world their roles might be somewhat unequal, but not nearly to the extent that is usually the case. Now to some of your points...

(Original post by ChunkyFudgeLover101)
Men discriminated against, in a society that is ruled by men?
Child custody? The courts decide what they believe is right by the child. In the cases where the battle favours the mother, perhaps it is better suited that the child stays in the care of the woman. Perhaps they can nurture the child more, or provide a better environment. Anyway, I don't think this is linked to gender, but who will provide a better upbringing for the child. I believe what you said to be a little too general. Men do win custody cases too.

So, your argument that men aren't discriminated against in child custody cases, and if they are it's because well... women are essentially better suited to take care of a child, so they more or less deserve it? That sounds a bit, hypocritical...

In line with postmodern feminism, I don't believe that there are essential categories to gender, but rather they're socially constructed and reproduced.. and it's ridiculous for feminism to reproduce them. I think you're basically shooting yourself in the foot to say that women are better at nurturing than men are, so they should have child custody. It's really no different than saying 'men are naturally stronger, so they should be in careers where they can use those skills, like the police force or the army'.

(Original post by ChunkyFudgeLover101)
Women only gyms, I see nothing wrong with them, they are for comfort and to allow a woman to feel at ease with herself without perhaps feeling intimidated. Please tell me how the education system benefits girls? Anyone can do well, and make the most out of what they have, so long as they take advantage of the opportunities and actually are willing to work.
In society some men still get paid more than women doing the same jobs. In societies a male first born is still favoured over a girl.
Women's football anyone? There's a difference in the response to women doing a 'male dominated sport'...

This is the same thing as before. In allowing women's only gyms you're reproducing stereotypes about women being defenceless and men being unable to control their sexual impulses... in other words, you're recreating the stereotypes that I believe we should be working to overcome. Plus, it goes without saying that women scope out men at the gym too, maybe not to the same extent, because men's gym clothing tends to hide more, but still...

Gyms aren't even the best example of things that unfairly discriminate against men. What about the draft and mandatory military service? Israel is the only place that requires both women and men to serve in the army, and the women have more of an option to serve away from the front lines than the men do. Adam Jones has also done a study about how men are often targeted by virtue of being men. I think his example was Baathist crackdowns in areas of Iraq, where they'd kill men to minimize resistance. Based on gender stereotypes? Sure. But they cut both ways... men are more likely to be killed in wars, women are more likely to be raped. It does little good to say "well, women have it worse so you need to stop b****ing".

There's also the fact that the burden of supporting a family falls unfairly on the man. In closing, I'll quote Jones:

"If masculine privilege is so all-pervasive and absolute, we must ask (in a developed-world context at least) why it is that men live substantially shorter lives than women, kill themselves at rates vastly higher than women, absorb close to 100 per cent of the fatal casualties of society’s productive labour, and direct the majority of their violence against ’their own’ ranks. All these features appear to be anomalous if not unique in the history of ruling classes the world over"

[CoffeeStinks]

(Original post by NB_ide)
Are you suggesting they're not?

In a way sort of. I'm trying to say that men and women aren't the same so how can people objectively compare them. Both should be treated with equal respect but treated equal is so broad it overlooks the obvious differences in being a female and male.

I compared it to apples and oranges because they have their similarities and differences but you can't objectively say how many apples will equal an orange because they are fundamentally different.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by ChunkyFudgeLover101)
I don't see the point in picking individual things that I say, to criticise when my overall point was in my opinion good.
There is discrimination against women in the world today. We can see that in many cases...

--You ask me where my evidence is, then provide evidence?
Anyway, gender preference, is this not discrimination?

---My point was simply there is inequality amongst the genders, and we should recognise this and try to resolve the problems.
It seems to me that instead of picking up on the positive aspect of what I was saying, you were seeking out anywhere to disagree with me and cause an argument over nothing.

Quick point, you say that you can't see anywhere in society that favours men, yet you say that mens football attracts more customers- clearly this is a place where men are favoured more. That is not fair, there should be an equal attraction for both genders in sports- in my personal opinion, so that all players are equally appreciated.

In general there are physical difference between men and women (their statures etc) hence why they do not compete against one another, It would not be fair...

With regards to society being ruled by men..have you seen how many women are in cabinet?
Just saying.


*do you have two tsr accounts, i was talking to MC1000, not annoying mouse...yet you say i criticised you..

Nah, grammatical error. As you can see above few posts, I agree with your general criticism of MC1000 and I have responded to his arguments as well. I just took probelms with a few of your points ergo decided to provide criticism to them. What's the point in quoting just to point out I agree with some of the points? I agree with you that worldwide, women have it worse than men. However, in western society I don't think either women or men have it worse and both are okay.

Why does it have to be fair? If someone doesn't like women singers and likes men singers, that's their preference. Saying that their preference is inherently misogynistic/anti-female is like saying homosexuals are misogynistic/anti-female. People have different preferences. This is why people who aren't attracted to Asians aren't racist.

Yes but sports aren't general. They're for people who are above-average. If we were being general, wouldn't we lower the bar in basketball for example so that it appeals to the average man instead of super-tall dudes? There are plenty of women who can play as much as men in tennis and those are the ones who should play instead of lowering the bar.

What has there manness got to do with it? Have you seen the prison population? Are men being discriminated because there isn't equal representation between the sexes? No. And there are actual discrimintive things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-women_shortlists which are there to increase amount of women.