NationStates Jolt Archive

If women are equal to men then why aren't women in control of (at least) half our world?

give them time

Well, it has been a few 100,000 years.

who's to say they arn't. control can be either visible or not. For all you know there might be a secret society of women who are right now keeping watch ove

The original author of this message needs to take is medicine now... please disreguard this message. This is his wife and let me reassure you that men are in total control. :cool:

Because this notion of equality has been suppressed by the major powers of the world for the past 1000s of years.

However, I think it will only take a few more decades before it's reversed.

Because they're not equal. Just considered equal

men are in control of the world but women are in control of the men

If women are equal to men then why aren't women in control of (at least) half our world?


Because if women werent suppressed, men would never be able to get laid.

edit: especially me.

men are in control of the world but women are in control of the men
Not of me. But then again, I'm not in control of anything important :p

Not of me. But then again, I'm not in control of anything important :p
getting men laid :eek:

What do you consider 'the world'? And 'control'? I thought nations, governments were 'controlling' pieces of land, and they usually consist of men and women. (exept in the middle east of course :rolleyes: )

Men and women are in control of most of 'the world'. Nature is almost gone.

And every earthquake, volcanic eruption, flood and other natural Desasters shows just how much control man (and woman) have over the world.

That's true, of course.

But I also consider animals and rainforests part of the world. And they don't really have a future with mankind multiplying and consuming everything...

If women are equal to men then why aren't women in control of (at least) half our world?
Because women have been kept out of power by men? It only takes a little dabble in history to see that. e.g. women being denied the vote, being denied work because they may decide to have children etc.
And no... I don't hate men...

Thousands of years ago when the first civilizations were being formed, it was believed that society was originally ruled by women; who possibly invented agriculture and found out that animals could be tamed and used for transportation/work on farms. When the major civilizations (at this time in the middle east) started wanting more land/more resources/whatever and men started going to war, the position of women and society changed, for reasons that I've forgotten. Again, this is a theory and I can't remember all of it.

Actually only some of the societies were ruled by Women. The majority were men because a way to create a civilization was to take it through force. Of course in every society, there are the exceptions.

Women equal half the population of the world.

Some say they are not in power because of oppression,

yet if women were really man's equal, they could not be oppressed.

yet if women were really man's equal, they could not be oppressed.

by your logic African people are "not equal" because they're worse off. Don't e so shortsighted.

Women ARE equal, and should be, but aren't always, treated that way. That's not to say that women are the same as men. Men for example are generally physically stronger- one of the factors leading to the subordinate role of women in history. Men were stronger, so they could beat women into submission. I'm sure there's more to it then that though...

Thousands of years ago when the first civilizations were being formed, it was believed that society was originally ruled by women; who possibly invented agriculture and found out that animals could be tamed and used for transportation/work on farms. When the major civilizations (at this time in the middle east) started wanting more land/more resources/whatever and men started going to war, the position of women and society changed, for reasons that I've forgotten. Again, this is a theory and I can't remember all of it.
okay. i'll go for that. but the christian religion, for example. male is the dominant sex, no doubt about it. God is suposedly male. where did that come from? cause freakin' males were in charge.

some societies, such as the native american societies (that is, before stupid europeans came in and killed em all off, excuse me, european MALES) were matriarchal (governed by females).it just so happened that asian and european cultures, probably stemming from several similar cultures and then evovling greatly over time, were dominated by males. and it just so happened that the european, especially, and the asian cultures were the stronger cultures. so maybe we can blame it all on chance. but whatever we blame it on, it's still not fair.

maybe males' bodies are capable of having more muscle mass, but females' bodies are capable of enduring more pain. i think we're about equal if you compare faults and strengths. females are oftentimes more mature and responsible than males. not all the time, mind you, there are always exceptions to everything.

bedding males has nothing to do with anything. males can bed females just as easily as females can bed males. it takes both to have intercourse. so that really isn't a valid point (whomever stated it, sorry, can't make more than one quote per post). sure, men can rape and take advantage of women more easily than women can take advantage of and rape men. but is that a strength? i'd say it's a fault, especially when it's used for evil, like it so often is these days.

also, the males out there should be thankful for all the pain and discomfort that females go through to carry on the human race. we have 9 months of carrying extra weight around plus all the sicknesses that go with it, plus the pains of labor which can last for 12 hours or more, plus breast -feeding, plus caring for the child as it grows. now, this is the part where the fathers come. HELP RAISE YOUR FREAKIN' CHILD! YOU MADE IT, YOU TAKE CARE OF IT!

*sigh* i could go on and on, but i'll spare you.

what is equality... equal rights...sure, in America they should be equals. but the idea of anything men can do women can do as well does not alway work. If a woman can carry a 50 lb backpack, all the equiptment she needs for combat and is able to endure the elements the same as men, then yes, let them fight. but to have the military redo their training so that women can fight... no.

I'll admit that there are women out there that can do the full physical labor in the military and I use the military because you really cannot skimp on the physical nature of military defense. I'm not against women trying however and I wish all of them luck.

Stringed Instruments:
HELP RAISE YOUR FREAKIN' CHILD! YOU MADE IT, YOU TAKE CARE OF IT!

Ehm this may be a generalisation, but I think in many cases women are the first to want children. It's a chemistry thing; I don't mind having children sometime, but I can live without them. Women are forced by their hormones to 'want' children. You can deny that, but it's proven scientifically.

About the question why men are in control: the ones who are now 'in control of the world' are say 45-55 years old. That means they where at college/university in 1970-1980. Back then the males/females ratio in higher education was way to the side of the males. At the moment that's different, so in a few decades there will be more highly educated women, and therefore more women able to 'take control'.
On the other hand, even in the far future women will be more likely to brake-off their carrier to have babies, so I think the 'power ratio' of men and women will never be 50-50.

Women haven't taken over the world because that would be a foolish and wasteful effort. We can safely leave *that* blood-pressure-raiser to the men. And while all the men are off trying to take over the world, we women can stick with the pursuit of worthwhile and attainable goals.

And for the record, I love men. I just think their preoccupation with taking over the world is something cute and fluffy to be poked fun at whenever possible (In the nicest possible way, of course :p)

I agree with Shaed and some of what Consul said... I myself do not want nor will ever want children, so that also is a generalization to say that all women want children. And most women know better than to go into office.

i believe inequality. but, having said that, i do NOT believe in quotas. Or affirmative action. If you want to change society, you change societies values so that we accept men and women as equal....you don'tstart discriminating the other way. I truly believe that the way we are going about this is simply going to bring about more divide because both men and women will feel unfairly treated, will bear a grudge against the other gender because of it, and, as a result, there will be even more discrimination. No, if you want to change things you really need to make people want to change, not forve it upon them like this.

ps. dont shoot me for this like i know you are going to. Dont call me chauvenist, or sexist, or anything like that. The one thing that worries me most is when debates like this turn into a slagging match. so please.

If women are equal to men then why aren't women in control of (at least) half our world?

Two quotes for you that are used often because they both tend to be true. The second more true I suppose then the first.

"Behind every good man there is a better woman"

"The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world"

Those quotes are actually meaningless. Bickering over who is stronger, male or female, white or black, is so idiotic.

I hope and believe mankind wil evolve past things like racism and sexism in the next 50 years or so.

I hope and believe mankind wil evolve past things like racism and sexism in the next 50 years or so.

maybe in the next 500 years, but not 50, it is too breed into some cultures and anyway some people will become racist or sexist (and don't forget racism and sexism can work both ways, like blacks being racists to whites and famales being sexist to males). Racism and sexism is sadly a fact of life and everyone can be a victim of them both and might well be somepoint in there life.

That's true, of course.

But I also consider animals and rainforests part of the world. And they don't really have a future with mankind multiplying and consuming everything...

which only leaves us with two choices: Limit the population or give tax breaks for abortion. You'll see how we cut our population in half within three generations.

Being in control of things isn't necessarily good. It could always be argued that women are better than men because they aren't ordering people around as much.

see... all this debate could have been ended if we would have went about the Iraq war in the right way...

let me explain: if we would have given all the women in Iraq guns, the war would have been over in two days

but, we didn't do that because we don't want to know women can have that much power ;)

If women are equal to men then why aren't women in control of (at least) half our world?
god bless your feminist heart

im so glad there is at least ONE man out there who understands that while we have made huge strides in equality of the sexes there is still a long way to go!

with hard work and the support of sensitive men like you soon women WILL be controlling half the world

Women equal half the population of the world.

Some say they are not in power because of oppression,

yet if women were really man's equal, they could not be oppressed.
Minorities have been able to supress majorities all through out history (no I'm not talking about the US' current situation in any way.). Why is it inconcievable that it happens to populations of the same size.

Anyway-go do some anthropological research, find tribal communities where women are actually the dominant sex (they exist). Come back with something better considered than this borderline Gallagher logic.

god bless your feminist heart

im so glad there is at least ONE man out there who understands that while we have made huge strides in equality of the sexes there is still a long way to go!

with hard work and the support of sensitive men like you soon women WILL be controlling half the world

Women have to rule half the world in order for there to be equality? One woman in the Oval Office and that would be unnecessary don't you think? America with it's power and influence.

Women have to rule half the world in order for there to be equality? One woman in the Oval Office and that would be unnecessary don't you think? America with it's power and influence.
no i think it takes more than that
all the levels between the bottom and the top need to have "equal" numbers of women in the in order for equality. after all elizabeth 1 was queen of england but the didnt make the english women equal .

One step at a time-start with equal pay, work their way up.

no i think it takes more than that
all the levels between the bottom and the top need to have "equal" numbers of women in the in order for equality. after all elizabeth 1 was queen of england but the didnt make the english women equal .

I suppose this means educating women in the Middle East about equality. I would guess some wouldn't want all of our Western values. In America I really couldn't guess if there is still "oppression" since everyone would have a different opinion but I'd say that it is hardly as big a problem as even 10 yrs ago.

One step at a time-start with equal pay, work their way up.
yup
gotta do that groundwork first
cant expect to just go *poof* everyone is equal

No matter what time or age, women will never be equal to men, nor men equal to women. They're two completely opposite beings, they think differently, act differently, and respond to situations differently. Instead of focusing on simply 'equality,' we need to focus on 'equal opportunities.'

I don't want to be considered equal to men. Nor do I think men should or want to be considered equal to women. It has nothing to do with the fact that men can be physically stronger than women, or that women tend to think more rationally than men.

By saying women are equal to men, or vice versa, you're saying that they are the other.

We need to stick to 'equal opportunities,' not being equal... unless 'equal' does mean equal opportunities, but I don't think it should just be called equality... does that make any sense?

Stringed Instruments:


Ehm this may be a generalisation, but I think in many cases women are the first to want children. It's a chemistry thing; I don't mind having children sometime, but I can live without them. Women are forced by their hormones to 'want' children. You can deny that, but it's proven scientifically.


Women are forced by their hormones to want children?

Then would you care to explain why in modern nations where women have access to effective birth control the birth rate has fallen below the replacement rate? In other words, women who can choose when to have children typically choose to have fewer, or even no children.

Doesn't sound like women's hormones are forcing them to have kids to me.

I suppose this means educating women in the Middle East about equality. I would guess some wouldn't want all of our Western values. In America I really couldn't guess if there is still "oppression" since everyone would have a different opinion but I'd say that it is hardly as big a problem as even 10 yrs ago.
i suspect that islamic equality will look different from american/european democracy. one can be equal and still be dressed in black from head to toe.

id say we have made huge strides in the groundwork of equality in the US.
im pretty sure that our professional schools (medical. law, veterinarian, whatever) are at or approaching 50/50 in regards to gender

we do lag behind in ethnic/racial equality in that way though

No matter what time or age, women will never be equal to men, nor men equal to women. They're two completely opposite beings, they think differently, act differently, and respond to situations differently. Instead of focusing on simply 'equality,' we need to focus on 'equal opportunities.'

I don't want to be considered equal to men. Nor do I think men should or want to be considered equal to women. It has nothing to do with the fact that men can be physically stronger than women, or that women tend to think more rationally than men.

By saying women are equal to men, or vice versa, you're saying that they are the other.

We need to stick to 'equal opportunities,' not being equal... unless 'equal' does mean equal opportunities, but I don't think it should just be called equality... does that make any sense?

oh im thinking legal equality not same same equality

who would want to be like a MAN? *shudder*

I can't believe people are still posting in this childish thread... :confused:

i suspect that islamic equality will look different from american/european democracy. one can be equal and still be dressed in black from head to toe.

id say we have made huge strides in the groundwork of equality in the US.
im pretty sure that our professional schools (medical. law, veterinarian, whatever) are at or approaching 50/50 in regards to gender

we do lag behind in ethnic/racial equality in that way though

In fact, in some educational areas, there are more women than men - specifically medicine. Not that this is surprising, since there have always been more women than men in health care, its just that they were always in subordinate roles. Now more women are becoming doctors instead of nurses and aides. And yet, from some radio programs I've listened to, it's suddenly become 'unfair to men' in medical school and the reasoning they offered was that there were fewer men attending than women. The speakers on the program wanted a big push to 'equalize' genders in med school, similar to the push to encourage woman to enter 'non-traditional' areas, such as engineering.

Women are forced by their hormones to want children?

Then would you care to explain why in modern nations where women have access to effective birth control the birth rate has fallen below the replacement rate? In other words, women who can choose when to have children typically choose to have fewer, or even no children.

Doesn't sound like women's hormones are forcing them to have kids to me.
ooo good point.

personally i was completely satisfied with ONE child.

more and more couples are deciding that NO children is the best choice for them.

guess it cant all be hormones

In fact, in some educational areas, there are more women than men - specifically medicine. Not that this is surprising, since there have always been more women than men in health care, its just that they were always in subordinate roles. Now more women are becoming doctors instead of nurses and aides. And yet, from some radio programs I've listened to, it's suddenly become 'unfair to men' in medical school and the reasoning they offered was that there were fewer men attending than women. The speakers on the program wanted a big push to 'equalize' genders in med school, similar to the push to encourage woman to enter 'non-traditional' areas, such as engineering.

I don't believe that women are being discriminated from areas such as engineering just that there are less women interested in the field. A higher number of one gender can be interested in a particular job area.

In fact, in some educational areas, there are more women than men - specifically medicine. Not that this is surprising, since there have always been more women than men in health care, its just that they were always in subordinate roles. Now more women are becoming doctors instead of nurses and aides. And yet, from some radio programs I've listened to, it's suddenly become 'unfair to men' in medical school and the reasoning they offered was that there were fewer men attending than women. The speakers on the program wanted a big push to 'equalize' genders in med school, similar to the push to encourage woman to enter 'non-traditional' areas, such as engineering.
the nusing programs at university level have gotten to be so difficult that you may as well hang on a few more years and go to medical school.

not that the jobs are the same but what the heck, if you are in college anyway

are there that many more women than men in medical school now?

I don't believe that women are being discriminated from areas such as engineering just that there are less women interested in the field. A higher number of one gender can be interested in a particular job area.
at this point, the way to get more women into engineering is probably to work at the highschool level to get more girls into the kind of classes that lead them to choose engineering.

but true, there will always be SOME imbalance in certain fields. as long as its CHOICE and not discrimination, then its fine.

Women and men are equal, but you're being very shortsighted.

Women and men are generally built differently physically, e.g. males tend to be stronger and alrger. The fact of the matter is, *most* men are better at some things than *most* women, and vice versa..

Because they prefer to use their puppets. That way if their puppet dies then they can just get another puppet.

at this point, the way to get more women into engineering is probably to work at the highschool level to get more girls into the kind of classes that lead them to choose engineering.

but true, there will always be SOME imbalance in certain fields. as long as its CHOICE and not discrimination, then its fine.

That would help I suppose. From what I've read most high school girls aren't really into mathematics. Other fields like science are prefered

Oh, we are in control. We just let you think you are so your insecure little egos don't evaporate. :D

To quote from My Big Fat Greek Wedding

"The man may be the head of the house, but the woman is the neck, and she can turn the head any way she wants."

Oh, we are in control. We just let you think you are so your insecure little egos don't evaporate. :D

To quote from My Big Fat Greek Wedding

"The man may be the head of the house, but the woman is the neck, and she can turn the head any way she wants."

Heh heh, that's funny. I suppose women could easily manipulate their husbands if they wanted to. Could be an added benefit to equality for women.

Equus:
Women are forced by their hormones to want children?

Then would you care to explain why in modern nations where women have access to effective birth control the birth rate has fallen below the replacement rate? In other words, women who can choose when to have children typically choose to have fewer, or even no children.

Doesn't sound like women's hormones are forcing them to have kids to me.


The replacement level means every family has at least one surviving girl birth. A lot of families nowadays get one child, wich gives them a 0,488 chance to hit replacement level. I know a whole lot of ppl who have children, but wouldnt attain replacement level.
I don't say women's hormones force them to have lots of children, but I think one could prove that having no children at all does not promote happiness in a woman.

And to get back on the subject: Why do men attain higher positions in their carreer? Before a manager decides to promote someone, he/she wants te be sure that the employee stays with the firm for a long time. Otherwise his/her investment doesn't pay enough return. Statistically, because of getting children, women will have a bigger chance of quitting the firm early.

Heh heh, that's funny. I suppose women could easily manipulate their husbands if they wanted to. Could be an added benefit to equality for women.

But if women achieve equality everywhere else, and then still have the advantage at home of being able to manipulate husbands/boyfriends (and women do, don't deny it) ? Doesn't that mean men would be the disadvantaged gender overall?

In all honesty, men do not rule the world. Behind every great man, there is a great woman. Never forget that. You see, I, as a man, am well aware of the fact that I am powerfless in the face of a woman's charms. Assuming she actually has some charms. The rest of the men in the world need to understand this too. The more civilized we become, the more power women have.

Now, as far as job equality is concerned, I'll never understand why a woman would get a job in the first place. You see, guys can't really get a girl to support them. A woman, however, can just go out and marry the richest guy she can find. Then she is set for life. Thus, she really has no need of a job, as long as she possesses decent looks and a fundamental understanding of what men can't resist, which is almost everything.

And on top of that, men have far more muscle mass than women, and they are far better at linear thinking. Women, however, can multi-task. This is a talent that men just don't have. We are lie bulldogs, and will follow a single train of thought to its conclusion. Women, however, can work on several things at once. Not to mention that women are far more devious than men. So basically, in athletics, or engineering (math in general), or any other area that involves strength or linear thought (the ability to single-mindedly follow the track to its conclusion, like math), men will always be superior. However, in guile, or in jobs such as secretarial positions, or any other area that require either deviousness or the ability to multi-task, women will always be superior. Thus, they rule the world, because they have all the tricks.

But if women achieve equality everywhere else, and then still have the advantage at home of being able to manipulate husbands/boyfriends (and women do, don't deny it) ? Doesn't that mean men would be the disadvantaged gender overall?
Of course it does. That is their goal.

I don't say women's hormones force them to have lots of children, but I think one could prove that having no children at all does not promote happiness in a woman.

I disagree. Happiness in women has nothing to do with whether or not they have a child. First off, women think they need to have children because of our pro-natalist society. Secondly, there are women who have children only because they don't have anything else to show for themselves, because of the inequalities in our society (not just between men and women, but this extends into race and sexuality as well). In my opinion (and, trust me, there are many Sociologists against me) that is a selfish reason to have children and can lead to more unhappiness.

Bottom line: Happiness in women has nothing to do with children, and any "proof" that could be present is simply because of society and could easily be changed.

I disagree. Happiness in women has nothing to do with whether or not they have a child. First off, women think they need to have children because of our pro-natalist society. Secondly, there are women who have children only because they don't have anything else to show for themselves, because of the inequalities in our society (not just between men and women, but this extends into race and sexuality as well). In my opinion (and, trust me, there are many Sociologists against me) that is a selfish reason to have children and can lead to more unhappiness.

Bottom line: Happiness in women has nothing to do with children, and any "proof" that could be present is simply because of society and could easily be changed.

Women who spend their lives on their careers instead of having a family never have any regrets? Having money in life doesn't exactly help if you can't enjoy it with anyone. Some people though don't need other people I guess and are happy going through life solo.

In all honesty, men do not rule the world. Behind every great man, there is a great woman. Never forget that.

What about the gay community?

Women who spend their lives on their careers instead of having a family never have any regrets? Having money in life doesn't exactly help if you can't enjoy it with anyone. Some people though don't need other people I guess and are happy going through life solo.

Hey, I study Sociology... I figure I have about 6 billion people to take care of and try to help before even thinking of bringing another life into this world. If I would happen to get a great paying job (trust me, I'm not in it for the money), I will happily share my money with my husband, charity, and organizations that I feel whose research is doing a great deal to help the world.

And, yes, I know of many older professional women that don't have any regrets about not having children. Granted, they all work in the social sciences and have the same passions I do, but they still are enjoying life nonetheless.

What about the gay community?
You sir are my hero. Honestly, that may be the best shoot down of a popular cliche that I have ever seen. Bravo.

Women and men are equal, but you're being very shortsighted.

Women and men are generally built differently physically, e.g. males tend to be stronger and alrger. The fact of the matter is, *most* men are better at some things than *most* women, and vice versa..
ya but those "things" are largely irrelevant to the modern world
unless you are talking about pushing the car out of a snowbank

But if women achieve equality everywhere else, and then still have the advantage at home of being able to manipulate husbands/boyfriends (and women do, don't deny it) ? Doesn't that mean men would be the disadvantaged gender overall?
well yes it does
but you do have to factor in "the estrogen haze" that has women forgiving their deadbeat boyfriends for crashing their car while getting sexual favors from her best friend. it is a formidable handicapp for many women

Those quotes are actually meaningless. Bickering over who is stronger, male or female.

Just to make clear at least the second quote which I find more accurate then the first one was.

"The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world"

This is true, no one shapes the generations of the future like the parents of the children. In the majority of cases that is the woman. Men are much more involved now then they ever have been in the raising of their children. It wasn't always the case. The reality is we are all socially conditioned in one way or another. If the primary parent is a woman, then it is from her that you're taught most of what your core foundation will be. Sure we all go through the rebel years of teenage-hood. However the majority of us grow up and find out our parents were not as stupid as at 16 we thought they were. The others who tend to remain a rebel end up outside the mainstream of society and or end up in jail.

So, I do believe it is fair to say, the hand that rocks the cradle does indeed rule the world.

Women equal half the population of the world.

Some say they are not in power because of oppression,

yet if women were really man's equal, they could not be oppressed.
I think you'd find that the ability to oppress another does not equate to superiority, consider Albert Einstein and say every competitor in the WWF, I'm fairly certain if any one WWF contender had been in the same place as Albert at the same time, they could easily have oppressed him if they desired, yet I'm not in the least bit inclined to consider them as being superior to Einstein.

some societies, such as the native american societies (that is, before stupid europeans came in and killed em all off, excuse me, european MALES) were matriarchal
No native American society has been found to have been matriarchal, although some were matrilineal.

Ehm this may be a generalisation, but I think in many cases women are the first to want children. It's a chemistry thing; I don't mind having children sometime, but I can live without them. Women are forced by their hormones to 'want' children. You can deny that, but it's proven scientifically.
If people didnt have children no one would be here. The fact that some humans may apparently feel a greater enthusiasm for this task does not make it less essential to the species. Who wants them is not as materially relevent as the fact that the species needs children to continue and the well-being of the species is promoted through the well being of individuals which is promoted by having two dedicated parents attend to their up-bringing.

By saying women are equal to men, or vice versa, you're saying that they are the other.
No it's not, equal is not same. '2+2' is equal to 4 yet clearly '2+2' is not the same as '4'. '2+2' has more characters and looks different and takes longer to say. '2+2' is very obvious (at a glance) different to '4' yet '2+2' is equal to '4'.

Women who spend their lives on their careers instead of having a family never have any regrets?
I'm sure that like every other fully functioning human being who reaches adulthood, that such women do have regrets...it's not exactly the point though since I doubt you will find many women who didnt spend their lives on their careers instead of having a family, that doesnt have regrets.

Why is it that so many women seem to be asking for equaliy, yet freely admitting that they use men's weakness when itcomes to women for their advantage? unless both sides make an effort to stop using and abusing each other, then nothing can be done.

Because it has been that way for so long it won't happen over night. Plus,it has gotten much better than the past,and sometimes women tend to not run for the highest positions such as President. There is nothing sexist about that.

If women are equal to men, why aren't they required to sign up for the draft like men are?

If women are equal to men then why aren't women in control of (at least) half our world?
what are you talking about? we run the whole thing.

we just let men think they run the place.

You sir are my hero. Honestly, that may be the best shoot down of a popular cliche that I have ever seen. Bravo.
Not really, because they only represent about 5% of the population at most. Now, the Kinsey report was 10%, but he was including bisexuals in the estimate.

If women are equal to men, why aren't they required to sign up for the draft like men are?
For the same reason that men are not required to use feminine hygiene products, because males and females are different. Not unequal, but different.

I really dont get why equal but different is so hard to understand. Many people recognise that 2 tv programes they like equally are different, many people can like 2 (or more) entirely different foods equally, they can even conceive that 2 (or more) very different foods might be equal in taste value, equal in nutrician value whilst still remaining different. Why the heck is this so hard when it comes to people. All people are different but that is no reason why people should be unequal in the sense of their rights and the opportunities offered to them.

The fact is we dont ask why men dont stop having wars (lets face it most of the soldiers and organisers/perpetrators of wars are men), if they expect to have rights equal to those of women. How about we turn it around and ask why men should be equal with women when less of them get raped each year? Would it make sense to suggest that men should have less rights than women unless we measure the number of rapes per sex per anum and have a regime in which the sex who has not suffered as many rapes has that evened out for them? Should we invent a drug that stimulates the pain and inconvinience of menstrual cycles and pregnancy and force-feed it to males before males are accorded equal status? What a load of nonesense.

That would help I suppose. From what I've read most high school girls aren't really into mathematics. Other fields like science are prefered
as a woman in physics, the university of toronto considers me a minority. so if i were to apply there for teacher's college, i'd get all the benefits of being a visible minority.

apparantly the number of women in math is roughly equal to the men in math though, from what i've heard.

And on top of that, men have far more muscle mass than women, and they are far better at linear thinking. Women, however, can multi-task. This is a talent that men just don't have. We are lie bulldogs, and will follow a single train of thought to its conclusion. Women, however, can work on several things at once. Not to mention that women are far more devious than men. So basically, in athletics, or engineering (math in general), or any other area that involves strength or linear thought (the ability to single-mindedly follow the track to its conclusion, like math), men will always be superior. However, in guile, or in jobs such as secretarial positions, or any other area that require either deviousness or the ability to multi-task, women will always be superior. Thus, they rule the world, because they have all the tricks.
what the fuck?

so you know, playing piano develops spatial thinking as well, it's not just testosterone.

women can do just as well as men in any field that you've named for men only. similarly, men can do just as well as women in any field that you've named for women.

and i don't know where the fuck it is that you're getting that women are more devious.

Originally Posted by HadesRulesMuch
And on top of that, men have far more muscle mass than women, and they are far better at linear thinking. Women, however, can multi-task. This is a talent that men just don't have. We are lie bulldogs, and will follow a single train of thought to its conclusion. Women, however, can work on several things at once. Not to mention that women are far more devious than men. So basically, in athletics, or engineering (math in general), or any other area that involves strength or linear thought (the ability to single-mindedly follow the track to its conclusion, like math), men will always be superior. However, in guile, or in jobs such as secretarial positions, or any other area that require either deviousness or the ability to multi-task, women will always be superior. Thus, they rule the world, because they have all the tricks.

Yes, women are devious and suited to secretarial work. :rolleyes: Ever consider that many of these roles have been delineated by society? What wit women being "hysterical" and can become infertile by thinking too much... You know, it robs their ovaries of blood. That was a real theory by the way...

If women are equal to men then why aren't women in control of (at least) half our world?

In my part of the world (real time) -thankfully, they are!
:D

In my part of the world (real time) -thankfully, they are!
Where is that? May myself and my partner move there? We'll be good, honest. :p

Yes, women are devious and suited to secretarial work. :rolleyes: Ever consider that many of these roles have been delineated by society? What wit women being "hysterical" and can become infertile by thinking too much... You know, it robs their ovaries of blood. That was a real theory by the way...
hmm... if applied to men that would explain why you see the idiots all high on testosterone beating the shit out of each other.

Where is that? May myself and my partner move there? We'll be good, honest. :p

AotearoaNewZealand, friend: the Prime Minister, The GG (place is soon gonna a republic so that may be irrelevant), the Attorney-General, and the Chief Justice are all women. Several HOD of govt. depts. are also women, and the head/CEO of 2 of the most successful companies we've got- and do you know? The place *hasnt* fallen to bits, gone bankrupt, or otherwise munted.
Go!


:D

AotearoaNewZealand, friend: the Prime Minister, The GG (place is soon gonna a republic so that may be irrelevant), the Attorney-General, and the Chief Justice are all women. Several HOD of govt. depts. are also women, and the head/CEO of 2 of the most successful companies we've got- and do you know? The place *hasnt* fallen to bits, gone bankrupt, or otherwise munted.
Go!
Hehe, I'm an Aussie! I must admit that New Zealand has a much better record than Australia on things like gender equality, social stuff and indigenous relations. Let's cross the pond...

If women are equal to men then why aren't women in control of (at least) half our world?

Who says we aren't? An awful lot of men wouldn't know what to do if they didn't have a woman organizing their lives. They'd starve in rags and their house would fall down on their corpse.

right

If women are equal to men then why aren't women in control of (at least) half our world?

Ohhh, you still haven't been clued in to the fact that they are in control. They find it much easier to maintain control if men aren't aware of what is going on.

It's true. Woman control western society. You need only trun on the TV or stand at a supermarket check out, and you see it.

The reason that women are not currently in control of half of the world can mainly be traced to their role in reproduction. At the most primitive stage of humanity the greater muscle mass of the male came into play, since this allowed him to forceably mate with a female. In tribal societies, not only men's greater strength, but also womens' role in reproduction (9 months of limited physical activity) made them unsuited physiologically for the more prestigious societal roles of hunter or warrior. It is also important to note that women's role as the carrier of offspring also made it important in societies for their sexual relations to be regulated. Once lineage became a factor in settled agricultural societies, so you know who to pass your land onto, it was obvious who the mother was, but less obvious who the father was. Hence, in many forming societies rules regarding female sexual relations were put in place.
If you trace this pattern throughout history you see that female physiology prevents women from taking the respected role of "provider." Not until the age where we have effective birth control do you really see women regaining some of their equal status. For example, in the US Martha Sanger and the birth control movement was in close historical proximity to the women's suffrage movement. In today's society technology has made physical stength less important and effective birth control has allowed women to enter into careers that pregnancy would have previously made impractical. It is important to note, though, that equality does still not exist for what I see as two main reasons, 1. We're still playing catch up for a history of oppression 2. as someone already intelligently pointed out, pregnancy still keeps women out of the highest ranks of business, military, and politics. CEO's do not want their high ranking business people to take long sabbaticals in order to birth and then care for infants. Likewise, extended leaves from the military make advancements to the highest ranks difficult. Finally, imagine if the president got pregnant, she might be sending the secret service out to get spumoni ice cream at midnight; or what if a terrorist attack occurred in the midst of her possible 24 plus hour labor.
The argument for the equality of women, is one for intellectual equality. Most women realize that men and women are inherently suited by physiology to certain careers i.e. where physical strength is key. It is also important to note, however, that many so-called inherently male or female careers i.e. teacher, secretary, "housewife," plumber, doctor, truck driver are only social constructs. Furthermore, in recent history women have made huge strides towards equality; from the nineteenth amendment to today, where something like 70% of college students are female. My final word on the argument is, no, women and men are not equal, obviously, but they are indeed intellectual equals.

OH and by the way, I'd be all for women having to sign up for the draft. I believe in pursuing equality between men and women as far as physically possible.

Women who spend their lives on their careers instead of having a family never have any regrets? Having money in life doesn't exactly help if you can't enjoy it with anyone. Some people though don't need other people I guess and are happy going through life solo.

I wonder why you see two choices... children OR lonely?

Are you suggesting that women should be having children for the company? Why should they be lonely, solo or single, just because they choose not to have children?

I don't grasp the logic.

Originally Posted by Utracia
Women who spend their lives on their careers instead of having a family never have any regrets? Having money in life doesn't exactly help if you can't enjoy it with anyone. Some people though don't need other people I guess and are happy going through life solo.

I plan on having both. I don't see why it's an either/or at all.

I believe in pursuing equality between men and women as far as physically possible.

I dont get this thread, the person that started it has problems... but I will contribute anyway. Men and women are now in the western civilisation equal. But it has only been in the past say ten years that this have happened.
Women have had a hard time with gender inequality, however now that they ARE equal to men, the want to keep getting more and more equal. It works both ways. I could give examples of things girls can do that guys can't but I am sure you can think of some on your own.
Life is what you make it, there is now the capability of being equal with the men in the working world, but many women decide to live at home and raise children, men cant give birth (in case you dint know) so they all work and inevitably work their way up the ladder of life.

For the same reason that men are not required to use feminine hygiene products, because males and females are different. Not unequal, but different.

I really dont get why equal but different is so hard to understand. Many people recognise that 2 tv programes they like equally are different, many people can like 2 (or more) entirely different foods equally, they can even conceive that 2 (or more) very different foods might be equal in taste value, equal in nutrician value whilst still remaining different. Why the heck is this so hard when it comes to people. All people are different but that is no reason why people should be unequal in the sense of their rights and the opportunities offered to them.

The fact is we dont ask why men dont stop having wars (lets face it most of the soldiers and organisers/perpetrators of wars are men), if they expect to have rights equal to those of women.

Equal but different is a right way of putting it. However this shouldn't change that if equal is equal then that is exactly what it should be. Men and women may do and think differently but they are to be treated the same. So, all standards should be the same including the draft. Women can fight just as well as men can especially nowadays where brute strength isn't neccessary to fight unless your a marine. Equality means responsiblility with the benefits.

Equal but different is a right way of putting it. However this shouldn't change that if equal is equal then that is exactly what it should be. Men and women may do and think differently but they are to be treated the same. So, all standards should be the same including the draft. Women can fight just as well as men can especially nowadays where brute strength isn't neccessary to fight unless your a marine. Equality means responsiblility with the benefits.

By that reasoning men should not enjoy equal benefits unless they undergo a simulated pregnancy if they get a woman pregnant...

If women are equal to men then why aren't women in control of (at least) half our world?

Good question, I think I have some sort of answer. Men by nature are the aggressors, then ones who want to look. Women are the pacifists, and the ones who want to be looked AT (there are exceptions of course, but I'm talking majority). Women are also more sensitive and caring as well as judging charachter. That's all fine and dandy, but to be a politician you need to be aggressive. That's what I think.

By that reasoning men should not enjoy equal benefits unless they undergo a simulated pregnancy if they get a woman pregnant...
A women can choose not to have sex. Her pregnancy is just as much her fault as the guy's, she just ignores the consequences.

A women can choose not to have sex. Her pregnancy is just as much her fault as the guy's, she just ignores the consequences. WTF, a woman by carrying and giving birth is at fault but unlike the guy (who doesnt incubate and give birth to the child) she is ignoring the consequences....er I think you have something confused here.

There are times when it is essential to draft people to war for the well-being of society - procreation is essential to the well being of a society. Pocreating is not a choice unless you are willing to accept extinction. War drafting is only necessary some of the time, but there is a constant need to reproduce if humanity is to continue, ergo women perform a vital societal duty that men are not expected to perform, and sometimes men are required to perform a vital societal duty by going to war. Both these functions can have drawbacks and are some people are more inclined or adverse than others. Some women enjoy being pregnant just as some men enjoy being in the military, however many women who hate being pregnant and hate giving birth none the less make the sacrifices necessary to procreate because the good being acheived is worthwhile, just like men and the draft.

May I ask would you force a pregnant woman into combat, force an abortion on her, or allow women to dodge the draft by intentionally becoming pregnant and never mind the consequences of children being born not because they are wanted but simply as a device that allows a mother to avoid an unpleasant situation?
Would mothers be exempt? If so how is that equal with fathers who can be drafted, if not how old should their child be before they can be drafted? Would there be protections in place so that a family of 3 children were not left without either parents or would we foster children out to state facilities and/or relatives not fit to be drafted (ie elderly, medically unfit)? If protections were in place on what basis? Would it only apply to married couples (and then only if they have children), or would it apply to all coupled parents, or all parents?