I took an Ethics class last semester, and the topic of gender equality was brought up quite frequently. After thinking it over for a long time, i've reached the conclusion that equality can not, will not, and should not exist. Equality only exists in numbers and theories. Now, let me explain myself. Equality exists when two things are one in the same, correct? Men and women are different both inside and out. Also, saying that two (or more) things are equal, completely throws out their individuality. Recognizing something as what it is not is a mistake. There is certainly something flawed in every system at the moment, spreading through law into society. So... What should we stand for? I believe the solution to this is the term "fairness". Being treated as an individual, yet not better or worse than another party.

Any thoughts on this?

Gender equality should entirely exist, but not in the sense that you're talking about (and that most people mistakenly think of). Equality of outcome, essentially gender parity, should never happen because it fails to recognize or account for the differences between the genders. The idea that half of all programmers, coaches, garbagemen, etc should be female would shoehorn people into careers they don't want for the sake of equality. The equality that should be fought for is equality of opportunity, in which any person that is both interested and qualified can get the position he/she desires. Essentially, gender wouldn't be a setback for either a guy or girl that wants to be a doctor.

equality isn't sameness. equality is understanding that both men and women (and whoever else) should be paid equally, should be given equal job opportunities and not discriminated against because of their gender. but it also means understanding the biological differences and accepting that in sports, women generally need smaller equipment not because they are weak but because they have smaller hands. equality also means that women's pants need fucking pockets.

>>3 Yeah, sorry to be off topic, but what the fuck is up with the pockets thing? Men's pants have, like, 6 pockets! Girls need pockets too, actually I'd argue maybe even more so than guys!

But, yes, I think we can all agree that you should think about what differences really matter in genders. Assuming a girl is going to do a worse job and paying them less is dumb, but the physical differences like you said are legitimate.

>>4 dont get me started on the pocket thing it's a conspiracy against women by the fashion industry to force us to buy purses i swear

me and this guy both wear skinny jeans and i cant even fit a pair of chapstick in my pockets while he has more than enough room to fit his huge android i hate life.

some guys at school even joked about making a "pockets only" club ;-;

>>5 this is true discrimination. this is what we need to fight against.

i want my goddamn pockets.

So Inu's a woman?

>>7
How'd you arrive at that conclusion?

>>8 The hints, The clues! The footprints!

also, gender equality means women should be allowed to walk around topless since men can.

can we just have neither gender walk around topless?

I'd prefer that tbh

it'd make family gatherings with the endless stream of drunk distant uncles much less awkward at least

>>11 ^ This person gets it.

Why are you guys having problems with pockets in pants? You could just wear a jacket and put the phone inside the pocket of the jacket. Or those fashion sense state not to put phones in pockets? No one cares at what you look like, so why suffer from it. If someone says otherwise then they're just stupid to let society blind them. I don't care of people looks, ranks, intelligence, or ethics. As long as, they're not bothering me,then I'm fine with anything.

>>13 Totally get it, but it could be way too hot out for a jacket. I think the thin, drawstring bags would do a decent job as a substitute for pockets.

>>11 I feel the same way. It's totally unnecessary

>>2 >>3 Totally agree with both of you. I just happen to believe that the term "fairness" explains that better than equality.

>>13
Some people care about what they look like.
"Oh my god, that's so irrational though!"
It isn't. Okay. Women need pockets. They have to have somewhere to stick their tampons and nail files. Those things aren't small.

"Americans are so enamored with the idea of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery and poverty than unequal in freedom."

People are inherently unequal because they are all inherently different. They should all be treated the same under the law, yes, but the harder you try to make people equal, the more unequally you will treat them.

>>17 ...So are you saying any issue of inequality shouldn't ever be addressed because "that's just how it is"?
On top of that, who gets to define what is justly unequal and what isn't?
For example, some minorities would say that they receive discrimination while some Caucasians would say that minorities are not. Some women would say they are victim to discrimination while some men would say that women are not. Should these concerns just be ignored and not looked in to?

Who gets to say whether or not a group is in the wrong or the right? Where are the guidelines, the rules of the earth that states that inequality within a society is unavoidable and thus shouldn't need correcting?

I just don't understand how "the harder you try to make people equal, the more unequally you will treat them", because when you look at the past and look at today... We've come a pretty long way. I sure wouldn't want to be in the 50s right now. I believe it's a process that takes time and a process that needs to end in the acknowledgement that corruption, racism, sexism, etc. exists... But I think total equality can exist.

Hell, Ireland voting yes should be an example of this.

>>11 im honestly one of those people who thinks nudity shouldnt be an issue for anyone. i mean, the way our social standards raised us makes us judge other people's bodies, treat nakedness as sexual, etc and im against that personally. if we were raised to not think "naked = sexual" and everyone was more open about nudity and the human body it would be a lot less awkward and nice.

i mean, look at societies like japan where nudity was apparent. and there was another place where genitalia wasnt considered nudity but the ankles were (i forget where tbh)

but that's my opinion. you have your own, too.

>>21 Sounds like you belong in a nudist community.

>>22 im not saying i want people to be naked all the time, i love dressing up 'n stuff, i just wish people wouldnt care about nudity as much as they do in the US is what im trying to say :P

>>23 I know, but I've done research on nudism (purely out of curiosity, I assure you), and what you stated earlier is EXACTLY what their community is about. How society affects our social standards and has us judge others (creating the psychological "body confidence"), and taking the perceived sexual nature out of being naked, and turn it into something more pure.

It's nice and all, buuut... I would never raise a kid in a world like that. See how sexual kids are becoming nowadays? My sister complained of her peers insulting her for being a virgin and boasting about how experienced they were. This was 6th grade; they were 10-11. I don't want things like the Middle East, but I still wish there was less sex on tv, less shirtless guys running around the park, less girls wearing too short "shorts" that show their cheeks.
In the Middle East, the idea of a woman covering up is to make sure that her body does not tempt the man, placing full blame of any sexual feelings on women. I think it should be on both, but not to an extreme.
Just keep privates private.

Can I just say something to those against equality?

Women get paid 0.75$ to every 1$ for a man. Yet a woman's shirt can cost twice or three times as much as a man's. I'm not talking about a fancy shirt just a plain white t-shirt. The same goes for most male to female products.

I've had someone tell me that if two people had the same resume they'd hire the man because the woman would get a guy to do all of the work.

I've had a guy get pissed at me doing better than him because of his precious pride, but not care if another guy did better than him.

I've had a guy more willing to ask a guy fir help than me because of his pride. In fact, he wouldn't ask me for help at all. Just bitch that I was doing better.

To think that he could be paid the same as me because I'm being paid 75% of what my male equivalent would get? Pisses me off.

My friend isn't able to do anything in a group project because she's a girl in a field that's mostly men, even if she were smarter than them.

Equality isn't everyone being treated the same. It's two people of equal standing being treated the same. It's a girl that's equal to a man not getting paid less because she doesn't have balls.

>>25 gender fairness would solve those issues. Gender equality would as well, but it would forsake each genders differences.

Who cares.
This is one of those issues designed to keep us fighting amongst ourselves.
One more unimportant thing we've convinced ourselves means anything at all.

We are a silly species and I think we should be thinking bigger than peepee and vajayjay.

>>25 Actually, it's not that women on average get paid less, on average they earn less, key word: earn. There's no evidence whatsoever to prove that there's any kind of discrimination against women when it comes to pay. Even the study that found the 75-77 cents to every man's dollar admits that there are dozens of factors that contribute to this, in which discrimination isn't one of those.

Many of these factors are completely under women's control, such as choices in career, in which women tend to go for careers that don't pay as much when compared to those men tend to choose. Then of course thee's matters such as pregnancy and having to raise children that result from this, and many women leave to workforce to do so.

Also, guys or more likely to work overtime, and are more likely to work full-time than women, thus earning more. Not to mention that guys are also more inclined to negotiate pay when getting hired than women.

So, every on of these factors are completely in control of women. So if you want a change in those numbers, then you need to convince women to change the ways they act and their interests. That's just the way it is.

And actually, in many places in the western world, young single women are outearning their male peers at anywhere from 8-30%. Not earning just as much, but completely outearning. Of course, men still outearn overall, yet even then it is not by much

Now of course, I am aware that discrimination can and does happen, so if you have legitimate reason to believe you are being descriminated against and not being paid as much solely because of your sex then you have every right to call the police and get these people in jail under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 because any such discrimination is completely illegal.

>>28 I've read the studies so I know of what you're talking about.
My main concern is how the US is the only developed country that does not provide paid maternity leave and job security.
My other concern is the number of testimonies from women who have discovered evidence of being paid less than their male coworkers (same job, same number of hours).
Lastly, I have been confronted with discrimination in the labor job market, and have come across ads stating "males preferred" or getting a phone interview that plummets as soon as they know that I'm a woman, and have even asked me "are you sure you wouldn't prefer some other job?" Of course they wouldn't have asked a man that; he applied for a reason: he wants the job. So did I, but because I was female they question my desire to work there. I once applied to the same job, but said that I was a man. They said I wasn't good enough as a woman, but they wanted to hire me once I said I was a man.
It's just stuff like this.

>>29 Also, out of the developed countries, we allow the shortest amount of time off for maternity leave.

A short amount of time off, and you're not guaranteed paid leave.

^ reminded me of this thing John Oliver did recently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIhKAQX5izw

go to www.riddlydiddly.com

>>32 Newbie. Does that link have ANYTHING to do with the subject of discussion? Judging by the link, I would say "no", butI tried using it and it showed nothing but a blank page.

If anyone wants a good laugh, check out the comment threads on >>31.

This one is amazing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIhKAQX5izw&lc=z13lj5vpvmnxujben22tvziburv5e5bjf04

I'd love to see the day that OP loses their job and discovers they have cancer. Let's see how much you hate social services then.

>>24 honestly imo people can wear whatever they want as long as the actual genitalia isnt showing. i still believe nekkid bods shouldnt automatically be viewed as "sexual", and i would argue that kids have always been involved in the sexuals. pedophilia used to be considered normal (a greek philosopher even argued it as the "purest form of love") and women did use to get married off by like 13. no, i dont agree with it, but it's not anything new. and yes i hate sexualized advertisements.

>>29>>31 honestly have never thought about this in detail, thanks for the video/info.

P.S. i know a woman who is a chemical engineer who works the same amount as her male peers but still gets paid less. even if the unequal pay has tons of variables like stated, i still believe there are issues that need to be solved involving it.

>>18 I'm saying that people are inherently unequal and there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is that people are TREATED unequally based on factors that they can't control. On the other side of the issue, there is the problem that people are trying to fix it not by treating people equally, but by making them equal.

People's idea of income equality is not to have people paid the same for the same work regardless of their gender, race, etc, but instead to redistribute wealth until everyone has the same amount of money.

Like I said, the harder you try to MAKE people equal, the more unequally you will treat them. Because everyone is unequal from the start.

>>36 That was well put. Thanks for being the advocator.

Listen, if i see boobs in public, i will pop a boner. It doesn't matter how "sexual" myself or anyone else sees it. It is what it is, and it always will be.

>>29>>30 I completely agree, the whole maternity leave issue in the US has always been strange and I fail to see why they don't follow in the footsteps of the european nations when it comes to that.

And I must say, those experiences are very unfortunate, one of the many problems that comes with living in a society such are ours. It happens the other way around as well, often in the STEM fields, where I have heard of cases where some companies in their desparation to have more women in the company will hire some women over some men who are less qualified just to look good publicly.

And well put >>36, I couldn't agree more.

>>40 For anyone wondering, here's some of the studies on the wage gap, differences in earnings by gender, and recruitment into STEM fields by gender.

The study that finds the 77% aggregate earning statistic and then goes to show how there's little/no actual difference in hourly pay when variables (education, hours per week, etc) are controlled- http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

An article on essentially the same thing with some easily accessible tables- http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2009/12/do-men-or-women-choose-majors-to-maximize-income

Cities where young women out-earn men (probably due to the higher percent of women graduating college than men)- http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/09/01/cities-where-women-outearn-male-counterparts/

Statistic on differences in hours worked per day between men and women- http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2008/jun/wk4/art04.htm

Another one- http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2006/oct/wk1/art03.htm

National hiring experiment showing that women are preferred for STEM tenure track at a rate of 2:1 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418903/

>>29 I'd view the maternity leave issue as more representative of how America is horrible at taking care of its citizens (regardless of gender) than sexism. Healthcare and medical procedures are so overpriced, especially relative to other countries, that they leave people destitute. American education is insanely costly, again especially relative to other countries, and primarily serves to bury young adults in debt. Even internet speeds are 27th in the world and providers are generally considered to be the embodiment of the devil. So America will pay men and women equally, it'll just cut every corner possible when it comes to providing a high quality of living.

>>36 "People are inherently unequal because they are all inherently different. They should all be treated the same under the law, yes, but the harder you try to make people equal, the more unequally you will treat them."

To be fair, you made a rather broad statement without being clear until you provided more details. While I agree with what you say there can apply to SOME PEOPLE. I don't see evidence how "distributing the wealth" is the overall goal of any argument regarding income or job discrimination.

>>On the other side of the issue, there is the problem that people are trying to fix it not by treating people equally, but by making them equal.

I understand this argument regarding people who wish to spread the wealth, but the thread is about gender discrimination in general. Does it apply in any other situation?

>>42 I'd view the maternity leave issue as more representative of how America is horrible at taking care of its citizens (regardless of gender) than sexism.
Hmm... Not sure I can argue against that.

>>43 It's an example. People use examples to give others a general idea of the point they are trying to articulate. Now it's on you to take the information that's been given and extrapolate from it to apply it to other specific situations.

It absolutely does apply, though not in exactly the same way. Nonetheless, I'm not going to do your thinking for you.

>>44 In other words, you cant think of other situations, thus the typical ad hominem.

Anom has a point from another angle as well. Some things really are inherently unequal about us as people, and trying to make it equal just causes others to be treated unequally.

For example, we can look at male financial abortion, the idea that men should be able to financially abandon children because women can medically discharge them through abortion. That idea is spawned from the inequality of men not having a choice of moral or legal fatherhood after a woman is medically pregnant.

However, the system we have now is spawned from the medical inequality of women being the only ones who can suffer pregnancy and the severe medical complications of it. The inequality of abortion is intended to compensate for the inequality of nature by treating pregnancy as a purely medical concern, disregarding concerns of morals and legality.

There's no way for that system to ever be totally equal. One end is always going to bitch no matter the outcome. I'm sure the concept can apply to other notions as well, and it's important to remember that absolute equality will come with a lot of sacrifices, some which aren't worth it.

>>46 That's interesting as all Hell.

So instead of suffering nearly two decades of paying child support, they pay their way out of their life with one check.

>>47 Imo, it's a really disgusting idea, probably one of the few things in gender politics that I passionately abhor. It's scary how many young guys support the idea.

>>48 It's better than them killing them, Babs... Like the article I posted of the Dad who threw his four year old off a cliff to avoid child support?
And you gotta admit, there is something unfair about not wanting a kid and her wanting one, and making you pay child support for years and years. Trying to avoid child support already costs thousands.

There's also the problem with people who abuse it, use child support for expenses that do not benefit the child.

Now the thing with this, is that this check would need to be pretty fat, they might even have to choose between paying a large amount upfront, or a small amount every month for years.

Just got internet back on so I'm a bit late to this party

>>4 To be fair, the general consensus among women seems to be that cargo pants "look awful", but those babies have pockets for days. I was wearing some cargo shorts with a friend (who was also wearing cargo shorts) to meet our chick friends at this local club. They come in dresses and start making fun of us. But the minute they wanted to do something, they asked us to hold their purses or if we had any extra pockets. We were just like "this is why we wear cargo shorts. This. Right. Here."

>>11 +1

>>48 One thing in gender politics I abhor is how biased divorce and child support is. For example, roughly 85% of men who father the child of a single mother have to pay child support, whereas only 15% of mothers who ditch the kids on the fathers even owe child support. Further than that, according to the federal child support office, only roughly 5% of women actually even pay. The reason this bothers me is because regardless of whether the parent is a man or woman, they need to provide for that kid, and having a gender bias is unfair to these kids just because of the parent's genitals.

>>46>>50 Alright, so Im usually very hard-opinionated and stubborn, but when we get onto topics about child support and choices in abortion it's so risky and there's so many factors and variables and sides to it that I find it impossible to form an opinion about this at all.

It would really suck to be a male and e forced to pay for a child you dont want, but on the same coin it would suck to be a woman and not get the money you need for the child you do want. And then there are men who want children while the women dont, women who abuse child support (like my mom), etc. It's really hard to form an opinion on this let alone make firm laws about it.

Love to hear more about his subject though if anyone has resources/something else to say about it.

>>51 also this.

>>7 I never saw this until now.
Is it really that ambiguous?

>>51 On cargo pants, I never really agreed with that in full. I think they look all right; I don't think they look good but it's not awful I guess.

>>54 When I had asked you directly once when we're joking with each other, you wouldn't tell me, which led me to try to find you on the Stalker Thread, and when I didn't it lead to a conversation with Babs reminding you to post.

I think this is true, but although equality is not something that should exist EQUAL OPPORTUNITY should. And when it comes to that we may be working for it still but it's come along way. I've got a friend who is a "feminist" (feminazi) and she claims that men are nearly completely worthless accept for the fact that we produce sperm. And even if I bring up something trivial like men are better at physical labor she denies it. I don't claim they are better because I believe women are weak, I make this claim because, anatomically, men are born with more muscle mass than women. It is a scientific fact. Now may a woman be able to do it more efficiently? Absolutely. but that depends on the individual and although some women may be more efficient than men that can work in the opposite direction too.

I have a pair of women's cargo pants... The pockets are fake. Fuck designers.

>>50 Even if they're not using the child support directly for the child, they are paying all the other expenses of the child with their own money (~300k per child to 18 in US), usually far beyond the amount they're awarded by child support (~98k per family to first child 18 in US, of which only ~68k would be received). I see no reason for the support check itself to be directly applied to the child's expenses unless the mother or father is not paying properly for them to begin with, in which case s/he should be considered unfit and lose custody imo.

Not to mention that if such legislation were to be put in place, it would need to apply to women as well. Abortion is an expensive and high-risk medical (physical and emotional) choice that can't be compared to the mere financial state of the father alone.

As with >>52, it would suck just as much to be a woman forced to pay for a child you don't want, yet women in the vast majority of states are required to pay it to custodial fathers as well. There'd be no reason for financial abortion to only apply to men if it were ever (god forbid) widely implemented.

>>51 I always find complaints about divorce courts being biased towards the mother to be hard to take seriously. Courts are biased to whoever is in the first to file, or who manipulates it better, or how that judge / jury feels at the time. The court system is not one big breathing entity that has a single attitude. Rather, it's a collection of biased judges and juries with varying opinions.

As for the actual statistics on the number of women paying vs men, you might want to check this discussion on more recent custody census results out. There are so many other factors that have to do with this. Example v

While custodial mothers are less likely to work, they are also more likely to have custody over multiple children and to be under the poverty line, which is a vicious cycle: money made pays for child care to make more money, which pays for child care... You can imagine.

So while non-custodial mothers are somewhat less likely to pay child support, those who don't are vastly more likely to regularly care for the child, pay the child's medical bills, help with household bills such as groceries, etc. thus effectively removing the vicious poverty cycle for many custodial fathers.

It's a very complicated system that can't just be summed up in "biased this" or "deadbeat that".

>>56 Your friend sounds like an asshole, But, the difference between muscle mass in men and women is not so scientifically significant that it would affect manual labor jobs, as has been explained in countless publications.

Between equal sized women and men, women have ~80% of men's upper body strength and ~93% of men's lower body strength. Women's legs are ~6% stronger than men's. Women are statistically smaller than men with less muscle mass, but this may be caused by a discouragement for physical activity in female children during the time of muscle and bone development.

When counting in the claim that even athletes use less than 20% of their muscle potential, you'll find there is no statistical difference in the muscle strength used in physical activity between men and women, excluding a slight difference in upper body strength.

If we were to consider the claim that testosterone alone significantly increases the amount of muscle mass, we'd have to consider that abnormally high levels of testosterone are becoming more common in women, as are low levels of testosterone in men. At this rate, testosterone levels will have evened out by adolescence in the next generation, which would theoretically decrease the difference in muscle mass between the two sexes in such a case.


Anyway, if I didn't think I'd get harassed the entire time I was there, I'd totally do manual labor. That shit's great money.

>>58 Female cops were also harassed at first. My mom can testify to that. But my main concern os your hands though. You're an artist, so I wouldnt want you to go into that line of work.

I'll reply to this >>57 soon, but I gotta hit the shower first while roommates are gone.

>>59 but--! :c

That's a good point tho. My hands are delicate as balls, so they'd probably get fucked over pretty quickly.

>>45 In other words, use your critical thinking skills. It's not a matter of can't, it's a matter of won't, because I have faith that you're smart enough that you don't need to have everything spelled out for you. You should be able to take the information given and apply it other situations without me having to draw you a picture every single time.

If you aren't capable of that, then we have nothing left to discuss.

>>57 Actually, let me add a condition to that first paragraph. I was thinking from the perspective of a non-custodial father who's making a minimal enough income that it would not affect the child's quality of life. If there's a significant amount of child support coming in, the majority should obviously be going directly towards household and childcare expenses, etc.

>>61 You couldnt apply it to a different situation off the cuff, I get it. Just drop it already.

>>60 Precisely! :(

>>54 They're more of a function over form thing. They can be a godsend at work. (I work in Lawn and Garden, so having pockets is a must)

>>57 Fake cargo pockets? That's just evil.

The system is really complex, and divorces are hardly ever clean, and I can't fault the system for that. While each one should be a case by case basis, courts in domestic matters such as divorce or custody do generally tend to favor women, however. This isn't a fault of the system, mind you. It's the people that run the system that show bias in the matters. I'm not going to cry outrage at it, though. I just think it's one matter that we (as a nation) should give a little bit more care to.

Attempting to make something into what it isn't would be a mistake.

>>65 Trying to turn a murderer into an upstanding citizen isn't a mistake. Teaching a person who is born with a predisposition to drug addiction to resist his/her urges isn't a mistake. Setting up structures to harness energy from a tsunami, essentially changing it from a destructive force to a useful one, isn't a mistake. Teaching people math, science, and literature so they're minds grow isn't a mistake. Universals often sound nice, but they usually don't hold up under scrutiny.

Or is it? We have no grasp of the objective truth. No one does. However, I do see that my comment would remain inconsistent if you were to apply that to it. I think it's fair to say that misidentifying a male and a female would be a mistake.

>>67 No, inappropriately pleading epistemological skepticism isn't even remotely going to justify your universal claim. Given a goal (in my examples, the preservation of society) there are objectively methods of achieving it. For example, exposing your king without any plan of how to take your opponent's is an objectively bad way of winning chess.

Misidentifying males and females would only constitute a mistake if you are treating them inappropriately due to that misidentification. That would only be possible if you are treating males and females differently solely by virtue of their sex. I'm not sure if you've correctly grasped what effectively everyone in this thread has meant when referring to gender equality, but that isn't even kind of it.

>>68 I acknowledge that >>65 is inconsistent, and ought to be revised. I fully understand the point made. I used to think the same way. However, I moved away from that while I was taking an ethics class. Most of the logic I've used thus far is coming from a book called "I Love To You" by Luce Irigaray. It's an interesting read whether you agree with it or not.

I don't know if its right. I actually tend to follow a more utilitarian approach to things in day to day life.

>>63 Again, not can't won't. But thanks for illustrating the difference between reading and understanding. Clearly you're able to read my posts but it seems that the actual meaning of the words eludes you. I'll be using your posts any time I need to give an example of the difference between literacy and comprehension.

>>70 Careful, Maggie will rekt you so hard man, she is, like, the best debater here.

>>70 Be sure to give back story though. How you dragged out a simple request with ad hominem because you couldn't be bothered with providing another example where your idea would work, yet you're okay with coming back again and again, stating the same thing over and over.
You're unable to place your idea in a different situation (or unable to form it articulately), therefore you try to insult my intelligence or comprehension repetitively. While in the end, you've wasted more time making multiple posts saying "I can, but I won't", when you could've simply proved that you could within one reply. It makes no sense to join a discussion and yet refuse to discussyour ideas when someone asks for clarity. That's why I told you to drop it mate, because you stopped making sense a while ago.

>>24 I agree with you on the most part, except for how the blame for sexual feelings by exposure should be blamed on both the man and the woman. I don't think sexual desires or feelings can be controlled easily, or at all for that matter. Of course, any action that anyone takes because of those feelings are their fault. I don't think anyone should be blamed because they feel aroused, though.

As for the original comment, I think it is certainly possible for equality to exist in both genders. Perhaps they are biologically different, but the potential for success is equally as high in people from both genders. In fact, I would say that gender is irrelevant in those situations. I do not understand how making opportunities equal for both genders make it more unequal. Isn't that a paradox?
Oh wait...you're looking at only one definition of equality. Allow me:
Equality
The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities

Equal
_adjective_
Having the ability or resources to meet (a challenge)
_noun_
A person considered to be the same as another in status or equality

Thank Web definitions.

>>73 No, no, I meant the cultural (and sexist) belief that it's mainly women causing sexual desire. I was saying that both men and women can cause sexual desires, so I was saying in regards to showing too much skin, I don't want just women to cover up their ass and not wear short shorts, but men not walk around shirtless too. I wasn't saying they should feel guilt over being sexually aroused.

>>75 oh, okay. Never mind then.

On an unrelated topic, do you know how to italicize words on this website?

>>76 look at the help page for more codes, too.

I made a mistake while posting this. My expectations were set for college level ethics students. However, this has been interested to read. Thank you to those that have contributed.

>>79 This has been one of the best gender equality thread I've read anywhere. It actually discussed accurate statistics, had conflicting opinions, and discussed relevant issues that both genders face. Considering that all of this was in a single thread that amounts to 80 posts and had a running discussion of pockets, that's impressive. If you wanted a discussion of semantics, that would be boring and pointless. Also, argot is a thing.
>>70 When you're trying to convince someone of something, refusing to provide more than one example is bad form. If their view is opposed to yours, you should expect some pushback. Ending conversation because of any perceived petty slight is a failure on your part.

>>79 I slightly misread your first sentence, what I said at the end may not be relevant. I can't quite tell.

>>79 Carth, I really like the way you present things. I'll keep an eye out for your name on here. I kind of feel like it should wrap up because I want to try to prevent any hostility. I know people can get carried away with this.

>>83 You would need to delete your post then.

However, I've only seen one or two posts out of 80 that were hostile, so I'm not entirely sure why you would generalize the whole thread as being a bad idea.

Also, even if the whole thread had arguments in it, that makes sense; the topic is gender equality. You'll get the same amount of hostility if the subject were about racism, transgenders, xenophobic attitudes, etc.

As someone who spends a lot of time thinking about this since it's become such a big thing in modern society, I've come to my own conclusion.

People are people.

Can I just let someone else my my argument for me?

Remember Bruce Jenner? I mean, Caitlyn Jenner now?

Before the transition, everyone was talking about how he was such an amazing athlete and talking about all he's accomplished. Now... there's this.

https://youtu.be/lE2_4yt0Aow

At least she's treated like a girl! Unfortunately, this sint' how women should be treated.

>>80 Not only that, it's shifting burden of proof onto anyone that doesn't agree. That's just bananas, I don't like seeing crap like that. Unfortunate, seeing as how I agreed with everything they said that wasn't a middle-school style personal attack.

>>87 Holy...

ill be hated for what ill say right now, but U all forget about 1 thing: most women these days are manipulative.
They use mens testosterone against them. It has been done since stone age that women, using their sexapeal, would seek protection from men against everything they couldnt handle themselves(Stereotypically women are smaller and weaker then man, altho there is quite a few exceptions). Women were mostly a mother figure while man were hunting for food. And still 50-ish year ago it was normal for man to go to work and for women to stay home with the kids and do the chores. What im trying to say is that throu the history of mankind man and women were always in their separate functions. Men protecting and taking care of the family in the harsh way, while women would rise the kids and take care of home. It all changed just recently. Man became more feminine and women became more manly(Gay and lesbo marriges)
You cant demand to change tens of thousands of years living this way, into equality in just few years. Its just impossible. But with the things going as they are now there Just MIGHT be something as 'complete' gender equality in maybe few decades.

Sorry for my shit english and hopfully you will all understand what the core of my mnassage was.

Obvious troll bait is obvious, Mag.

>>90...I am thoroughly disgusted that I helped you out earlier, after reading this unsubstantiated crock of complete and utter Bullshit. I gave you the benefit of the doubt before when I noticed your spelling and grammar and thought it was out of laziness, but now I know it's plainly from lack of intelligence.

My original post got deleted, but I'll try to sum up what I originally typed.
Even after you mentioned gender roles of the Stone Ages, I still kept on reading in hopes of finding evidence of your point of view.
Even after you gave the description of gender roles from the 50s I kept going in hopes of reaching the point you were trying to make.
Even after reading through the...immaturity of describing men as "becoming more feminine", and women were "becoming more manly" in their roles at home and at work were resulting in gay and "lesbo" (which I'm pretty sure is an offensive term) relationships, I still kept going... (And correct me if I'm wrong on that last one. That sentence was really hard to decipher)

...Only to find out that you never even actually made your damn point. You just kind of went all over the place with this post as if you were trying to tick off every female on this site, and then not even give the decency to explain why you think this way.

You claiming in the beginning that women are manipulative, and that they use their sex appeal against male testosterones when they would "seek protection from men"...was never explained.

Women can use sex appeal to fuck.
Women can use sex appeal to get or keep a man.
Women can use their sex appeal to even get a job (they seriously look for that in a receptionist/hostess at a highly established business).
However, whenever women use their sex appeal, it is frankly a dangerous thing. Dressing up and the use of make up can just as well attract wanted as well as stubborn or violent UNWANTED attention. Therefore, using it for "protection" doesn't make sense at all...

And before anyone comes in to say that my post was "too mean" or it "didn't hold up to the standards of a college debate", does this >>90 honestly look like it did either?

>>93 No man, he was being serious. I know, it's difficult to believe, but he was being serious. Even if it were a joke, jokes are only perceived as funny because they hold bits of truth. Even id >>90 was no more than him making a joke with that shitty English, it's cuz part of him actually believes in some of what he said.

>>93 I know it's hard to believe, Bob, but some people are really just that stupid.

I had a guy tell me to my face that if he were an employer looking to hire and there was a man and woman's resume on his desk that looked exactly the same, he'd hire the man.

Because (according to him) they wouldn't do any of the work.

They'd just get one of their male employees to do the work.

Why would he hire a female to do the work when he could just dump it on a male employee and not pay him any more?

I know that you want it to be troll bait so bad, but there are stupid people out there.

>>96 Just yesterday, my roommate was talking to her boyfriend about her new phone she bought online, and all of the calls she had to make because the phone didn't transfer all her information from the last one and just casually said "Why do they have to make this so difficult?"

And he said, "Because they probably thought the phone was being bought by a man."

...This is the son of a bitch who goes to her for every single problem he has, and she was even the one to file his taxes because he didn't fucking know how to do it himself.

>>96 I'm not basing it off apparent intelligence, I'm basing it off his posting style across the site. Of course there are people that stupid.

>>90 isn't that just a stereotype you made up?

>>98 Ah. I've only spoken to them on the News Board.

>>90 Okay bro, I don't know what you are on but that can't be true. I have to agree completely with Magnolia on this because this is just...irritating. I don't dress up necessarily but I do dress modestly so I never show a lot of skin so I know I'm not manipulative. I'm pretty positive that not all of us ladies are manipulative like you say we are. There are some who might be but that doesn't speak for everyone.
Also, I have a serious question. What does a man being feminine have to do with them being gay? I don't get it. Perhaps they just aren't as into dirt or sports or whatever but I don't see how it's connected. The same goes for girls: I know some very boyish young ladies who aren't all girly but they aren't lesbians. >>90 I don't see that connection. Feminine guy does not equal gay and tomboy girl does not equal lesbian.
I know there are differences between genders but we're all people here. What you said was a straight up stereotype and probably how you view women. Look man, if there's something you want to clarify then please do because I think you're setting this thread on fire with people's anger and irritation.

If we're gonna have the discussion anyway, I'd like to point out the entire subculture of (almost exclusively male) pick-up-artists, which is specifically intended to manipulate potential (almost exclusively female) partners into sex and unhealthy relationships.

I'm not sure why the idea of women being manipulative is so perpetuated across (especially American) first world culture. It's like people can't separate their personal experiences with a particular woman from women as a whole. Yet many of the men who make these claims are so quick to separate themselves from the other "douchebag men" who the "few good women" like.

But the reality is that they're the douchebags, children who feel the need to generalize the intentions of huge portions of the population just because they didn't get what they wanted. Good people with common sense understand the difference.

>>101 Absolutely. Femininity and masculinity really have nothing to do with sexuality. Gays are masculine. Gays are feminine. Gays are androgynous. Gays are whatever they want to be; it's a totally individual choice that goes way beyond who they get in bed with, and it's a choice that everyone, including straights, shares.

I don't really like debating, having a dialog, or discussion about these sorts of things anymore(or a matter of anything), but I'm feeling euphoric, so I'll give it a whirl.

There are functions that we as humans are abled by biological related coincidences(>>90). Albiet, this can be strength, intelligence, and many other things. I have not seen a study, but there could be some correlations with gender and the things mentioned above. Gender is of the past and should be used as a reference in the minuscule. Each person should maximize their potential for the greater good of humanity. For what that greater good of humanity is, I don't know. Like everything, we have our ideals on directions of progress. I don't know what the greater good as a whole is because I'm simply not willing to think about such things. However, I do know that I can benefit society by doing what I do best. Of course this can't be taken into every action. I would not murder because I'm good at murder. Think as a whole.

I agree with >>27 and >>36. Everyone should be equal with cultural influence in the mater eliminated. In the perspective of all people being equal, we are not going about it the right way. I don't know what way, nor do I have any suggestions, but this just isn't it. Talking about it on forums, especially anonymity as a key feature will bring nothing good in most circumstances. Even if some someone's perspectives changes as a result of such, that perspective isn't right. We need to arrive to some destination for equality, and my eyes haven't seen it.

Even if a person were to bring up the idea that equality isn't right, or possible. most people would like to live in that world. Like all communistic ideas, in theory possible, but only with juristic measures to arrive there.

Don't over think equality. It's not all that it's hyped to be. Equality is just another social issue developed by civilizations in the past. Think bigger.

We really are just not ready.

My only advice to everyone is to be simple. Embrace hedonism and the things that come with it. Let dopamine, oxytocin, serotonin take their natural course within. Embrace the simplicity and joy of everyday living. Watch birds like the old, be self-absorbed. Complexity is wicked. We're not ready for that plateau of knowledge and understanding that we think we are. Let your subjective self die, see how the world sees you. Only then can you reach a conclusion of equality.

>>103 Has anyone ever told you that you don't contribute to the great controversies and debates of society? Because I find that to be true.

What you essentially said is, "It's wrong, but there's no solution." You never mention why there's no solution. Like, I can accept that you don't have a solution, but you could at least contribute in telling us why you think the way you do? That's how healthy discussions are formed. Now that I think about it, your lack of ability to form a healthy conversation must be why you think that any legit discussion is an argument.

Now, to piss off the misogynists, if any exist on here. I shave my legs about... once a month at most, and that's only from the knees down. Above the knees is probably once every six months.

I shave my under arms once every few weeks.

Now, why am I saying this? I'm not a feminazi that thinks women are better than men. No, I think they should have equal opportunities (not be treated equal despite differences like some communists on here seem to think). Equality doesn't mean everyone's treated the same. It means that everyone gets an equal chance. If a male and female have the same everything and are trying to find a job, the female should have the same chance as the male. It meas that two people of the same status should be treated the same and fairly.

Now, back to the shaving thing. Why do women have to pretend that they don't grow hair, but men can just live it up and brag about it? Don't give me that shit about hygiene! Pubic hair is more hygienic than a lack there of. It prevents from STDs, STIs, and other shit from getting up all in there, (like eyelashes keep dirt out of eyes).

More importantly, what's less hygienic is shaving, waxing, and epilating (is that the right word?). Because that shit causes staff infections and some peopel legit can't do it due to overly sensitive skin or allergies.

Now, if I man expected the same from both men and women as far as grooming goes, that's chill. I don't think it should be done, but whatever.

However, when guys go around and say women need to shave or wax and don't do the same, I have a problem. Because you're expecting it to be all easy and have no problems and shit. The truth is that shit's complicated.

Hair is natural, not gross, or dirty, or whatever your bullshit excuse is. The proof is that men are allowed to go free and no one says a word abotu that, but if I tell you that I don't shave every damned day everyone thinks it's the grossest thing.

Another problem I have with this shit is men can do whatever clothes wise. But I wear the shirts of my favorite bands, jeans, and don't wear make-up or spend hours doing my hair, and everyone thinks I'm a kid?

Like I need to wear dresses and show off my feminine body to prove I've hit puberty or some shit?

What is your fucking problem!

People should hold the same expectations for men and women, because believe it or not, there's women smarter and stronger than men, and believe it or not, there's men more caring and kind than women. Stereotypes can go eat shit.

Because if I have to hear one more thing about how my actions "aren't womanly" under any context or even hinting at it, I'll slap someone!

Yes, I'm a woman smarter than mos tof the men around me. Got a problem with that? Yes, I'm an engineer. No, I don't like to get dolled up every day. No, I don't shave every day. Yes, that's all okay because the fact of the matter is, it shouldn't fucking matter. I'm not hurting my quality of life, and if I'm not affecting you, you shouldn't have opinions. Fuck off.

Sorry, but this whole equality thing gets me worked up because some people's views just really piss me off.

>>Equality doesn't mean everyone's treated the same. It means that everyone gets an equal chance.

I'm writing that down so I can remember it always.

>>104 I rarely do this, but I'll make it an exception due to being so intoxicated by various substances.

I appreciate the feedback, like you wouldn't believe. I don't take any of it to heart like most people would. I would love to have a discussion with you. Please allow me to articulate off site, despite obviously offending you in the past. For that, I am sorry.

>>104 I get what you're saying. If you don't shave everyday it ain't no big deal to me. I personally wear dresses and skirts all the time but like you I'm smarter than some of the guys I know. I hate it when guys get all shocked over it. I love what you said about equality. Everyone needs equal opportunities and I think it's best if we give them that.

The odd thing is I wear dresses and skirts instead of pants. Instead of getting shocked over wearing pants, everyone gets shocked over that because they want me to wear pants like a "normal girl". I don't get it. I get funny reactions for wearing skirts but many still believe all women should wear them. Why? I don't like wearing tight jeans or tiny little skirts. I just like my knee length dresses and what not and it's a problem? What the hell? I don't like flashing my body or wearing tight clothes so why do they expect me to? It's just...man I don't even know.

>>107 Recently I went on a blind date to prom. She was wearing what I thought was a beautiful dress. About 30 minutes into the event, she changed into street clothes. As she walked out of the bathroom, people began to stare. Eventually, everyone who composed the prom was looking at her. She sat down again, following my sister who was also there, begged her not to without my knowing at the time. I asked her why she did such a thing. Her reasoning that it was uncomfortable and made her feel objectified. For the rest of the night, I sat alone. I still can't fathom. It's ever so fresh in my mind. Skin is skin, clothes are clothes. I am confused at what you mean.

I recently bought "Sanuk Men's Hemp Sidewalk Surfer". Though some people may think the reason is masculinity within my comfort zone, it's quite the opposite. I was trying to buy nice shoes that were also comfortable. I don't know a lot about shoes, and as a result, I've only worn so many. From what I've tried on UGGs seemed to be up there in comfort, but so did the Sanuks. Hence, I picked the Sanuks because they were more comfortable. If the UGGs were more comfortable, I would have chosen them even with the feminine stigma. In the same principles, I would have even if the shoes were for females. However, I've only been exposed to mens shoes. There is a sense of shame when trying on female shoes at the store. I wouldn't try it for this reason. I am hoping that one day we can overcome this minor endeavor of shoe trying-on. Comfort is great.

I say mutual respect is the basic here.

The rest are just gender bias. Other then the stereotypes and anatomy there aren't that much separating us. Even to the opposite sex the anatomy is regarded often differently then from your own group for one reason or another.

Now what I heard today made me laugh so hard thought. *why should a girl get a muffin when she bailed on us and did not come to the event? She actually answered because she's cute...*

Seriously maybe its conditioning or just a minority doing things like this. But its not helping one bit. (Thought she did get the muffin for making the whole class laugh)

>>110 Have you considered that she was just joking and didn't legitimately thing she deserved food based on her appearances? I say shit like that all the time, and the only thing showing gender conditioning there is the thought of people taking it seriously.

>>109 What I'm trying to say is, if you do one thing and are expected to do to another and you do the expected, you're considered wrong either way. I just don't understand it.

It used to be all women wore dresses and skirts. Now we can wear pants and when we wear skirts, it seems like we're supposed to wear tight ones or super short ones to show we're girls. I don't wear pants or tight skirts, just flowy knee length skirts. I get odd reactions to it because I don't wear pants nor a skin tight dress. Basically, if I don't wear short or skin tight skirts or some pants, it's a problem with a lot of people. At least that's how it is in my area. Either you wear pants or wear a dress so short we don't even need you to bend down to see what panties you have on.

I don't see why wearing a specific type of skirt has to do with being womanly. Am I making any sense? I'm trying to put this into words and it's kinda hard to explain. Please tell me if you're still confused because I know what I'm saying, it's just wording it is the problem.

>>104 I'm going to go on a bit of a rant, so if you decide to read this, please bear with me.

You don't have to shave. In fact, you can look how you want to look as long as it follows certain rules. You have that right. Then there is this mindset where people think that people should look a certain way because of their gender, and many will not follow that. You are going to have people expressing their distaste for that, and guess what? You have to deal with it. Others are going to be judgemental (like everyone, including you and me), and nothing can change that in all of human history. People are going to judge eachother for anything they do perceived as something stupid, out of the norm, etc. Unless you have the power of mind control, you can't stop that. People are going to expect things that may not be reasonable, but that does not infringe your right to look how you want. Expect judgement. Don't expect it to stop, because it never will. I mean, goodness gracious, you probably aren't much less judgemental than they are. Stereotypes will stick with humanity for a long time. Complaining online about it won't do shit.

>>113 Thanks, Ana. Leigha Moscove is really bright and I can see her doing great things in this world. Like all of us, we have our inner demons to fight. I feel like after Moscove defeats them, she will be great.

About shaving, I hate it. Coming from an unrooted race(plz don't hate nationalists, /pol/, so sorry) family, I picked up many genes. I'm pretty fucking hairy. Not the hairiest, but more so than I'd like to be. The effort and work to shave is simply just not worth it sometimes. I wish I could just have a neck beard and pubes long as goldylock's weave, but I can't anytime soon due to modern social implications and such. The day I can, the day I will be a little more happy.

>>104 what is also irritating me is how you told people to "fuck off" if you don't affect anyone and that they should not have opinions. That is very closed minded and quite frankly, I find such a statement to be ludicrous.
I have to say though, I find these gender stereotypes to be quite ridiculous.

I find it arrogant for you to claim that people should have certain expectations simply because you want them to. You aren't really one to decide that, are you?

I was so fired up, I replied to you twice.

>>114 eh? You're thanking me? I was irritated at Leigha Moscove when typing that, but okay. You're welcome.

I wonder how Leigha will react to my replies.

>>115 It's purely conditional, Ana. Unfortunately, we as a species, take things very personally. I have offended that user in the past. As a result, some of those offenses made their way into such post. It may be close minded, but it's close minded like you to not question it more, like it close minded of me to not question who you are.

Do you come here a lot?

>>114 I'm the opposite. I am thoroughly disgusted with my hair. On the head is okay, everywhere else is just really bad. But, I don't really think that about other people. I'm not disgusted when other people don't shave. It's just a personal distaste for having hair.

Expecting different shaving habits based on gender is weird. I don't see the basis.

>>104 >men can do whatever clothes wise
?????
Maybe it's more lenient, but that's a stretch.

>>118 I can agree. It can become itchy in the heat. Thank our world that shaving is a thing. Because of who I am, I have learned to ignore this itchiness like an old person would with a bad back. The Summer will be my final test. With my hair thickness increasing in age, especially this year, I wonder if making it through the Summer will be possible without shaving. If the itchiness doesn't get to me, perhaps the stares will.

>>118 Same here. I don't care if other people don't shave but I hate the feel of hair on my own body.
Who cares if a lady shaves or not? She's still a female and if a guy shaves he's still a guy. I shave and I will agree with>>114 that it can take forever, If ya wanna shave okay and if not, that's fine. You do you and ignor gender today's gender norms cause we're all human.

>>106 Now I have alcohol in my system, so I'll reply. What do we have to articulate about? I only said that I don't think that you hold a strong opinion, and the one which you give you don't really back up.

As for offending me in the past, I don't really care. You're not an ass, just annoying. I know people like that. They don't mean to be rude, they just come off that way, and honestly I don't care. Im' just mostly annoyed at the fact that you hold no strong opinions.

>>105 Feel free to steal. I'm not always inspiring, but when I am I've said something fucking amazing and I don't mind someone taking the idea because it's always useful.

>>113 I don't mind judgement. If it's stupid, I ignore it, nad if it's reasonable I accept it and try to change. What I do mind is this horrible double standard and the fact that I can't shave every damned day because my skin is sensitive and for many other reasons. Plus it's an expensive thing, which kind of shits on the fact that women get paid less. If you want to judge me and be an ass, that's fine, but if society will set a double standard and think you're gross for callign it BS, I will bitch.

Most importantly, I'm not bitching online. I'm providing my point of view on this discussion. This isn't the bitching thread (which I made). It's not random thought thread either. These words are completely in context and discussing how gender inequality affects people in a way that people seem to forget about.

Do so many people really not know what a discussion or conversation is? Because if that's true I'm seriously starting to worry about humanity.

>>114 Are you high? I think you're high. I mean you admitted to being on shit, but that was hours ago. You have to be smoking weed. Far too nice.

Regardless, are you saying that my legit argument wasn't intelligent? I mean, it may be bitchy (that's just kind of my thing on here), but it's still an intellectual argument that brings light to the double standard of society.

A woman with hair anywhere that's not the top of her head? Gross and a turn off. A man with hair anywhere that's not the top of his head? Manly as fuck and a turn on. Why? It's just fucking hair! Made of the same damned things!

>>115 Well doesn't that mean that I did my job in furthering the discussion? Since I fired you up and got you to say something?

Now, here's the kicker. Are you not being just as ludicrous? The fact that people should fuck off if they hold an irrational double standard is, after all, my opinion. However, you're telling me that I can't hold my opinion on those holding an opinion to me.

>>116 Now you know. I've had a bit to drink, though. I actually know that I'm a very happy drunk.

>>117 You're still high as a kite. Definitely weed. Good stuff too. Regardless, the you offending me wasn't what made me tell peopel to fuck off. The whole shaving thing had nothing to do with you, it was a separate thought on the same post.

For that matter, you never offended me, I just have a problem with people that can't tell an intellectual conversation from an argument, which you've done twice. Really, there's only 4 things you've done on here of note. Twice you said I was arguing or competing when I was just having an intellectual conversation, and twice you provided a comment that I didn't think forwarded the conversation at hand.

None of which offended me, by the way. None of it was taken personally. I'm just a bit of a bitch when I have strong opinions about someone. Which is probably why you're high now. But that's something that you can ask anyone. Ask Dutch❋Bunny. She's been on here longer than I have. We've had our fair share of fights because I'm a bitch and our fair share of agreements when she thinks I'm right in being a bitch.

>>118 See, you don't expect different shaving habits based on gender. This in lies where I'm not annoyed with you. What I am annoyed with is when I don't shave for a week, my legs don't look bad at all, but people flip shit. When a guy has gorilla legs, no one gives a shit.

As for the men clothes thing, yes, it's an hyperbole. I was exaggerating, but the point was obviously gotten across. Women, strict beauty standards. Men, not so much.

>>119 and >>120 After it's grown a bit, it doesn't itch as bad for me. It's mostly the week after I shave. Personally, I like the silky smoothness of a nice shave, but my skin is far too sensitive to shave on the regular. Most people can just go over it and be fine, which is cool if you can. Good for you!

For me, though, I need a special razor, shaving cream, aloe gel, and special lotion all to make sure I don't look like I have soem freakish skin condition after I shave when I shave on the regular. If I do it every once in a while, then it doesn't irritate as bad, but that requires a bit of noticeable hair growth.

I'm trying to read this entire thing thread, and it's nearing 1AM, and my brain just went kaput from exhaustion, and has been reduced to playing this on repeat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYLsyNBnE5M

>>122 hahaha, I have never encountered a problem that Smash Mouth could not fix.

Also, speaking of shaving, don't they have those weird things that slip over your hands? Like, when you rub the area over the hair they shave it. Do they work?

>>117 yes.
It is closed minded of me not to question...what more?

>>121 I know it's a double standard, but it won't affect you more than any other judgement will. You still don't have to shave if you don't want to. Are you just especially irritated by double standards? It doesn't have much basis or any reason to it so why make such a huge argument against it? The people following those gender roles won't be able to provide much of an counterargument.
Yes, I do know what a discussion is.

Huh? What are you talking about? When did I ever say that you couldn't have an opinion? I meant that people don't have to "fuck off" of they have a different opinion than yours, and not have opinions. I found that close minded and ludicrous. You were unwilling to accept other people's opinions while rudely telling them to get out if they had different opinions. They can argue if they wish to do so.
And yes, you did your job in furthering the discussion. What's that going to do about gender roles?

>>125 I'm irritated by double standards because those that generally have them won't admit that they do, and I believe that such is a sign of someone's stupidity.

For instance, if someone told you not to smoke because it's bad, but then started smoking, that's a double standard. If you wanted to smoke, you'd be reasonably pissed off by this.

Well the fact that people should fuck off is my opinion.

If you have to ask that question, then you seriously don't know what a discussion is. A discussion is the exchange of ideas. Believe it or not, there are people who think that women aren't treated differently from men. So, if I exchange my idea, the fact that they are, they might see that they were being ignorant and say, "You know what! You're right!" Then the more people that we can get to agree that this sis wrong, the easier it will be to create change.

Wow...it got sticky here about shaving...

>>121 Just because people have certain opinions on how a man and woman should look doesn't mean you have to take it to heart. I know you're all pumped up about this and I'm not jumping on you for it. Just tell whoever flips out over your body hair how you feel.

Yes gender norms are annoying believe me but I know so many girls who don't shave their legs and if they do, hardly at all. Do you think they care? From what I can tell no. The real problem with them is how they think a girl should dress and look. In my area, girls should have straight hair and wear whatever shows their body. If you don't do either, you're singled out as a weirdo for not fitting everyone's definitions of a woman.

I think part of gender norms being a problem not only come from a nation's ideals, but from the different regions' ideals that compose it. Different areas have different people which means similar gender norms or different ones.

>>126 I know what a discussion is.
Do you really think this discussion will change anyone's opinions? That's my question.

You think people should not have opinions if their opinions differ from yours. Is that what you believe? You aren't going to bring much change with that mindset.

So you're irritated by double standards because it makes people look stupid?

>>127 Like you said about gender norms being regional, the reactions to them are regional as well. I was actually told that I either need to shave or cover my body hair when I go swimming because I went to a pool in a swim suit by a family member. I wasn't a hairy oaf, I just hadn't shaved in a few days. This has happened on a few occasions by not just my dad.

But the mention of how girls should dress brings up another point.

Another part of gender norms is how they should dress. Girls wear dresses and make-up and shit. However, slut shaming uses gender norms against them. "You're asking for it if you wear that!"

Society was the one that told them to wear that! Society said women should dress like that!

Like, I like dresses. They're pretty, comfortable, and a gender norm here. However, I hesitate to wear them because I don't want to be groped or molested then told that I was "asking for it". They aren't even short dresses. Everything's covered and I only wear skirts to my knees.

>>129 You're making me repeat myself. I'm done with this. This will be my last reply to you because you obviously aren't paying attention.

Do you really think that no one will change their opinions? Because that's a pretty fucked up way to view society. Even more fucked up than how I view it.

>>130 I don't wear pants at all so I'll only wear knee length dresses and skirts. You aren't "asking for" harassment by wearing them. I hate it when people use that as an excuse for harassment. Because of my choice in clothing, it does annoy me that I'm expected to wear cleavage displaying tops and tiny skirts. I don't do that and I wear my hair in a natural manner so there are people who think I don't "act like a girl". It's not that I don't, I just dress modestly and it hives me more respect among guys than I see some young ladies getting when they have their boobs way out there.

EVERYONE--REALIZE THIS. THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMANS RIGHTS SAYS ALL HUMANS ARE BORN FREE AND EQUAL IN DIGNITY AND RIGHTS. ACCEPT IT. WE ARE ALL EQUAL NOW. MERRY WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU CELEBRATE.

>>132 I don't think I'm asking for it, but others would seem to. I've heard it far too often. Why can't I just wear pretty clothing?

Oh, another thing I get is people seem to ask me why I'm all dressed up when I do. They don't seem to understand that I just want to look pretty.

>>134 I don't believe any girl is askin' for it. I don't even know why a woman wearing a skirt is considered by some to be asking for assault or harassment. Now we have to wear pants cause if we wear a dress we're just asking to be attacked? I don't get it. I dress up on a regular basis but I'm always covered from head to toe hahaha. Anyway, it seems there's no correct way for us to dress. Wear a skirt-asking for assault. Wear pants-too manly or not a modern woman. It's clothing. It keeps you covered. Why does it matter if you wear pants or skirts? It doesn't.

Men wear whatever and so should women because we're able to think on our own.
Equality seems to be fairly complex with so many different thoughts and this discussion intrigues me as I have never had to put so much thought into it before.

>>133 THANK YOU FOR TYPING WITH CAPS, I'M SURE IT MAKES YOUR POINT MORE VALID.

>>136 YOU ARE VERY WELCOME.

>>131 I am paying attention. That's why I replied to what you said. Because I was paying attention.

I have not seen a single comment on this thread that mentioned how their opinions changed because of this discussion. None. I'm not saying people's opinions will never change, but they won't just go from sexist to a feminist just because someone named Leigha posted a comment ranting about gender norms. I'm also sure that many are already aware of the different treatment people of different genders have.

I know why you don't like double standards. Fine. They're stubborn to admit it (like many others about disagreeing beliefs. Kinda like us right now).
I didn't like the way you worded the last sentence. It seemed you weren't open to discussion (which you talked about so much) with anyone who disagreed with you about gender norms. Oh well. I just stated my opinion. You stated yours. Your opinion about how others shouldn't have opinions (which I find ironic).

A woman has no place outside of the kitchen. They exist only to expand our species and to provide the men some needed support from time to time.

>>139 lol

You laugh, but think seriously for a second. Would you rather live in a world without knowing what to do, without knowing what your role is in society, knowing that you need to make a place for yourself, and that that place won't necessarily benefit the majority?
Biologically, men are the protectors and the warriors. Their purpose is to protect the women, to protect their fellow man and to lead their group because they have the physical capacity to do so. Women are the gatherers and the reproducers. They are responsible for keeping society stable and secure, and without them everything would fall apart. Think about it for a second, why are women attracted to older men whilst men are attracted to younger women? This is because men, historically, put their lives on the line to protect everyone else. If they survive against the other men and against the wild, then they are suitable for involvement in reproduction. Women on the other hand, are not as involved in conflict and hunting as men are. Because of this, they only need to develop social capacity, something that generally does not involve life and death. This means that they are there to reproduce. An ideal society, one that benefits the majority instead of the individual unlike currently, is one where work is allocated out to the genders separately. In the future, hopefully in the exploration of foreign planets, we will have a way of establishing colonies securely and quickly. This will not be achievable without reverting to physical roles, and yes, that does mean that women will be cooking and preparing food while men will be off hunting. You can call it sexist, but as a male I don't really want to spend my time hunting and putting my life on the line. I would much prefer spending my time cooking and providing for the rest of my group.

>>143 I think the genders are closer than you think. You keep making pretty broad statements without giving any backing except "That's the way it was." This is a fallacy; just because something used to be done in a certain way or just because it happens that way in nature does not make it right. You are correct, this is the way things were, but there's no reason I see this should continue. Saying something like "An ideal society, one that benefits the majority instead of the individual unlike currently, is one where work is allocated out to the genders separately" needs some more backing. You only need enough people to 'man each station' if you will, and separating by gender doesn't even guarantee a good spread. I don't see the logic.

There are a few points you made that were a bit odd in particular.

>they have the physical capacity to do so
The difference in physical capacity of men and women is more due the the time each gender spends training themselves in that regard. Men will see more progress from muscle building, physically it's easier, but it's not different enough that women aren't capable of hunting at the same level. So, it's not grounds for this separation you're talking about.

>why are women attracted to older men whilst men are attracted to younger women
Because women mature physically and sexually faster than men do. So women will typically be looking at older men who have matured to around the same place they have by then.

And, to answer the first question, yes. I would rather find what I like than be handed something, even if that meant risking never finding a place.

>>143
You laugh, but think seriously for a second. Would you rather live in a world without knowing what to do, without knowing what your role is in society, knowing that you need to make a place for yourself, and that that place won't necessarily benefit the majority?
Most people would not, even if isolated from culture promptly after birth.


Biologically, men are the protectors and the warriors. Their purpose is to protect the women, to protect their fellow man and to lead their group because they have the physical capacity to do so. Women are the gatherers and the reproducers. They are responsible for keeping society stable and secure, and without them everything would fall apart. Think about it for a second, why are women attracted to older men whilst men are attracted to younger women? This is because men, historically, put their lives on the line to protect everyone else. If they survive against the other men and against the wild, then they are suitable for involvement in reproduction. Women on the other hand, are not as involved in conflict and hunting as men are. Because of this, they only need to develop social capacity, something that generally does not involve life and death. This means that they are there to reproduce.

I will leave this to the scientists and people who feel they need to think about it.


>An ideal society
LOL.
An ideal society, one that benefits the majority instead of the individual unlike currently, is one where work is allocated out to the genders separately. In the future, hopefully in the exploration of foreign planets, we will have a way of establishing colonies securely and quickly. This will not be achievable without reverting to physical roles, and yes, that does mean that women will be cooking and preparing food while men will be off hunting.

The problem with this is that intelligence and ability is not strictly limited to gender and sex. For this reason, I think there should be exceptions made in such a society. Your idea is not crazy, but is has flaws and difficulties that would present themselves when the system is in place.

In most fiction, when a structure like this is established, freewill of the individual will act as a pathogen. The society will easily be torn apart by the people that it cares for despite how superb it is. If they were in a violation of the social contract between this government and people, they could be killed.

If people were drones without the cerebral cortex, this idea is perfect. With the paradox mentioned above, there would be no idea without the cortex. We would be left with human biological functionality(which would be the worst of things to come). We could always try to numb the population to introduce this idea.

I'd rather have my neighbor on a leash. This is too much for BBS. Impossible.

Let's get back on track with the discussion.

>>145 can you please direct your eyeballs to lions & mongolian nomads?

>>146 Only if they'll put their cock in my nose.

>>139 I don't think that's true. If it was I think I wouldn't have a problem of burning everything I make lol. If that's tradition, it's also a tradition for them to change. Things change with time so if it worked back in the day, it doesn't work so much now.
>>143 As long as both genders have the free will to think, an ideal society is something out of reach. Maybe not out of reach but it will take years and years to reach.

I don't see why women have to be the ones in the kitchen anyway. There are men can cook just as well.

Bump.

This is what a proper discussion thread looks like btw.

There was a lot to read through. I probably only read 25% of the discussion. I believe Gender Fairness should exis and in some cases Gender Equality (Under laws and opportunity along with pay for same j ob) I recall once hearing that as soon as a person is born it is false to assume they are equal. They may have been born into poverty or wealth or may have been born with better genes or malformed. They clearly aren't equal in intelligence as they're only a newborn, but over time these things may change with the effort that person puts in. This is why when someone is born they may not be equal, but they should still be treated fairly. To treat someone fair is without discrimination, but to treat someone equal invites discrimination. Equality basically says what makes you special as an individual is irrelevant, but you'll get treated like everyone else regardless of your needs. Fairness says you'll be treated based on your needs. Which would you rather have? People need to give up on universal equality and consider universal fairness instead. Everyone would be better in the end. I can't support someone who desires equality over fairness.

There were a lot of topics covered already, so I'm only going to touch on a few. For starters some people were saying how men can go around topless woman should too or both should be allowed nude. However in our society a man can't be topless wherever he wants to be, only certain places like his home or maybe a gym or beach not places like school, the street, or his workplace. Personally I don't trust men and their lustful desires. Ask yourself if you're a woman would you want even more lustful eyes on yourself? When it comes to sex I don't know a single man who wouldn't be turned on by a topless woman. It's depravity and something I doubt would ever change even if you tried to not associate nudity with sexual desire. That's why I don't consider this something worth fighting for. Having a woman cover her breast up is not meant to limit her rights, but protect her. In the ends that's what I believe and if you think nudity should not be associated with sexual desire make that your goal before having woman be topless. You know, like do step A before step B.

Now for working rights I believe if two people are doing the same job they should be paid the same regardless of gender. In fact I believe the only thing that should determine pay is how well their work is completed. I'm looking to hire and I wouldn't turn down an applicant based on gender nor discriminate their pay. If you apply and can do the job I'd hire you. My hope for the future is that each generation learns to be more accepting and fair, although it is an optimistic hope that is probably unrealstic.