Equality of Men and Women?

[Secca]

I think the problem can be traced back to our parents and elder people. The way we were brought up, what they make us think is right or wrong. And what is accepted in the society.

Altho as we grow up we kinda change our view on equality, but deep down inside it was already been rooted since we were kids.

How many of you never heard your parents talk about what a boy or a girl should do or do not do?

[junko]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalton

hmmmm im sorry... but its not BS... its a simple combination of hormones and body structure that creates differences.... neither natural ability or emotion is the same for men and women.
Like said before the differences even out and both have their own strengths and weaknesess..
This is not just some random theory but this has been researched.
Ignoring differences is not only stupid but will forever keep this world from equality

Ah, you learned the proper uses of punctuation, I see. Well done, man, well done!

OK, so how exactly do hormones and body structure determine focus? Explain this to me.

<last post> Yeah, this too.

[Access]

Originally Posted by aahhsin

Actually... If a parent beats up their kid, it's more likely that the Kid will beat up his kid. Rebel sure, but Kids don't attack their parents they usually attack their own kids.

It's called "elder abuse" and it happens irl, even if not physical violence, denial of food / medication, financial abuse, etc. I'm not saying past abuse is the reason most old people end up abandoned, far from that; but don't deny it either.

"More like if everyone starts at the bottom of a corporation, the most ruthless, cunning, and sly person will be the manager." Sure there are places like that, but they are easily avoided for someone who doesn't wish to play that game. A bad manager can ruin a whole team and companies that recognize this put the most qualified people in those positions. A leader more than any other member had better be a team player if the business is to have the maximum chance of sucess.

[Rhia]

Originally Posted by _Sin_

What do you think? Do men and women really have equal rights in our - oh so modern - society, or is equality just an illusion?

I for my part think that women *do* have equal rights on the paper, but it is the bad execution of the laws which provide women equal rights that makes it appear as if they don't have such rights. Example: Women earn less money than men for equal work (approximately 20% less).
Who is at fault? Men for oppressing women? Women for not using their opportunities? The evil society?^^

Well, I'm eager to read what you have to say^^

Im a female and rrrrreeally i think they have to much equality in certain things, One example why, i feel that if theyre wernt so many rights for women my mum and dad would still be together cos my mum wouldnt be such an "indipendent woman" theres nothing wrong with that but now she feels she can do every thing by her self, and she used to be one of these "i dont need a man" women and i feel rights has made her feel more indipendent* as i said theres nothing worng with that* but to round it up i think


Rights= Indipendece which = stubborness, well anywas thats with the women i know..

[Sid_Burn]

Interesting thread... anyway...

Hmmm... I remember in our class..., wen girls are the leader..., I cant stand it wen they act like queens... and keeps on mocking me to do that..., they should do hardwork and help us also!!!..., all I can say is... in our school... Girls are Superior... and Men are slaves... I hate that wen that happens... we should be equal...

[CerealKiller]

Men and Women are equal and yet not.
Equal in value.
Different in structure. For example women are more emotional, this can be explained because women have a stronger link between the part of the brain witch controls emotions and the part that controls memory.

[_Sin_]

Originally Posted by junko

OK, so how exactly do hormones and body structure determine focus? Explain this to me.

I do not know much about that focus thingy, but let me try to explain what the biological difference between men and women are and what their consequences might be:

• Women produce less testosterone, thus they are weaker (physical strength, that is)
• Men and Women got different types of brains; men got the "S-Brain" which means that men think systematically. Women got an "E-Brain" which means they show more empathy than men. (I knew a site to test what type of brain you got, but I forgot it . To make it up, look here for more information on E/S Brains http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7405/57

Note that this list is by far what you'd call an ultimate revelation^^: It lists stuff that is known to be true for the average man/women, so don't go saying that the list is crap because I know that it is not true for everyone of us here

That being said, let's see what we might deduct from it:

Originally Posted by MySuckyList

Women produce less testosterone, thus they are weaker (physical strength, that is)

Men are the stronger sex. Period. Therefore they are better suited for labour than women --> men dominate the jobs which require more physical strength.
Also, if I were a generaly of the army, I would draft men only. Why? Because they are better suited for that than women (they got more raw strength^^)

Originally Posted by MySuckyList

Men and Women got different types of brains; men got the "S-Brain" which means that men think Systematically and show less emotions. Women got an "E-Brain" which means they show more Empathy than men.

Men predominate scientific jobs because having a S-Brain which analyses/arranges is advantageous for that. (physics , chemistry - I am just waiting for junko to disagree because I read her bio )
Women are more capable for jobs which require empathizing with others, for example as a psychologist/teachers etc.

And again: I am speaking for the general population, and not for everyone

Now that we dealt with the innate part, let's get to the role of the society, shall we?

We shouldn't forget the importance of the role our society has in forming our characters/ gender roles.

Example?

Originally Posted by HoboGod

oh, and why do I lose respect for them? i'm not sure, but something animal-like inside of me says that they would be easy to kill because they are crying.

I would say it's your upbringing (read: the society) that decides that you hate the "weak" because they do not fit into our gender roles and not your animal-like inside although I won't exclude that part too (just change the weighting). We, the men, are not supposed to cry...

There are a lot more examples which show the importance of our society. Just think about it: Why do I behave like I do? Why do people behave differently in other countries? Definitely not because of our genes.

Since I forgot what I wanted to write (read: I got a small attention span^^) I should stop here....

PS:

Originally Posted by dragonz20

Since it's generally true that women are much weaker than men, women tend to ask for help from men when they have to do X+Y things...

Did you choose X and Y by chance or did you want to convey a sublime message to our fellow female members? (XY=chromosomes of the men^^)

[HoboGod]

Originally Posted by _Sin_

I would say it's your upbringing (read: the society) that decides that you hate the "weak" because they do not fit into our gender roles and not your animal-like inside although I won't exclude that part too (just change the weighting). We, the men, are not supposed to cry...

no, it isn't that society has taught me to hate weak people. personally, if it was a child, i'd be compelled to protect it if it was crying. and when men are crying, I still don't feel hatred toward them. it is not that i WANT to kill them if they cry, it is just a trigger in the back of my head that says i COULD kill them because they cry.

[Joe Dalton]

hmmm I dont think ill have 2 explain about the focus anymore.

Its true that upbringing is verry important.
Its hard 2 say how much of what we do is free choice and how much is predetermined by our upbringing
However annother huge factor in our behavior is survivel of the fittest.
Take note though that in this case its not just lifting stuff but we take into acount money status power and even friendly relations inteligence and overal strenth.

oh and junko I have not learned propper use of punctuation since ive known how 2 use it since ... ok so I cant recall the exact date...however you will not see me use it on a forum (maybe in some weird circumstance) since I usualy have something better 2 do so I type verry fast and usualy dont stop 2 look for typos or gramatical errors or look at my punctuation
If im writing an important letter for either busines or social relations thats a different story
In conclusion :fingers:

this post has been brought 2 you by inc.

[StoneColdCrazy]

Originally Posted by aahhsin

So after 6000 years along with basic animal instincts (look at wolves and elephants, men as leaders), well face it, it's been encoded in our DNA to make it seem like men are dominant and active. Women are support.

That's the main problem, I think, is that people are stuck in routines or tradition - it's much easier to simply do what your parents did, what everyone else does, and so on. I'm sure religion plays a part in this too - I was shocked when a female friend of mine said that she'd always defer to her future husband when it came to the 'final decision' on a family matter, because her Christian beliefs suggested this.

I don't see, theoretically, any reason why women should be discriminated against or treated in the workplace or elsewhere at all. In the real world things seem to be very different and, unfortunately, I think we still live in a sexist world. Removing the most obvious barriers to equality (such as legal ones) has left the invisible ones, the unsaid ones that are there in our psyche, still standing. Apparently, this also means that men and women are biased towards doing certain tasks better. Fair enough, but just because you have a small advantage at something from the start it doesn't mean you don't have to work at it to get anywhere - the most successful people are always those who work at what they do and the determined, hard worker who's willing to learn, to put effort into something will always do much better than someone who is talented but lazy.

Originally Posted by Asura

Insurance companies would usually offer lower premiums to women. Why? Do they still consider women as minorities.

I don't know about in the US, but in the UK, women were (and still are) offered lower insurance premiums and told they were (...and still are) safer drivers to encourage more of them to register with car insurance companies. Apparently, they are no better or worse at driving than men, and the (British?) myth of women as safer drivers has been created by an advertising initiative designed to appeal to a customer base previously ignored.

And then there's MTV... So many of the female artists have videos where they dance and strut about semi-naked, flashing their booty, and so many of the male artists have videos where lots of female dancers strut about flashing their booty... that can't be right, surely?

Also, Junko and Cammie: interesting input to the thread guys, I'm especially heartened to hear Cammie say that she's seen more evidence of stay-home dads. One question though, Cammie said "with respect to wnkryo I will not comment on this statement." Apologies if I'm being somewhat tactless, but why not? Am I missing something? This is something I don't know, isn't it?

As a final note, can anyone actually get firm male/female pay figures, rather than, as dragonz20 said, pulling them out of someone's backside?

SCC

[kujoe]

Hmmm, interesting discussion. In the present, there is no such thing as gender equality. In fact, I would be one of those who would advocate differences, rather than symmetry. And it's not due to the fact that men and women are biologically different, but because the concept of gender equality hasn't been fully defined.

It's never a simple case between man and woman. Feminists have been fighting gender oppression on the plane of gender politics for a very long time now, but even they will be the first to admit, that it's never simple as that. There are women among women, women of different racial origins, women of the 1st world and of the 3rd world, lesbians, etc., etc. The struggle for equality then, is further made more complicated and complex--a struggle that is further made more multi-faceted due to separate specificities in culture, class and race. It's a struggle that is being drawn beyond the boundaries of mere gender.

Furthermore, the trend of a "man's world" is still present with us today within different aspects of contemporary society. For instance, science of the bygone ages had made women an object of science. Moreover, the concept of Law and the writing of History have also been criticized to be patriarchal constructs which have their own ideological bearing within the discourses of gender and social truths. And just think about this: whose name is (usually) inherited when one is born, or when a woman gets married?

There are also double standards which further complicate this. Someone has already mentioned this, but I'm sure it doesn't need to be said that if a woman has multiple partners, she is labelled as a slut--whereas if it were a man who had multiple partners, he would be praised and would serve as an object of envy among his peers. Some double standards also favor the women, such as the exclusion from drafting. Much criticism has also been raised regarding the psychological pressure brought about by society's myth that continues to assert that "boys don't cry."

It is because of these, that some feminists and other thinkers have called out for a more free, iconoclastic and contextual reevaluation of our ideas of gender--to go beyond and break the rules of gender ascription here and there. In our postmodern society, what seems to be arising is not simple case of struggling for gender equality. It's also a struggle within an ironic world that accepts deconstruction as easily it can accept realities of diversity.

[HoboGod]

Originally Posted by kujoe

Hmmm, interesting discussion. In the present, there is no such thing as gender equality. In fact, I would be one of those who would advocate differences, rather than symmetry. And it's not due to the fact that men and women are biologically different, but because the concept of gender equality hasn't been fully defined.

It's never a simple case between man and woman. Feminists have been fighting gender oppression on the plane of gender politics for a very long time now, but even they will be the first to admit, that it's never simple as that. There are women among women, women of different racial origins, women of the 1st world and of the 3rd world, lesbians, etc., etc. The struggle for equality then, is further made more complicated and complex--a struggle that is further made more multi-faceted due to separate specificities in culture, class and race. It's a struggle that is being drawn beyond the boundaries of mere gender.

Furthermore, the trend of a "man's world" is still present with us today within different aspects of contemporary society. For instance, science of the bygone ages had made women an object of science. Moreover, the concept of Law and the writing of History have also been criticized to be patriarchal constructs which have their own ideological bearing within the discourses of gender and social truths. And just think about this: whose name is (usually) inherited when one is born, or when a woman gets married?

There are also double standards which further complicate this. Someone has already mentioned this, but I'm sure it doesn't need to be said that if a woman has multiple partners, she is labelled as a slut--whereas if it were a man who had multiple partners, he would be praised and would serve as an object of envy among his peers. Some double standards also favor the women, such as the exclusion from drafting. Much criticism has also been raised regarding the psychological pressure brought about by society's myth that continues to assert that "boys don't cry."

It is because of these, that some feminists and other thinkers have called out for a more free, iconoclastic and contextual reevaluation of our ideas of gender--to go beyond and break the rules of gender ascription here and there. In our postmodern society, what seems to be arising is not simple case of struggling for gender equality. It's also a struggle within an ironic world that accepts deconstruction as easily it can accept realities of diversity.

that is the best, most well thought out feminist veiwpoint that i've ever heard in both this thread and anywhere else in my life.... i am still very anti-feminist, but i agree that if there was a middle ground for men and women where double standards don't apply, the two sexes would have a better chance at being or treating eachother as equal. but one shouldn't agrue about something that just doesn't exist. as for who inherets the name, men don't deserve it... but neither do women. nobody has ever condemed a woman for keeping her name after marrage, and nobody condems a woman for giving her name to her offspring.

[junko]

Originally Posted by _Sin_

Men predominate scientific jobs because having a S-Brain which analyses/arranges is advantageous for that. (physics , chemistry - I am just waiting for junko to disagree because I read her bio )

Oh, yeah, I'm gonna respond alright. That's just the kind of pompous blowhard I am.

I disagree. 30 years ago, it was uncommon for one to see a woman chemist; now, it's uncommon not to. Yes, there are more men in chemistry, but I don't think that's because of thinking patterns and such. I can't really say much on this, since I don't have lists of facts and figures, and if I go spouting random nonsense, someone who does will most likely post. That being said, I'll continue. I don't think girls are encouraged to go into scientific fields as much as boys are. Women are just as analytical as men. Do you know what English majors do? They analyse the shit out of things. So do sociologists, history majors and psycologists. And, yes, teaching is a female-dominated career; that's because men aren't as keen on "spreading the word" as women are. Women are caregivers, nurturers, because we are biologically programmed to do so. But that doesn't mean that we aren't capable of other things.

And Joe Dalton, this still does not explain your earlier comment of focus. "Focus" is one's ability to concentrate on a task. FYI, ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) is more common in boys than in girls (3:1). 'Splain that.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by junko

Oh, yeah, I'm gonna respond alright. That's just the kind of pompous blowhard I am.

I disagree. 30 years ago, it was uncommon for one to see a woman chemist; now, it's uncommon not to. Yes, there are more men in chemistry, but I don't think that's because of thinking patterns and such. I can't really say much on this, since I don't have lists of facts and figures, and if I go spouting random nonsense, someone who does will most likely post. That being said, I'll continue. I don't think girls are encouraged to go into scientific fields as much as boys are. Women are just as analytical as men. Do you know what English majors do? They analyse the shit out of things. So do sociologists, history majors and psycologists.

Where I study, you cannot compare the majors the way you do. Because in majors like computational logic you'll need the ability to think very abstract and methodical. In a for example sociology major you will need more memorizing and knowledge of human nature. Since I study both extremes (computer sience and vocational school teacher), I see the contrast very clearly.

And, yes, teaching is a female-dominated career; that's because men aren't as keen on "spreading the word" as women are. Women are caregivers, nurturers, because we are biologically programmed to do so. But that doesn't mean that we aren't capable of other things.

But sadly many women aren't capable to "survive" the math and logic of i.e. computer sience, so many of them aren't really interested in this major. I see so many of them change the major, after trying for one year (or even earlier). There are only a hand full of them who stay. So basically many women seem not to be able/willing to study this major. That is sad. I'ld say women can do other than the social stuff too, and some of them are really good in such majors like i.e. computer sience (even better than me). But there is a trend you cannot deny. And this trend seems to have some biological cause too.

And Joe Dalton, this still does not explain your earlier comment of focus. "Focus" is one's ability to concentrate on a task. FYI, ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) is more common in boys than in girls (3:1). 'Splain that.

Scientists say, that men can better concentrate on a single task, but have problems to do tasks parallel. Women can do the parallel tasks better, but they cannot concentrate too much on a single task. This is generalized. It surely does not go for all women/men, but on an average it will be valid.

[HoboGod]

Originally Posted by Jinto Lin

Scientists say, that men can better concentrate on a single task, but have problems to do tasks parallel. Women can do the parallel tasks better, but they cannot concentrate too much on a single task. This is generalized. It surely does not go for all women/men, but on an average it will be valid.

that's what i said: men are stubborn, women are schizo. ^_^

[_Sin_]

Originally Posted by junko

Oh, yeah, I'm gonna respond alright. That's just the kind of pompous blowhard I am.

I disagree. 30 years ago, it was uncommon for one to see a woman chemist; now, it's uncommon not to. Yes, there are more men in chemistry, but I don't think that's because of thinking patterns and such. I can't really say much on this, since I don't have lists of facts and figures, and if I go spouting random nonsense, someone who does will most likely post. That being said, I'll continue. I don't think girls are encouraged to go into scientific fields as much as boys are. Women are just as analytical as men. Do you know what English majors do? They analyse the shit out of things. So do sociologists, history majors and psycologists. And, yes, teaching is a female-dominated career; that's because men aren't as keen on "spreading the word" as women are. Women are caregivers, nurturers, because we are biologically programmed to do so. But that doesn't mean that we aren't capable of other things.

The average woman is not as analytical as an average man, atleast that's what my "source" tells me. (My source is an article about a study of the psycologist Simon Baron-Cohen of the Cambridge university)

The gist of it: The more testosterone you got, the more analytical your brain becomes^^ <-- That's the fact for the average population

Now the (poorly conceived) theory:
I think that this is the reason why men are predominant in jobs which require analytical skills because they are better suited it for it. Note that this theory does not exclude women - it just says that they have to compensate their "lack" somehow.

Interesting tidbit: The extreme of manliness (in terms of brains) is autism, go figure The opposite would be the main character of KGNE (forgot his name tho)

[HoboGod]

Originally Posted by _Sin_

The extreme of manliness (in terms of brains) is autism

all cannot deny that i kick ass, so EXCUSE ME for being a man.

[_Sin_]

Originally Posted by HoboGod

all cannot deny that i kick ass, so EXCUSE ME for being a man.

I once took an online test in which you could determine your E-Level as in having an E-Brain (EQ).

My score was about 25. The average men had 43, and autists 20... go figure

Edit: Hah! I found the sites: The Empathy Quotient (EQ)
The Systemizing Quotient (SQ)

Although you should take the results with a grain of salt, I really would like to know your scores and your gender

Edit: Hurray, I got a positive rep for this post and am even now Thx go to the kind soul who gave me the +rep

[Secca]

Score result:
EQ - 51
SQ - 45

Very interesting test, I have no idea what it imply tho. is it acurate?

[_Sin_]

Originally Posted by Secca

Score result:
EQ - 51
SQ - 45

Very interesting test, I have no idea what it imply tho. is it acurate?

In short: EQ determines your ability to empathize with others and the SQ your analytical skills.

EQ--> Usually higher if you are a woman
SQ--> Usually lower if you are a man
It should be stated on the site itself if I'm correct. And about the accuracy: If it would be 100% right I would be an autist (kinda), so it is not 100% accurate, although it shows tendencies^^

Read post #87 for more information^^