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?

Options
  • 12-03-2011 2:45pm
    #1
    paky
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭


    If human beings (man and woman) were designed to be equal then why do we have do design a society that accomodates gender equality?
    Nature tells us that man is dominant and that woman is submissive. Are we not perverting nature by creating gender equality?
    Religion has emphasised porccreation through history by segregating the sexes to do so. Yes I know it had its problems but we have our own too.
    Western society is increasingly seeing an increase in single childless women who end up never married and childless.
    I was wondering what everybody thought about this. Did we get it wrong?

    Please attack the post and not the poster.


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    paky wrote: »
    Please attack the post and not the poster.

    Bad post! You're a stupid post!


    Anyway the answer to all your questions is no...
    I'd go into further detail but it's just a no.


  • Options
    #3
    Willbbz
    Registered Users Posts: 894 ✭✭✭Willbbz


    No. We need gender equality for a balanced and fair society and most people will agree with that





    you sexist :P


  • Options
    #4
    clouds
    Registered Users Posts: 206 ✭✭clouds


    paky wrote: »
    If human beings (man and woman) were designed to be equal then why do we have do design a society that accomodates gender equality?
    Nature tells us that man is dominant and that woman is submissive. Are we not perverting nature by creating gender equality?
    Religion has emphasised porccreation through history by segregating the sexes to do so. Yes I know it had its problems but we have our own too.
    Western society is increasingly seeing an increase in single childless women who end up never married and childless.
    I was wondering what everybody thought about this. Did we get it wrong?

    Please attack the post and not the poster.

    No. this post, this bold bold post, got it wrong.

    Let's phrase the post this way:

    If all races are designed to be equal why do we have to design a society that promotes equality for all?

    Nature tells us that white people are dominant and black people submissive....blah blah blah....an example or two of some sh!te from history, then a demographic 'fact' (dunno about the veracity) with no attempt to place it in context, or analyse it, just infer it's somehow 'unnatural'.

    Please be nice to me


  • Options
    #5
    wonton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,214 ✭✭✭wonton


    could you give an example of where we went wrong?

    I think women being single and childless isn't a good enough reason to think this, women in the past wouldnt have had near as much freedom in choosing who they marry, and having children was slightly easier without birth control i would guess.


  • Options
    #6
    paky
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭paky


    Willbbz wrote: »
    No. We need gender equality for a balanced and fair society and most people will agree with that





    you sexist :P

    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    clouds
    Registered Users Posts: 206 ✭✭clouds


    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.


    Gender equality is not an expression of western cultural imperialism!


  • Options
    #8
    paky
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭paky


    clouds wrote: »
    Gender equality is not an expression of western cultural imperialism!

    how do you know that? what was iran like before the Iranian revolution or afghanistan before the taliban?
    these things have a habit of repeating themselves.


  • Options
    #9
    wonton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,214 ✭✭✭wonton


    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?


    there isn't even enough oil there to last how long it would take for middle middle eastern ways of thinking to influence strongly in the west.


  • Options
    #10
    clouds
    Registered Users Posts: 206 ✭✭clouds


    How do I know that? Really?

    Because brain does not equal balls.

    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #11
    paky
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭paky


    wonton wrote: »
    there isn't even enough oil there to last how long it would take for middle middle eastern ways of thinking to influence strongly in the west.

    i know buts its a hypothetical argument.
    where does it say that gender equality is right? man made this rule and that doesnt make it right. there seems to be a stronger argument against it as its already indented in our nature!
    equality for the races, yes, equality for the sexes, hmm?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    clouds
    Registered Users Posts: 206 ✭✭clouds


    Maybe you're right.

    We can keep ye looked up in things called 'harems' and just let you out when we fancy some sex or some heavy boxes lifting.


  • Options
    #13
    wonton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,214 ✭✭✭wonton


    There is plenty of stuff indented to our nature that we don't accept as the best way of living our lives, we didn't evolve to live in the modern society we live in now.


  • Options
    #14
    paky
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭paky


    clouds wrote: »
    Maybe you're right.

    We can keep ye looked up in things called 'harems' and just let you out when we fancy some sex or some heavy boxes lifting.

    you and what army?


  • Options
    #15
    clouds
    Registered Users Posts: 206 ✭✭clouds


    Ok so Paky the nub of your 'argument' if I'll call it that is that might is right


  • Options
    #16
    paky
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭paky


    clouds wrote: »
    Ok so Paky the nub of your 'argument' if I'll call it that is that might is right

    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.


  • Options
    #17
    mystique150
    Registered Users Posts: 199 ✭✭mystique150


    paky wrote: »
    If human beings (man and woman) were designed to be equal then why do we have do design a society that accomodates gender equality?
    Nature tells us that man is dominant and that woman is submissive. Are we not perverting nature by creating gender equality?
    Religion has emphasised porccreation through history by segregating the sexes to do so. Yes I know it had its problems but we have our own too.
    Western society is increasingly seeing an increase in single childless women who end up never married and childless.
    I was wondering what everybody thought about this. Did we get it wrong?

    Please attack the post and not the poster.


    1. Gender inequality might be tolerated if we were still hunter gathers living as one with nature. We're not and we've already perverted nature by exploiting its natural resources to increase our numbers.
    2. The women that chose not to have children are doing us all a favour as we're already overpopulated.


  • Options
    #18
    IpreDictDeatH
    Registered Users Posts: 267 ✭✭IpreDictDeatH


    clouds wrote: »
    No. this post, this bold bold post, got it wrong.

    Let's phrase the post this way:

    If all races are designed to be equal why do we have to design a society that promotes equality for all?

    Nature tells us that white people are dominant and black people submissive....blah blah blah....an example or two of some sh!te from history, then a demographic 'fact' (dunno about the veracity) with no attempt to place it in context, or analyse it, just infer it's somehow 'unnatural'.

    Please be nice to me

    Give me an example of where nature tells us that white people are dominant and black people submissive? Nature tells us that man is dominant in things like sex and strenght. I think that was the OP's point. Yes, women should be paid the same etc...but the male of the species will always be dominant in relation to nature and procreation of a species. Females dont go around chasing males in any species.


  • Options
    #19
    mystique150
    Registered Users Posts: 199 ✭✭mystique150


    IpreDictDeatH wrote: »
    but the male of the species will always be dominant in relation to nature and procreation of a species. Females dont go around chasing males in any species.

    Its not the case in every species. Take the black widow spider as one example. The females exploit the males for the sake of procreation and then kill them. Queen bees and ants are also more dominant. In mammals, the female spotted hyenas are also dominant over males.


  • Options
    #20
    kowloon
    Registered Users Posts: 13,320 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    clouds wrote: »
    Maybe you're right.

    We can keep ye looked up in things called 'harems' and just let you out when we fancy some sex or some heavy boxes lifting.

    We can also get the lids off jars, don't forget our jar opening abilities.


  • Options
    #21
    paky
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭paky


    wonton wrote: »
    could you give an example of where we went wrong?

    the fact that men and women have different sexual organs, different mentality and a completely different nature. how could they be possibly equal?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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?

    That doesn't imply that one is greater or more important than the other, though. You're building a strawman: just because women and men aren't biologically equal doesn't imply that equality is wrong.


  • Options
    #23
    Odysseus
    Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus


    Does the answer not depend on what we consider to be right or wrong? Our society today tells us that it is wrong that we should all be equal creating an ideal. This viewpoint has changed over the last century. However, are we asking a civilised question on the nature of mankind, which may not be in tune with our current viewpoints or civilised.

    Taking a position morally, yes I believe that we should all be equal, however, that does not mean that naturally that is the way we should be. By using the words right or wrong do we not limit the question within a moralistic answer?


  • Options
    #24
    clouds
    Registered Users Posts: 206 ✭✭clouds


    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?

    FACT 'different sexual orgns'

    UNPROVEN UNSUPPORTED INANE AGENDA DRIVEN RANTINGS 'Different mentality and completely different nature' Or perhaps someone can prove otherwise without reference to a 500 word 'article' in the Features section of the Indo or something their ex girlfriend did once.

    .


  • Options
    #25
    clouds
    Registered Users Posts: 206 ✭✭clouds


    Well yes it does Odysseus otherwise it would be a different question.


  • Options
    #26
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    IpreDictDeatH wrote: »
    Give me an example of where nature tells us that white people are dominant and black people submissive? Nature tells us that man is dominant in things like sex and strenght. I think that was the OP's point. Yes, women should be paid the same etc...but the male of the species will always be dominant in relation to nature and procreation of a species. Females dont go around chasing males in any species.

    Or you could view it as the male is expendable - Nature endowed them with 'greater' physical strength for that precise reason - the hunter required a specific kind of physical strength but was also more likely to be killed then the gatherer. But all archaeologists agree that around 80% of food was garnered by the gatherers - not the hunters. So the hunter's contribution was not the more significant.

    I would also suggest that is is not really a case of 'greater' strength but of physical properties which are manifested differently in males and females. It takes a great deal of physical strength to carry another human being inside you for 9 months and then give birth to it through a very narrow opening. Medical experts reckon child birth is as painful as experiencing a full blown cardiac arrest - yet females have done this time and time again AND THEN gotten up to look after the baby. For the baby to survive in pre-modern times it needed its mother - the father's job was to provide for the mother, but to be honest any able bodied adult could fulfil that role.

    Males are aggressive- most military conflicts result in males killing males - thereby suggesting a built in tendency towards self destruction designed to limit the number of males.

    After all - we need more wombs then sperm producers for the species to survive so it is far more important for the female to survive than the male. QED - Nature favours the survival of females over that of males - so females are the ones who are 'dominant in relation to nature and procreation'.


  • Options
    #27
    paky
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭paky


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    After all - we need more wombs then sperm producers for the species to survive so it is far more important for the female to survive than the male. QED - Nature favours the survival of females over that of males - so females are the ones who are 'dominant in relation to nature and procreation'.

    so until a woman gives birth, only then, should she be treated equally? is that what natural law tells us?


  • Options
    #28
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    paky wrote: »
    so until a woman gives birth, only then, should they be treated equally? is that what natural law tells us?

    No - nature tells us that until men can give birth we don't need so many of them.


  • Options
    #29
    paky
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭paky


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    No - nature tells us that until men can give birth we don't need so many of them.

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


  • Options
    #30
    CAI6
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13 ✭CAI6


    *yawn*

    Bull plop.

    Nature tells us...blah

    Nature designed an equal society where women gathered food, and men hunted. Men and women worked together to survive. Women look after children more often because they breast feed, men can't, so if they want the kids to survive they do it.

    Men superior than women is one concept that spread with the development of empires and colonies. Women were superior if not equal to men in many cultures. The celts for example.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    paky
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭paky


    CAI6 wrote: »
    Women were superior if not equal to men in many cultures. The celts for example.

    so was the case in soviet russia but whats your point?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement