Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is gender equality wrong?

2»

Comments

  • #32
    clouds
    Registered Users Posts: 206 ✭✭clouds


    paky wrote: »
    if men and women are equal, then where do men make up for the pain women suffer when they give birth?

    Men and women ARE equal Paky. <tousles Paky's hair>
    Not always treated as such, mind.

    What is the point of this thread? What is it you REALLY want to say but are bit afraid to?


  • #33
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    paky wrote: »
    if men and women are equal, then where do men make up for the pain women suffer when they give birth?

    They don't.
    Unless one counts situations where they placed themselves in great danger - often being killed/severely injured - trying to kill a large bit of protein to provide extra food.
    However, prior to contraception most women who were heterosexually active had little choice re: becoming pregnant. Men's decision to hunt was a societal imperative - not a biological one.

    I sometimes wonder if the portrayal of women as the the 'weaker' sex is not born out of unconscious guilt on the part of men. Womb envy anyone?


  • #34
    Odysseus
    Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus


    clouds wrote: »
    Well yes it does Odysseus otherwise it would be a different question.


    Sorry Clouds, could you expand on that a tad? Just to clarify your position. Would you concur that the concept or equality is an ideal that we have created and have moved towards significantly in the past century? I would base that upon the various changes that have occurred during that time frame.

    Whereas it can be said that sexual equality has made massive changes in the past century, I would acknowledge that sexual inequality does certainly exist. However, it occurs on both sides of the devoid, for example the is an ad on TV currently for crisis pregnancy agencies, each subject thinks of their counsellor/therapist and an image of a female therapist is shown each time.

    I use this as it actually bugs me a bit, yes some clients may be more comfortable with a female; but it's very subjective. Often a lot of females that I see about their experience of sexually abuse or rape are more comfortable working with a male. Of course there are better examples of than that; but that ad was just on the TV.

    Whereas I would be unhappy with my fellow therapist who is female earning less than me, just based upon the difference between our sex; but that is due to the effect of process of civilisation. Penis envy would still exist from a psychoanalytic viewpoint, however, with the re-reading of Freud's work through Lacan's focus upon structural linguistics; it would be based upon the concept of the Phallus rather than the actual organ in and of itself. Here is a quick outline of the difference between Lacan and Freud if you are interested or not familiar with his work http://www.colorado.edu/English/courses/ENGL2012Klages/lacan.html

    This of course is not to say it is the only way to discuss the process, there are always many answers to a question, it really depends upon the position one takes. I just not sure whether the position I take, that being one which would aim for an equal world around gender, is only based upon the process of civilisation [and through that education] that I experienced.


  • #35
    paky
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭paky


    clouds wrote: »
    Men and women ARE equal Paky. <tousles Paky's hair>
    Not always treated as such, mind.

    What is the point of this thread? What is it you REALLY want to say but are bit afraid to?

    my point is this. Childless women get a better deal in an equal society than men do. only women have the ability to reproduce and society depends on them to do so. this is a role no man can 'fill'. if society is truly equal then men should be able to demand women have children before they are entitled to equal rights. in turn the same would have to go for men with no children.


  • #36
    Insect Overlord
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    Is it just me or is this whole thread patently ridiculous? Anyone?


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    paky wrote: »
    my point is this. Childless women get a better deal in an equal society than men do. only women have the ability to reproduce and society depends on them to do so. this is a role no man can 'fill'. if society is truly equal then men should be able to demand women have children before they are entitled to equal rights. in turn the same would have to go for men with no children.

    I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

    1. How do childless women get a "better deal in an equal society" than childless men?

    2. Men have the ability to reproduce, too, you know... Women can't reproduce without men, and vice versa. I thought that'd be an obvious fact.

    3. How on Earth does demanding that a woman (or a man) have a child before they're to be entitled to equal rights make any sense? I can't see your logic.

    If you don't start making sense (i.e. producing a coherent argument backed up with scientific evidence or articles) then this thread will be closed as, at this point (and from the start really), it's just a joke.


  • #38
    paky
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭paky


    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

    1. How do childless women get a "better deal in an equal society" than childless men?

    2. Men have the ability to reproduce, too, you know... Women can't reproduce without men, and vice versa. I thought that'd be an obvious fact.

    3. How on Earth does demanding that a woman (or a man) have a child before they're to be entitled to equal rights make any sense? I can't see your logic.

    If you don't start making sense then this thread will be closed as, at this point (and from the start really), it's just a joke.

    its not a joke. until somebody can explain to me why the sexes should be equal i shall continue my rant.
    if equality is based on natural law, natural law tells us we must reproduce. if women are given the sole resposiblity of this and they choose not to reproduce but follow their careers, are they not robbing soicety of a role which men cant replace?


  • #39
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    paky wrote: »
    its not a joke. until somebody can explain to me why the sexes should be equal i shall continue my rant.

    Or until I deem that this thread is pointless and close it.
    if equality is based on natural law, natural law tells us we must reproduce. if women are given the sole resposiblity of this and they choose not to reproduce but follow their careers, are they not robbing soicety of something men cant replace?

    No, of course not. That's a stupid argument. Not all women are refusing to reproduce and, as you say, "robbing society of something men can't replace." If a few do so that's their own choice. Implying that because a minority choose "not to reproduce" all women are choosing not to reproduce is a logical fallacy. It's not a valid argument. Also, who's saying that equality is based on natural law? Is it not also a moral standpoint?

    It's a woman's choice to have children or not. Just as it is a man's. Forcing it upon a person is a ridiculous notion. Also, applying natural laws to social situations is a slippery slope. Are you also an advocate of social Darwinism? I wouldn't think so. Stop looking for reasons to not threat another as equal.


  • #40
    paky
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭paky


    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    Or until I deem that this thread is pointless and close it.



    No, of course not. That's a stupid argument. Not all women are refusing to reproduce and, as you say, "robbing society of something men can't replace." If a few do so that's their own choice. Implying that because a minority choose "not to reproduce" all women are choosing not to reproduce is a logical fallacy. It's not a valid argument. Also, who's saying that equality is based on natural law? Is it not also a moral standpoint?

    It's a woman's choice to have children or not. Just as it is a man's. Forcing it upon a person is a ridiculous notion. Also, applying natural laws to social situations is a slippery slope. Are you also an advocate of social Darwinism? I wouldn't think so. Stop looking for reasons to not threat another as equal.

    whats social darwinism?


  • #41
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    paky wrote: »
    whats social darwinism?

    Social Darwinism. Applying the ideas of Darwinism (survival of the fittest, mainly) to society. An excuse to see others as lesser and thus exploit or kill them, really.

    If you're not going to address any of the other points I raised then this thread has run it's course.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Odysseus
    Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus


    Insect Overlord wrote: »
    Is it just me or is this whole thread patently ridiculous? Anyone?

    Serious question, can I ask why? Just looking at the topic in and off itself do you not think it as being a serious question? That is leaving aside any undertones that may or may not exist, but have been alluded to.

    I ask as I have lurked here a bit the last while, but only posted for the first time a few days ago on the incest thread, as that would be one that interests me and of course I would be interested in sexual difference and how that is signified in society. So though I only had two anthropology modules during my degree, but certain psychoanalysts have drawn upon the work of certain anthropologists like Lacan drawing upon Levi Struss, so I'm interested in what you guys think on those topics. As I don’t think that any of us, anthropology, psychoanalysis, psychology have the ultimate answer.


    Or have I just go sucked into a bum thread?


  • #43
    paky
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭paky


    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    Social Darwinism. Applying the ideas of Darwinism (survival of the fittest, mainly) to society. An excuse to see others as lesser and thus exploit or kill them, really.

    If you're not going to address any of the other points I raised then this thread has run it's course.

    how dare you. im pro life. im in favour of restricting rights from people who havent yet reproduced. instead of having them reach the age of 18 they must have children to avail of these rights


  • #44
    Insect Overlord
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    Odysseus wrote: »
    Serious question, can I ask why? Just looking at the topic in and off itself do you not think it as being a serious question? That is leaving aside any undertones that may or may not exist, but have been alluded to.

    I believe that the thread-title could indeed have prompted a fantastic discussion. It's a very interesting philosophical question. The trouble is, the reasoning behind the OP's posts is flawed at best, and preposterous at worst. So many ridiculous assertions have been put forward, I can't see enough decent replies saving it.


  • #45
    paky
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭paky


    Insect Overlord wrote: »
    I believe that the thread-title could indeed have prompted a fantastic discussion. It's a very interesting philosophical question. The trouble is, the reasoning behind the OP's posts is flawed at best, and preposterous at worst. So many ridiculous assertions have been put forward, I can't see enough decent replies saving it.

    i think i have raised some valid points. society is constantly evolving, and to assume that we have gotten to the end all is preposterous.
    it was only 30 years ago that david norris took a homosexual discrimination case against the irish government. 30 years later its looking like hes going to be the next president.
    i think its very important we keep an open mind on things


  • #46
    Odysseus
    Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus


    Insect Overlord wrote: »
    I believe that the thread-title could indeed have prompted a fantastic discussion. It's a very interesting philosophical question. The trouble is, the reasoning behind the OP's posts is flawed at best, and preposterous at worst. So many ridiculous assertions have been put forward, I can't see enough decent replies saving it.

    Having re-read it since my first post on the topic, I think you may be correct and that I naively jumped in thinking that it would be a discussion like the one you mentioned, as you said philosophically it is an interesting topic.


  • #47
    paky
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭paky


    Insect Overlord wrote: »
    The trouble is, the reasoning behind the OP's posts is flawed at best, and preposterous at worst. So many ridiculous assertions have been put forward, I can't see enough decent replies saving it.

    can you back that up?


  • #48
    mystique150
    Registered Users Posts: 199 ✭✭mystique150


    paky wrote: »
    i dont think people in the middle east would agree?
    people in the west seem to think the western way of doing things is superior to others and theres no questioning it.

    if the balance of power shifted in 20 years time and the middle east became the dominant society, with all its oil, would we start doing things the way they do in the middle east?
    paky wrote: »
    there maybe some truth in what your saying. the rights and freedoms that women have today were given to them by men who fought and died in wars that they rarely did.
    paky wrote: »
    the fact that men and women have different sexual organs, different mentality and a completely different nature. how could they be possibly equal?
    paky wrote: »
    so until a woman gives birth, only then, should she be treated equally? is that what natural law tells us?
    paky wrote: »
    if men and women are equal, then where do men make up for the pain women suffer when they give birth?
    paky wrote: »
    my point is this. Childless women get a better deal in an equal society than men do. only women have the ability to reproduce and society depends on them to do so. this is a role no man can 'fill'. if society is truly equal then men should be able to demand women have children before they are entitled to equal rights. in turn the same would have to go for men with no children.
    paky wrote: »
    can you back that up?

    Ya we can!


  • #49
    CAI6
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13 ✭CAI6


    paky wrote: »
    so was the case in soviet russia but whats your point?

    That is has nothing to do with nature?


  • #50
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    mystique150 wrote: »
    Ya we can!

    And with that... Thread closed.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement