Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    ...

    In 1929, women were named legally 'persons' in Canada. So it was in law...
    Your claim was that many people believed women were not people. You haven't demonstrated what you mean by 'many' nor how you come by that quantitative assertion. You have only identified a change in law in Canada - that says nothing about how many people believed what. Remember also that what is or is not law is not of itself evidence of what people more widely believed.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azaelia)
    What a load of baloney! I work in the construction industry, And there are plenty of female police officers too.
    But what about percentage? We are talking about equality here...

    In soviet countries women worked equally with men when it was needed, the hell we even have even "Women in Russian Villages" poem, when women could stop horses and enter the burning buildings. The question is not about that.

    Physical labor has always been male domain and as it is not considered "elite" work, equality fighters don't care about that. A lot of stuff is automated so it started to be quite convenient to fight for equality in places where no physical attribute is needed. Equality fight is more about some elite professions.

    Anyway history repeats itself and I'll reference Glubb. The technologies changes but the patterns are the same.
    An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab Empire, the women demanding admission to the professions hitherto monopolised by men. ‘What,’ wrote the contemporary historian, Ibn Bessam, ‘have the professions of clerk, tax-collector or preacher to do with women? These occupations have always been limited to men alone.’ Many women practised law, while others obtained posts as university professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded.
    Still with the advent of technologies I wonder how losses in wars will play.

    (Original post by Less(e/o)n)
    All conjecture. Where is your evidence for all of this? Whatever you yourself might be, you can't speak for all women.
    Aren't women on average more compassionate and polite. I remember JP said that so I presume that there might be some statistics
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    Your claim was that many people believed women were not people. You haven't demonstrated what you mean by 'many' nor how you come by that quantitative assertion. You have only identified a change in law in Canada - that says nothing about how many people believed what. Remember also that what is or is not law is not of itself evidence of what people more widely believed.

    ... Right. So the fact that the law didn't accept women as 'persons' isn't evidence there were many who believed that.

    Is this one of those, "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is." things? Because you know that's absurd. If that's the case, then I ask:
    Please explain the definition of 'Many' as accepted by the majority of people. Remember that, like you, I do not accept authoritative bodies like 'Dictionaries' in the same way you don't accept authoritative bodies like 'Governments'.

    I think you're being silly and placing the burden of proof far above what anybody can have, and you're doing it to avoid answering the question of whether murdering women was wrong when women were not considered persons, but go ahead. I'd love to see how you can answer your own question with the same level of burden of proof.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chucke1992)
    Aren't women on average more compassionate and polite. I remember JP said that so I presume that there might be some statistics
    I'd be happy to look at any and all statistics, but where exactly are they?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    ...I think you're being silly...
    You made a simple and bold assertion about what many people believed which I asked you to demonstrate. You could not do so. Instead you have made reference to a legal change in Canada and called me names for good measure. Bad loser?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Less(e/o)n)
    I'd be happy to look at any and all statistics, but where exactly are they?
    I just googled a little and got this
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Less(e/o)n)
    All conjecture. Where is your evidence for all of this? Whatever you yourself might be, you can't speak for all women.
    Our biological makeup should be enough.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chucke1992)
    But what about percentage? We are talking about equality here...
    There would be more if companies weren't so worried about women leaving to have babies. When I was employed on a 6month rolling contract basis just a few years ago, I was actually told by my boss (who was female too), that she wouldn't permanently employ me or other young women because she was worried we could go off on maternity leave at any time.

    Sexism in employment is rife.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    You made a simple and bold assertion about what many people believed which I asked you to demonstrate. You could not do so. Instead you have made reference to a legal change in Canada and called me names for good measure. Bad loser?
    Not at all. I referenced and showed that entire country governments did not grant the legality of personhood to half the population of the world and you said that you didn't accept that governments elected by majority vote passing laws based upon majority vote by those persons in the senate represent 'many'.

    I simply pointed out that your rejection of my proof was silly and explained why, then countered by asking you to prove what your definition of 'many' is using your own burden of proof.

    Then, when you obviously couldn't answer a question using the same burden of proof set by you, you decided to act all hurt.

    Or maybe I misunderstand: Are you hurt that I asked you to fulfill your own burden of proof, or do you simply not understand the question?

    I should also point out that you're still avoiding the question of whether those who murdered women prior to 1929 were wrong, given that women were not legally persons either. It's a simple tactic to try to derail a conversation when you know you're wrong, but I don't intend to let that lie.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    This post hurts my brain. I've never met a woman who thinks any of this and I certainly don't. I want equality in all aspects of life therefore that includes dating. You're either spending time around the wrong women or spending too much time looking at tumblr feminists who are idiotic teenagers who don't know better
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azaelia)
    There would be more if companies weren't so worried about women leaving to have babies. When I was employed on a 6month rolling contract basis just a few years ago, I was actually told by my boss (who was female too), that she wouldn't permanently employ me or other young women because she was worried we could go off on maternity leave at any time.

    Sexism in employment is rife.
    It is not more about sexism but...Maternity leave as far as I know is paid in a lot of places so if you hire a woman and she leaves, you will have to pay her despite her not doing any work. (ok if government involved that completely different matter).

    Nobody prevents woman from not having the children though. Work. Just work. With the more topics like - "who needs children", "I don't understand long term relationships" in western european societies (they are more advanced in feminism) I don't see that as a problem anymore. Just like men fight for CEO position, woman can fight too. Proof you worth or something...Don't remember the quote.

    With the technology development I can imagine how it will look like in the future where to create new life people will combine genes in their own machines lol.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    ...I referenced and showed that entire country governments...
    Despite making a bold claim you have not answered my questions about how many is 'many' and by what evidence you demonstrate that this 'many' believed women were not people. The passing of laws is not actual evidence of what people believe let alone what the 'many' you make reference to believe.

    It's curious that you've shifted away from the issue of abortion and the foetus, maybe that was your intention?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Azaelia)
    What a load of baloney! I work in the construction industry, And there are plenty of female police officers too.
    You got it wrong. The pay gap and equality debate has centered around the elite jobs and C-Suite roles. They talk about jobs in finance, law, banking, consulting etc.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chucke1992)
    With the technology development I can imagine how it will look like in the future where to create new life people will combine genes in their own machines lol.
    We actually have something like this already! Called surrogate mothers.
    As giving birth nowadays is much easier than in the past and with the advent of cloud services we can introduce something like "Surrogate Mother as a Service" (sounds like SM as a Service, but it is a service too lol) where you can choose woman to bear a child.

    Pay her and and work.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    Despite making a bold claim you have not answered my questions about how many is 'many' and by what evidence you demonstrate that this 'many' believed women were not people. The passing of laws is not actual evidence of what people believe let alone what the 'many' you make reference to believe.

    It's curious that you've shifted away from the issue of abortion and the foetus, maybe that was your intention?
    I did answer your question and provided the fact that women were not legally persons as a method of doing so. How many is many? I don't know. That's why I didn't say "Three hundred and fifty-seven thousand, four hundred and six" and instead said 'Many'. You refuse to accept that the laws of an entire country represent 'many', so I'm asking you to provide me with what the definition of 'many' is using your own burden of proof - That is, that you cannot appeal to an authority(Like a dictionary) in the same sense that you do not accept an authority(In my case, a government).

    And you still haven't answered the question of whether or not murdering women prior to their being granted personhood was wrong. You seem to be avoiding answering direct questions. Perhaps you're afraid it will show you're in the wrong?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Chucke1992)
    We actually have something like this already! Called surrogate mothers.
    As giving birth nowadays is much easier than in the past and with the advent of cloud services we can introduce something like "Surrogate Mother as a Service" (sounds like SM as a Service, but it is a service too lol) where you can choose woman to bear a child.

    Pay her and and work.
    Interesting. Rather than having an artificial insemination or IVF for surrogate mothers, do you think that the husband should just have sex with the surrogate woman instead rather than the tedious, long and painful insemination process?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    Interesting. Rather than having an artificial insemination or IVF for surrogate mothers, do you think that the husband should just have sex with the surrogate woman instead rather than the tedious, long and painful insemination process?
    It might be a bonus service or additional check box (do sex with her, do it raw and so on)
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Chucke1992)
    It might be a bonus service or additional check box (do sex with her, do it raw and so on)
    Lol. Many women would not approve.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    You refuse to accept that the laws of an entire country represent 'many'...
    But the passing of laws don't of themselves represent what people actually believe, no matter how you characterise 'many'. I'm sure there are laws which do represent the beliefs of 'many' but that's not the same thing as saying a law demonstrates the belief of many, indeed some laws seem to fly in the face of popular belief no matter that there might be democratic representation of some kind. Moreover, there will be laws passed every day which the wider population are completely ignorant about let alone have a belief as to. Let me help you out though seeing as you're not getting anywhere with all this. I believe that women are people, I don't believe that a foetus is a person, I believe that a foetus starts to gain personhood when it is at, or is close to, physiological independence from the mother. Is there an arbitrary quality to that? Sure, but as I definitely do not accept that a fertilised egg is suddenly a person and there is a development from that to personhood I think that is the most sensible point at which to identify the status. Until a foetus is physiologically independent then it is still, in my view, something of an organ of the mother.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Reading this thread makes it obvious why so many emasculated men can't get laid. Stop complaining and toughen up or forever be alone.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
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.