Gender 'Equality' Nonsense

[Vichy]

It is a fact that men have more philosophic and material achievements than women, presuming to exclude child-rearing. Anyone familiar with history can not deny this. I think men, on average, have more skill in dealing with and thinking about reality in an objective, rational way whereas women tend to be more concerned and skilled at maintaining social relations. This is an evolutionary trait that derives from the division of labour between hunter/gatherer and child-rearing. A pregnant woman without social support is a dead woman, whereas a man without a solid grasp of material reality will quickly find himself dead (in a historical context). Likewise, a woman can rely on the man's income and the man can rely on the woman for child-rearing purposes. This view is not 'sexist', it is historical and an expected outcome of evolution. Not to mention it is entirely in the experience of most people, being an extremely reason-oriented woman I can tell you damn well that there is a huge gulf about how I look at things and how most women look at things. Most women I know: "But if I speak the truth I'll upset my social group." Me: "So what?"
If this division of labor were not a fact, heterosexuality would be totally inexplicable. Face it: people are not equal, at all, no individual is 'equal' to any other individual. They have differences in ability and preferences and gender has a very strong - though sometimes subtle - influence on how they perceive things. You know why men don't see cheating as a big deal most of the time? Because, to a man, sex can be just sex. To most women, loss of affection triggers a survival mechanism of fear because to lose the sexual interest of a man is to lose one of the strongest bonds which would (historically) have helped to insure a woman's survival. It may be annoying, but historically women DID need protection and support, and men - being stronger and more objectively inclined - were best capable of protecting them from the elements and (of course) other people.
I hate political correctness. Reality does not conform to your mind, your mind must conform itself to reality. I don't care if anybody likes the fact that men are bigger, stronger and engage in more risk-taking (and thus rewarding) behaviour than women on the average. And I don't care if anyone likes the fact that this is typical primate biology, and to one degree or another, it's in most of us. Ignoring these facts are going to lead you to totally retarded conclusions about how things work, it's like trying to build a machinegun out of butter. I hate these emo men with no assertiveness or self-esteem and their single-mom matriarchal lives. It really is a slave mentality. And I hate stupid women who think that the facts are going to change just because they wish more women enjoyed engineering. I wish more people could fly. Reality doesn't fuckin' care what I think.
If you really want more women to do algebra, then pay to get them taught, employ them.  I don't care.  But stop with this affirmative action, totally retarded sexual harassment bullshit.  Stop fucking up my economy to enforce your little fantasy on the world.
And I'm tired of this 'if women were in power'.  Listen, in most people's family lives in the Western World, women are in power.  Lots of people fought and died in wars, lots of single mothers created by the welfare state.  It's going to suck if men run things, it's going to suck if women run things, and it's going to continue to suck so long as anybody 'runs things', as long as people can't run their own fucking lives somebody is going to be getting mugged, and I don't give a damn what sort of retarded internal selection process decides who gets to run the thieves guild.

[myleviathan]

I understand your desire to express yourself no matter the consequence, but if you do it at the expense of your social group you may find yourself a very lonely person. Which is cool, if you're into that, but that's more for the emo folks, isn't it?

Have you read 'Into the Wild' by John Krakauer, or seen the movie? As the main character lays dying in the solitude he chose for himself, he scrawls "Happiness is only real if shared". There's a lot of wisdom in that.

[Will]

I understand the historical precedent, but because something has been a given way in the past does not mean it's the best way nor does it mean that it will continue to be. In fact, if study of human behavior and social structure tells us anything it's that change is the only constant. Look at all the governmental, economic, and societal systems in use today for evidence. The differences in cultures which developed independently from one another are astounding. There are even many successful monarchical societies.

Yes, evidence strongly suggests that men were the hunters, but that isn't the only activity that requires assertiveness. Cooking, sewing, nurturing the development of a child or children, maintaining reserve resourcesâ€"these all require leadership, intelligence, fortitude, and assertiveness. I'm not suggesting that men and women are innately equal in all things, but the reality is that men and women share common traits that can be widely applied to behaviors and activities that might be attributed to a particular gender.

I myself am absolutely fantastic with children. As a man, I should be a bread winner (and I am), but if I were to name my best ability, due not only to a lot of hard work but also innate abilities, it would be raising children. Am I an anomaly? Or am I applying the traits that might make me a good hunterâ€"leadership, intelligence, patience, adaptation, intuition, patience, and patienceâ€"? It would seem that I am the exception that disproves your rule.

[Mister Joy]

Vichy, you seem to be making a point of being controversial. I pretty much agree with your observations, minus the emotional parts, but I think the controversy stems more from your application of the word 'equal' than it does from any of the realities that you have pointed out. While it is possible to say that the genders are not 'equal', in the formulaic sense - they don't have identical genes and of course that effects psychology as well as their physical properties (sort of stating the obvious really) - it definitely isn't possible to label one as inferior or superior to the other. If you were to do so, you would be taking it for granted that you have the ability to place people on an abstract scale of importance that you've determined inside your own head based on one factor or a selection thereof, which just might "lead you to totally retarded conclusions about how things work".

When people use the term 'equality' to refer to gender, race, etc. what they generally mean is that we should have the same respect, the same rights and the same worth as human beings, not that we are all, ourselves, the same. It's a moral idealism, not a materialistic assertion.

Also, while your ideas about the differences in men and women's genes are probably true (as I said, I don't disagree) you can't apply that on an individual basis. You'd be limiting and seriously distorting your ability to form rational and reasonably perceptions of others if you took statistics about their gender or race or height into account. You could say that men, overall, are better at working while women, overall, are better at raising children and maybe you'd be right. Personally, I think you're exaggerating the differences a little, but it doesn't matter whether you are or not because it ultimately amounts to bugger all either way. You could use these averages to make incredibly vague & unreliable assumptions about people, which you'd be stupid to take seriously, but that's all. As such, said averages are pretty meaningless. Average IQs vary from country to country. Should I therefore automatically assume that every American that I meet will be intellectually inferior to me? Course not. So do I really need to think about any of that shit at all? No, not really.

Most people aren't ignoring or denying the things that you've observed. The likelihood is that, quite rightly, they just don't care. None of what you've said really has anything to do with sexual equality.

Don't get me wrong though, there are plenty of things that rub me the wrong way about feminists. Especially those who make the argument that if you're not a sexist then you're one of them, as if it's an ultimatum: join us or be branded with a negative image. Plus there are those that confuse 'equality' in the same way that you have. Which is very annoying in their case because they tend to go for both sides of the coin, making lots of points that appeal to the moral idealism side of things, which in itself I don't mind, but then using them to make fallacious conclusions that fit more with the unsupportable we-are-all-the-same mentality. The kind of people who claim that a lot of 'typical effeminate behaviour' is the result of masculine oppression and couldn't possibly be simple nature. I get a slight impression that this has annoyed you as well.

[Asmodean]

I understand your desire to express yourself no matter the consequence, but if you do it at the expense of your social group you may find yourself a very lonely person. Which is cool, if you're into that, but that's more for the emo folks, isn't it?

Actually, emos seem to stick together in small cliques.

That said, I think the concept of equality is flawed. People can be equal under the law, have equal rights, equal opportunities and so on, but still they are not equal. It all boils down to individual characteristics. Some people are leaders, for instance, others are followers. Some people care about "earthly" things, others care about grand schemes. And others still care about nothing but their own well being. In our own ways, we are all unique, so why the need to squeeze ourselves into cathegories?

[myleviathan]

Actually, emos seem to stick together in small cliques.

That may be, but they're still always whining about how lonely they are while cutting themselves and wearing white belts.

[Asmodean]

Actually, emos seem to stick together in small cliques.

That may be, but they're still always whining about how lonely they are while cutting themselves and wearing white belts.

Yeah... Many of them just want attention. Still, you can be among people yet alone. You can even have friends but still be lonely.

[myleviathan]

And that, my friend, is the soul of emo.

[Kylyssa]

I'd pretty much have to say that gender equality awareness is intended to secure equal human rights for all genders rather than to assert that people all possess identical skills and aptitudes.

[Kylyssa]

You know why men don't see cheating as a big deal most of the time?

ROFLMAO!
Men are generally less able to share the attentions of their partner than women are.  Women are more apt to forgive cheating* than men.



*Why is it cheating, anyway?  Is love a sport?  Is there a grade or prize?  Is it a competition?

[Asmodean]

And that, my friend, is the soul of emo.

Uh... No. I know some pretty emotionless people who are alone.

[myleviathan]

I'm referring mostly to Emo rock. More of a light-hearted conversation than an argument about the possibility of an emotionally stable loner.

Asmodean are you a closet emo fan? I thought you were more of a metal guy with your Metallica quote...  

[afreethinker30]

You know why men don't see cheating as a big deal most of the time?

ROFLMAO!
Men are generally less able to share the attentions of their partner than women are.  Women are more apt to forgive cheating* than men.



*Why is it cheating, anyway?  Is love a sport?  Is there a grade or prize?  Is it a competition?

True women tend to forgive their partners more often for cheating then men.And how sad is it that if a woman enjoys sex and is open she is a whore!

[Asmodean]

Asmodean are you a closet emo fan?

I'm not closet-anything, actually.   [/quote]
More or less.  

[Jane]

can I suggest men have more landmark achievements throughout history BECAUSE they were freed from the mundane and domestic to which women, no matter their social class, were not?

Even upper class women were bound to managing a household and social status, if not actually scrubbing the floors and tending chickens.

Women had neither the access to education, or support of family and peers to pursue their interests.

Yes, men are stronger. It doesn't mean they are smarter or more motivated. It means that they have access to the resources for achievement. And yes, biologically, they don't have the downtime needed for pregnancy and nursing  (seperate rant - I think it's a crime how little time women are given to properly nurse and rear a child before returning to work. If there's one thing the gov should support, it's healthy infants and bonded families..okay end rant)