Why "Gender Role Equality" is a bad thing

[Riggers]

Now, There is a pretty high to gurantee'd chance the title alone has stirred the hornets nest, but just bear with me for a short little while folks.

It is obviously apparent that one of the largest topics of discussion on this site is 'Feminism' and other 'Equality' groups, And, They all seem to have one clear underlined objective. That

''Men and Women should be treated EXACTLY the same!''

Personally, I think this is absolutely terrible for society, Both for guys AND girls.

You see, At the end of the day. We are not the same.... The only true thing we share are the name of the Specie (Homosapien) we both are. We excel at different things.

Its scientific fact that on average women have higher IQ. Their brains are their surivial tool. They are cunning and clever (Sometimes too much for their own good), Hence why smart women, Are considered so attractive.

Just as its scientific fact that on average, men are greatly more... ''Physically Capable'' then women. The male surival tool is his raw ability to overmatch his competition by sheer strength and capability (Sometimes too much for their own good). Hence why muscular, toned men are considered more attractive.

You see, From a young age in modern society, Guys are told to ''Be More Girl!''. We have this very.. ''Liberal'' notion in todays age, That ''Everything can be solved with words''. Now, Im not promoting aggression here, But.... This goes back to what we are as Genders, Men are Physical creatures, And you're stripping their physical abilities from them.

Look at most males in the animal kingdom in their youth, Notice how they ''Play fight'' Why do they do it ? Because they just enjoy doing it. Theyre guys... They dont intend to hurt each other, Its just almost entertaining to them to do.

And, in this left society, Women are saying ''This mentality is wrong!, Men need to be more... well... Girl!''..

And our education system is tailoured this way, In school, Both guys and girls are taught with big long novels, Usually some form of love story or other piece regarding social relations, The type of book that a girl would enjoy reading, But what about the guys?

I gurantee, 99% of guys that age would rather read a book about big f****** robots and explosions and tanks and stuff, Why ? Because its cool! xD We're intertested in that stuff, Does that make us evil aggressive creatures? No... just makes us guys...

You know, When i was in school, Probably like 11 years old at the time in art class, I actually got in trouble for drawing this (Really badass btw) fighter jet shooting down another jet, And i shit you not, The teacher, Mrs. Creedy, Walked me over to this girl in our class called Emily (Who drew this plant pot thing) and said to me ''Why can't you draw less intense things such as this?''.

What does that say about society ? Its bad to be a guy ? we should all be girls and have a femine mentality? Hell no!. Thats wrong!. We should be treated as the genders that we are, It is NOT fair to educate guys under female mentality.

Why do you think guys would rather watch something like this

Compared to something like this?

Because explosions!!! and metal suit !!!! and basass!!!! and woah!!!!! Whereas the second one is just makes me think... ''Wow... that looks gross and cold''

The best way i can put this is, if we reverse the situation, And we grow up girls, To play fight in school, To read books about explosions and to teach them that doing girly things is wrong, And they should spend there free time fucking about doing guy shit that it would all be cool? Fuckno!, There would be outrage! and for good reason!, You cannot treat a woman like a man!, So why is it okay to treat a man like a woman?

The only reason right now its under a feminine ''rule'' is because of the Feminist groups currently spearheading this ''equality'' stuff. And its really bad for guys, Which is bad for girls, Because all the guys are just gonna basically be like girls with dicks in 50 years (And that sucks.... I can't imagine any girl wanting to date some pussified bitchboy)

You know, I get a lot of crap for saying i strongly disagree with women being allowed into the military, I dont say that because i have anything against them, And i certainly dont say it because i doubt their willingness to step up and help their country, I say it, Simply because biologically they ain't cut out for it.

Men are Physically more capable, They have less Nerve endings to feel less pain too, They can fight harder and for longer and when injured it has less effect. Lets not even take how having a period and ''cramps'' in a combat situation would go down.... Thats just biology. I dont see the need why women should become soldiers (Who would undeniably be inferior to their male counterparts)

Just as females excel in many roles over males, I do not believe males should be introduced into something they would be less good at, Simply for the sake of ''Equality''. Its nonsense, We should have our place in society where we work best. Why make ourself inneficient and supress our biological desires simply because of that crappy 8 letter phrase? Exactly.... we shouldn't...

Morale of the story, Let guys be guys, Let them enjoy blowing shiz up, Hitting each other and doing stupid crap like riding their bikes offa jumps with 99% certainty of breaking their legs, But hey.. its cool because there is the 1% chance you won't and it will look cool as sh*t right?

And let girls be girls, Let them play with makeup, have their gossip and do their shopping sprees and sh*t.

But for the love of everything, Dont make them do what the other gender wants to do, Because that just bloody sucks for everybody...

Peace!

[BeeNee]

I was really trying to read this with an open mind and to understand this until you turned it into essentially an affirmation of sexism. I mean you're telling me female soldiers can't fight because of their periods? When someone is shooting at you, male or female, your adrenaline kicks in and you feel nothing but fight or flight. You make assumptions that all guys or girls are one way when there is a broad spectrum of what people want to do and what roles they want to play or what they can physically do. Just because a man is a man doesn't mean he's automatically strong anymore then just because a woman is a woman doesn't mean she's automatically smarter. You sound threatened by the idea of women in any sort of equal role. What does it matter if a woman wants to be a soldier or a fire fighter if she can do the job and wants to do the job? These jobs have litmus tests and if they aren't passed, they can't be a part of the job as with any job out there. I'm in no way advocating free reign of just letting men or women do any old thing just because of their gender, but if you say this is what it takes and the gender proves they can do it, the only problem is your attitude against it. There are so many things that have been male dominated for years simply because men held political and social power, but as with any position in which one set has power over another, when that power is threatened, they lash out, they try to make it seem as if no one else can do what they doing, because it keeps that power pure and in their hands vs. letting someone prove they can do it equally. Men said for years women couldn't be astronauts because of periods, and we all know that was BS. Its just easier for you to try and keep the status quo then to accept that someone should be allowed to do what they can and are talented enough to do based on their merit and skill.

[HowRUbBuddy]

I understand what you're getting to but i have to disagree with you , as mentioned above we have our differences , i can't stay in a kitchen for hours cooking or cleaning the hourse or folding the clothes... etc not because i would fee less of a man but because i simply can't tolerate all these tasks i have zero patience for anything like that , however helping my neibghour moving some trees he just cut is something i would gladly do i feel good doing it and i wanna do it and i can do it , you can't thats a fact ( well most women can't ) trust me most girls i know can't lift half of what i lift were just different just like you have the neccessary attention span to do slow paced chores we have the strength to do what you can not , even if you pass any test they give you in RL you will be much less that most men you meet you can do nothing about its genes and not your fault so why be mad about it?

[HowRUbBuddy]

also women are more emotional , yes they can endure pain and humilation more than guys but they are much more emotional and cry for things most guys will never cry about and they also feel more nervous under stress and might even go completly numb ( trust i've heard of many girls like that especially while driving ) its just how we are wired and what we are built to do , we can both do good at each others jobs if we try hard enough but if i need 10 years to be good at something most girl need 5 years to be good at why waste money and resources on and not on 2 or more girls who will be much more effecient and teach me something i am naturally good at?

[BeeNee]

@HowRUbBuddy You've essentially confirmed my above comment about sexism. Simply because you feel as though you cannot cook, or clean or do "womanly tasks," doesn't mean other's can't or don't want to do them. The world is not simply based on what you, one man, can or can't do, or what I, one woman, can or can't do. As you said, a lot of women can't lift a lot of weight, but what of the ones who can. You're essentially implying that they shouldn't be allowed to help that neighbor simply because of their sex, not based on their merit and whether or not they want to do the activity or more importantly, can actually do it. Most if not all your comments are about you personally and what you don't want to do or feel inferior in doing, not as it actually applies to the broad spectrum of men and women out there in the world. We don't even have to spend five minutes looking around, before we could disprove just about everything you've said about specific gender roles.

[BeeNee]

If there is a list or a litmus test for a job or task and a man or woman decides they want to take on that task and can prove through merit and skill they can do it, the only reason you or anyone else could possibly deny them the ability to then do that job, or that skill, is because of sexism and/or personal bias. You're far to concerned about what men and women ought to be doing, rather then what they have the ability to do. I don't want some person telling some woman she can't be a scientist simply because of her gender, because she may very well have the cure for cancer under her belt, and I don't want to tell some guy he can't cook because he's a guy, because he may very well know how to cook the best meal you'll ever eat. I think you need to re-evaluate your views on gender and why you personally don't see the good and the advantage in merit based, rather then gender biased, roles, and jobs, and education for both sexes.

[Mesonfielde]

@HowRUbBuddy I'm pretty sure if no one else did the cleaning and the washing stuff for you, you'd still do it, whether you claim to not be able to stay interested. Who said you have to be interested? You just have to do it. It's a problem, you know the solution, then execute the solution.

[Rainie_]

@HowRUbBuddy Just because YOU can't tolerate staying in the kitchen for hours doesn't mean a lot of men feel the same, I mean just have a look at the amount of men in the chef industry, restaurants, where are all the women? And what about the men that live on their own? They have to clean their home and do their chores cause no one else is there to do them. Its not that women like to do chores, in fact most women HATE it. Its just something everyone has to do, and apparently a lot of men "feel like" women are obligated to do them, and since a lot of women do them (because of that) they somehow think "ah, maybe women like to clean, thats why they do it right?", no, just no.

[BaileyisDarcy]

@HowRUbBuddy
Can I just completely ruin this stereotype you have going? Great.

I know plenty of men who would be more than willing to stay indoors and cook and clean while his woman is out working. My mother is the strongest person I know, physically and mentally. Notice I said person, not woman. She's the strongest person I know, that's out of both men and women. And you can't call me biased because yes, she is my mother, but I also haven't seen her for nine years and hold a decent amount of resentment towards her.
She just cleaned out the most rotten house you've ever seen and made it livable for herself. No help. No complaining. In one day she made more of an improvement than any maniI know could have.

If that's not enough. My friend is probably the worst house keeper iI've ever met. She's female. But absolutely terrible at keeping the dishes clean or cooking or washing her clothes, you know 'womanly' tasks. Yes I know some stereotypical chicks too, but they're the minority.

[hellionthesage]

Acknowledging the differences in gender is not sexism, in fact the opposite would be true since you would be actively ignoring those differences because of a percieved inferiority of one of the genders. We are different, geneticly and biologicly, this is indisputable fact. As for your military comment: www.westernjournalism.com/.../
www.usnews.com/.../putting-women-in-combat-is-a-disastrous-decision
here's one on firefighters: nypost.com/.../
In both situations the standards where lowered to allow the women into the profession (to the detriment of every one) This is due to the biological differences in men and women. Women not being able to do something a man does doesn't make them inferior as you seem to believe, it makes them different. The reverse is also true. To claim that because an individual vary tha we cannot attribute certain behaviors to groups is flawed. We know that men and women are different, mne have 10% larger brains and more grey matter, women have more white matter and better sense of hearing and smell etc. There is nothing wrong with being different.

[BeeNee]

@hellionthesage There are quite obvious differences, and not so obvious differences between men and women. No one needs a degree to figure that one out, but this wasn't a case for that premise. This was a rambling article on how one man feels bored during household chores and therefore its best women do them because they are better at them. Perhaps you should look up the definition of sexism. We also know, as in my example, in the case of Astronauts, women were told for decades that they couldn't be astronauts because they had periods and what about childbirth, etc. yet as you and I stand here today, we know that was BS. I still stand 100% by my statements that if an organization, job, school, whatever the case says, in order to do this job, a person must be able to do a, b, and c.. and they are able, then absolutely based on their merit and skill and their desire to do said job or task, they should be allowed to do it. There is no argument against that other then sexism.

[hellionthesage]

I do know the definition of sexism, its when one gender is treated unfairly comparative to the other or that one is viewed as suprior to the other. I believe in a meritocracy, but I also acknowledge facts. When we lower the standards for women (as in the military/fire/police department) then we are not basing things off of merit but gender preferences, specificly that of placing women above men. That is what I was getting at, that to refuse to acknowledge the differences in both phsyical ability/mental aptitude is in fact sexist due to the fact that using men as the end all be all is a disservice to women. You claim women should be able to do what men do completely ignoring the fact that biologicly speaking women are less adept at this then men, just as men are less adept at things women excel at. This is not inequality but difference in function. A bird is no more inferior to a fish for not being able to breath under water then a fish is for not being able to fly.

[BeeNee]

@hellionthesage If, as you say, you believe in meritocracy, then there is nothing more to debate.

[hellionthesage]

But there is. Your claim was not that we should be meritocratic but rather that women where capable of functioning just like (and would seem indistinguishably) from men and vice versa (I assume since you never actually stated it) and that is debatable. We are different with different talents and skills both as male/female and as individuals. While an individual may show aptituted in a given area it does not mean that there is equal variation amongst that particular gender as a whole. We know this to be true. The notion that we are the same and that therefore we should have equal parts male and female in a given field (generally speaking we ignore those differences if they only effect males) ignores biology and creates a faux meritocracy by creating two standards, one for men and one for women. That is not basing qualifications on merit but gender.

[BeeNee]

@hellionthesage You are arguing a point I have never asserted. Scroll up some in the comments and I actually said, I recognize the differences that we do have. I have also not once said that I thought every woman or every man should be allowed to be equally dispersed across all fields or into all tasks... just because. The one and only thing I have advocated for is a merit based system which would in fact weed out those that were incapable of doing a task/job whether they be male or female. As I've said before, there is no reason beyond proving a gender's merit aside from sexism or personal preference, why said individuals should not be allowed to fulfill that job or task.

[hellionthesage]

Yes you have claimed that we should have a meritocracy, but then every one of your statements would suggest otherwise. "You sound threatened by the idea of women in any sort of equal role." This is contradictory to your statement, if you are acknowledging the differences of men and women then you would also have to acknowledge that those differences create differenct aptitudes resulting in one gender functioning better under those circumstances then the other.(this is also why it is necessary to discuss and acknowledge gender differences). "There are so many things that have been male dominated for years simply because men held political and social power, but as with any position in which one set has power over another, when that power is threatened, they lash out, they try to make it seem as if no one else can do what they doing, because it keeps that power pure and in their hands vs. letting someone prove they can do it equally." This is both sexist and wrong.

[hellionthesage]

It presupposes a tribal mindset of men vs women which is inaccurate since women have both historicly and currently better protected under the law as well as in society. It also ignores the fact that men only got the right to vote 70 years before women (one generation) adn there fore could not really be responsible for women being treated unfairly (though it is provable that men where treated worse then women) and lastly ignores the fact that since 1920 women have had the right to vote and yet despite this have rarely run for office and have consistently voted for male candidates as can be shown by our governement being mostly male. Yet at no point do you acknowledge that women generally do not go into politics and tend towards other fields/occupations of there own accord but rather attribute it to men being sexist (which is itself a sexist statement) which would be contradictory to your claim of desiring a meritocracy since we had one and it was apparently not good enough hence quotas etc

[BeeNee]

@hellionthesage It is clear to me now that you have confused your own agenda. When speaking to the nature of the originator of this take who dismisses that women could based on merit equally perform a job, yes, I still back up my statement about sexism if he is unwilling to accept a system of meritocracy. Women have lived under a system of male dominated power, and those in power will seek to hold on to their power all the way to the extent that they do not or will not accept merit based challenges to claims on that power. Your claims that women have historically been better protected by law make absolutely no historical sense and now you are actually arguing that there should be more women in politics, apparently simply because they are women which would be the opposite of my point about meritocracy. Meritocracy isn't about forcing wo/men into jobs they have no desire to do--that was the take owners gripe, not mine.

[BeeNee]

@hellionthesage One last time, if, as you seem less and less to actually believe even as you've claimed to, you believe in a meritocracy, then there is no more debate. You may bring up as many random examples and false historical information as you'd like, or point to one man in Canada somewhere who cannot do his job therefore no other man should be able to do that job based on that one man's lack of skills, or try and argue that we are different therefore meritocracy can't exist all you'd like, but I have no desire to continue a debate that has nothing to do with me or my own views which still lay in the fact that if someone wants to do a job, can do that job based on merit and skill, there is no more argument to be had whether that be a cook in the kitchen or a soldier in the field. We have a society now filled with men and women who people feel should or shouldn't be doing the jobs they are doing and yet they are and they are doing them well. That's a fact. I'm sorry if you disagree

[hellionthesage]

How have I confused my "agenda"? You claim we are equal, I stated that there is variation between genders and that equality cannot be presumed for any given task but rather must be judged on merit. You argue against this reasoning, I do not believe tha I am the one confused. What is false about my statements? If you would like you can mention the ones you believe are false and I will gladly link you to the data. I do believe in a meritocracy, but I also believe in biology. There are differences and while every one should have a (truly) equal chance, that does not change the fact that in many areas one gender tends to do better then the other. This is science, again I can prove which ever one of my statements confuses you/conflicts with your ideology. My historical data is quite accurate when it comes to women being proteceted under the law. Men where beaten for being beaten by there wives, they where imprisoned for there wives debts etc. I think you are confused.

[hellionthesage]

I never argued that there should be more women in politics, not once. I stated that women have equal opportunity to hold office, they can vote etc. Yet we still have fewer women in office then men. To ignore womens influence (being 50% of the votes) in politics would be out right stupid. To claim that men have more political power woudl, again, be outright stupid. Women have chosen to stay out of politics (as have the vast majority of men) they have chosen it. That isn't subjugation, thats not sexism, thats choice. No one is being forced into a job, women even more so then men. Men are more likely to be forced into a job simply because there is not quota for them so they don't have the same opportunities in female dominated fields as women do in male dominated fields. "point to one man somewhere who cannot do his job therefore no other man should be able to do that job or try and argue that we are different therefore meritocracy can't exist" I never claimed any of that, not once.

[hellionthesage]

I stated we are different and there fore we would not have gender parity in all fields. Just as there are a greater number of male soldiers (98%) and police officers and construction workers and miners, does not mean women cannot do those jobs, its that they are choosing not to do them because they are difficult especially for a woman to do (having less muscle mass and phsyical strength/resilience). The same goes for jobs that are dominated by women like phsycology, early childhood education, social work, etc. Men choose not to enter those fields (well except for education where we as a society believe all men are incapable of being nurturing) This is choice, that is perfectly exceptable. Lowering the bar to allow women to do what they want simply because they want however is not, its not a meritocratic system and never will be. Why you feel you should be treated like you are capable of doing anything when you are not is beyond me. No one can do everything, we all have things we cannot do

[BeeNee]

@hellionthesage I support meritocracy. The end. Thanks for the conversation.

[hellionthesage]

No, you really don't. This has been most disappointing but not unexpected.

[Riggers]

'' What does it matter if a woman wants to be a soldier or a fire fighter''

Yes, Because im sure a female fire fighter will be able to carry 200lb men out of burning buildings...

And Yes, I am sure that a female soldier could keep pace in a platoon with her male soldiers whilst taking 50 mile hikes through the desert carrying 90KG's of gear...

I am not saying its bad for them to want to do it, I do not for one second doubt their determination or courage or some shit. am saying, They are not physically capable of doing it.

Why should i put my life in the hands of a woman to carry me out of a building, when i way 1.5x as much as her?

Why should male soldiers, Have to be burdened carrying around the gear of the female in their platoon, because she isn't strong enough to carry it herself?

This is just biology.

And, Pfft, Periods would be an issue, You seriously think if they get surrounded and are under seige, The air force will specially air drop some fucking tampons for her ass?

[ChocEyes]

There are a fistfull of misconceptions here. For example:

First, when we say "equality' we mean a geometrical concept of it, as defined by Aristotle.

Second, the concept of IQ - although still used by the common sense - is less and less respected by scientists.

Third, you also have a very wrong idea about biology. Science no longer reinforces the idea of biological determinism, but istead of epigenetics.

Last, but not least, you promote harmful a confusion between scientific evidence and moral statements.

[jjmarvin]

I love every sentence you just said

[Azara]

Why should girls or boys be raised to like anything in particular. Present them interests and let them choose. If anything is " natural" and not firced then it woul be expressed in their choices.

By the time you get to school you're already told to like metal stuff and explosions and violence. Girls are already told they are supposed to like passive things. No one gets to school a clean slate. You were reprimanded for influence that was not if your choosing.

You also gave no idea what your interests would have been had you not been raised in a world where you aRe not free to choose without risking attack should you deviate from social expectation - Social physical psychological or legal.

I don't think girls should be taught to like boy things or boys should be taught to like girl things I think segregating childhood activities into girl and boy a fictitious is very damaging and starts people very early in not knowing how to think for themselves or clearly understand their own will.

Kids grow up living up to some abstract social fantasy they had no part in creating. That had no meaning reason I'd coherence. They grow up to become adults who are encouraged to commit violent acts against other adults who do not fit into the fiction.

You may have been lightly verbally reprimanded fir drawing something too I tense. Do you think if a girl had drawn what you'd drawn she would not have been chastise do... Likely more so. Your teacher may have been looking fir a certain aesthetic or did not want violent images. But it was the picture your teacher had a problem with. Not bc if your sex. You're assuming women are not acfuve or do not draw machinery? In that case you were treated unfairly but nit bc your teacher was trying to control your begavior.

Had you gone to school in a dress you'd get beat up. If a girl is per urged as trying to be a guy she can be raked to be taught a lesson.

People get beaten ostracized and murdered for not fitting into the gender ascribed to their sex. They are not attacked bc they were forced to act in a way that did not fit them. They get attached fir being true to who they are. Arbitrarily creating two categories when human beings are fluid and complex and forcing people into one category Unbefitting to them, does not solve the problem of sexism or sexist hate crimes... it reinforces it.

brain and body confirm to what they practice. The only way to become ci legend in things is to do them. Not to magically be born " Right"

[hellionthesage]

"on average women have higher IQ" actually thats not true: https://www.iqtestexperts.com/iq-better.php , men have a greater devetion then women ie there are more intelligent men then women but also more unintelligent men then women. Women are average, or a perfect bell curve in intellectual aptituted. The reason for this is that women nearly always reproduced (80% of women pre-agrarian society reproduced) while men didn't (only 40% reproduced pre-agrarian society). This forced men to take on mutliple approaches in order to acquire mates. Some whent the route of brute force or the "Alpha" male appraoch which of course didn't really require to much intellect. Others of course could not compete against this so they whent the route of the intellectual, out smarting there competition or being more creative (inventing) in order to compensate for there lack of brute strength. Hence the diviation in men but not with women; men fought for a mate, women fought for the best mate, they had less to lose with failing there goal then men did. As for schools being taylored towards women that is quite true (probably where this notion of women being more intelligent then men came from, easy to see a difference when it caters to one gender) Men have 10% larger brain then women and a greater quantity of grey matter, as well as having longitudanal neural pathways (same hemisphere) while women have a larger quantity of white matter and lateral neural pathways (cross hemisphere). That combined with the fact that there are sections of the brain more/less developed depending on gender. Then you have the fact that between every male or every female there is a 99% genetic similarity yet between any man and any female there is only a 97% genetic similarity (the same ratio as between a human and chimpanzee) We are very different and the notion that we are not is very much illogical and proven to be false. Over all I would concur with your take.

[hellionthesage]

If you feel the need to down vote, please have the decency to state why, its just good manners.

[Possible_Mate]

ok the point of breaking out of gender roles as a society is to give each gender the equal opportunity to do things. it's not to force one to be the other, but for the individuals who like to do things that they're gender wouldn't traditionally do. so if a boy WANTED TO he could be a hair dresser, and not be called a pussy for it. if a girl WANTED TO she could get into machinery. it's about having equal opportunity because not all boys and girls want to do things "for boys" or "for girls". there are lots of people who don't fit into these nice little categories you've made. what about jobs that are sexually ambiguous? like a doctor or a bus driver, a scientist or a lawyer? who would do those jobs? just because you are a male or female doesn't automatically mean you are going to be good at something. an example: my friend is going into a special school program to get into a construction course in university. she's also in the local military cadets, and she's not the brightest bulb. my boyfriend is very smart and is into history and animation. yes i agree to a certain extent, men and women are innately different. however society over emphasis, and exaggerates these differences to the point where just about everything has this gender difference enforced.

[nalaa]

I think some things are kinda confusing here or just plain wrong.

"smart women, Are considered so attractive" what? then what is it with all the girls playing dumb so guys won't feel intimidated?

"Notice how they ''Play fight'' Why do they do it? Because they just enjoy doing it. Theyre guys" well not really, more often than not, play fighting is practice for hunting or actually fighting. like lions, the males fight each other mercilessly

Now it's not a secret that young men are somehow drawn to danger, which is why countries usually have no issue to recruit them for war or why drug cartels have also no problem finding new recruits.
Which what people are afraid of, right? That their sons or brother will go off to war or die in some gang war, which is why people are concerned about violence in young children. I don't know if boys will be boys is just very cheap answer to a very real problem. The problem is not action movies, the problem is when blowing shit up becomes reality

Now lastly feminism was never about everyone being the same. It was about the right to choose your own path and not be put into very tight drawers of men and women.

[jjmarvin]

I actually thought "smart women are attractive" was the only true thing he said. Jussayin

[Nuqood]

@jjmarvin and you're 'jussayin' that to try and impress her. Attempting to be charming while being disingenuous doesn't work, mate.

[jjmarvin]

@Nuqood lol that's a pretty sad world to live in bit it's your choice

[Nuqood]

@jjmarvin Choosing to be honest instead of bullshitting for brownie points isn't sad at all.

[jjmarvin]

@Nuqood the fact you can't believe people genuinely think that is the sad part. But w/e do what you want

[Nuqood]

@jjmarvin What exactly do you consider a 'smart' woman to be? A woman who is an Ivy League graduate with honors, or a woman who just doesn't say stupid shit all the time?

[jjmarvin]

@Nuqood lol ok

[Nuqood]

@jjmartin It was a question, mate.

[Nuqood]

@jjmarvin*

[hellionthesage]

"then what is it with all the girls playing dumb so guys won't feel intimidated?" I think its because they don't respect men and think very poorly of them, why, what do you think it is? Men are biologicly inclined to take risks, if we didn't we wouldn't exist as a species because no man would put there life on the line for a mate as was necessary in the past, no man would risk there life to preserve the life of there mate/offspring as was necessary in the past, no man would go out and risk everything in an attempt to better his economic social standing as is required currently. Yes males wrestle because we are biologicly predisposed to it, we are built to compete and protect. Tickling is actually a way of training to prevent harm to vital organs (notice how tickelish spots on children happen to corespond to major arteries like the neck or inner thigh?) Its true feminism was never about people being the same, it was about women having more privledge with less responsibilities.

[nalaa]

@hellionthesage why do I think it is? Well it's in the statement, because men feel intimidated by smart, independent women. Or alternatively they like stupid, innocent women.

Did you see this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpCc_86yf6s the attitude is so popular people make satires of it

[hellionthesage]

I don't think that video is really relevent seeing as its taken out of context and is a parody of a parody. I as a man with male relatives and male freinds have never seen what you are claiming, but have seen/heard and complained my self about women acting like they are dumb. So I think its less about men being insecure assholes and more about you and women like you having no respect for men. As for inimidation, no. So called "independent" woman are not intimadating they just are not attractive. No body wants to be with some one that doesn't need them and enjoys reminiding them of it. Its also not a very attractive trait when the same so called "independent" woman talks about not owing there boyfriend/husband anything and/or is there to "please" him. Its trueut then he also doesn't owe her anything as well something they conviently forget. Your suppose to want to please your partner, your suppose to "need" them, so when a woman claims to be smart and "independent" its a red flag.

[nalaa]

@hellionthesage it IS relevant. It's satire of women acting exactly the way I described to get guys to like them. Because as you as said, men don't like smart, independent women. Maybe intimidating was the wrong term, my point was that men don't like smart women, especially not if they're (the girls ) smarter then them.

Intelligence usually comes with independence. Being able to live on your own, make your own good decisions. Or put differently lack of intelligence comes with dependence on other people. Which I say guys like and you agree, right?
So that is why girls act stupid and act like they need someone to help them all the time, like in the video

[nalaa]

Maybe it is that you said they think of that men, but don't see it as THAT, it's that they think poorly of all men, as in they have to put themselves down so guys will like them, because guys can't handle anything else

[hellionthesage]

I never said men don't like smart women, I said men don't like women who claim they are smart and so called "independent", there is a distinction. I prefer intelligent women, I had an ex who played stupid all the time and it drove me insane. But I explained that all ready as you know. No, I do not agree with your statement that men like dependent stupid women, at no point did I state that and you know that. I stated no one wants to be with someone who is constantly telling them they are better then them, that they don't need them. We are social creatures, we function in groups, there is not one person who is "indepenedent". We all need people, its the ones who claim they don't that are not particularly liked because they act aloof and superior as you are doing. Being abrasive and disrespectful is what pushes men away not intelligence. Also I would state, again, that the video is irrelevant. Find something more releveant as evidence.

[OpenClose]

Here is what I am about, regarding gender:
- Make as few assumptions and expectations as possible about people by their gender.

- Let people be who they feel most comfortable as
If this means 90% of nurses are women, so be it. If that means 90% of engineers are men, so be it. But don't let these statistics cloud #1.

- Respect people's decisions and autonomy:
If I was a woman, I would find it insulting to be told over and over again that I chose psychology instead of industrial supervision because "I didn't make that decision. The patriarchy did." So maybe you were influenced by people's assumptions or expectations (see #1), and that makes you like pink and hairstyling and babies. Well if that's what you like now, it's what you like. Going into a field you don't like will only leave you miserable. Giving special accommodations to minority members in a field will only raise questions about the qualifications of that minority.

So don't expect a man to be a "real man", and don't expect a woman to be a lady. But dammit, give us the freedom to be them if that's really who we are. And don't assume a man is going to be evil and a woman is going to be incompetent.

Follow those basic rules, and it quickly helps separate the real equality-seekers from the bullshit.

[OpenClose]

By the way, I like the kissing and romance and general cheesy cuteness of chick flicks.

The reason I DON'T like chick flicks are the shit standards they have of men. They are all brooding, bad boy, soldier, football players who win her affection by punching some dude in the face, dying for her, nearly dying for her, or the ultimate fantasy: He blames himself for everything wrong in her life, apologizes, the swears his loyalty, and she's all like "whelp, I'm glad you admitted you are the shithead and I did nothing wrong. I'll accept you."

There's a lot of her saying "I love you for everything you do for me" and him saying "I love you despite the fact that you don't do shit for me."

Oh, and of course he starts off violent and confused, and her love changes him. He starts off flirting in ways that would get you arrested, but it's "romantic" and "sexy" because he was already declared a protagonist and has abs.

[hellionthesage]

Very true. I particularly like your view on chick flicks. The man is essentially treated as a willing slave. You also neglected to mention the love triangle where the woman leads both men on until she can descide which one she wants more completely disregarding their feelings on the matter and treating them like objects. I concurr whole heartedly.

[Lisa2521]

Well , it's all about the meaning of" equality" in your head.
Equality between blacks and whites doesn't mean we will just give the white people a black skin color so they can be equal , and the same for gender equality.
Most people think of gender equality in this way , but for me , and as a girl who believes in gender equality , I can see and recognize the differences between men and women ,
But you can't just assume that all men will prefer something and all women will prefer the opposite for example "Shakespeare" is the most famous romantic author ,
My brother prefer watching a romantic movie than a football match.
I like to play Karate than going shopping.
But anyways no one should be forced to do something they don't like and no one should be prevented from doing things they like.
Gender equality for me means allowing girls to have same rights like guys , the right to have same salaries for same efforts , the right to be a leader (of course if she's qualified) , the right to have sexual freedom like guys , as they can have strong sexual desires just like guys , the right to refuse cooking and cleaning ALONE everyday without her husband sharing with her just because he's a man. The right to join military or to join sport clubs either to learn how to protect herself or to release energy "I didn't say FORCING them to join military by the way.
Just imagine , yes you are a guy , but what if you like shopping more than a football match , will it be ok if your society/government prevent you from going shopping just because you're a guy? Same thing for girls who like to join the military.
I think none should prevent her just because she's a girl , and I think they make tests before they accept people anyway , so nothing wrong with a QUALIFIED girl who just joined the military.

[MariellaRo]

So, all you're saying is basically that more women like cooking than men, and that men tend to be stronger than women. What does that have to with anything? Feminism is about the individual. If there is one woman who wants to join the military or one man who wants to be a stay-at-home dad or one woman who wants to be a mechanic, then there should be no one blocking their way just because of their gender. That's what it's about. And because women were often, MUCH more often than men, not allowed to do things because of their gender, the only right thing to do is to give them a lot of support now. Mind you, that might lead to unequality in some cases (women being hired even though there is a male applicant who is even better qualified) but this happens because for hundreds of years, men had three times those advantages. And you can't just undo that by suddenly treating everyone the same. Someone who was discouraged for years, possibly by their own family because they grew up in a non-feminist environment, might need a little encouragement, ya know.

[MariellaRo]

Also, you are using potential and ability as synonyms. Most men could probably become stronger than most women IF they hit the gym every day and tapped their full potential. But the truth is, most of them don't. So, a woman with the potential of 7 who actually taps that fully is going to be stronger than a man with the potential of 10 who only uses half of that.

[Riggers]

Look at it this way sweetheart.

If you take a guy and a girl, Neither of whom have been to a gym, there's like a 95% chance the guy will be stronger...

If you take a guy and a girl, Both of whom have maxed out their bodies potential, there's like again, a 95% chance the guy will be far stronger and fitter.

This is undeniable.

[MariellaRo]

Yeah, why are you repeating what I said? Again, feminism is about giving someone the opportunity and not standing in the way of women who want to do things they were denied for a very long time. Feminism is about the individual.

[Accipiter]

I think as technology progresses, gender roles have become less important to the structures of society.

Before we lived in an industrialized society, much of the work had to be done by (hu) man power. Men had more stamina to take on physically demanding tasks like plowing a field or leading a team of horses. Whereas domestic duties were reserved more for women. While domestic duties are mentally and physically demanding, they don't require the strength and endurance of "manly" tasks in the old days.

Further, it was practically impossible for a mother of a month-old infant to leave the home for a full time job since no father can breast feed a baby. Nowadays we have breast pumps that can fill bottles to store away, so the mother can spend extended lengths of time away from her children. I think for this reason, stay-at-home dads are becoming more common.

I believe this is how gender roles became assigned the way they did in human evolution and societal progression. Now that we live in a society where machines have reduced the amount of labor that used to be required by man, we are now seeing gender role defiance in our society. Personally I think it's silly to call gender roles "oppressive," yet on the other hand I see no problem with the individual if they wish to defy the traditions of gender expectations.

[OpenClose]

I agree for the most part, industrialization has granted more women access to fields that would not have done well for them in a competitive market. Not that that was always a bad thing for women. It might be shit to be expected to stay at home, but I can't imagine it being any better having everyone hold you responsible for your family's well-being, while you are expected to work 14-hour days in a coal mine before being sent off to war. Gender roles are shit.

[OpenClose]

It's interesting, go even FARTHER back: instead of pre-industrial about 200 years, go to pre-agricultural about 10,000 years.

Hunter Gatherers have a very high level of equality.

The old idea is that men provided all the food, and had to violently compete with each other for sexual access to women, who were the lower-ranking gender (besides the non-alpha males).

Loads and gobs of research are coming out saying that this idea was simply a victorian projection of what they considered a "savage life", and trying to reaffirm the idea of industrialized superiority.

Turns out, nearly all of the male competition was sperm competition. Women had lots of sex with many men, which made physical male competition pointless which allowed for male cooperation. While hunters (mostly men) provided meat, gatherers (mostly women) provided most of the food overall. Hunting was done cooperatively with endurance hunting rather than brute force.

So half of our gender roles/expectations are myth, anyway.

[BellePepper]

The girl in the last picture isn't 14. She was freaking 12 when that picture was taken because her parents shoved her into modeling.
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../...s-Jalouse-Magazine.html

THAT'S the problem with gender roles. You're slacking to all these *generalizations* like boys not getting to watch explosions (that girls like too) instead of going for what gender equality really means. Girls shouldn't be turned into sexual objects before they hit puberty. Boys shouldn't be forced into toxic masculinity.

You want to go for differences between the genders? Fine. Just don't play with this bs social conditioning. Go for the REAL issues.

[Riggers]

So? Her parents gave her a good career that she clearly enjoys, I don't see the problem with that?

[BellePepper]

Then you are part of the problem.

[Riggers]

Why?

Because i see a girl, doing a job she wants to do and enjoys, Making a lot of money for doing it and will likely do it for the rest of her life?

Why, Would you rather me say no, that girl shouldn't do the career she wants, and she should get low pay too?

Or am i just missing something here?

[BellePepper]

Her parents have been having her model since she was four. Do you think she had any choice at that point or that she has any comprehension of what it's like to not live that life at this point? You can't be a model for your entire life. Models have very, very brief shelf lives. And the way her parents have allowed her to be presented is a HUGE problem.

Is this how a 10 year old should be portrayed? i.dailymail.co.uk/.../...100000578-265_634x826.jpg
What about this? i.dailymail.co.uk/.../...400000578-644_634x342.jpg

If you have to turn your CHILD into a sexual object to be successful, there is a problem. That is the problem I am challenging you to address. 10 year old boys aren't sexualized. So why are girls? Why isn't part of your "we're different and don't need equality" addressing problems like this? Why is this okay?

[Riggers]

she's hardly a ''Sexual object'', she's not showing anything is she?

So what, She has a little bit of makeup on and is wearing a gold dress, Hardly sexual...

[BellePepper]

She's a little girl dresses up in all sorts of things that are sex. You see heels and provocative poses that suggests she has the body of an adult. This is appropriate for a child https://www.slankey.com/dress-for-10-year-old-3.jpg

This is not fierceindulgement.files.wordpress.com/.../...0.jpg

[Riggers]

Yes, I agree on those pictures, Thats fucked up in that second picture! wow wtf.

But, This girl, She isn't missing clothing like that girl is, Thats why im saying it, And, Im sorry but... i included that picture for absolutely nothing more then a gender joke about maturity, Not once did i intend a funny little picture to turn into the moralities behind child models?

[BellePepper]

The girl in the second picture is the same girl we've been talking about this entire time and she was even *younger* when that picture was taken.

I'm saying this girl is a representation of ones of the problems with gender inequality. Boys are not sexualized this way when they model. Boys' bodies are not regarded this way when they're children. So if we're going to say that there aren't problems with the inequalities we need to look at all of them and see what those inequalities are really doing to people.

[GirlsLie]

I think a lot of women mistake equality with acting how they think a man should act. They put men on a pedestal and try their hardest to be just like how they think men should act, so they can be idolized like them.

And no one takes the time to stop and realize that you don't have to be exactly what is considered the strongest, that you can be strong in your own way and that you will never be respected by being dumb enough to simply follow the leader.

If you want to be respected as an equal, then establish your own set of rules and break away from what you're told is the epitome of strong.

I personally don't think there's anything wrong with people being how they want to be, I just wish everyone would stop considering men the epitome of strong and striving to be just like them, it puts a lot of pressure on men to be a specific way and it also takes away a lot of opportunities for both men and women.

[Anonymous]

Growing up I was a tomboy. I loved sports, cars and was obsessed with action movies. Van Damme was my hero, and i'd spend hours everyday on my trampoline trying to do his signature double air kick.
I'd still take action movies over romantic/dramatic films now. So i don't necessarily agree that girls and boys should be segregated to do their exclusively boy/girl stuff.

That being said, I think the best thing is for everyone to stop telling kids what they should like and what they shouldn't. If a girl wants to play with trucks let her, if a boy wants to play with dolls let him. Stop telling people what they should and shouldn't be interested in because of their gender. Your teacher was a freaking idiot, who tells a kid that what they're drawing is too violent? That's part of growing up, like water fights or pretending to be wrestles or whatever. I like this take, it shows how even the most "equality" driven arguments can be just as limiting when they restrict individual freedoms.

[jormungand]

I agree with you asdBlong as you are capable of doing something, who has the right to stop you? But certainly, as far as life saving or protecting go, standards shouldn't be listed, no matter the gender or anything else. But boys doing girly stuff, or girls doing boyish stuff? Thatabsolutely doesn't matter! 😏

[lilac_flowers]

"Its scientific fact that on average women have higher IQ. Their brains are their surivial tool. "
Hell no, wrong.
Women's survival tools are men. And men employ their brains for both men and women to survive. Look around you. Men built this world and with their brains, not their strength. Look at toughest, math-based college courses, men overwhelm them... How can anyone say something like "women are smarter" with a straight face is beyond me.

[Mesonfielde]

Women were just not part of education, and are socialized to believe they suck at math. Of course most scientists will be male if you don't teach the basics to women because they're busy cooking and making kids.

[Rainie_]

Do you know why that is, that the men built this world? Because women were NOT allowed to be a part of building it. If you know about the women's history you'll know damn well how women have been excluded from all the political, economical and almost all social things there is, and they've been excluded from history so many times its unbelievable. Because they've been seen as "inferior" simply because they are female, therefore their opinion does not matter for shit, they're apparently just alive for reproduction purposes and for the pleasure of men. And the reason women's "survival tool" has been men for so long is because women have always ALWAYS been oppressed in every single country, because men have always feared that women would take away their power and superiority. Even now in a lot of countries this is still going on, unfortunately.

[Riggers]

''they're apparently just alive for reproduction purposes''

Yes.. They are... Just as both genders in every single other specie in existence?

[lilac_flowers]

"Because women were NOT allowed to be a part of building it. "
NOT true. Women were allowed as long as they had enough money to finance their work, and today when all of us have enough technology we are allowed today especially, but we don't have the capacity and no interest in highly specialized areas of human activity.
Rich women never did anything, while low status men, far bellow them in privilege, opportunity and status invented and advanced the world.
And today, when women can do anything they want, they still don't accomplish nearly as much as men.

"Because they've been seen as "inferior" simply because they are female, therefore their opinion does not matter for shit, they're apparently just alive for reproduction purposes and for the pleasure of men."
I have NEVER heard anyone in the west say that except feminists. So that's enough of that.

[lilac_flowers]

"And the reason women's "survival tool" has been men for so long is because women have always ALWAYS been oppressed in every single country, because men have always feared that women would take away their power and superiority. "
Riiight... You know it's usually the privileged class the one who dies in wars, works high risk jobs, works more, takes responsibility for failings of the "oppressed", who provides their oppressed with safety, comfort and technology that ultimately allows them to join their oppressors in a previously hostile environment of the workforce, now edited for women's liking.

Seriously, to say something like this you need a very profound level of ignorance on topic of history, biology, evolution, sociology and severe feminist self-victimization brainwashing. @Rainie_

[Lisa2521]

@Mesonfielde totally agree with you

[Mesonfielde]

@Rainie_ They were seen as inferior because Islam and Christianity were what governed the world view of the people.

[hellionthesage]

@Mesonfielde I don't see how they saw them as inferior. For the entirety of history it was men who where sent to war, men who where lynched if they harmed a woman, men who where publicly beaten and humiliated if there wife beat them, men who where expected to take care of women to there personal detriment. If a woman had her "honor" insulted the man she was with was expected to fight (to the death mind you) for it, for an insult. Did you know there is actually a "right" way to walk with a woman? She should always be farthest from the street, see this came about around the renassance where people would take there chamber pots/diry laundry water/cleaning water and throw it out the window into the streets, the reason the man was closest was incase it didn't quite make it it would land on him not her. Then we have chivalry which despite popular belief was a Knights code of honor that got applied to women ie he treated her like a noble, he was hers to command. Not really viewed as inferior.

[hellionthesage]

Women have average intelligence, what gets mistaken is that men do not. Men have a greater varience in intelligence, there are more unintelligent men then women but there are also more intelligent men as well. This is due to the alternate tactics of mate acquisition. Though as we have progressed intellect has become increasingly more necessary. We know that there is completely different brain structures in men and women which is why women do better at some things and men do better at others. People however confuse an individual aptitude as evidence of there being no trend amongst a gender rather then being what it is, an exception.

[hellionthesage]

@Rainie_ I don't know where you got your history from but its highly inaccurate. Women have been all but worshipped since the beginning. Aztecs and mayans would mutilate there genetials to emulate a womans menstrual cycle because they believed it was linked to womens spiritual power. Women have had political power, https://www.womeninworldhistory.com/rulers.html men held political power because they held military power/agrarian power. They were the only ones that had the strength to haul a 70 pound plow across acres of land so they had control of that, women where viewed as more spiritual. At no point where women mistreated as a whole. Men who harmed there wives where lynched, men who where harmed by there wives where also lyched. Women chose to raise children for the most part. Though we have ample evidence showing women had trades as well, they were black smiths etc. When the titanic sank 1358 men died, only 100 women did because of the women first policy. Your knowledge of history is lacking.

[hellionthesage]

Thank you by the way, for actually questioning feminism and its false representation of men, its really refeshing.

[Mesonfielde]

@hellionthesage Two words: Honor killings.

[lilac_flowers]

@hellionthesage You're wrong about "women are average", "men are both extremes"...
So called dumb men I know are smarter than "average" girls I know, only they're open about the extent of their understanding, while women talk a lot and talk like politicians. They confuse people with bullshit. Women manipulate their image better. That does't make them smarter, only more appearance focused. Scratch the surface, women are dumber definitely.

[EnglishArtsteacher]

@lilac_flowers As a high school teacher, the fact you're denying males aren't as smart as women proves how misinformed you are.

Trust me, males are the ones struggling in education and basic intelligence in general.

[hellionthesage]

@EnglishArtsteacher Thats due to the feminisation of our educational system. Most of these issues did not exist 40 years ago for male students. Yet it has increasingly moved to a more female centric learning style. It has nothing to do with there intelligence but rather in how we teach and measure there abilities. Men and women are different yet we are attempting to teach men as we would women dispite our substantial differences.

[lilac_flowers]

@EnglishArtsteacher As a former high school student who actually interacted with other high school students, I can attest that that means nothing. Girls care more about grades, but boys always understand more, remember longer and are more reasonable and logical. Girls do better because they are more tolerant of school being boring and more invested in getting a pat on the head.
And now as a college student, I can also attest to the fact that in a highly demanding, competitive, pressure filled curriculum (nowhere near easy English and Arts), 95% of the girls fail, while most guys do reasonably well, about 30% of them even excel.

[EnglishArtsteacher]

@lilac_flowers There is no such thing as an "easy" subject (regarding that comment.)

I know highly advanced people in engineering, mathematics and sciences who would fail miserably in an English Arts classroom. On the other hand, I could have a scholarly writer who couldn't solve an algebra equation.

Interesting enough, women are also doing better at math than men in this day age.

[lilac_flowers]

@EnglishArtsteacher Lol! No such thing as an easy subject! xD
I'm sure you have to tell yourself that mister EnglishArtsteacher.

People who nail maths can get a hang of other subjects relatively easily. I've seen it a bunch of times. Only early on school doesn't encourage boys to read, or engage in arts because drawing pictures of guns and reading Lord of The Rings is "immature". Also, people who can only do arts, can't do maths ever. Their smarts only go that far.
Average IQs by majors are VERY different and people with higher IQ are always in STEM, while dumber people are in Liberal Arts.

And women are NOT doing better at maths. Maybe low level maths for a pat on the head and a "good girl". But go into a math/physics class in a second, or third semester of college where it's actually tough, where it determines your future and where you compete for money, prestige and contribution to society... It's a sausage fest without a doubt.

[EnglishArtsteacher]

"People who nail maths can get a hang of other subjects relatively easily."

Not true at all. I have students at a low reading and writing level who are in ADVANCED PLACEMENT (AP) Math and Science courses. One girl in particular is a Senior (12th grade) and has an eighth grade reading level, and has COLLEGE level mathematics skills. The two are clearly not mutually exclusive. They involve using different parts of the brain.

IQ tests aren't even a true measure of intelligence anymore. Albert Einstein could BARELY pass high school courses and he had one of the highest IQ's ever recorded.

And there are now more girls nation wide enrolled in advanced Math AND Science Honors/AP courses than guys, so you're wrong there too.

I've studied education for a long time. If you're not in the field of education, you have no room to talk. You're entirely wrong altogether.

[lilac_flowers]

@EnglishArtsteacher I've already addressed all your points in previous posts and added more you simply ignored. If you're willing to writenow, all you show is that you're not a really bright guy.
The only real thing you wrote here is: You have to be a teacher to judge who is dumb.
Which also shows you are the dumb one.

[EnglishArtsteacher]

@lilac_flowers No, you didn't address those points at all. Actually, I just called you out and you have nothing to say.

Of course, you're a "Catfish" account and not even a real girl anyway. I'm pretty sure a 21 year old girl from ANTARCTICA isn't throwing sexist and inaccurate comments around on GAG lol. Also, you're trolling at this point.

Have fun pretending like you're a girl!

[lilac_flowers]

@EnglishArtsteacher I am a girl and you are a moron.

[asiag299]

I enjoyed the comments below your opinion and I agree with your point of view :)

[RachelBrigs]

I agree with the jist of what you're saying and I understand your point.
Men and women are different, on many levels.
Physically, psychologically, what have you.

So no, I don't want to live in a world where men and women are treated *LITERALLY* exactly the same. But I also don't want to live in a world where people aren't allowed to do certain things based on their gender.

Men in general would make better soldiers, but the women that decide to go into the military obviously make it through training. The military decides they have what it takes to do the jobs they want them to do and that's all that matters.

I wouldn't want men to be banned from holding jobs as teachers or from doing any of the stereotypically feminine things like hair and makeup. Are women generally better at those things? Yeah. But are there men who do a damn good job at those things? Yeah.

But like I said I DO understand your point.

[hellionthesage]

Those women in the military actually don't pass, at least not the same tests men are expected to take. Thats the issue I have, that we believe that equality means sameness. That if there is not a perfectly even amount of women (because lets be honest all female dominated fields have no quota for men) then it must be discrimination. A true meritocracy should be put in place, one standard either you make it or you don't.

[RachelBrigs]

@hellionthesage why? For some childish sense of fairness? I know that they have different standards for women but if a woman meets those standards they'll have a job for her and I'm sure she'll do it well. It just won't be the same as the men. And what's wrong with that, she's still doing something good. If we discharged all the women it would be a set back.

[RachelBrigs]

And the thing with that is that SOME women actually do far better than SOME men. You can't say all women are subpar soldiers because they are women. I think that's what gets a lot of people

[Riggers]

Quite like Hellion said, In the military, Women have lower standards for entry. Its not a case of ''Doing it for a childish sense of fairness'' as you seem to think, Its so you dont have people who are unable to fight in a combat zone.

Look at it this way, If you have a guy, Who can run 1.5 miles in less then 10 minutes, Pace 250m holding 100kg and a hole slew of over feats of physical ability, And even THAT barely readies them for combat, How is a women, Who's entry requirements are not even 1/2 as demanding going to fare in action?

Why should men, Have a team mate in their platoon, Who is less strong and less fit? It gives them a disadvantage to their enemy.

I can fucking gurantee, In the army, When they go on 50 mile patrols, Walking through the searing heat of the desert, And even the men are broken to exhaustion, How will the women fair? Oh.. thats right.. all her 50kg's of gear will be burdened on the men her platoon to carry because she isn't strong enough.

This is biology.

[RachelBrigs]

Ok. Then let's cit every single woman from the military because men are generally better soldiers. Let's downsize our military. Why not.

[RachelBrigs]

*cut.

I see that as a bigger disadvantage, but eh, we'll never agree.

I am just happy to live in a society where my gender doesn't dictate what I can and can't do legally. If that's what you want, well, I'm sorry that you won't find that here.

[Riggers]

Women are fine to be in the army, Providing they are doing deskwork / logistics / admin. All very important roles in the function of any military.

But, Currently, In neither Britain OR America, Women CAN NOT enter front line combat roles (Infantry, Tank crew, Artillery crew etc etc etc etc etc), Basically any job where they will be in an actual heavy fight is off limits to females. They are only allowed either deskwork or small support roles.

Though, This is MASSIVELY critized by ''feminists'' and they want women to be able to fight, Which i do not think they should.

So, You would not be downsizing the military (Which probably does need to happen anyway given how much $$ the US army costs and how much debt the US is in).

My point is, Just as women currently aren't, They should NEVER be allowed to enter combat roles. They are just not physically capable of fighting the same way men are, Thats not me being sexist, Thats just me putting shit how it is.

[hellionthesage]

But they wouldn't be doing the job well because they wouldn't be able to do the job. Those standards are not in place for arbitrary reasons, they are there for the purpose of determining capablitiy. Should every school and college allow any one to graduate regardless of grades? Well no, the purpose is to show that they have learned the material and have the capabilities that come with it. That is no different then the military and everything else. It would not be a set back unless your over all objective is female privledge without the responsibility that comes with it. If a woman wants to be a fire fighter she should not be allowed to do so if she cannot pass the same test the men take, that would endanger the lives of her team, herself, and the people she is suppose to be saving. What is childish about expecting a person to pass the same test every one else does? Its childish not to, to expect that you should have something for no other reason then because you want it.

[hellionthesage]

never claimed that all women are subpar soldiers, only that from a biologically standpoint that they are less likely to meet qualifications that are required for the job. They have every right to try, every right to fairness, but that does not mean they have the right to have what they did not earn, to have a job that they cannot do just because they want it. Its been proven that women do poorly during training and have sever phsyical issues related to it. This would endanger there fellow soldiers for no reason other then they want to be there. That is childish.

[hellionthesage]

Cutting women from the military would not decrease our military capabilities since 98% of the military is male and the females that are there do not function in a direct combat capacity. Yes you are under law, incredibly privledged, you do not need to meet requirements to acquire an occupation like males of our society do. You can (and many women do) endanger the lives of others because they claim sexism when they fail these tests, tests meant to ensure that the person taking them is qualified, that they can be depended on. And we give those women a half assed version of it so they can feel good about themselves all the while endangering peoples lives.
www.westernjournalism.com/.../

[Anonymous]

Long story short, I think you're basing your beliefs on stereotypes. Ones which are not universally true, and would probably be even less so if we did not socialize our children to believe there should be a fundamental difference in the personality from male to female. I have a cousin who is a veteran, a former firefighter and a paramedic.

Gender does not determine your strengths, or your desires in any definite way. It never hurts to encourage people to embrace all of their potential, and to cast aside the constraints that tell them anything from a fashion choice to a lifestyle is not for them because of their gender. Therefore, we all deserve an equal chance to pursue what calls out to us.

[ThisDudeHere]

“Its scientific fact that on average women have higher IQ.” Nope. The educational system is tailored to them resulting in them having better overall results. But this aside, how is it that you ignore the vast majority of all scientists ever being men?
“Men are Physical creatures” although not far from the truth indeed, this isn’t definite.
Most animals, male or female, play fight.
“I dont see the need why women should become soldiers” not to be offensive towards women but I find it stupid that only men have to die like cattle to “defend their country”. Let women do something too. Like at the very least drive trucks, be medics, snipers and stuff. For it to be fair, they should be dying too a little.

Those were my two cents. But nice take overall.

[Marstalk]

Um women do drive trucks. Go into combat. And now may actually be able to serve in the Special Forces.

[Nuqood]

There's a story about a female military CO being fired for 'bullying' her troops for telling them that they have to impress their male counterparts otherwise they won't respect them and for doing what all COs do to their troops during basic. Not to mention the fact that there are female soldiers who say that combat fucked up their biology and body.

Women have absolutely no place in the military except for desk jobs.

[GreatnessPersonified]

Hey, I liked the Notebook. Iron Man was cool, but if you really want a MAN'S movie, watch COMMANDO with Arnold!!!

I get what you are saying, men are men, women are women. Both are great at what we do innately.

However, I still believe that if someone is good at something that is usually done by another gender and can excel at it, let them.

You'd be surprised that some of the best killers are women, and some of the best chefs are men!!

Gender equality is giving both genders the right to have choices.

[Anonymous]

I absolutely love this take. Everything in here is 100% fact. I don't believe in equality. I believe in gender roles. A man is a lot more physically capable than a woman will ever be. Men are supposed to be strong and hard working. The women are supposed to be feminine and mothering.
I worked for 6 years in a foundation crew. Loved it, don't get me wrong. But I was physically drained after four hours of lugging around 80-120 pound panels where as the men could go 12 hours straight without being fatiqued.
I am now a mother of two. My husband works full time busting his ass while I stay at home with the children, do all of the house hold needs, and still have energy to please my man at the end of the night.
Gender roles are necessary. Equality should never be a thing.

[hellionthesage]

Gender roles are equality, its dividing up the jobs and giving them to the people who are best suited for them. Imagine our society if we removed one vital job, it would fall apart. Can you imagine what it would be like without doctors? Or without construction workers (our entire infrastructure would fall apart with in a decade causing a total collapse of society) With out farmers (the very foundation of society since it allows for specialization of labor). That is what our gender roles are, both different both necessary for the proper functioning of our society. People who want to remove them do so because they are afraid that different equals inferior which is rather ironic since with out differences we would fail both as a society as well as a species.

[asiag299]

I love this :)

[nativepride73]

Made some good points. But I feel that women should be allowed in the military at any level. If they can make the cut, obviously without lowering the standard of course, then they belong there. Plus I believe that any person, male or female, should be able to pursue any career they want. Even if it's not considered suiting for there gender. Like Ronda Rousey. Completely badass yet still feminine.

[Dandeus]

Didn't finish reading. After a few paragraphs it was clearly obvious that you were generalizing both sexes.

If a girl likes guns and explosions, more power to her. If a guy likes to cook and sew, more power to him.

I'm curious how your binary view of the world struggles with someone like Adam Savage from Mythbusters who is as at home using power tools and tinkering with cars as he is with a sewing machine or in the kitchen.

[fluidflow]

"Its scientific fact that on average women have higher IQ"

Not really. There's been one recent analysis in which women have scored ever so slightly higher then men. Other than that, over the past hundred years, men have invariably scored higher. Women are better at verbal tests, men at visual-spatial. But overall, the difference is not big.

The real difference is that whilst the averages are about the same, the distribution is greater for men, which means there are more really stupid men than really stupid women but more genius men than genius women. That's why most intellectual achievements have been made by men.

Other than that, your main point is totally correct. Men and women are different- it should be about equal respect and value, not equal roles and treatment.