+24

True equality between Males and Females

Half of the world’s population are females and yet their voices are not half-heard.

In the stone-age Arab cultures under their shariyaat law, two females count as one vote. What a travesty of justice? In some other cultures and religions men marry multiple women (important to specify the gender), while in some other cultures women were burnt on the pyre alongside the bodies of their husbands.

Women are treated as second-handers. It’s a dichotomy that on one-hand while women create the leaders (quite literally) on the other, they cannot be counted upon to contribute to the society, let alone rule or even lead.

Among certain distasteful men, fairly educated too, it’s often heard that keeping women behind the veil is the perfect solution and that some cultures have clinched the formula. What has the man reduced himself to?

The insecurities of equality, inadequacies of skills and in abilities of multi-dimensional capabilities and behaviours, have made men cringe to women’s rise to fame and power. After all, how many men have become heroes only because they were scared to become failures.

Let's create a world of equal opportunities.

80%Agree20%Disagree
kingjs avatar Politics
Share
1 17
This user has deactivated their account.
@1936293

Is "sameness" the same as equality? As you pointed out, men and women are self evidently remarkably different but being different does not mean unequal.Which again you pointed out when you said,
"While males and females are not equal, they are of equal value and should be treated as such." Part of being equal is having an equal value, so if men and women should be treated as such, we should all be treated simultaneously unequal and equal in value. I think if you change out equality for sameness, this one small semantic difference changes a lot.

This user has deactivated their account.
@1936336

Naturally, I take issue with select parts, but overall I really like what you have to say.

If sex is seen as a single trait, that reallly cheapens the valuable meaning of different genders and sexual complementarity (sp?). Gender does not merely define the anatomy of a few body parts. It affects the whole person: Psychology, sociology, musculature, etc. So if gender is a single trait among many, but it determines the other traits, it's more important than a single trait.

Next, if we must see others from their perspective instead of ours, what happens when they are worthless in their perspective, but valuable in ours? I couldn't agree more that seeing others as we want to see them is all kinds of messed up, your reasoning still falls short. i honestly don't know how to fix the hole. Maybe it'll come if we view others as we view ourselves? That's still a problem if someone doesn't value him/herself... Hmmmm.
So in conclusion, human value is not relative to the outside world, just like you said, but it is also not purely from within.

This user has deactivated their account.
@1936342

You're gonna need to define both sex and gender because we think different things about those words and I'm not picking up what you're putting down.

I agree that you can't call a tree a log or more than one log, but every tree that becomes timber is either one log or more than one log. So neither can be said prior to the chopping, but there comes a time when one must be settled upon. There is no way the tree doesn't become one or more than one log(s). For that reason, again I don't see where you are going with that.

As for your third and fourth paragraph, it's hard to read, but I agree with everything after, "i suppose what I'm trying to say is..."

What about clinical depression? For most people who do not have clinical depression I agree with slight reservation, but surely you can't blame someone for having depression anymore than you could place blame for cancer*, or a family history of heart disease.

For that reason, there has to be something else that we're both missing that dictates the worth of a human. Maybe it's written into natural law that anyone with a pulse is an awesome person.
The more I think about it, the more I convince myself that I'm right about natural law.

*I realize some cancers can be blamed (smoking, not using sunscreen, etc) but I refer here to the ones that aren't like that.

This user has deactivated their account.
@1936345

I would say that sex and gender are the same. At least at the core. There are exceptions of course, as to be expected, but that gender identity disorders just make me unnecessarily angry at the DSM-5. It's really a shame that psychology stopped helping people so that it could make people feel good. I digress...

No worries about the goofy metaphors. I've used more than my fair share of awkward metaphors to be sure. And I don't even know what man vs animal metaphor you're talking about.

The trouble with defining worth by action or potential for action is that is how the world relative to the individual defines worth, and we agreed a long time ago that that is super duper wrong to the max.

I'm all over this natural law idea. No civilization ever allowed murder. By murder I mean the unnecessary, premeditated killing of one human by another. Not every killing is murder. If any civilization ever did allow murder, then that civilization would be barbaric and grotesque and loathsome and disgusting and so on. They don't protect all the lives because each life wants protection (low self esteem). They don't protect every life because of potential (depression). They just protect every life because each and every life has an inherent value whether recognized or not. It's just part of who we are. Written into our DNA. This applies for every government I can think of. Natural law just makes so much more sense than anything else so far.

This user has deactivated their account.
@1936350

Sex is most definitely tied to gender roles. For example, women are better caretakers than men. women are naturally predisposed to be super great stay at home moms. I'm not trying to keep women in the kitchen or whatever, this is just a simple fact of life that the estrogen that women have in excess makes them more empathetic and nurturing than men who are loaded with testosterone which makes us physically stronger and significantly more competitive, among other things. So yeah, sex and gender roles are without a doubt connected. I don't know what that means on a practical level, but it cannot be denied.
Also, a world without gender roles has no room for chivalry, and I'm confident that any man who has tried it knows that chivalry is the tops. There's something about holding doors and pulling out chairs that makes sense. Which raises a good point, because chivalry does not exist to put women down. There wasn't a secret meeting of men a super long time ago where they agreed the best way to keep women in their place was to be ridiculously nice to them and pay for all the dates. Chivalry exits to build women up. Under fear of being called a bigot, I'd venture to say that no reasonable woman dislikes chivalry in any way, except the ones who haven't truly experienced it. What I'm trying to say is that a socially relativist view of relationships and courtship undermines the status quo of all history, one that maybe shouldn't be undermined. All of this boils down to men and women are actually very different. This has been lost on a society that fears political incorrectness over all else, and where sex reassignment surgery is a consultation away.

My interpretation of your last comment has me thinking that we're coming to agree on natural law dictating that all life is valuable. No matter age, or race, or beliefs, or eye color, or hometown, or anything. Life matters, end of discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong.

To address your two peculiarities, I think the answer to the first is that while egos clash and fight and disagree, the conscience won't, because the conscience is inherently selfless, while the ego is inherently selfish. So if a man values himself over others, he is using his ego to ignore the natural law. When that man values others over himself, then he is using his conscience to identify with and act in accordance with natural law. Secondly, we can read. From the dawn of civilization through the present, people have been doing things according to natural law and also in opposition to natural law. Lucky for us, we have written records of a lot of it (Well maybe not a lot, but at least some of it). We can learn from the past to determine what is and what is not natural law. Additionally, I think that natural law is just a part of who we are as a species. I think each one of us knows that genocide is wrong regardless of backround, so it follows that the rest of natural law is within us all as well. Accessing it will be difficult, but I think it can be reasoned out of anyone.

This user has deactivated their account.
@1936709

That is a lot of content, so I'll just dive right in:

I didn't say or mean that all men must be meat eating, explosion watching, manual laborers communicating exclusively through grunts and women don't have to be hyperemotional, delicate, laundry doing, food cooking chore machine. But it is fact that men lean towards the former and women lean towards the latter (It's exaggerated to prove a point, not to undo social equality). That's just how it is and no one can say otherwise because it's a matter of neurology and neuro chemistry.

I agree that holding doors open is good no matter who it's for, but chivalry is the pragmatic embodiment of the commitment that should exist within all romantic relationships. Men are competitive when searching for a mate, and women are selective. This is fact based on physiology, anatomy, neurology, and neuro chemistry. Chivalry is what happens when a man acknowledges that the woman has chosen him, and that he has competed specifically for her. She is more special than any other woman, and as such deserves special treatment. In a world without gender roles, the men don't compete, the women don't select, and there is no room for chivalry.

Compassion is what life is all about. I could not agree more if I tried. Selfless charity is the only thing that can truly fulfill humankind. We all have an emptiness inside us, and we spend our lives trying to fill it, some use money or sex or drugs or what have you, but all those things and others only fill the hole fleetingly and leave that person worse off than before. Anyone who doubts me can just turn on any reality tv for proof. Also, the day that labels disappear is the day the world becomes a better place. On that day I like to think the sun will rise with a proverbial ear to ear grin, and she'll be wearing stylish shades, too.

I think that natural law is God given, as nothing else could explain the parallel development of the value of ALL life in any stage across every culture and in every community. The odds that every isolated prehistoric group of people thought the exact same inconvenient thought are so astronomically small that there's no reasonable way it came from within our own ranks. Definitely a topic for another day.

For your last paragraph, I would say that for every moral quandary/problem/dilemma you have ever faced or could ever face, someone else before you has had the same problem. Probably at least a hundred before you, but at least one can practically be guaranteed. For every one of those problems, someone has most likely solved it in the most moral of ways possible, and others have solved it in the least moral of ways possible. So I think to answer your question, that which is universal across all communities is more likely to be natural law that the anomalies within a few isolated communities.

How many men have become leaders because they were afraid of failure? I can't think of any. Do you have examples? Sources?
All decent leaders are afraid of failure, because with great power comes great responsibility, but I would still argue that leaders succeed despite the looming fear of failure, not because of it.

Besides that single sentence, I am in full agreement.

It's not possible. Because of how the human brain works and the simple way we are made. Once we become completely androgynous and asexual we may be equal. But as long as man and woman exist, true equality will not.

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.