PDA

View Full Version : Equality (will it ever exist?)



AverageI.Q.
April 12th, 2004, 03:27 PM
Considering all aspects that may apply, do you think that equality between males and females will ever be completely even? Why or why not? Is it possible? Why or why not?

suchislife
April 12th, 2004, 05:44 PM
Considering all aspects that may apply, do you think that equality between males and females will ever be completely even? Why or why not? Is it possible? Why or why not?

I dont think complete equality among the sexes will ever be obtained. Both sexes offer different things..many one sex can do but the other cant or tries and fails miserably. (I love some women who think they can do it "all", and I love these men that think women can't do "squat" lets see a man give birth;))

I dont think men or women are inferior to one another, just different. And I dont know if I would say any of this is neccessarily a BAD thing.

Andacanavar
April 12th, 2004, 05:50 PM
I think it's really tough to say.

Unfortunately, I think this is the best women are going to have it for a while. This country is MUCH more concerned with race than gender issues right now, not to mention the whole gay marriage issue. Women's rights just aren't at the forefront of the public mind right now overall.

It's my opinion that women won't be truly "equal" (what does that truly mean, anyway?) in my lifetime, and I'm 28. I'm fully convinced we will see a man of minority race in the presidency before a woman of any color as well.

Just take the Martha Burke issue down at Augusta (congratulations Lefty!) for example. NOBODY CARES anymore that women aren't members there. People in general view it more as an annoyance then anything else now. She needs to get over it, move on, and concentrate on things that deter EVERYDAY women in general.

I guess because I'm a common plebe that I don't really see the difference as far as pay, rank, etc. go. I'm sure it does occur at the higher levels, and I know for a fact it happens in athletic endeavors. Working in a resturant, the women make just as much as the men in their respective positions. But like I said, I'm just the average joe, so it probably doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Back when I was in the Navy I know some guys that had problems taking orders from women, especially since the captain of our ship was a woman. It was really more the "old-schoolers" who had the issues, at least some of them, but you could tell it was there. Funny thing is the women who worked on the lower end of the pay scale worked just as hard and got the same respect as the guys. What really pissed off a lot of people (especially the women) was that some of the girls who sit there and use their "bodily functions" as an excuse to slack off.

Now I know for some, it is an issue. But several of these women had no problem playing around, BS'ing and whatnot while pretending they were "sick". Hell, one of them even admitted it to me. It would infuriate the other women on board though because it made them look bad overall.

And before anybody mentions it, I don't really have any "facts" to back this up. These are just my observations and opinions. Right or wrong, it is what it is. I guess time will tell if it's off the mark or not. :)

suchislife
April 12th, 2004, 06:05 PM
And before anybody mentions it, I don't really have any "facts" to back this up. These are just my observations and opinions. Right or wrong, it is what it is. I guess time will tell if it's off the mark or not. :)

If its anything at all..I thought your post was very good. Made sense, and I agree with it. :D

Andacanavar
April 12th, 2004, 09:59 PM
Thanks! :)

AverageI.Q.
April 12th, 2004, 10:41 PM
What would you say was or is the most signifigant aspect that divides males and females in our society, excluding all biological aspects if they can be excluded or does it all boil down to that? What are your thoughts for someone with an average I.Q. :)

suchislife
April 13th, 2004, 08:09 AM
What would you say was or is the most signifigant aspect that divides males and females in our society, excluding all biological aspects if they can be excluded or does it all boil down to that?

I feel the main division between men and women is definately biological. Men are typically bigger, and stronger then women and are built to be basically be working machines. Women are built to be more delicate and bare children. Men think differently then women. Men are typically the more assertive, take charge of situations types. Men are less emotional then women and I believe that helps in the rational part of things. Society places different expectations out of each sex. Offsprings see different strengths and weaknesses in both sexes. And this is just what I could come up with off the top of my head. As I said, this is typical, and certainly there are exceptions. Personally, I dont think either sex has higher rank over the other. I believe each sex brings different things to the table, and that is the reason they will never be looked upon as equals because many men AND women feel the other sex to be inferior.


What are your thoughts for someone with an average I.Q.

Dont know MY IQ, but Im assuming its, well, about average ;)! SO you got an average response!!

MattNuenke
April 15th, 2004, 05:57 PM
What would you say was or is the most signifigant aspect that divides males and females in our society, excluding all biological aspects if they can be excluded or does it all boil down to that? What are your thoughts for someone with an average I.Q. :)

Since sex seems to be the topic that people are the most obsessed about, the main difference between men and women is sex and what it means.

For men, sex is the physical act of just having and orgasm, as often and with as many women as possible. Unfortunately, we have had to evolve to be a more compliant partner, so men can vary from being "Cads" to being "Dads." In short, men will do what the women ask to get the sex that they crave.

Women on the other hand want commitment. Harlequin(sp.?) romance books for women, at a billion dollars per year, is pornography for women. Women want: to attract a man; to make the man fall in love with her; and to control the man's affairs thereafter.

It really is a rather ugly affair, with men and women wanting very different things, but each forced to compromise to get what they want.

Andalusi
April 15th, 2004, 06:14 PM
That's rather cynical. Men do have other urges besides sex that make longterm relationships attractive. I and most men I know *do* want commitment and expect it of the women we've been involved with (since I'm married, as are most of my friends, of course commitment is a given at this point :) ).

And women certainly have their own libidos to contend with, which grow stronger in their thirties, but are still a factor earlier on. It's not all serious relationships, and it's especially not the case that most women are trading sex for the prospect of marriage. Women enjoy sex, too. They can and do seek sexual relationships without worrying about the long haul.

AverageI.Q.
April 15th, 2004, 06:52 PM
I know that sex will always be the main difference between male and female thats why I wanted to stay strictly on the discussion of all inequality that we see today without involving biological factors which then could stem literally millions of opinionated rebutals. I am trying to find a logical point between gender equality that can be argued in a speech before an audience and proven in 6 to 8 minutes. The biological facts of gender are just that facts and there is no need to simply restate a fact however the topic of sex drive is interesting and id like to see it in a new thread.

MattNuenke
April 16th, 2004, 04:24 AM
That's rather cynical. Men do have other urges besides sex that make longterm relationships attractive. I and most men I know *do* want commitment and expect it of the women we've been involved with (since I'm married, as are most of my friends, of course commitment is a given at this point :) ).

That is what I stated, the CAD versus DAD strategies. Of course men want commitment because they want a steady supply of sex that they are unable to get any other way. Women also range from COY to SLUT (these are technical terms from human behavior studies). The COYs hold out for high quality mating, the SLUTs make the best of what they have to offer (have sex often and with many, trying to make something happen before options evaporate from age.) When you look at the research on human sexuality, men and women are extremely different in what they desire, and how they go about getting it. A good textbook primer on this is "Evolutionary Psychology" by Buss.


And women certainly have their own libidos to contend with, which grow stronger in their thirties, but are still a factor earlier on. It's not all serious relationships, and it's especially not the case that most women are trading sex for the prospect of marriage. Women enjoy sex, too. They can and do seek sexual relationships without worrying about the long haul.

But women for example do not enjoy sex like men. They are different in how they feel about sex, even during sex, versus men. The underlying emotions that drive the deed are not very overlapping. If you think your wife moans and grunts for the same reason you do, you are mistaken. Ecstasy may be there, but it occurs on a different level of proximate causes. Distal causes are the same, to make humans come together to have babies. But proximate emotions to accomplish that goal are very different for men and women. Men are inherently promiscuous, even though most males are unable to act upon that promiscuity unless they are gay due to female control of sexual opportunities.

AverageI.Q.
April 16th, 2004, 08:59 PM
Quote:
But women for example do not enjoy sex like men. They are different in how they feel about sex, even during sex, versus men.

Feelings cannot be proven and are based purely on opinion, unless you are 100% male and 100% percent female you cannot begin to know how the other sex feels and even if you were, somthing as simple as genes could change that. No 2 humans are 100% the same biologically but besides this point - the underlying question was will men and wemon ever be equal?
questions such as income apply here like:

Why is income such an inequality? Based on a statistical abstract In my sociology book the projected "average" income gap in 2005 was, men-57,000; wemon-40,000 and increasing! Thougts on why, how, when? If youve gotta through in some biological facts then by all means please set us straight.

Andalusi
April 17th, 2004, 12:10 AM
That is what I stated, the CAD versus DAD strategies. Of course men want commitment because they want a steady supply of sex that they are unable to get any other way.
Um, no, that's not quite the reason I married my wife. I have to ask you: have you ever been in a longterm relationship? Because so far, your comments have been far divorced from the reality that I and my peers have encountered.

Women also range from COY to SLUT (these are technical terms from human behavior studies).
I sincerely doubt that. More likely they come from a misogynistic rant masquerading as "behavior studies."

But women for example do not enjoy sex like men. They are different in how they feel about sex, even during sex, versus men. The underlying emotions that drive the deed are not very overlapping....(insulting comment about my wife omitted)Ecstasy may be there, but it occurs on a different level of proximate causes.
Okay, I'm going to have to demand proof or some very convincing evidence on this one.

Men are inherently promiscuous, even though most males are unable to act upon that promiscuity unless they are gay due to female control of sexual opportunities.
Believe it or not, I only want one woman, and I'm married to her. I've known women who cannot stand to be with only one man. If you in fact have some textbook on human sexuality you're using, I suggest you buy one updated from the 1950s and get some better research under your belt.

MattNuenke
April 17th, 2004, 05:12 AM
Um, no, that's not quite the reason I married my wife. I have to ask you: have you ever been in a long-term relationship? Because so far, your comments have been far divorced from the reality that I and my peers have encountered.

Yes, 30 years and quite the envy of most other couples. I have learned about feelings, differences, and making accommodations by looking at the empirical evidence available about human nature. Nothing I have told you comes from my emotions or my experience because humans are not very good at looking inside themselves to determine their motives. I prefer to try and understand human nature based on studies, comparisons, research - it is like many blind people feeling an elephant, comparing notes, to find out how it would look if one of them could see.

We are all blinded by our emotional systems, because they are not meant to give us insight into our inner workings but to get us to act in such a way that we pass our genes onto the next generation. I prefer not to yield to my base instincts, but to try and understand them and control them. Just because humans have a very old, cobbled together, modular brain that is driven by blind algorithms, does not mean we have to yield to those proximate causes all of the time. By understanding human nature, it allows me to see my wife's behavior as well as others from a different perspective. I find that now, I am more understanding of human sexuality and especially conflicts. [/QUOTE]

MattNuenke
April 17th, 2004, 05:24 AM
Believe it or not, I only want one woman, and I'm married to her. I've known women who cannot stand to be with only one man. If you in fact have some textbook on human sexuality you're using, I suggest you buy one updated from the 1950s and get some better research under your belt.

Virtually all of the research on human behavior agrees that men are very promiscuous, and something would have to be very wrong with your sexuality not to notice other women and want to have sex with them. Many men of course sublimate this drive, because social costs, lack of self confidence, consideration of the children, or just nobody else wants them because they are not very attractive to other women, makes them rationalize that they really are happy with one woman. Humans are very capable of self-indoctrination. We all do, make excuses for our lack of control over our own destinies. As to textbooks on human behavior, see my bibliography, and note that the books are all very recent for the most part.

http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/bib.htm

Response to your other concerns will follow.

MattNuenke
April 17th, 2004, 06:01 AM
I sincerely doubt that. More likely they come from a misogynistic rant masquerading as "behavior studies."

The following is from "The Survival Game: How Game Theory Explains the Biology of Cooperation and Competition" by David P. Barash, 2003.

"Given these payoffs, there is an equilibrium that can be determined mathematically; it occurs when 5/6 of the females are coy and 1/6 are sluts, 5/8 of the males are dads and 3/8 are cads. At these particular proportions, the average coy female does as well as the average slut, and the average dad does as well as the average cad. So neither type takes over, and neither goes extinct. Use different payoff numbers, and you get different proportions, but, in any event, the stability is a fragile one. If the proportion of the various types should happen to vary—by chance—then the numbers can drift increasingly away from equilibrium. For our purposes, however, the important point is that the best strategy, whether to behave like a dad or a cad, a coy or a slut, depends on what others are doing. In our hypothetical world of sexual shenanigans, it is possible to reach an equilibrium point that is at least "stable enough," in that different ways of behaving all coexist. Call it a triumph of diversity."

You will find numerous similar statements by other authors, who use very different techniques and come to the same conclusions. Again, to understand the elephant in a land of blind people, you need to use numerous empirical techniques from surveys, to studies of human sexual response in the lab - wired up to one's genitals, etc. Sexuality is one of the most studied areas of human behavior. For you to just summarily dismiss what is commonly known among psychologists, evolutionists, behavior geneticists, etc. shows that you have bought into the folk psychology of the likes of Oprah Winfrey, rather than what would be commonly known by someone from the APA that is an expert in this field. The most solid book in this area is by David M. Buss, Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind," 1999. It is targeted as a textbook for undergraduates.

But tell me, is all of your knowledge about the world around based on dismissing all progress by scientists, and relying on what your friends think? I find anecdotal, arm-chair studies of human behavior to be so wrong as to be worthless. Do I understand women because I read books by academics? No, just a little bit more insight perhaps. But never real understanding, but have facts rather than hearsay does seem to provide one with better knowledge of the subject matter. Skepticism is a very good thing, and I never believe any one author or any one perspective. I look at the preponderance of the evidence from many sources to see how solid it is.

You on the other hand seem to deny anything that does not fit your world view, on the assumption that empirical facts are not to accepted or trusted. That seems to put you into the camp of the social constructivists, who deny all science. Is that where you come from. If so, then I am wasting my time. I might as well go outside and talk to the squirrels. Now, you can give me some recent scientific data on human sexuality that you have used to understand the subject, other than hearsay and wishful thinking. And no fair using the Sundays sermon.

MattNuenke
April 17th, 2004, 06:17 AM
Okay, I'm going to have to demand proof or some very convincing evidence on this one.

This is from "Evolutionary Psychology, Public Policy and Personal Decisions," 2004 (is this recent enough for you?). The chapter is titled "The Pornography Debate: What Sex Differences in Erotica Can Tell About Human Sexuality." by Catherine Salmon (note this is researched and written by a woman).

219[Catherine Salmon]--Arcand (1991) suggested that it is "essential to know whether there is such a thing as a pornography consumed exclusively by women, and whether it is fundamentally different from that preferred by men" (p. 49). The answer is yes and it is the romance novel.

Romance novels account for 40% of mass market paperback sales in the United States, generating annual revenues of $4 to $6 billion. In the last year, almost 3,000 romances were published in North America, where more than 45 million women are romance readers. Harlequin Enterprises, one of the largest publishers of romances, boasts annual worldwide sales of over 190 million books, attesting to the enormous appeal of these narratives to women everywhere.

One advantage to conducting research on commercial erotica is that the design features of porn and of romances constitute unobtrusive measures of male and female sexual psychologies. Real-life heterosexual interactions inevitably involve compromise and therefore blur differences between male and female sexual desires and dispositions. Erotica, aimed at either a male or female audience, has only to please one sex at a time.

One way in which erotica can be used to illuminate human sexual psychology is to compare commercially successful products with less successful ones. Sales figures and royalty checks provide reliable information about women's psychology. Best-selling romance novels, for example, almost never feature gentle, sensitive heroes, because women readers prefer to fantasize about strong, confident men who ultimately are tamed only by their love for the heroine. Gone with the Wind is a classic example of the popularity of a strong hero; by the end of the novel, Scarlett's affection has shifted from the sensitive but rather helpless Ashley to the powerful Rhett Butler. The popularity of Russell Crowe's character of Maximus in Gladiator is another example of the appeal of strong heroes. Romance writers who have experimented with gentle, sensitive heroes have not been rewarded in the marketplace. Within the last few years, there was a sensitive new age guy line of romances, and it failed rather quickly.

221[Catherine Salmon]--Although the romance novel has been called, with some justification, "women's pornography," it is really the opposite of male oriented porn. The goal of a romance novel's heroine is never sex for its own sake, much less impersonal sex with strangers. The basis of a romance novel's plot is a love story in which the heroine overcomes obstacles to identify, win the heart of, and ultimately marry the one man who is right for her. Which is why there are no romance serials featuring the same heroine, as there are endless iterations of James Bond or other male-oriented adventures; each romance must end with the establishment of a permanent union. Unlike male-oriented porn, the existence of a POV character with whom the reader subjectively identifies is an essential feature of romance fiction. The heroine is usually the main POV character, although the POV can shift back and forth between heroine and hero.

Romances vary dramatically in the extent to which sexual activity is depicted, from not-at-all to highly explicit descriptions. Although the description of sexual activities is common in romances, it is not an essential ingredient. When sex is described, it serves the plot rather than dominating it. The hero discovers in the heroine a fulfilling focus for his passion, which binds him to her and ensures his future fidelity. Sex scenes depict the heroine's control of the hero, not her sexual submissiveness. Sexual activity is described subjectively as opposed to objectively, primarily through the heroine's emotions, rather than through her physical responses or through visual imagery. The emotional focus of a romance is on love, commitment, and domesticity. Its final goal is the creation of a perfect union with the heroine's ideal mate, one who is strong yet nurturing (Radway, 1984).

The characteristics of the heroes of successful romances can shed a great deal of light on the psychology of female mate choice. As previously mentioned, these romances almost never feature gentle, sensitive new age kind of guys.

Gorry (1999) analyzed every description of the heroes of 45 romance novels. Each of the novels in her sample had been independently nominated for its excellence by at least three romance readers or writers. In all, or almost all, of the romances Gorry analyzed, the hero was older than the heroine, by an average of 7 years. Heroes were always described as taller than the heroine. The adjectives used most frequently to describe the physical characteristics of heroes were muscular, handsome, strong, large, tanned, masculine, and energetic. All of these focused on his good qualities from an attractive protector and provider perspective.

Gorry also found that romance heroes exhibited cues of what she called physical and social "competence." Heroes were described as sexually bold, calm, confident, and impulsive. In a majority of novels, the hero was described as "intelligent," although some lacked formal education.

The characteristics of heroes that were described most consistently had to do with their feelings for the heroines: He desires her sexually; he declares his love for her; he wants her more than any other woman he has ever seen; he has never loved a woman in the way he loves her; he thinks about her all the time; he is sexually jealous and possessive of her; he treats her gently; he wants to protect her. These feelings are exactly what would appear in a list of universal aspects of the experience of romantic love.

The essential characteristics of the hero of a successful romance novel have to do primarily with his physical appearance, physical and social competence, and intense love for the heroine. In contrast, being rich and having high socioeconomic standing, although more common perhaps among romance heroes than among men in general, are not essential characteristics of the hero. In Gorry's research, heroes had a high social rank or occupation in about half the novels. When considering the psychological adaptations that underpin human female mate choice, it is worth considering that money, social classes, and formal education did not exist for the overwhelming majority of human evolutionary history. The heroes of successful romance novels may or may not be rich or aristocratic, but they consistently possess characteristics that would have made them highly desirable mates during the course of human evolutionary history: they are tall, strong, handsome, healthy, intelligent, confident, competent, "dangerous" men whose love for the heroine ensures that she and her children will reap the benefits of these highly desirable qualities.

Donald (1992) summed up these aspects of the hero and his appeal very nicely: "Until very recently in our historic past, strong, successful, powerful men had the greatest prospects of fathering children who survived.

226[Catherine Salmon]--In fact, like prostitution, porn is often said to evidence male contempt for, or lack of respect for, women. But there exists an ideal test case for such claims: gay male porn. If these claims were accurate, gay male porn would be expected either not to exist at all, or, if it did exist, to differ in significant ways from straight male porn (e.g.. it might emphasize the development of enduring relationships or be less relentlessly focused on genitals). But, in fact, gay and straight porn are essentially identical, differing only in the sex of the actors. In fact, gay porn often gives the impression of being more "real" than straight porn does: For one thing, the actors in gay porn almost invariably seem to be having a genuinely good time, which is not always true of the actresses in straight porn; for another, the impersonal sex depicted in gay porn is not very different from the real-life sexual relations of many gay men.

227[Catherine Salmon]--A consideration of the place of the porn/adult video industry in terms of where people spend their money is also worth some thought. Table 10.2 gives approximate sales figures in U.S. dollars for a variety of industries from cosmetics ($3 billion) to sports ($100 billion) to Hollywood ($11 billion), but it also points out an interesting fact. Harlequin, one of the biggest players in the romance novel game, is posting around 1 billion in sales per year, whereas Playboy Enterprises—dealing mostly in adult television, video, and magazines—is bringing in a bit over $300 million. Is pornography as prevalent as it is often portrayed?

Perhaps, not surprisingly, much of the opposition to pornography comes from women. It is interesting to consider why that is the case. It might be because they are the ones "hurt" by pornography, or because they are trying to protect the young women in the industry. But there is an alternative. Look at social exchange between men and women in terms of women gaining control over men and gaining resources by regulating men's access to sexual gratification. If pornography is an alternative source of such gratification for men, it (as does prostitution) reduces women's bargaining power in such a sexual/economic arena (see Baumeister & Twenge, 2002, for a discussion of female suppression of female sexuality).

MattNuenke
April 17th, 2004, 06:30 AM
Okay, I'm going to have to demand proof or some very convincing evidence on this one.

A final note: When you ask others for proof, are you willing to provide similar proof by posting material from academically reviewed sources? May I suggest that you look into http://www.questia.com for a small monthly fee. Many of the academic books that I read end up available on questia, along with thousands of journal articles. I don't use enough myself, I prefer having my own library. But if I want to research a particular issue, it is a great source, and has a lot of material from the Marxist Left to the Race Realist Right.

For example, if you took what I have given you already, and do a search on Questia, even keeping it to research published in the last couple of years, I'm sure you could review the issue we have been discussing in great detail.

Andacanavar
April 17th, 2004, 09:14 AM
Virtually all of the research on human behavior agrees that men are very promiscuous, and something would have to be very wrong with your sexuality not to notice other women and want to have sex with them. Many men of course sublimate this drive, because social costs, lack of self confidence, consideration of the children, or just nobody else wants them because they are not very attractive to other women, makes them rationalize that they really are happy with one woman.

http://mindscraps.com/s/contrib/blackeye/lol.gif

Gee, and this whole time I thought it was because I love my wife.


http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/otn/laughing/yelrotflmao.gif

MattNuenke
April 17th, 2004, 12:03 PM
Gee, and this whole time I thought it was because I love my wife.

You should read the post more closely. I am not saying that a man is not happy with one wife, I am saying that men are inherently promiscuous by nature. That is, even if you love your wife, and are happy with your sex life and the rest of it, normal males still look at other women and would like to have sex with them. We don't have sex with other women however for the reasons I stated.

So, are you saying that you love your wife enough to not want to jeopardize the relationship by having an affair, or you love your wife so much that no other very attractive female has the least bit affect on you. Which is it? If you tell me that you absolutely have no desire for sex with other women, then you are an extremely rare male by all available research.

I would also have to question your handle under the same assumption. How do you think males came to have "blood lust" warmonger?

AverageI.Q.
April 17th, 2004, 07:33 PM
Make a new thread if you all want to disscuss instincts it jsut seems that every equality disscussion leads to this topic. Why?

mrs_innocent
April 17th, 2004, 07:41 PM
I'm not entirely sure (which is precisely the reason I've yet to post in this thread), but I'm guessing that it has to do with the fact that 'instinct' is arguably one of the biggest differences between men and women.

AverageI.Q.
April 17th, 2004, 08:11 PM
Its not arguable that hormones are are part of our make-up wemon-etrogen, men-testosterone. What is arguable is the way society treats men and wemon based on the fact that they are male or female.

From the time of birth we are set aside with socially correct traditions suck as pink and blue baby clothes, dolls vs. G.I. joes, playing house insted of playing baseball men are naturally more aggressive than wemon. But society should not cutail what is manly and feminine, like the afforementioned examples. As a male I played with my share of dolls and had girls on my baseball team and I feel that integrations like these puts me in a biased position to promote a strong feminine equality. However, equality seems to be promoted less when dealing closely with the individualization of a certain group (for ex: tis ok for girls to play army and flag-football with the guys but when the guys play dress-up and house they are more likely to be classified as potentially gay). When it comes to many actions such as these I seriously doubt it will be less than 200 years before this sociological institutionalization will be replaced or done away with.

Would you agree that all of these seperate gender roles are mostly obtained and issued in childhood? If yes or no how can we realce or do away with these ridiculous perceptions of gender?

suchislife
April 17th, 2004, 08:37 PM
ahh..ok. I see where you're going with this. And I think you hit it on the nail there. It is most definately defined in our child hoods. Boys are supposed to do it one way, and girls another. Girls are expected to be "lady like" and boys are expected to be "tough". It is expected of us by our elders and parents. Females have ALWAYS been looked upon as being the softer, more emotional, tender, caring, nurturing etc of the two sexes, as males have always been looked at as the tough as nails, macho, protector, provider etc. In thus we have roles we must play and fit. Does it make it right? Well, that depends on who you ask.

Then it goes back to the physical aspect of things. Men, overall, are stronger than woman. Men, overall, are providers and Mr. Fix Its. Woman are the nurturers to the children and the care takers for those around her. Shes the softer of the two sexes.

(These are just things that randomly popped into my head..so its more opinion than anything)



So equal...I just dont see it being possible. Maybe in 200 years..but who knows what life will be like in 200 years. It may not matter then. :p

VillageIdiot
April 17th, 2004, 09:26 PM
The problem with the future of equality rests in the mindsets of society as a whole. I've always thought the whole "men are stronger/women are nurturers" argument was a load of bull. From birth, we all have the ability to survive and to fulfill both of the societally-deemed "roles" of masculine and feminine. Single fathers, female soldiers, etc. Masculine and feminine ideals are complete social constructions dictated by the majority of the population...

The trouble with that idea is that in one-on-one conversation, you'll find that the bulk of the population feels the masculine/feminine ideals are outdated and oppressive...but they will not openly admit such for potentially being stigmatized by society.

Unless the ideas of equalization of the sexes becomes more "mainstream", society will choose to err on the side of "tradition". With the passing of each previous generation, we come another step closer to the possibility of equality. The bulk of the work involved in such an effort would lie in the asexualization of the media and most consumer products. In today's market, "sex sells". In order for sex to be "sexy", it must embody the polar idea of the "perfect" masculine or feminine. Our minds and senses are inundated with the images of this "perfect" masculine or feminine constantly. From marketing for everyday products to children's toys, our goals have stretched to the unattainable extreme of both ends of that spectrum. In order to achieve true equality (which by human nature I don't think is easily attainable due to the natural instinct to suppress and oppress in order to remain the "alpha" form), we must remove the hyper-sexism and move more toward a genderless marketing system. Just like "toilet humor", sex is the easiest way to get the desired response from an audience. Perhaps by raising our standards as consumers, we can illicit OUR desired response from producers and ultimately move toward a truly equal society.

But probably not...old habits die hard.

chadn737
April 17th, 2004, 10:26 PM
The problem with the future of equality rests in the mindsets of society as a whole. I've always thought the whole "men are stronger/women are nurturers" argument was a load of bull. From birth, we all have the ability to survive and to fulfill both of the societally-deemed "roles" of masculine and feminine. Single fathers, female soldiers, etc. Masculine and feminine ideals are complete social constructions dictated by the majority of the population...

No, these are not complete social constructions, they are a natural part of who we are. These stereotypes exist not because, biologically that is the way we work. Women are naturally more nuturing, because they are the mothers. Back before "formula milk" it was only practical for the mother to be the main caretaker, because only she is capable of producing milk. Stereotypes do not fit every individual, but on a whole they are right.


The bulk of the work involved in such an effort would lie in the asexualization of the media and most consumer products. In today's market, "sex sells". In order for sex to be "sexy", it must embody the polar idea of the "perfect" masculine or feminine. Our minds and senses are inundated with the images of this "perfect" masculine or feminine constantly. From marketing for everyday products to children's toys, our goals have stretched to the unattainable extreme of both ends of that spectrum. In order to achieve true equality (which by human nature I don't think is easily attainable due to the natural instinct to suppress and oppress in order to remain the "alpha" form), we must remove the hyper-sexism and move more toward a genderless marketing system. Just like "toilet humor", sex is the easiest way to get the desired response from an audience. Perhaps by raising our standards as consumers, we can illicit OUR desired response from producers and ultimately move toward a truly equal society.

What is so great about a society that does not recognize the differences in each of us?

Heres a question women, do you want men to treat you like "one of the guys?"

The idea of a genderless marketing, a society that does not represent the difference in men and women, disturbs me.

mrs_innocent
April 17th, 2004, 11:34 PM
Heres a question women, do you want men to treat you like "one of the guys?"

If I'm out with "the guys", then, yes. Then again, I've always been "one of the guys"....

MattNuenke
April 18th, 2004, 07:04 AM
Its not arguable that hormones are part of our make-up women-estrogen, men-testosterone. What is arguable is the way society treats men and women based on the fact that they are male or female.

The problem with the above statement is that it flies in the face of research. When researchers ask "is it society" or "is it the genes" they look for data. Much of this comes from studies done on societies everywhere in the world, as well numerous other studies in labs, twins, etc. So far, it seems that where there are real gender differences, these are found in extant tribes far removed from modern society to other nations. That is, some patterns are found everywhere, like men's attraction to young fertile women. It is so ubiquitous that it is surely genetic, with only a few males deviating from the norm.

Likewise, men are more jealous and controlling, and want to protect their property. We see a relaxation of this attitude in the west as we all try to deviate from our hard-wired emotions (self indoctrination). But still, these feelings seem to persist.

Gender differences are well studied and fairly well explained from how humans evolved. There are exceptions here and there that can be accounted for by strange cultural practices or unique ecological conditions. But the patterns of behavior are often so unlinked to cultural norms that they must be related to innate differences in gender. There a numerous books that look at these differences, and explain how they came about, which ones are cultural versus genetic, etc.

For example, highly educated women are not having as many children, nor are they getting married like they did 100 years ago. This is purely cultural because with birth control, and ability to be self sufficient, they do not have to submit to a male in order to have a life. Culture has the ability to radically alter how people respond to their new-found environments. Likewise, males like the sex dominated by visual stimulation. Now, men can go out and buy tons of pornography for sexual satisfaction, and do not have to rely on women always. Such cultural changes have radically altered the roles of men and women. But some innate leanings are still present. It is not all one or the other.

Any undergraduate text book on this subject will explain each phenomenon, reaction, and the studies that go into extracting cultural versus genetic differences.

suchislife
April 18th, 2004, 07:15 AM
Heres a question women, do you want men to treat you like "one of the guys?"



On poker night...sure. If I was in management, yes.

But in general, No. I'd rather hug then get a punch to the arm upon seeing an old friend ;) !!

AverageI.Q.
April 18th, 2004, 02:48 PM
Looking at all previous conversation here its obvious that society shapes who we are as an individual or (institutionalization). As everything is ever-changing so is the American youth, in particular.

Firstly however, which type of gender realated traditions will we (the "average" american) push and which will we ignore? And secondly I know it sounds logical but is it logical for us to (that is do we..) associate our "learned" short-commings with unfavorable qualities that we continue to pass down? (that contribute to inequality) or do we blow off the fact the we can change this and then simply succomb to the wordly (majority) veiw?

Thess questions can be dependent upon many different variables such as social class, location, era etc., and explain the sterotyping involved with each. To analyze how the "times" play into our attitudes and veiws, can be analyzed for eternity, since the "times" are always changing. Taking this into consideration can a general answer be concluded that fits into an unforseen future? or is the answer dependent upon the era and all of its social stratifications.

HappyLady
April 22nd, 2004, 07:18 AM
Men rule. Men have ruled since the beginning of man. They are the hunters, the aggressors. The reason they rule is based purely on physical qualities...survival of the fittest, most aggressive, etc.

However, humans evolve. We don't "need" to have aggressors and hunters anymore. Vegetarianism has proven we can all be gatherers and live healthily with no meat. We cannot live on meat alone. Now, granted, if man did not have woman, he would gather on his own. And women have learned that they don't need a man to get the meat either. But yet...we don't need meat. We need fruits and vegetables. Therefore, we don't need man. We need woman.

The reason society is so unequal is because the traditions and necessities of the past won't die easy. Because men are powerful physically, POWER is the way of the world. We have our wars, our football players making kamillions of dollars for playing a competetive SPORT, men being pressured to earn 6 figures for the pretty house in suburbs. If you polled women, I would imagine they are more likely to promote communicative solutions to problems. A more synchronous environment where power isn't the priority. We all, men and women, might say we want world peace. But men want power. (I realize this is a generalization. Not ALL men.) Women want emotional fulfillment through relationships. (Generalization. Not all women.)

Until there is a shift from being all powerful to being somewhat harmonious, women won't be equal. As long as there is competition for positions, competitions for rulers, etc...there won't be harmony. I find it ridiculous that a football player can make millions of dollars a year. He contributes nothing to better society in that field of work. A social worker makes less than 40,000/yr.

But men like their power. And because they're bigger, not better, they win, and always will.