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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blinkbelle)
    I already identified one of the differences between men and women but you simply ignored it. Men have a different reaction to violence than women, who take longer to react and be provoked.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Neurology:

    1. Human relationships. Women tend to communicate more effectively than men, focusing on how to create a solution that works for the group, talking through issues, and utilizes non-verbal cues such as tone, emotion, and empathy whereas men tend to be more task-oriented, less talkative, and more isolated. Men have a more difficult time understanding emotions that are not explicitly verbalized, while women tend to intuit emotions and emotional cues. These differences explain why men and women sometimes have difficulty communicating and why men-to-men friendships look different from friendships among women.

    2. Left brain vs. both hemispheres. Men tend to process better in the left hemisphere of the brain while women tend to process equally well between the two hemispheres. This difference explains why men are generally stronger with left-brain activities and approach problem-solving from a task-oriented perspective while women typically solve problems more creatively and are more aware of feelings while communicating.

    3. Mathematical abilities. An area of the brain called the inferior-parietal lobule (IPL) is typically significantly larger in men, especially on the left side, than in women. This section of the brain is thought to control mental mathematical ability, and probably explains why men frequently perform higher in mathematical tasks than do women. Interestingly, this is the same area of Einstein’s brain that was discovered to be abnormally large. The IPL also processes sensory information, and the larger right side in women allows them to focus on, "specific stimuli, such as a baby crying in the night."

    4. Reaction to stress. Men tend to have a "fight or flight" response to stress situations while women seem to approach these situations with a "tend and befriend" strategy. Psychologist Shelley E. Taylor coined the phrase "tend and befriend" after recognizing that during times of stress women take care of themselves and their children (tending) and form strong group bonds (befriending). The reason for these different reactions to stress is rooted in hormones. The hormone oxytocin is released during stress in everyone. However, estrogen tends to enhance oxytocin resulting in calming and nurturing feelings whereas testosterone, which men produce in high levels during stress, reduces the effects of oxytocin.

    5. Language. Two sections of the brain responsible for language were found to be larger in women than in men, indicating one reason that women typically excel in language-based subjects and in language-associated thinking. Additionally, men typically only process language in their dominant hemisphere, whereas women process language in both hemispheres. This difference offers a bit of protection in case of a stroke. Women may be able to recover more fully from a stroke affecting the language areas in the brain while men may not have this same advantage.

    6. Emotions. Women typically have a larger deep limbic system than men, which allows them to be more in touch with their feelings and better able to express them, which promotes bonding with others. Because of this ability to connect, more women serve as caregivers for children. The down side to this larger deep limbic system is that it also opens women up to depression, especially during times of hormonal shifts such as after childbirth or during a woman’s menstrual cycle.

    7. Brain size. Typically, men’s brains are 11-12% bigger than women’s brains. This size difference has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence, but is explained by the difference in physical size between men and women. Men need more neurons to control their greater muscle mass and larger body size, thus generally have a larger brain.

    8. Pain. Men and women perceive pain differently. In studies, women require more morphine than men to reach the same level of pain reduction. Women are also more likely to vocalize their pain and to seek treatment for their pain than are men. The area of the brain that is activated during pain is the amygdala, and researchers have discovered that in men, the right amygdala is activated and in women, the left amygdala is activated. The right amygdala has more connections with areas of the brain that control external functions while the right amygdala has more connections with internal functions. This difference probably explains why women perceive pain more intensely than do men.

    9. Spatial ability. Men typically have stronger spatial abilities, or being able to mentally represent a shape and its dynamics, whereas women typically struggle in this area. Medical experts have discovered that women have a thicker parietal region of the brain, which hinders the ability to mentally rotate objects–an aspect of spatial ability. Research has shown this ability in babies as young as 5 months old, negating any ideas that these abilities were strengthened by environmental influences.

    10. Susceptibility to disorders. Because of the way men and women use the two hemispheres of the brain differently, there are some disorders that men and women are susceptible to in different ways. Men are more apt to have dyslexia or other language problems. If women have dyslexia, they are more likely to compensate for it. Women, on the other hand, are more susceptible to mood disorders such as depression and anxiety. While handedness is not a disorder, these brain tendencies also explain why more men are left-handed than are women. Men are also more likely to be diagnosed with autism, ADHD, and Tourette’s Syndrome.
    -http://www.mastersofhealthcare.com/blog/2009/10-big-differences-between-mens-and-womens-brains/


    I resent your 'holier than thou, smarter than thou' attitude though. I'm almost certain that you are by no means more knowledgeable on this topic than I am, and yet you persist with your irritating jibes and insults... :rolleyes: It's ridiculous.
    Those are all general differences.
    I have never denied there are some traits and abilities found more in men than women and vice versa, but are you saying that because of those general diffrences, women should automatically be treated like they are bad at maths for example? That men should be treated like they are bad at language-based subjects?

    No one should be treated by society like they are the stereotype of their demographic. They should be treated like they are who they are. How can you possibly argue against this?

    And as for that thing about violence, go back and read my original response to that.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Deadly Lightshade)
    Looking back, I think I approached this question from a weird overly-complex frame of mind, but I'll explain anyway.

    I think all humans have particular rights and opportunities, by virtue of their being human.


    'Being treated like a man' is not necessarily the 'right' way of being treated and equality doesn't imply rights. We could achieve equality just as easily by suggesting that all men be treated like women. Comparing my rights to those of men, or comparing my treatment to that of men in gauging my oppression is too narrow in scope.


    Also: quoting from something I said earlier in the thread: We should no longer need to talk about appropriating another colour/gender etc. as a way of expressing our desire for human rights. (it's a bit insulting to talk about it in that way... if I am black, it should be inconsequential to my rights, but it should not be 'as if I was white')
    100% agree with you :yes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ciawhobat)
    In real life, though, as I explained earlier, we have to use stereotypes to pre-judge people, before we get to know them. Otherwise, how do we act towards someone? You can never act neutrally and plainly, because even that is a chosen way of acting towards someone. By assuming things about people based on their gender (and whatever other clues you might have based on first impressions) you can MASSIVELY better your chances of approaching that person in an appropriate manner.

    You do it all the time yourself. Everyone does.

    You seem to think perhaps that people are going to use average gender skills to outweigh other evidence about someone's physical or mental characteristics. I can't imagine this would ever be the case. Do you think it happens? Like, if someone demonstrates a certain aptitude or level of ability that is uncommon in their gender, witnesses will simply disbelieve it?
    Okay, for the first time ever you've given me a response that hasn't made me extremely angry, so thank you.

    You are completely right - we all expect certain things of people because of their demographic. For example, I'd be more surprised if a black girl was much better than me at maths than if a white guy was much better than me at maths. Not because I think women or black people can't be good at maths, but because I know a high maths ability is more common in men than in women and in white people than black people (latter may well be to do with social reasons, I don't know and I don't want to argue it).

    However, there's is a huge difference between expecting someone to be a certain way, and treating them like they are a certain way. Treating them like they are a certain way for their demographic is completely wrong. Especially if you treat them like they are bad at something - you could end up destroying their confidence.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thrasymachus)

    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.
    I thought my post was perfectly clear :confused: I don't think it was particularly hard to discern
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Deadly Lightshade)
    Looking back, I think I approached this question from a weird overly-complex frame of mind, but I'll explain anyway.

    I think all humans have particular rights and opportunities, by virtue of their being human.


    'Being treated like a man' is not necessarily the 'right' way of being treated and equality doesn't imply rights. We could achieve equality just as easily by suggesting that all men be treated like women. Comparing my rights to those of men, or comparing my treatment to that of men in gauging my oppression is too narrow in scope.


    Also: quoting from something I said earlier in the thread: We should no longer need to talk about appropriating another colour/gender etc. as a way of expressing our desire for human rights. (it's a bit insulting to talk about it in that way... if I am black, it should be inconsequential to my rights, but it should not be 'as if I was white')
    What I take issue with is the concept of treating someone 'like a man' or 'like a woman'. No woman conforms totally to the female sterotype, no man conforms totally to the male stereotype. Each person should be treated like a unique human being.

    Same with black/white, working class/middle class/upper class, gay/bi/straight, old/middle aged/young.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O-Ren)
    Bold - you're completely right. If I was walking home alone on a dark night, and I saw a middle aged man standing in the shadows at the side of the road, I'd be a lot more scared than if it was a young woman. That's because I know that men are more likely to try to murder me than women are.

    However, that's an extreme situation. The guy doesn't suffer for me being 'more scared' of him. What does he care? Will he even notice I'm more scared of him?

    Now lets say I'm a French teacher. I know girls are generally better at learning languages than guys. So when I teach my class, I almost always call on the girls to read the French passages.

    That would be wrong.

    Do you see the difference?

    What I'm trying to say is, there's nothing wrong with being aware of which gender is more likely to have a certain ability/trait, but it is totally wrong to treat people like they have a certain ability or trait.

    And you are totally wrong about that last bit. If a skill is essential for the job the company isn't going to pick a person at random, they are going to assess whether they have this skill. If time is short they might choose to only assess the most important skill, rather than the two or three most important skills, they are never going to pick someone at random.
    1 man, 1 woman apply for the same job, say some random office job. Employer looks at them: they have identical degrees, alevels, grades, interviews, job experience etc. Now, as you might have read from the last thread about the same topic:

    * Men go into technology and hard sciences more than women.
    * Men are more likely to take hazardous jobs than women, and such jobs pay more than cushier and safer jobs.
    * Men are more willing to expose themselves to inclement weather at work, and are compensated for it ("compensating differences" in the language of economics).
    * Men tend to take more stressful jobs that are not "nine-to-five."
    * Many women prefer personal fulfillment at work (child care professional, for example) to higher pay.
    * Men are bigger risk takers than women, in general. Higher risk leads to higher reward.
    * The worst working hours pay more, and men are more likely to work these hours than women.
    * Dangerous jobs (coal mining) pay more and are more male dominated.
    * Men tend to "update" their work qualifications more than women do.
    * Men are more likely to work longer hours, and the pay gap widens for every hour past 40 per week.
    * Women are more likely to have "gaps" in their careers, primarily because of child rearing and child care. Less experience means lower pay.
    * Women are nine times more likely than men to drop out of work for "family reasons." Less seniority leads to lower pay.
    * Men work more weeks per year than women.
    * Men have half the absenteeism rate of women.
    * Men are more willing to commute long distances to work.
    * Men are more willing to relocate to undesirable locations for higher-paying jobs.
    * Men are more willing to take jobs that require extensive travel.
    * In the corporate world men are more likely to choose higher-paying fields such as finance and sales, whereas women are more prevalent in lower-paying fields such as human resources and public uerelations.
    * When men and women have the same job title, male responsibilities tend to be greater.
    * Men are more likely to work by commission; women are more likely to seek job security. The former has more earning potential.
    * Women place greater value on flexibility, a humane work environment, and having time for children and family than men do.
    Now assuming the qualities that are presented that are relevant to the job are generally true, why should the employer spend extra time and money to assess those qualities?

    Even if he does start assessing, he comes to many problems:

    1) very hard to predict individual's future
    2) psychological tests are ironically statistical stereotyping, the thing you are opposed to

    Sadly, it is just unrealistic to look at everyone as an individual, it just is cheaper/more economic to generalize. (I am not suggesting things shouldn't go towards less generalization)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blinkbelle)
    100% agree with you :yes:
    Well then I'll copy and paste my response to her:

    What I take issue with is the concept of treating someone 'like a man' or 'like a woman'. No woman conforms totally to the female sterotype, no man conforms totally to the male stereotype. Each person should be treated like a unique human being.

    Same with black/white, working class/middle class/upper class, gay/bi/straight, old/middle aged/young.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hafnium-174)
    1 man, 1 woman apply for the same job, say some random office job. Employer looks at them: they have identical degrees, alevels, grades, interviews, job experience etc. Now, as you might have read from the last thread about the same topic:

    * Men go into technology and hard sciences more than women.
    * Men are more likely to take hazardous jobs than women, and such jobs pay more than cushier and safer jobs.
    * Men are more willing to expose themselves to inclement weather at work, and are compensated for it ("compensating differences" in the language of economics).
    * Men tend to take more stressful jobs that are not "nine-to-five."

    * Many women prefer personal fulfillment at work (child care professional, for example) to higher pay.
    * Men are bigger risk takers than women, in general. Higher risk leads to higher reward.
    * The worst working hours pay more, and men are more likely to work these hours than women.
    * Dangerous jobs (coal mining) pay more and are more male dominated.
    * Men tend to "update" their work qualifications more than women do.
    * Men are more likely to work longer hours, and the pay gap widens for every hour past 40 per week.
    * Women are more likely to have "gaps" in their careers, primarily because of child rearing and child care. Less experience means lower pay.
    * Women are nine times more likely than men to drop out of work for "family reasons." Less seniority leads to lower pay.
    * Men work more weeks per year than women.
    * Men have half the absenteeism rate of women.
    * Men are more willing to commute long distances to work.
    * Men are more willing to relocate to undesirable locations for higher-paying jobs.
    * Men are more willing to take jobs that require extensive travel.
    * In the corporate world men are more likely to choose higher-paying fields such as finance and sales, whereas women are more prevalent in lower-paying fields such as human resources and public uerelations.

    * When men and women have the same job title, male responsibilities tend to be greater.
    * Men are more likely to work by commission; women are more likely to seek job security. The former has more earning potential.
    * Women place greater value on flexibility, a humane work environment, and having time for children and family than men do.


    Now assuming the qualities that are presented that are relevant to the job are generally true, why should the employer spend extra time and money to assess those qualities?

    Even if he does start assessing, he comes to many problems:

    1) very hard to predict individual's future
    2) psychological tests are ironically statistical stereotyping, the thing you are opposed to

    Sadly, it is just unrealistic to look at everyone as an individual, it just is cheaper/more economic to generalize. (I am not suggesting things shouldn't go towards less generalization)
    First of all lets address those things.

    Red = irrelevant, because our man and our woman have applied for the same job.

    Blue = irrelevant, because you can ascertain this from a quick glance at the CV.

    What's left?

    -Men generally bigger risk takers
    -Men more likely to take on unpleasant working hours
    -Women more likely to drop out for 'family reasons'
    -Women more likely to take time off work
    -Men more likely to take on additional responsibilities

    How could we ascertain how true these generalisations are of our hypothetical man and woman?

    -Ask them, in the interview, to describe three instances where they took a risk.

    -Ask them whether they are willing to take on early morning or late night shifts, tell them that if they say yes they are going to be held to it

    -Ask them, in the interview, to describe three occasions when they took on additional responsibilities

    -Their references. Employers know what other employers look for. If our man and woman had, in the past, taken on additional responsibilities or taken risks they would mention it in the reference. This is true of referees such as university personal tutors as well.

    -There's nothing you can reasonably do about the children thing. But remember, the fact that women are the ones that give birth and breast feed is a fundamental biological difference and this thread deals with 'beyond biological differences'. I think in a situation where a woman is of likely child-bearing age (between 25 and 35) the people deciding should look at all the other factors, and if it is a genuine tie then they can use this fundamental biological trait as the decision maker (unless the woman has of course explicitly said she doesn't intend to have kids).

    Oh and as for the very first paragraph: identical interviews? identical job experience? That's never going to occur is it. There will always be difference so that's a silly hypothetical situation.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O-Ren)
    -Men generally bigger risk takers
    -Men more likely to take on unpleasant working hours
    -Women more likely to drop out for 'family reasons'
    -Women more likely to take time off work
    -Men more likely to take on additional responsibilities
    This relates to my point about structures being fundamentally wrong. Who decided that taking risks, working long hours, not being dedicated to your family and not taking holidays are a good thing? Why are these things considered valuable? They are inherently prejudiced against women, and this is what needs addressing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O-Ren)
    Oh and as for the very first paragraph: identical interviews? identical job experience? That's never going to occur is it. There will always be difference so that's a silly hypothetical situation.
    Well it's the only way to talk about these things, haha. We have to control for all differences other than the ones we are talking about otherwise it's pointless.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blinkbelle)
    This relates to my point about structures being fundamentally wrong. Who decided that taking risks, working long hours, not being dedicated to your family and not taking holidays are a good thing? Why are these things considered valuable? They are inherently prejudiced against women, and this is what needs addressing.
    They are a good thing to the people hiring them! And no they aren't inherently prejudiced against women, they are prejudiced against people who cannot give 100% to the job. This so happens to be more likely to be women because of the abilities and traits slightly more commonly found in men than women (and vice versa) but mostly because of the way society is: with women more likely to be the primary carer. Obviously the woman has breasts for breast feeding which the man doesn't, but beyond that why is the woman so often caring for the kids more than the man? Answer: because society treats women like they should be the primary carer. If society let people be who they wanted to be I think we would see things much more balanced - more men at home and more women working late nights. Perhaps it will never be 50:50 due to certain traits being found more commonly in women, but I think as society gets more liberal (I'm assuming it will) we will see things even out a bit more.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    O-Ren Solos while I'm gone.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by onthejubileeline)
    I thought my post was perfectly clear :confused: I don't think it was particularly hard to discern
    Well, what is it exactly that you would hate about being treated like a man?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O-Ren)
    * Men go into technology and hard sciences more than women.
    Not irrelevant, men are more literate in terms on tech and science(even if grades are equal or education is non-scientfic), and this is in no way irrelevant in today's age.

    * Men tend to take more stressful jobs that are not "nine-to-five."
    Yes, wording makes it irrelevant, i will rephrase it for this:
    Men are more okay with working over time.

    * Men tend to "update" their work qualifications more than women do.
    This is referring to future capability in this context. Secondly, do people add lines like "due to work I learned a bit about Visual Basic" into a CV?

    * Men are more willing to commute long distances to work.
    * Men are more willing to relocate to undesirable locations for higher-paying jobs.
    * Men are more willing to take jobs that require extensive travel.
    They are relevant. 1) companies move, reorganize etc 2) men are less likely to care about switching jobs due to a lower traveling time
    * In the corporate world men are more likely to choose higher-paying fields such as finance and sales, whereas women are more prevalent in lower-paying fields such as human resources and public uerelations.
    * Men are more likely to work by commission; women are more likely to seek job security. The former has more earning potential.
    Translates into ambition when applying for the same job.

    I left out things that can be argued "she might get children in the future."


    -Ask them, in the interview, to describe three instances where they took a risk.
    This is very vague and tells you about the character of person, not about positive risk taking.

    -Ask them whether they are willing to take on early morning or late night shifts, tell them that if they say yes they are going to be held to it
    Answering "yes" does not guarantee a real life performance(e.g they may burn out faster). You can't assess that by a simple yes or no question.

    -Their references. Employers know what other employers look for. If our man and woman had, in the past, taken on additional responsibilities or taken risks they would mention it in the reference. This is true of referees such as university personal tutors as well.
    Sorry, I am not living/studying/working in UK, but are the references really objective? Do they really show a normal distribution???? As in 15% poor, 70% average, 15% good??? In my experience references only really tell you if are extremely unfit for a job or not.

    'beyond biological differences'
    It also has psychological effects.

    Oh and as for the very first paragraph: identical interviews? identical job experience? That's never going to occur is it. There will always be difference so that's a silly hypothetical situation
    Sort of like normal school level physics is useless???? Because it is too hypothetical???
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O-Ren)
    What I take issue with is the concept of treating someone 'like a man' or 'like a woman'. No woman conforms totally to the female sterotype, no man conforms totally to the male stereotype. Each person should be treated like a unique human being.

    Same with black/white, working class/middle class/upper class, gay/bi/straight, old/middle aged/young.
    I don't think I've said anything that disagrees with that. When I say I don't want to be 'treated like a man', I'm not talking about a stereotypical man. Similarly, I have no desire to be treated like a stereotypical woman. As long as I am treated like a human being first and foremost, whether or not the fact that I'm female or even 'feminine' bears on another person's understanding of me is irrelevant.

    A proportion of men (not all, since men are also quite regularly denied opportunities) receive the sort of treatment in which they are given both the rights and responsibilities which are due to a human. It is that sort of treatment that I aim for. The concept of wanting to be 'treated like a man' in comparison is neither here not there...
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    So, general consensus is that girls what the good bits of equality but not the bad
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hafnium-174)
    ...
    Alright, at first I was replying to what you said point by point (and some of them were genuinely retarded btw), but then I realised I couldn't be bothered. Because:

    I actually didn't expect you to reply at all to my last post, due to the point I made right at the end which I probably should have made clearer.

    This situation would never happen.

    Two people are going to always be so clearly different that sitting there saying 'well this one's got a vag so she's slightly less likely to want to commute, and I know no one's said anything about our company moving but it could happen...' is ridiculous. And before you repeat yourself and say 'Oh but sometimes it's a hassle for companies to try to find out lots of things about their applicants': Let's say both people who applied for the job were white, male, middle class and 30 - they belong to the exact same demographic - how would they decide then? Eeny meeny miny mo? No. They interview, they look at CVs etc. Interviewing and all that jazz is never going to be 'extra work' for the company because it will be in place that people have to go through a selection process anyway.

    Your whole argument hinges on our man and woman being exactly the same, but they're not going to be are they, to say hypothetically 'oh what if they were magically exactly the same' is incredibly childish, they aren't going to be magically exactly the same.

    There's no such thing as magic.

    Edit: That was supposed to be in the voice of Vernon Dursley.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    We're the same species.

    And women like you, housewives etc, actually have a little less value than men.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Poll is stupid: every male on the thread voted the 'No wtf, I love my privilege'.
 
 
 
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
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.