Equality and sameness

[bettsyboy]

Ok this is another gender issue subject.


I was talking to my dad today, giving him a hand doing some concreting and there was this feminist parade in the Main Street (ironic, a bunch of clean, we'll dressed women were complaining about being "oppressed" while 2 dirty men on their knees working for next to nothing were building a new sidewalk they would be using in a few weeks) and my dad and I started talking about them, I told my dad I support gender equality and women should be able to do the things s man can do, then my dad threw me a tool for doing the edgings and told me to smooth out the surface, I told him I couldn't use it, he said that I must think its inferior, I said "no, this is used for the edgings not the surface" and my dad said "so the smoothing tool is better than the edging tool?"(I forgot the name of the edging tool) I said "no, they are both needed but not in the same way" then I got it


So my question is , why do men and women have to be the same to be "equal"? Wouldn't it be better if we had different but equally important roles than compliment each other?

 

[Egghatch]

I disagree. A person's role in society should be determined by what they want to do and if they're capable of doing it, not their gender.

 

[Bard]

Gender equality to either gender:


Biased men > women


Men = women


Men > biased women.


When you think about it, any rational man or woman would have no problems accepting the fact that either gender are capable of every role. For instance, I work as the assistant head of nursing at my local hospital. Nurses in the medical field are typically thought of as being mostly for women? Well, if you agreed, you'd be right and you'd be wrong. The nursing field is dominated by women in a ratio against men comparable to persians vs the spartans. And despite there being so few men, they all do their jobs quite excellent. Except for Buck and his truck.


Really, it's just a matter of bias and ignorance that sparks the equality debate. For some reason, feminists think we're out to get them, when in reality (compared to hundreds of years ago) they couldn't even DREAM of doing the things they're capable of today.

 

[Quill]

there was this feminist parade in the Main Street (ironic, a bunch of clean, we'll dressed women were complaining about being "oppressed" while 2 dirty men on their knees working for next to nothing were building a new sidewalk they would be using in a few weeks)

Well, remember, there are different forms and extremes of oppression. Both men and women will go on parades for being exploited in the capitalist system, but the women in this parade may have been there because, regardless of what job they have, even if it's higher-paying than those "dirty men", they may feel that they are not earning as much as their male colleagues, which is wrong in any career. I don't see any irony here. Just because those workers may have been exploited does not mean those women were not being exploited, either. Being clean and well-dressed doesn't exclude you from oppression or discrimination.

why do men and women have to be the same to be "equal"? Wouldn't it be better if we had different but equally important roles than compliment each other?

O_o You mean, like, "separate but equal"? The problem is that, despite enormous progress, modern society still prioritizes masculinity and considers it a more favorable ideal than femininity. Women are encouraged to aspire to dress like men and have male jobs and skills, but men are discouraged to want to dress like women, do "women's work" or have a "female" talent for something. In such a climate, it's not feasible to expect that separating male and female spheres would lead to equal ground. Modern research shows that, essentially, men still lead the world and women do have a harder time in the workplace, if not in terms of equal pay, in terms of social interaction. Behavior that leads to men gaining power is approved of, even admired; the same behavior in a woman is disapproved of. There are still hate crimes against women. There are still institutions that do not adequately protect against violence and harrassment by men against women. There are still lawmakers trying to control women's bodies and choices. Until all of these obstacles have been overcome, we are not ready to be both separate and equal.

 

[AllyAnn]

I understand where you're coming from, but ask yourself this: What jobs do men have that women can absolutely, positively not do at all, with no exceptions? Really, there are none. None that I can think of, anyway. There are female firefighters, female police, female politicians, female doctors, female architects, female soldiers, female everything. And time and time again, I've seen women do "mens'" work just as well as the men themselves, and sometimes better. Then again, in that aspect of gender equality, that's not really the debated issue.


The debated issue is mainly on the subject of abortion and social issues that women face in the work force. While I don't believe that abortion isn't "controlling" a woman's body (message me if you want to debate that further; I'm not going to derail this thread), the social issues that women face from men is often rude, disgusting, or downright deplorable, not mention the fact that women are often paid less than men. In that aspect, men and women still are not equal, and that needs to be fixed.


Really, I don't understand why having a willy or woo-hoo between your legs should make a such a big difference in how you're treated socially and in the work force.

 

[Quill]

I understand where you're coming from, but ask yourself this: What jobs do men have that women can absolutely, positively not do at all, with no exceptions?

So? There are exceptions to every "rule". We don't currently have segregation between the genders – is that a good reason to start it? There are also minorities who have access to every job that majorities do, does that mean the fight is finally over and we can just drop every support system and stop parading about their rights? Until they are equally integrated, integration doesn't count for much. In the workplace, especially in work spheres dominated by men, women are often passed over in favor of a man for hiring, and women who try to negotiate for a higher salary are almost always not hired because employers see her as over-ambitious or needy, while men who negotiate for a higher salary are seen as strapping and assertive, and it doesn't affect their chances of getting hired at all.


Teenagers who take scientific surveys in school often assert in uncomfortably high percentages that men are better at math and science with no weaknesses, and women have no particular strengths at all, but are weak at math and science. Research shows that while men generally have more specialized visual/spatial parts of the brain while women generally have more specialized verbal/language-related parts of the brain. However, the claim that men are inherently generally better thatn women at math is not scientifically proven. Rather, any instances of this that we may experience personally may well be a result of cultural and societal discouragement in educational years, rather than a remark on intellectual poetntial.

I don't believe that abortion isn't "controlling" a woman's body

Oh. I see how that sounds now. I was mainly referring to lawmakers who are trying to control the way women have sex, like outlawing contraceptive methods, or refusing to allow access to free contraceptives for the women in their colleges/universities, thereby forcing them to expend a lot of money that men don't have to, damaging their ability to compete academically.

Really, I don't understand why having a willy or woo-hoo between your legs should make a such a big difference in how you're treated socially and in the work force.

It shouldn't, I agree, but unfortunately studies show that being a woman still negatively affects your ability to compete with men in the workplace, just like being black still negatively affects your ability to compete with whites in the workplace. Like I mentioned earlier, way too many institutions in the US are still extremely ineffective – sometimes even deliberately doing the opposite of their jobs – about adequately enforcing anti-harassment and -rape procedures, taking harassment/assault accusations seriously, and prosecuting them fairly, including staff at major colleges/universities and the entire military. There is no good reason why having a vagina would disqualify you from fair and equal social treatment and career opportunities, but unfortunately the still existent discrimination, although it's less and less blatant than it used to be, means we aren't quite ready to cut off all support yet, parades included.


Besides, personally I think everyone should have the right to parade if it's important to them. If men want to go on parades about how women should stop parading, go ahead, party! I don't need to agree in order to support your self-expression. I wasn't quite as happy about the Nazi parade in my city a few years back, but I didn't appeal to the government to stop them because it was a non-violent protest and not unconstitutional. I hated what they were doing but I still think that they had a right to do it. Sometimes women aren't even parading about discrimination in the modern US, but expressing their frustration about things that are happening to women elsewhere in the world or in history. In any case I see no reason to feel that someone shouldn't be able to go on parades, unless of course it's a violent protest.

 

[bettsyboy]

I understand where you're coming from, but ask yourself this: What jobs do men have that women can absolutely, positively not do at all, with no exceptions? Really, there are none. None that I can think of, anyway. There are female firefighters, female police, female politicians, female doctors, female architects, female soldiers, female everything. And time and time again, I've seen women do "mens'" work just as well as the men themselves, and sometimes better. Then again, in that aspect of gender equality, that's not really the debated issue.
The debated issue is mainly on the subject of abortion and social issues that women face in the work force. While I don't believe that abortion isn't "controlling" a woman's body (message me if you want to debate that further; I'm not going to derail this thread), the social issues that women face from men is often rude, disgusting, or downright deplorable, not mention the fact that women are often paid less than men. In that aspect, men and women still are not equal, and that needs to be fixed.


Really, I don't understand why having a willy or woo-hoo between your legs should make a such a big difference in how you're treated socially and in the work force.

I don't mean to demean a very valid post with a lot of good points but...


Working in mines, on oil rigs and other such highly dangerous jobs do require the kind of strength (physical and mental) that can only be achieved through the male naturally stronger muscles (especially in the arms) and the kind of competitiveness between workers that can only be achieved through testosterone.


Humans have evolved in such a way that men are meant to go and do the dangerous, dirty work while the women do the more risk free work, gender is a product of evolution, not of society like some feminists would have you believing. This stronger sense of self preservation hammered in through millions of years of evolution to human women actually does make it mentally, as well as physically impossible to do some things men can.


And in response to Bard.


The idea of nursing as something a woman is naturally good at is also false, although women of course do have a more nurturing nature, throughout human history it had been men's duty yo protect, so while the nursing profession appeals to the feminine instinct to nurture, it also appeals to the male instinct to protect (as in, protecting the patients from sickness) and this is also why there tend to be more male doctors, because that career path appeals more to the instinct to protect than to nurture, in conclusion from an evolutionary standpoint A man Nursing can be as masculine as anything else.


Finally, on the issue of women not being given as much of a chance as men, personally I think it's because men are more willing to do more arduous physical labor that women don't. And if a man tries to become a teacher in a primary or high school, then he is in for disappointment because education is quickly becoming a women-only profession, already it's common to have a school with a 100% female staff, and I don't see anyone pointing out THAT double standard

 

[Quill]

Working in mines, on oil rigs and other such highly dangerous jobs do require the kind of strength (physical and mental) that can only be achieved through the male naturally stronger muscles (especially in the arms) and the kind of competitiveness between workers that can only be achieved through testosterone.


Humans have evolved in such a way that men are meant to go and do the dangerous, dirty work while the women do the more risk free work, gender is a product of evolution, not of society like some feminists would have you believing. This stronger sense of self preservation hammered in through millions of years of evolution to human women actually does make it mentally, as well as physically impossible to do some things men can.

While the average male biology allows them to have more potential for "muscle" than the average woman, I can assure you that employers won't hire unqualified people to do physically and mentally strenuous jobs. The reason that women are in the military is because there are women out there capable of being mentally and physically up to the job. They take tests just as demanding and physically backbreaking and mentally stressful as all the other men, and they are qualified to have the job. It's true that some physical tasks will be out of reach even for the fittest woman on Earth compared to the fittest man, but the notion that it is physically impossible for women to work on mines, oil rigs, and "other such highly dangerous jobs" is just offensive and has no research to back it up.


There is plenty of evidence to show that women are just as mentally capable as men in high-stress situations. Otherwise the government would take steps to ensure that they can't operate as top-level CIA agents or call the shots in a risky war zone or fly fighter jets in TOPGUN. But they don't because they have run studies that prove otherwise. The claim that women are less competent in "dangerous" and "risky" situations due to their biology – not cultural influence, exposure and expectations – would require loads of evidence and as you, as claimant, have burden of proof, I expect such scientific support from an intelligent, well-informed debater.


As for my evidence, here are four articles discussing studies that claim that women deal better with stress in dangerous and risky situations. In fact, Zhen Yan, PhD, says, “If we could find compounds similar to estrogen that could be administered without causing hormonal side effects, they could prove to be a very effective treatment for stress-related problems in males.” Clearly this directly contradicts your statement that men are better equipped to cope with stress, thanks to biology and evolution, not cultural pressures.

Finally, on the issue of women not being given as much of a chance as men, personally I think it's because men are more willing to do more arduous physical labor that women don't.

Again – where on earth are you getting these claims? Women do hard jobs everywhere – in the military, in construction work, as miners, on oil rigs, in the police, the list goes on and on. In fact, since you feel such a need to explain your ideas with examples from evolution theory, in human history and even today in Third World countries, most cultures have the women doing the hard physical work, farming, taking care of children, cleaning, tending to domestic work. Among the Native Americans, even torture was women's work. In fact, in many of those cultures men's jobs are much less physically strenuous – sometimes they don't even do physical work of any kind. In Southern Asia, Western Asia, and Africa, only 20% of women work at paid non-agricultural jobs – are you telling me these 20% got where they are because they're shirking the dirty work? Besides, the highest-paying jobs with the most power generally require a higher education, not "arduous physical labor". It's these jobs, not working in mines or on oil rigs, where there really is a glass ceiling.

And if a man tries to become a teacher in a primary or high school, then he is in for disappointment because education is quickly becoming a women-only profession, already it's common to have a school with a 100% female staff, and I don't see anyone pointing out THAT double standard

…………… A 2012 report revealed that only 12% of third-year female PhD students said their first preference would be a career in academia – as compared to 21% of men. 88% of the women did not want academic careers – as compared to 79% of the men. After their first child, 40% of women in academia report that they no longer want to pursue that career. Unless no one is doing what they said they wanted from life, I propose that the reason no one may be pointing out "THAT double standard" is because there isn't one.


True, 70–85% of public school teachers (depending on the year) are female. But a "double standard" is a rule or principle that is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups. In order for a "double standard" to exist, men would have to be disadvantaged in the teacher workplace based on sex, discouraged from becoming a teacher, receive lower pay than female teachers with the same qualifications, and/or be passed over during hiring in favor of a female with the same qualifications. Obviously men show more desire than women to take these jobs, so they aren't receiving more societal pressure not to take them. Nor do they experience any disadvantage in pay, hiring or paternity privileges. By these censuses it looks like the average man who enters academia does so by choice and without struggle. However, while teaching jobs are more commonly female, management jobs, such as principal, are dominated by men. Meanwhile, women who want to turn away from "female" fields like education to more male-dominated fields like business and law are, statistically, having a harder time of it.

 

[Ashlynn Nonan]

Women have been degraded many times. I mean, women are told they can't do something that a man can do. I understand, some women might not be strong enough (I'm not) to do all the things men can do. Which is fine, as long as they're not being told. "You cant do this, you're a woman". If the job requires being able to lift so much, a woman might be able to do it. Some misogynist employers might turn down a woman because she is a woman.


Although, I can say, men who believe in male dominance are considered sexist. Women who believe in female dominance are considered feminist. Which is a sexist belief in and of itself. Meaning, women think believing in female dominance is better than believing in male dominance. Which, what I'm trying to say is, women sometimes do it to themselves, they degrade themselves, that it's not always a male that degrades women.