Turn on thread page Beta

Girls: do you want to be treated like, and regarded as being the same as, a man? watch

  • View Poll Results: Girls - do you want women to be treated identically to men?
    Yes! Aside from that annoying business of reproduction, there should be no difference seen between men and women.
    50
    22.03%
    I'm not sure. I may clarify by posting in the thread!
    15
    6.61%
    No, wtf? Men and women are quite different and I wouldn't want women to be treated exactly the same as men.
    98
    43.17%
    z0mgpoll
    64
    28.19%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blonde-beth)
    my argument was that both genders have different qualities, i did not suggest how these differences came about.

    most psychologists would agree that gender development arises out of a mixture of nature and nurture. nature being natural selection, including labour division and E-S theory, also encorperating the bio-social models such as social role theory, and genes determining hormone release both pre-natally and in adolescense. nurture being the social, environmental and psychological factors in the senstive period (up to 3 yrs) and further social, cultral and psychological (and even biological?) factors encorperating cognitive developmetal models such as schema and constancy theory.

    although my argument was only saying that there were differences, so this is a bit irrelevent :p:
    As long as you acknowledge that even some part of gender development (a majority, in my humble opinion) stems from nurture, then you must acknowledge that it is wrong to place such an importance on it, because this is obviously going to vary massively across cultures and even individuals, it's merely stereotyping to the most extreme level.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by algérie_mon_amour)

    Where does it say that I believ that women should all be in the home ???????? honestly, don't say what I haven't said!! I said that society was more stable, this was found in many research that have been done to see the difference between how children were and how they are now.
    I am not against the work of women at all, and I am indeed going to work after graduating.
    Bloody hell read well before you insult people!!!
    First you said there were jobs women were not suited to, then you said society was more stable when women were in the home and men were bringing the money in.

    It was perfectly reasonable for me to infer from this you thought women should be in the home, what the hell else could a person infer from that?

    And you can't deny you said women shouldn't be leaders. This is ridiculous. Women aren't inherently bad leaders, there are personality traits that make someone a bad leader, and perhaps these are found more commonly in women..but to say 'women aren't suitable for leadership jobs' is mental.

    Oh and it has not been proved society was more stable because men worked and women were in the home, crime amongst young people probably has risen, but that's probably more to do with a lack of respect for authority and no fear of consequences - punishments are much softer now than they were.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FormerlyHistoryStudent)
    Have you actually read the rest of the thread? Very few girls here have said they think it's wrong for them to be punched because they are a girl, the majority have said that it's wrong for a girl to be punched only if the person punching them is stronger than them. It would be the same if it was a really strong girl punching a skinny guy, for example.

    I find the worst masculine stereotypes just as bad as the feminine ones, to be honest - laddish, cocky, completely clueless about anything to do with running a house, expecting the woman to do all the housework even if she works exactly the same hours as him, obsessed with sex & unable to keep their eyes or hands to themselves, interested in beer, cars, sex & football and nothing else, completely tactless & unable to understand why people might be upset with them.... That's the STEREOTYPE, obviously I don't think most guys are like that at all, just like I don't believe that most girls are the epitome of the worst 'female' stereotypes. I actually find it very sad that you seem to believe that most girls do fit the worst stereotypes.
    Don't forget the drunken fights over who split who's pint and who is staring who's bird. And as for being tactless and upsetting people - i've often been accused of that, but only by girls :p:

    I don't know just how seriously you took my post (and therefore how serious your reply was), but I never said most... This whole thread is biased simply because it's asking people to choose between two pointless stereotypes (though, what's exactly wrong with being laddish and cocky, from my understanding I'd prefer more people to have those traits).

    The point I was trying to make, is that girls who like being all...well girly, generally have more disdain for guys with girly traits, than macho guys have for girls who are all raucous and macho (though i'm sure macho guys would prefer their *****es(s) making sandwiches and otherwise only opening their mouths for ****). Making me think even girly girls know there is something wrong with being all 'ladylike', whereas being macho man is all about making people respect you, rather than expecting people to look after you.

    In regards to the reading the rest of the thread - well here are some quotes that led me to infer a lot of girls posting here prefer living up to the feminine stereotype to some degree.

    (Original post by time.to.dance)
    Depends on the situation.

    Career and job prospect wise, yes.
    In a relationship (and other friendships), noo waayy.
    (Original post by miranda-ae)
    not sure - i think that opportunities/education etc. women should definitely be treated the same. i also think that intelligence-wise they should be treated as the same.

    however, there are differences. i am friends with a lot of blokes, and though i dont mind a bit of teasing, i couldnt cope with the onslaught of basically bullying guys give each other :P also i think there are some jobs that just straight out suit men better, e.g. the majority of completely physical jobs.

    tbh, i think we've got it almost right now
    (Original post by Lollyage)
    No. Men and women may be equal in value, but they are in no way the same, and it should stay that way.
    (Original post by LizzieLizzie.)
    Hmmm, no. Not exactly the same. I mean, I don't want to be treated any less than men, but I don't exactly want to be treated.. like a man?
    (Original post by ellocin)
    It think that could be true. I think I'm pretty tough and can stand up for myself but at the same time perhaps slightly hypocritically when I am with my boyfriend or even just male friends I would feel safer with them there e.g. on a night out when all the guys get a bit out of control, it is nice to know someone is there to look after you.
    (Original post by ilovepolska)
    I'm a GIRL, why would i want to be treated like a boy?!
    (Original post by punkyrocker)
    No. Men and women are very different.
    (Original post by Rimipie)
    errr do i look like a dyke doe?
    (Original post by onthejubileeline)
    Of course not. I'm not a man, so why should I be treated like one? I'd hate to be treated like a man!
    (Original post by aliluvschoc)
    No. I like to feel protected by men, and in return I like to feel like I can be more affectionate etc towards him, in a way that man to man would very much equal gay.


    I also don't want to be expected to wee standing up.
    (Original post by harleygrant)
    I want to be regarded the same in most respects. However, I'm a fan of chivalry to a degree.
    (Original post by algérie_mon_amour)
    There is a male and there is a female hence there is a difference; otherwise we would have been all of the same gender :rolleyes:
    I believe that women should be treated the same way as men are in certain situations but in other situations no.
    Men not only have the physical strength but the mental strength too. Women are usually affected by emotions and feelings which in some cases are not useful nor helpful at all, which is why I believe that there are certain jobs that do not suit women at all, one of which is leadership.
    If we think about the olden days where womens concentrated on bringing up good children and the men had the role of bringing money to feed them etc; the society was so much more stabalised, and each gender had its own value; today however many women are fighting for equality, not knowing that the equality they are wanting will take away the precious value that women always had.
    Saying that however, women should, not be equal to, but have the same rights as men in certain cases, this includes education, their right when it comes to justice, money ...etc.
    To be honest, some posts are too vague to discern really - but it just seems easier to post something provocative to get people to elaborate further in their defence than actually asking for explanations.

    (Original post by Kätzchen)
    Yes:

    Careers and pay
    Relationships
    Paying your own way
    Objectifying

    No:
    Physical strength
    I'd rep you for the sig today if I could (check out mine!).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O-Ren)
    You can't cope with teasing because you're sensitive, not because you are a woman. Yes, there are a far higher number of sensitive women than there are sensitive guys, but it's not like women are fundamentally incapable of taking teasing is it. I'm female and my male friends mock me as much as they mock each other.

    And are you saying that a woman should be automatically rejected from a job involving heavy-lifting because she has a vagina? Even if she has giant muscles and weight lifts in her spare time?

    If you know a person is sensitive you shouldn't tease them. If you know a person is physically weak you shouldn't hire them to lift stuff. That is a very different statement to 'men and women should be treated differently'
    well, firstly i didnt say i couldnt take teasing, i take plenty. i mean i probably couldnt take the barrage of abuse that boys throw at each other, and i think, in general, women would take that far worse than guys.

    secondly, im not saying that either, and how many girls do you know like that exactly? the average man is a lot stronger than the average woman, and that is just biology.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thrasymachus)
    (though, what's exactly wrong with being laddish and cocky, from my understanding I'd prefer more people to have those traits).

    Well there's nothing wrong with being a bit sparky, but from my experience I've found that the most laddish and cocky guys are the ones who tend to have sexist views, plus there's an extremely fine line between cockiness and arrogance, and I hate people who think that other people should bow down to their supposed superiority.

    The point I was trying to make, is that girls who like being all...well girly, generally have more disdain for guys with girly traits, than macho guys have for girls who are all raucous and macho (though i'm sure macho guys would prefer their *****es(s) making sandwiches and otherwise only opening their mouths for ****).

    I always thought that macho guys disliked macho girls as much as girly girls disliked girly guys In fact, I've found that the most macho guys are the ones who love having GFs who are girly, because it inflates their egos so much feeling that their strength & 'manliness' is needed to protect their GFs...

    In regards to the reading the rest of the thread - well here are some quotes that led me to infer a lot of girls posting here prefer living up to the feminine stereotype to some degree.
    Some have said that yes they like feeling 'protected', but in quite a few of these quotes, they haven't said that, they have just said they would like to be treated as equally as any other human being, gender being irrelevant almost (as in since every individual is different, regardless of gender.) It's being given the same respect and opportunities as anyone else that is important.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O-Ren)
    Name one ability or personality trait that is present only in men and never in women, or only in women but never in men.

    Go on! You'll win the argument if you can

    ...
    Ehm, childbirth???

    Secondly, your point is 100% irrelevant. Why? Because it is too expensive/impossible to objectively measure quite a lot of things for employment. Qualifications/education/job interview only tell you very little, thus employers make the decision to generalize. You can argue about generalizations being based on bogus info, but sadly for you, it is beneficial to do so.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miranda-ae)
    well, firstly i didnt say i couldnt take teasing, i take plenty. i mean i probably couldnt take the barrage of abuse that boys throw at each other, and i think, in general, women would take that far worse than guys.

    secondly, im not saying that either, and how many girls do you know like that exactly? the average man is a lot stronger than the average woman, and that is just biology.
    Oh for goodness sake. The majority of women are weaker than the majority of men. I know this. We are biologically programmed to have different bodies!

    But:

    Weak people should be treated like they are weak. Strong people should be treated like they are strong. Sensitive people should be treated like they are sensitive.

    That's very different from saying 'men and women should be treated differently'.

    Everyone is a unique individual. Treating someone like they are the stereotype of their demographic is so, so wrong.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hafnium-174)
    Ehm, childbirth???

    Secondly, your point is 100% irrelevant. Why? Because it is too expensive/impossible to objectively measure quite a lot of things for employment. Qualifications/education/job interview only tell you very little, thus employers make the decision to generalize. You can argue about generalizations being based on bogus info, but sadly for you, it is beneficial to do so.
    LOL

    and

    LOL

    Right at the beginning of this thread it was explicitly that we weren't talking about obvious biological functions like childbirth.

    Secondly, what the **** are you on mate? If you're applying for a job, any skills that are essential for the job are going to be measured. Either by looking at your CV, giving you an interview, giving you a trial run, or some kind of test or many of these things. Companies actually do care who they hire.

    No company is going to not test for an essential skill!

    Therefore no hirer is ever going to be in a situation where it makes sense to generalise.

    Jesus Christ you people make it too easy.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O-Ren)
    Oh for goodness sake. The majority of women are weaker than the majority of men. I know this. We are biologically programmed to have different bodies!

    But:

    Weak people should be treated like they are weak. Strong people should be treated like they are strong. Sensitive people should be treated like they are sensitive.

    That's very different from saying 'men and women should be treated differently'.

    Everyone is a unique individual. Treating someone like they are the stereotype of their demographic is so, so wrong.
    the thing is, i agree with you!
    my main point is, i wouldn't want to be treated like a guy!

    edit. wait. that just sounds stupid. i'll shut up now, you win
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O-Ren)
    Oh and it has not been proved society was more stable because men worked and women were in the home
    Actually, it was. But that definitely does not mean it is now.

    "In them days..."

    You needed to have an average ~5+ children(due to high mortality rates) for the society to regenerate itself -> 1 parent needs to be home more.
    Cleaning home to sustain a decent level of hygiene -> needs a parent at home
    Making food at home took a lot longer time - again more time

    I am sure some factors add to it even more. Life was very different back then and... yes, society back then was a lot more stable due to the traditional gender roles, but to imply that forcing modern gender roles into a traditional society(or traditional roles into a today's world) is somehow good is simply a bad idea.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O-Ren)
    Secondly, what the **** are you on mate? If you're applying for a job, any skills that are essential for the job are going to be measured. Either by looking at your CV, giving you an interview, giving you a trial run, or some kind of test or many of these things. Companies actually do care who they hire.

    No company is going to not test for an essential skill!

    Therefore no hirer is ever going to be in a situation where it makes sense to generalise.

    Jesus Christ you people make it too easy.
    The whole point is that you can't measure everything, no, do not try to suggest you can, you simply can't. YES COMPANIES CARE WHO THEY HIRE, BUT THEY JUST CAN'T MEASURE EVERYTHING. Yes, it is a good idea to lower the role of generalizations, but you can't overdo it, because it is impractical.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    This thread has highlighted a couple of issues.

    Women wanted to be treated like men in terms of jobs, opportunity and prospects, however, they do not want to be treated like men when it comes to other areas.

    Frankly, you cannot have both. You either are treated as women, or treated as men.
    Make your mind up.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hafnium-174)
    Actually, it was. But that definitely does not mean it is now.

    "In them days..."

    You needed to have an average ~5+ children(due to high mortality rates) for the society to regenerate itself -> 1 parent needs to be home more.
    Cleaning home to sustain a decent level of hygiene -> needs a parent at home
    Making food at home took a lot longer time - again more time

    I am sure some factors add to it even more. Life was very different back then and... yes, society back then was a lot more stable due to the traditional gender roles, but to imply that forcing modern gender roles in a traditional society(or traditional roles into a today's world) is simply a bad idea.
    I see what your saying about how food took longer to prepare and so someone needed to be home etc.

    However what that girl was saying was that society was more stable then and less stable now because of gender roles changing. That's what I took issue with.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O-Ren)
    Name one ability or personality trait that is present only in men and never in women, or only in women but never in men.

    Go on! You'll win the argument if you can

    Oh and by the way, Prospective Medic, if you think men and women should be treated differently because of how they stereotypically are..you think it's ok to be rejected from medicine on the basis that you'll probably faint at the sight of blood, get too attached emotionally to your patients and end up depressed...

    You made so many spelling errors in that post, you probably aren't clever enough for medicine, just a heads up.

    Edit: and it would be wrong to treat people of different ages as if they were a certain way too. Would you like it if people assumed you were going to be mentally slow for being old? Or noisy and rude for being young?
    with all due respect...

    not once did i say there are more difference between genders than within them. i am not saying they should be treated much differently, but denying that there is a difference between males and females is just ignorent. no way am i being anti-feminist or saying that we should conform to gender stereotypes.

    yes you do need to treat different ages differently. not in the extreme ways that you have mentioned, but more subtle ways. are you seriously saying that you would talk to a 7 year old in the same way you would talk to a 50 year old?

    and you are judging my intelligence on how much time and care i have taken over a post? sorry but i have better things to be doing than making sure my spelling is 100% correct. what a fantastic argument you have there :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No, i dont want to be treated the same as a guy, i shouldnt be rejected for anything just because im a girl, like for a job offer, And i dont want to be looked down at as im a weakling in every situation, just because im a woman.

    So treat me as a woman, and in a justified sense. No looking down at or being sexist. Just behave normal with eachother O.o
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'm going to take the thread title at its' base value here and say that no, I would not treat my girlfriend like a man. For the obvious reasons. :p:

    I would assume that you're talking about differentation in genders though, and I can't be bothered to answer it more fully than I just did. *flies off*
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O-Ren)
    On the basis that I've backed up everything I've said with reason. If men and women are so obviously different - and deserve to be treated as such - you would have had no problem pointing out these differences and winning the argument. You have yet to do that.

    Go back to page 3. First post. It's very short.

    Just because I'm insulting you doesn't mean I'm irrational, it would only be irrational if all I was doing was insulting you. As it happens I'm trying to debate with you but it is impossble because you are refusing to back up your assertion.
    Ok, let me give you an example of how formal equality can be bad for women.

    The law on self defence applies to everyone equally. It entitles you to a defence if you defend yourself proportionately to imminent danger. However, this state of affairs has been shown to benefit men more than women. This is because men and women are fundamentally different - for example men are more likely to be able to plead self defence because as a defence it fits the paradigm of male violence. Men are most likely to encounter violence outside the home, and retaliate immediately with violence.

    Women, however, are much more likely to encounter violence within the home in the form of low level domestic abuse, and do not respond with violence because they fear the repurcussions of such conduct.

    Women instead suffer from the 'slow burn' effect - their feelings build up and then they eventually unleash this violence on their partner at a time when they will not suffer consequences - usually when their partner is incapacitated or asleep. This is not usually immediately after they have been subjected to violence. Therefore they do not fall within the requirements for pleading self defence.

    In this way, the law relating to self defence applies equally to all, however disadvantages women because it does not take into account the psychological differences between men and woman and their responses to violence, or the reality of where women experience violence.

    This is why I believe that equality of opportunity is a good thing, but treating men and women in exactly the same way is foolish and naive.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hafnium-174)
    The whole point is that you can't measure everything, no, do not try to suggest you can, you simply can't. YES COMPANIES CARE WHO THEY HIRE, BUT THEY JUST CAN'T MEASURE EVERYTHING. Yes, it is a good idea to lower the role of generalizations, but you can't overdo it, because it is impractical.
    What do you mean 'measure everything'?

    Measure everything about someones personality and abilities? Of course they can't, and they don't need to.

    But there are always going to be a handful of core skills that are essential for the job. It's not difficult to measure these. You might not get a perfect idea of exactly how great each person is, but you'll get a rough idea. Enough to make an informed decision.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blonde-beth)
    with all due respect...

    not once did i say there are more difference between genders than within them. i am not saying they should be treated much differently, but denying that there is a difference between males and females is just ignorent. no way am i being anti-feminist or saying that we should conform to gender stereotypes.

    yes you do need to treat different ages differently. not in the extreme ways that you have mentioned, but more subtle ways. are you seriously saying that you would talk to a 7 year old in the same way you would talk to a 50 year old?

    and you are judging my intelligence on how much time and care i have taken over a post? sorry but i have better things to be doing than making sure my spelling is 100% correct. what a fantastic argument you have there :rolleyes:
    The bit in bold - there are fundamental biological differences, to do with penises and vaginas. But like I said before - God I hate repeating myself - there are no traits or abilities found in only men and no women, or vice versa.

    Are you disagreeing with this?

    All people should be treated like themselves, not like the stereotype of their demographic.

    And the reason we generally treat 7 year olds differently to 50 year olds is not because one is 7, and one is 50 , but because they tend to have - drumroll - different traits and abilities. The average 7 year old doesn't have a great vocabulary, for example. Do you get it? People should be treated like they are what they are. Let's say the 50 year old had problems and had the same vocabulary as the average 7 year old, you would then stop using long words wouldn't you, just as you would with the average 7 year old.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O-Ren)
    Oh for goodness sake. The majority of women are weaker than the majority of men. I know this. We are biologically programmed to have different bodies!

    But:

    Weak people should be treated like they are weak. Strong people should be treated like they are strong. Sensitive people should be treated like they are sensitive.

    That's very different from saying 'men and women should be treated differently'.

    Everyone is a unique individual. Treating someone like they are the stereotype of their demographic is so, so wrong.
    It is human nature to stereotype. You, me, and everyone else, are constantly making generalisations and assumptions everyday, all the time. Whenever you go to cross a road at a pedestrian crossing, you make the assumption that the driver waiting at the red light will not ignore it and accelerate towards you. You do not know that this driver isn't a psychopath and isn't going to run you over. You make this assumption based on the fact that the vast majority of drivers aren't. If you weren't willing to make this assumption and assume the driver is a stereotypical driver who doesn't cut red lights, you would never be able to cross the road. People can't function without assumptions and stereotypes.

    Likewise, the vast majority of men are stronger than the vast majority of women, therefore it is not unfair to make that assumption. It is all well and good to say that we should treat everyone as an individual, but the fact is that humans by their very nature make assumptions based on stereotypes, and employers are no exception to this.

    The fact is that at certain times we have to treat people like stereotypes of their demographic - we don't always have the time and knowledge to assess a persons every skill and ability on an individual basis.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 20, 2010
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.