Turn on thread page Beta

Why do women want gender equality in the workplace, but not in dating? watch

    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by loveleest)
    No, under 24 weeks the foetus is not a "child". It cannot feel pain or function as a human. So a women should get an abortion before then.
    You are really ignorant. Women can get pregnant due to rape, due to being in a unstable financial position, failed contraception but to you, women should keep the baby because it's "murder" (which it isn't)
    What I would say I am against though is women using abortion as a contraception, I do think that is wrong.
    As I told you before, we will disagree. I do not agree in the whole over or under 24 weeks argument. 24 weeks is a 6 months old unborn child. People use this argument to justify murder.

    By the way, I am not that ignorant. I have 3 doctors in my family and my girlfriend is studying to be a doctor as well. All of them are against abortion. I guess you probably know more than them.

    Anyway, you have your views and I have mine. Let us leave it at that. I guess you and the other person has proven to this thread the double standards in women’s approach to equality.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    They are two different people in different bodies. A pregnant mother has her unborn child in her and completely dependent on her. Those are very different things. That is why the mother does not have a right to end the child’s life.
    And the person in desperate need for one kidney is totally dependent on the only perfect match who has two healthy kidneys in their bodies.

    All you keep saying is ‘they’re completely different things’ but tbh, it follows the same principle: Person A has the ability to allow Person B to continue living (I assume you believe that life begins at conception) and is the only one who can do so, however the only way to do that is if person A undergoes a procedure that could be dangerous. Person A refuses because they believe that they should have autonomy over their body and they don’t want to risk the pain, complications or side effects that could arise. As a direct result of person A’s refusal, person B dies.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    And the person in desperate need for one kidney is totally dependent on the only perfect match who has two healthy kidneys in their bodies.

    All you keep saying is ‘they’re completely different things’ but tbh, it follows the same principle: Person A has the ability to allow Person B to continue living (I assume you believe that life begins at conception) and is the only one who can do so, however the only way to do that is if person A undergoes a procedure that could be dangerous. Person A refuses because they believe that they should have autonomy over their body and they don’t want to risk the pain, complications or side effects that could arise. As a direct result of person A’s refusal, person B dies.
    You are still using two different argument points. Person A and Part B are two separate entities but in a pregnant woman’s case, Person A (baby) is IN Person B (mother).

    Due to the strong nature of child dependence on mother, if a child dies under the care of the mother, the first point is negligence, then manslaughter and murder. There is no argument of “it is the woman’s business what she does with her child”.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    How have we got from women supposedly only wanting equality / rights when it suits to abortion?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    You are still using two different argument points. Person A and Part B are two separate entities but in a pregnant woman’s case, Person A (baby) is IN Person B (mother).
    According to you pro lifers, isn’t the unborn child a separate entity from the mother? Which is why when people say that ‘a woman should be able to do what she wants with her body’ , you proceed to say ‘but it’s not her body, it’s someone else’s’.
    Don’t you also say that the life on an unborn child is of the same value as the life of a person who is completely independent from their mother? Something along the lines of ‘she wouldn’t be able to kill her child once it’s been born so why should she be able to kill it when it’s inside her?’

    Due to the strong nature of child dependence on mother, if a child dies under the care of the mother, the first point is negligence, then manslaughter and murder. There is no argument of “it is the woman’s business what she does with her child”.
    Wow, and I hadn’t even seen this when I made the point above (in bold) but clearly just as I thought.

    Basically, you can’t answer the initial question I asked because it’d be contradictory to your pro life view.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    According to you pro lifers, isn’t the unborn child a separate entity from the mother? Which is why when people say that ‘a woman should be able to do what she wants with her body’ , you proceed to say ‘but it’s not her body, it’s someone else’s’.
    Don’t you also say that the life on an unborn child is of the same value as the life of a person who is completely independent from their mother? Something along the lines of ‘she wouldn’t be able to kill her child once it’s been born so why should she be able to kill it when it’s inside her?’



    Wow, and I hadn’t even seen this when I made the point above (in bold) but clearly just as I thought.

    Basically, you can’t answer the initial question I asked because it’d be contradictory to your pro life view.
    I have answered your question and I have said they are both different things.

    I don't think abortion should be free and those who do it should be jailed for life. In other countries, death.

    I suggest we stop discussing this because you are going round circles here.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    I have answered your question and I have said they are both different things.
    Its easy to say it. Clearly more difficult to prove.
    And no, you didn’t answer the question, you danced around it.

    I don't think abortion should be free and those who do it should be jailed for life. In other countries, death.
    irrelevant.

    I suggest we stop discussing this because you are going round circles here.
    Yeah, let’s stop discussing it because you can’t answer the question nor have you been able to demonstrate how they are different without being contradictory. Had you answered yes, at least then your argument would be consistent.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    And the person in desperate need for one kidney is totally dependent on the only perfect match who has two healthy kidneys in their bodies.

    All you keep saying is ‘they’re completely different things’ but tbh, it follows the same principle: Person A has the ability to allow Person B to continue living (I assume you believe that life begins at conception) and is the only one who can do so, however the only way to do that is if person A undergoes a procedure that could be dangerous. Person A refuses because they believe that they should have autonomy over their body and they don’t want to risk the pain, complications or side effects that could arise. As a direct result of person A’s refusal, person B dies.
    Great way of putting it! And to add, person A has to look after person B for at least 18 years after the procedure, financially and emotionally. But they’re a ‘murderer’ because they don’t want to sacrifice their body and life for person B.

    Pro lifers value a potential life over an actual life. It’s so hypocritical, to treat someone who’s already alive like a baby machine.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Its easy to say it. Clearly more difficult to prove.
    And no, you didn’t answer the question, you danced around it.


    irrelevant.



    Yeah, let’s stop discussing it because you can’t answer the question nor have you been able to demonstrate how they are different without being contradictory. Had you answered yes, at least then your argument would be consistent.
    How did i not answer your question?

    My response was clear, a mother with a child is different to a person in need of a kidney. If Person A requires a kidney there are many “perfect matches”, so the person is not dependent on just one person. However, an unborn child is wholly dependent on its mother through its development until birth and beyond. A kidney case is not a 1:1 situation like a child completely dependent on its mother.

    Have i answered your question now? You seem to be expecting another answer.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    As I told you before, we will disagree. I do not agree in the whole over or under 24 weeks argument. 24 weeks is a 6 months old unborn child. People use this argument to justify murder.

    By the way, I am not that ignorant. I have 3 doctors in my family and my girlfriend is studying to be a doctor as well. All of them are against abortion. I guess you probably know more than them.

    Anyway, you have your views and I have mine. Let us leave it at that. I guess you and the other person has proven to this thread the double standards in women’s approach to equality.
    Aww cute. So you are just exposing that your 3 family members and your soon to be doctor girlfriend are ignorant about this? There are many reasons why a women would get an abortion which could include being a traumatic experience. I read an article where a man impregnated his daughter, Do you know how distressing the daughter must have felt? That a Mother is going to have a child from her own father? But she has to keep it because it's murder? That is sick. There is a borderline difference between saying things that are your opinion than saying things that are just plain unthoughtful.

    There are many women that actually keep their child that is a product of rape, because of how disgusting and judgmental society is to women with abortion and then end up resenting and abusing their children because they replay bad memories in their head. Or women that fell pregnant accidentally (with using contraception) but would consider an abortion because they don't want to bring a child into this world poor.

    Women are committing suicides after abortions because of willfully ignorant statements like yours and I suggest you and your family think about what you say and consider why women would get it other than "trying to murder children"
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by loveleest)
    Aww cute. So you are just exposing that your 3 family members and your soon to be doctor girlfriend are ignorant about this? There are many reasons why a women would get an abortion which could include being a traumatic experience. I read an article where a man impregnated his daughter, Do you know how distressing the daughter must have felt? That a Mother is going to have a child from her own father? But she has to keep it because it's murder? That is sick. There is a borderline difference between saying things that are your opinion than saying things that are just plain unthoughtful.

    There are many women that actually keep their child that is a product of rape, because of how disgusting and judgmental society is to women with abortion and then end up resenting and abusing their children because they replay bad memories in their head. Or women that feel pregnant accidentally (with using contraception) but would consider an abortion because they don't want to bring a child into this world poor.

    Women are committing suicides after abortions because of willfully ignorant statements like yours and I suggest you and your family think about what you say and consider why women would get it other than "trying to murder children"
    Haha, okay now my family is ignorant as well. Alright, i guess we should stop here. It was nice engaging with you.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    Haha, okay now my family is ignorant as well. Alright, i guess we should stop here. It was nice engaging with you.
    I said your family is ignorant about this topic. Everyone is ignorant about something. In this case, it's abortion.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I believe the question is flawed. Equal does not mean the same. Women and men are different in many ways. You do understand the term 'equal but different' right? For example in a relationship, a man and a woman may equally contribute in very different ways. Equality relates to value. Its about women being equally valued in the workplace, society or in a relationship. Its not about who opens the door for who or who takes out the trash! Its not about women saying I can do everything a man can do. Its about equally valuing what a woman can do. Today, there are still large pay gaps between women and men in many industries where skill between the sexes are equal. Not so long ago, women couldn't even vote so again, this is not about women saying that they are exactly the same as men, its about women asserting that they should have equal value in a male dominated society.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    How have we got from women supposedly only wanting equality / rights when it suits to abortion?
    LOOOOL!!! I just looked above and seriously thought I posted on the wrong thread!!!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    How have we got from women supposedly only wanting equality / rights when it suits to abortion?


    loveleest...
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by loveleest)
    I said your family is ignorant about this topic. Everyone is ignorant about something. In this case, it's abortion.
    My family is not ignorant about this topic. As medical doctors, they fully understand the medical and moral arguments of abortion. Just because we disagree with you does not make us ignorant. It is a silly and lazy way to engage in a topic.

    As i wrote when this argument started, i think we should agree to disagree. Many people before us have argued this topic and many people after us will do the same. Having disagreements is healthy.
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by snowman77)
    ...Except they don't want equality in dating. Men are still expected to:

    .
    There's a pretty big difference between the desire for universal legal equality in matters such as pay on the one hand and individual women encouraging (not demanding) men to show them a little preferential treatment. I don't really believe there are many women in our society that expect men to hold doors open for them even if there are some who might encourage and enjoy it. Personally I will happily hold a door open for anyone, male or female, I'm not so insecure as to think it matters.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    They probably already feel equal in a relationship having been a couple. It's just a thing they crave at work if one gender is receiving more attention than the other.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by snowman77)
    This is what I don't understand about the modern day gender equality/feminism movement. They want equality in some areas, but other areas they are happy for things to stay the same as long as they receive the benefit.

    Women want equal treatment in the workplace with their male colleagues. They want equal pay (FWIW the gender pay gap is a myth - same job for same hours get paid the same, otherwise it's illegal), they don't want to experience sexual harassment in the workplace (what about all the false accusations which ruin men's careers?), they want the same opportunities men have, they want equal opportunities for promotion (despite many of them taking time off for maternity leave).

    This is all fair enough. Except they don't want equality in dating. Men are still expected to:

    - ask the woman out and face possible rejection (women might give subtle hints, but under no circumstances will they ask the man out - that is "his job"
    - pay for the first date (and possible subsequent dates as well)
    - propose to the woman
    - treat her with meals/gifts
    - hold open the door for her
    - give up his coat if she's cold, so he can freeze (but never the other way around)
    - put the majority of effort into sex (this is centered around pleasing the woman - the man's enjoyment is always assumed)
    - be manly and dominant, never show any weak emotions, keep his problems bottled up because otherwise it's "unmanly"
    - household chores must now be shared. Women no longer have to do all the cooking and cleaning, it's shared equally between men, because otherwise it's gender discrimination/oppression. Despite the fact men are still seen as the primary breadwinner in the household and a man without a job is a virtual disaster.


    So back to the original question: Why do women want gender equality in the workplace (and indeed many other areas), but not in dating? I'm interested to hear to views of men, women and any feminists.
    I believe this stems from the patriarchy directly and supports the view that men should be strong and support the weak woman. I believe this is known as toxic masculinity which I believe is used to oppress both men and women, however I still call myself a feminist.

    I do disagree with you on some of your points on dating though. In my experience , men often believe what they see in pornography is real life and think women actually like to be objectified during sex and don’t take ‘no’ or ‘stop’ seriously, which suggests that the needs of the woman are not being fulfilled, only the mans.

    I also don’t think that asking men to share the housework is oppressive because men are no longer expected to be the main breadwinner. However, women are missing out in the workplace because they are expected to look after the kids and house. This is one of the causes of the gender pay gap.

    I suppose in dating, both women and men experience hardships but most of the hardships you listed are created by the patriarchy that we live in.

    I am also intrigued as to where you got the facts about who gets the oppressed in the dating scene.

    I can only argue back from a personal point of view but I certainly can’t speak for most women and what’s they experience. In an ideal world I would like to conduct a study in which women and men answer questions about how they believe their dating partner should act to put your points into perspective.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by snowman77)
    This is what I don't understand about the modern day gender equality/feminism movement. They want equality in some areas, but other areas they are happy for things to stay the same as long as they receive the benefit.

    Women want equal treatment in the workplace with their male colleagues. They want equal pay (FWIW the gender pay gap is a myth - same job for same hours get paid the same, otherwise it's illegal), they don't want to experience sexual harassment in the workplace (what about all the false accusations which ruin men's careers?), they want the same opportunities men have, they want equal opportunities for promotion (despite many of them taking time off for maternity leave).

    This is all fair enough. Except they don't want equality in dating. Men are still expected to:

    - ask the woman out and face possible rejection (women might give subtle hints, but under no circumstances will they ask the man out - that is "his job"
    - pay for the first date (and possible subsequent dates as well)
    - propose to the woman
    - treat her with meals/gifts
    - hold open the door for her
    - give up his coat if she's cold, so he can freeze (but never the other way around)
    - put the majority of effort into sex (this is centered around pleasing the woman - the man's enjoyment is always assumed)
    - be manly and dominant, never show any weak emotions, keep his problems bottled up because otherwise it's "unmanly"
    - household chores must now be shared. Women no longer have to do all the cooking and cleaning, it's shared equally between men, because otherwise it's gender discrimination/oppression. Despite the fact men are still seen as the primary breadwinner in the household and a man without a job is a virtual disaster.


    So back to the original question: Why do women want gender equality in the workplace (and indeed many other areas), but not in dating? I'm interested to hear to views of men, women and any feminists.
    Hi Snowman,

    As a modern feminist I think it is all about respect. It depends on what you think is respectful behaviour.

    The gender pay gap is still there although is not as obvious as you might think, look at how much top male and female actresses earn, in this scenario the gap is clear. Also, the percentage of females in top managerial jobs (10-15%) is very low considering we account for approx. 50% of the population.

    re: Sexual harassment
    yes people do get accused falsely which is shocking but what about all those cases when it's true? I ask you to think of a situation of when a guy has reported sexual harassment?!

    Re: Maternity.
    Carrying a baby for 9 months, giving birth and the shock to your lifestyle after the child is born is a very hard and difficult thing to cope with. 6 - 12 months is a fair amount of time to adjust. Ask any new parent.
    However in this regard I feel the law is unfair and needs to change to allow men the opportunity to have 3-6 months off work (not just 2 weeks) to look after the child whilst the women go back to work. I am sure many men and women would welcome that.

    Re: Dating.
    How a lady wishes to be treated on a date is a personal thing. The first date sets the precedent for the rest of the relationship. Some people will insist on going 'dutch' and this is fine.
    Dating should not be about numbers it should be about romance and in my view a 'gentleman' will insist in paying for the first date as it is only polite.
    Women like to feel like women and making them feel special through a simple gesture of taking her out for a meal and 'treating' her is a great way to show your appreciation for her.
    I am old fashioned and if the guy insists on going dutch on the first date I won't quibble with him but I certainly wouldn't want a second date.

    Personally I hate the 'dutch' thing anyway. I think it's rude. I was brought up in a culture where if you ask someone out for dinner (friends/family/partner) then you should expect to foot the whole bill as it was YOU who invited that person/people out. In this situation, if you, as the invited guest, wish to show respect and deference, you will try to pay for that meal instead of the host.

    Re: Sex.
    I am not sure who you have been meeting in your life but sex is about the enjoyment of the situation. If it happens that one side does more work than the other, who cares?! It's not a gym session, you don't have to pump away until you're exhausted. What's wrong with tantric sex or karma sutra in between?!

    The bottom line is that equal rights in the work place is a completely different issue to how you want to date i.e. the workplace is about money and not being taken for a ride and dating should not be about that, it's about romance (or doesn't that exist anymore?). You make the latter sound like a chore.

    Cocoa W
 
 
 

1,951

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
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.