I'm a realist and sadly here is why men and women will never be equal.

a reply to: Annee

Expressionless. (No thought, no voice)

ATS, this is a moment to remember! It's never happened before, and I doubt it will ever happen again! My dumbassery has rendered Annee unable to respond emoticonly!

ETA: Oh no way I got it right the first time!

Wright. Write. Nooooooooooooooooooo!

originally posted by: frostie
Im still yet to see anyone take a stance on if this whole topic revolves around our Biology and Genetics, plus the social boundaries we all construct.

I didnt expect to get attacked and flamed this much, I should've known better.

"Deny Ignorance" psh, out the window.

Ok I'll bite...
Physically men are not equal physically and women are not physically equal either and if we look at social history the norms of society we can deduct men and women are not equal. In fact women have always been held in higher regard than men until about 2000 years ago give or take a few hundered years.

When humans were more like our ancesters the caveman it was women that steered the colony with women being the ones in charge of the more important aspects of social living. Things like the production of fermented beverages and other much needed or desired productions. Also if we look at history We notice women where held in much higher regard in a lot of cultures such as Celtic or Spartan.

All in all Women can do tasks just as well as men and history has plenty of cases to show it, it's my personal opinion that it's the boxes we place people in that makes you believe women are not equal. Times have changed, many jobs physically too difficult for a female tend to be too difficult for most men. I'm not sure about the US but here what you can safely lift alone is restricted by health and safety... So if a woman shouldn't lift it then maybea male shouldn't alone. In that situation if you lifted it and damaged your body it's on you.

originally posted by: frostie
Equality of the genders would be such a pleasant thing, if it was possible. I have nothing against women or equality, frankly I'm all for it. The sad truth is that its just not realistic, at least not anytime soon.

I was going to type a long and thoughtful post about inequality not necessarily meaning better or worse, with each gender having its own strengths and weaknesses and how we as genders actually complement each other and are strongest when working together...


...but nah. Let's face it. Being a man is awesome. I mean, seriously AWESOME.

The Gods loved me enough to let me be born a white male in an English-speaking first-world country. My life is basically as awesome as it can get. Do I feel guilty? Hell no. Do I feel privileged? Hell yeah, and enjoying every second of it.

So, ladies, sure, you're amazing. We get that. But men are just even more amazing - and we know it, despite what we might say when you're in earshot

a reply to: frostie

Thanks for the reply frostie, great discussion.

Social structure and gender roles within said structure are an outdated template imposed upon society by the power structure that we accept.

This structure was far less defined in pre christian Europe, the godesses were equally life givers and takers - without rambling or ranting the inequality comes from the shift in the folklore that helped us as a race make sense of the world.

From the patriarchal folklore of chrisianity, gender expectations have been outlined and underlined by forceful doctrine amd this force became by degrees accepted and expected.

Partly from a need to rebel against this construct, I wont 'man up' because I dont need to.
All women have a strength and mystical quality I will never understand.
And to anyone that hates the accepted gender definitions remember the words of Gandhi
'Be the change you want to see in the world'

originally posted by: frostie
Equality of the genders would be such a pleasant thing, if it was possible. I have nothing against women or equality, frankly I'm all for it. The sad truth is that its just not realistic, at least not anytime soon.

I will provide an argument for my stance that will consist of many real world examples, most of them I have witnessed over time. The following focuses on the work environment, which is a good place to start.


Theres nothing wrong or to be ashamed of, this is just how things fall into place.

Goes back to the whole men hunted and women gathered thing.

I really hate to give it to ya straight ladies, but gotta play the hand you're dealt.

Your examples are much too simplistic for any kind of good argument. No, this is not "how things fall into place".
This is so outdated and lacking basis in reality it was a waste to read.

a reply to: frostie

I think the problem here is perception.

It should not be possible for a woman's ability and desire to have children, to effect her career in any way, unless she decides that it ought to, and how it ought to. For example, if she would have been promoted in some way, but took a year or so to have a baby and bond with little one, an employer should not be permitted to take into account the time off, or any future drains on that employees time, that might result from her choice to have a child, and they should not be permitted to make choices based on motherhood and its responsibilities, either overtly or covertly, with the loss of their job and vast sums of money at risk, if they should violate that principle. Why? Because mothers should be supported, not vilified or disadvantaged, just because they have chosen to bear children. If they want to work a tenured job, they should be able to do that without compromising their choice to procreate.

And let me be clear, if children are not born because women are choosing work over rearing or birthing, then what will happen is that there will be no future, because eventually there will be too few children, too many elderly, and the economy will have no life in it worth a crap. It's a massive problem in Japanese towns these days, with many young people just buggering off to the city, leaving rural lands underpopulated and understaffed with farm hands and the like, not to mention the loss of many traditional skill sets as a result.

So, in short, women should be able to bear children without any consequence on their careers, unless they explicitly state that they are happy to pass up any opportunities that might have come their way if they had remained childless. If they do not so state then positions they might have been offered, will be offered them and held open until their maternity leave is utterly complete, and they can take those positions.

Seems simple enough to me.

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: Annee

Expressionless. (No thought, no voice)

ATS, this is a moment to remember! It's never happened before, and I doubt it will ever happen again! My dumbassery has rendered Annee unable to respond emoticonly!

ETA: Oh no way I got it right the first time!

Wright. Write. Nooooooooooooooooooo!

LOL

Ahhhhhhh, but it's a new day.

a reply to: honested3

Caveman logic is one of the factors driving my OP,

We need to access this situation from a biological standpoint.

a reply to: RAY1990

Thank you,

I enjoyed reading what you've address, and hope others will follow your example of addressing this from a scientific and professional manner.

I challenge you to find patriarchal vs matriarchal societies there are.

Millions vs hundreds.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Unfortuanly, in America, having a child or several is a burden on a womens career.

I believe European countries have a much better system for maternity leave.

Something I should start looking into,

Maybe its the government to blame? Thatd be a shocker

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: MOMof3
Did you know they can make sperm from stem cells now? Just food for thought.

Oh but we neeeeeeed men to take out our trash for us - whatever would we do without them?

If all the male garbage collectors go on strike


Then this is what your streets will look like.

We need more gender equality in this proffesion but i cant find any facebook or twitter or tumblr groups trying to fight for equality in male "dominated" sectors like this. Only for the ones for nice clean and well paying jobs.

a reply to: TrueBrit


If you dont put in the time to work, you dont get paid. It really does not get more complicated then that. If someone chooses to do something that makes them not able to and follow that choice and combine it with their career then they made that choice.No company is going to pay for you choices in life. You either choose to work for or you dont. Men adn woman alike have advantages and disadvantages because of their gender in life.

a reply to: everyone

Agreed,

Do you think some of the burden should fall on better government compensation for mothers?

originally posted by: frostie
a reply to: everyone

Agreed,

Do you think some of the burden should fall on better government compensation for mothers?

That infact already exists. If someone is working part-time and makes less money then the minimum they are elligble for compensation becuase of the legal minimum living wage. This automatically includes people who have to works less because they have to care for their children and this goes go for men and woman alike. So there is already a solution in place for that and a equal one.

In any other case where you have a couple and decide to have children then the man that keeps working will have to provide when the mother stays home during the pregnancy and or one of them remains witouth a job in order to spend that time taking care of the child-ren. In either case , one of them will end up making less money and woman will always lose time during their careers if they choose to have 1 or more children caused by her pregnancy. But again , it is a conscience choice of which you as a person know the consequences of. You are not forced to have children and you are also not forced no to have children.

Having children is a big responsibility and a lifetime,full time job. You cannot expct the world around you to fill the void on the left while you fill up the one on the right because you are of the oppinion that you deserve both and should not be made to choose. You want a career choose a career. You want children choose to have children. You want both? Thats what having a familly is all about. One mainly works and one has more time to be with the children. But these days having and being part of a family is being demonized as the evil patriarchal mysoginist social construct that woman should reject and now that that is right now slowly being eroded people complain that they have no way of having children AND a proper income/career.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: frostie

I think the problem here is perception.

[lots of well-meaning but typical socialist nonsense about telling other people how to live their life and spend their money]

Seems simple enough to me.

Businesses are not cashcows or socialism's private little piggybank.

The business doesn't give anyone a job because they somehow owe it to the employee, or because they have some social obligation. They give someone a job because they expect to exchange work for money.

You can't force someone to work if the business stops paying their wages, so why should you force a business to create/hold/pay/etc a job when the person stops providing their labour?

If you believe that businesses do actually operate under a social obligation to provide work then we shall have to agree to disagree.

originally posted by: frostie
a reply to: everyone

Agreed,

Do you think some of the burden should fall on better government compensation for mothers?

How about the slightly more novel concept of not having kids unless you can afford to have them?

Why do so many people keep trying to turn kids into a revenue stream? "Have a baby, get bumped up the housing list, get shunted off the jobseekers list and onto the regular-payments-to-cover-your-fags-and-booze list for the next few years! Don't forget to get knocked up and have one of either sex because that way they have to give you a house with three bedrooms! Yay!"

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: frostie
a reply to: everyone

Agreed,

Do you think some of the burden should fall on better government compensation for mothers?

How about the slightly more novel concept of not having kids unless you can afford to have them?

Why do so many people keep trying to turn kids into a revenue stream? "Have a baby, get bumped up the housing list, get shunted off the jobseekers list and onto the regular-payments-to-cover-your-fags-and-booze list for the next few years! Don't forget to get knocked up and have one of either sex because that way they have to give you a house with three bedrooms! Yay!"

I hope Im not missing anything, but Im not sure where this has any place in the discussion.

When I was referring to better compensation for mothers I was talking about having better maternity leave regulations, or another way women could have equal opportunity in the workplace when it comes to trying to juggle a career and child.

originally posted by: frostie

I hope Im not missing anything, but Im not sure where this has any place in the discussion.

When I was referring to better compensation for mothers I was talking about having better maternity leave regulations, or another way women could have equal opportunity in the workplace when it comes to trying to juggle a career and child.

Ah, that's a slightly different thing. "Compensation" in these situations usually refers to money - in other words, I understood you to mean additional welfare/benefits payments being made to people because they're pregnant/have young kids.

a reply to: EvillerBob

Agree and Totally understand where youre coming from, no sweat!

I got into very large debt with my credit cards when I was a student - many years ago.

I cut them up and sent them back and agreed freeze in interest and charges, with a monthly payback.

Never get into debt.