Women & Discrimination

Fox: sure, if that is what they want. You miss the point though. Men and women are capable of much more than what they are traditionally restricted to, and this should be encouraged, not banned.

A human needs to be a blend of masculine and feminine to achieve happiness. And the mix of these two "opposites" is wide-ranging and different in all of us. Some men are naturally feminine, and some women are naturally masculine with everything else in between.

The idea that a gender has traditional roles is nonsense. Men and women can reach the same achievements for the most part. Sure there are some natural differences, but this is all absorbed up into who is best and brighest for the task or the position or the job, etc.

We sell ourselves short as a species by restricting gender into classes. We will be far more successful and non-violent a species if whoever is best for the task has the right to it, regardless of their gender.

You are totally free to be traditional if you want, but you have no right imposing it on the rest of us....especially in a rapidly advancing world that is altering traditions that no longer have real relevance to the modern world. This is an ongoing thing, and traditions rarely, if ever survive the impact of time unchanged or downright abandoned. We are seeing such a change happen in our lifetime, and there is no stopping it. As such, don't you think it makes more sense to allow society to advance rather than try to keep it in check?

How do you think revolutions happen in the first place? People being held in check end up not caring what you think about their new ways, and the more you try to impose your view on them, the fiercer they will resist you.

You can't change human nature, and traditions have no unchanging wisdom regarding it.

Fascinating. One point of view is rational discourse but an opposing opinion is 'imposing it on the rest of us'? But okay, let's go with that assumption:

If others cannot be compelled to respect my beliefs that there is value in more traditional roles for men, women, families, etc., how is it reasonable that I should be compelled to respect preferences for different roles for men, women, families, etc.?

You misunderstand me. You are free to see traditional values as the way to go, and people should respect you for that. Likewise, for those who want to try something different, they too should have the same respect you get. I'm not saying here that you want to impose your views. But traditionalists such as Bush feel the need to avoid anarchy or something, and it is THAT imposition by Bush that fuels things like anarchy. I advocate live and let live. People who are allowed to grow create the best successes that all benefit from. Stymy the individual in favor of tradition, and you get what we got now...a big messy schism of thought. You have to give love to get it. Same for respect. By all means, go find a woman who will be subservient to you and never complain, but I suspect that is getting harder and harder to find.

Perhaps I am wrong, but from your post, it seems you want respect without having to return it. I could be wrong of course, and probably am with what little evidence there is to go on. Let me help you out a little. I never lie, at least, not in places like this, and I seriously have no problems with anything or anyone but stupidity, ignorance and prejudice, which really, are all one and the same thing. I am a male too, which should help illuminate where I am coming from in this thread.

Yes you are wrong. I am female/wife/mother who has been long in the work force in jobs frequently held by men in case you're wondering. I do not see traditional roles for men/women and subserviency as the same thing at all. No one who knows me at all thinks I am subservient in any way.

The debate would be constructive I think if we could get away from the all or nothing approach to the issue. Tolerance and acceptance for those who choose an alternate lifestyle should go hand in hand with tolerance and acceptance for those who believe there is value in the more traditional roles and lifestyles. Attributing negative connotations to one side only is not helpful.

Foxfyre- Welcome to A2K!

I think that there is value in traditional as well as non-traditional roles for both men and women. I think that the issue is whether a couple is in agreement as to how they will conduct their marriage.

Thanks to Phoenix for the warm welcome.
I agree that a couple must be in agreement on all essential values in order to have a strong (and happy) relationship. How that is accomplished is a different discussion though.

It is societal pressures that I quarrel with. I think it is destructive to indoctrinate young people with notions that there is no difference between men and women, that they must be treated exactly the same, that women are somehow demeaned when they are in traditional roles.

Discrimination has always been wrong when it makes no sense. Sometimes it does make sense. I may have superior heart, desire, knowledge, talent, etc., but to demand that the Dallas Cowboys allow me (a woman) to try out for quarterback in the name of equal opportunity is ludicrous.

Our oldest son is in his junior year at college, and our daughter will begin college this September. I love them both, and I want them both to be given equal chances in both school and work to succeed or to fail on their own mertits, and not due to either discrimination or preferential treatment.

And if my wife ever chooses to return to work (not too many opportunities for employment for her here in Sandland) I of course want the same thing for her.

I saw Gloria Steinem on TV recently. I think she's still pretty hot.

Sorry, I needed a little levity after visiting the 'Religion & Spirituality' room.

I too have a son and a daughter. I go out of my way to not enforce traditional male and female roles on them. My wife and I do have some traditional tendencies, but we have shed a number of the traditional roles that our parents possessed (mom cooks and cleans, dad mows and fixes). Now I cook, she mows, she cooks, I mow, etc.

And our grandparents - I think they defined the traditional roles. I swear I saw their pictures in the dictionary under 'traditional roles'.

I don't believe women are demeaned JUST because they are in traditional roles - if that is what they choose. I do believe that any man expecting a woman to adhere to traditional roles may need a wake up call though.

While everyone should understand that there are differences between women and men, that does not mean that they don't deserve to be treated equally, with the same respect. I certainly don't see where teaching children equality is destructive.

I would hope that when my daughter is old enough, she would have the opportunity to try out as the quarterback for the Cowboys (or Bucs). She's pretty smart and left-handed to boot! Not to mention she can hold her own with the boys.....

Sparky I agree with 99% of your post - however, I disagree that your daughter should be able to be a quarterback for Cowboys. Because, you know, I would really want to go to Olympics and I am pretty good runner, however I am far from Olympics. On the other hand, if I would compete in women sprint I would surely grab a medal, maybe even gold one. Should I then be allowed to run with girls?

If women should be allowed to compete in men teams, then why shouldn't men be allowed to compete in women teams? I think that with some practice I could even play in WNBA - I wouldn't be top star, but I guess I could have 10-15 minutes per game....

good point MyOwn;

the only real difference between the sexes is physical, and in this area there is an overlap.
a few women would excel amongst men, why should they not have a chance, but then why not allow the low end of excellence for men to compete with elite women in order to have comparable competition.

i think the reason is obvious. all competetive sports must have somewhat arbitrary parameters, in order to ensure external forces cannot create an inequitable advantage (that's why performance enhancing drugs are banned).
the hope is that in a group so devised, the excellence of the performance will lead to the 'top', not a freakishly superior body.

all competition however, is, in the end subjective (and in my opinion, meaningless).

although I have to add that there are some "special cases". I am European, and women here have their own rugby competitions...I don't know if there are female teams in american football. If not, well, then it's different story, and woman that is good enough to play should be allowed to play in "male" team - IF there are no female teams.

There are European female football teams :wink:

gee, I really HOPE that you think about soccer

No, American football:

LadiesFootball

(Intersting the first news, which says that another team withdrew - partly due to pregnancy.)

damn, european male american football is weird thing, maybe ladies are better
And I am sure that Germany is only country with that "offer" You like strange sports I am sure that soon enough there will be german male team in synchronized swimming :wink:

Soon?





LINK
go to >Synchronised Swimming

:wink:

hehehe

The assertion that the only difference between the sexes is physical is miselading. If one holds that all a woman has to do is to build muscles or reactions that allow her to compete in sport or work and that will obliterate differences, then that person is mistaken. Evolutionary psychology has shown again and again that the sex difference is at least jump-started by instinct, by innate behavioral differences that predate experience.

mporter- There certainly may be statistical differences between each group, but that says nothing about any particular individual in that group.