Gender 'Equality' Nonsense

[LiberalVichy]

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

 

[pinkporridge]

... is what i say to that... i strangly agree tho i h8 to admit it..

 

[Peter Parka]

I'll get back to you when I'm less drunk, I have enough trouble reading your posts when sober!

 

[Minor Axis]

This is an evolutionary trait that derives from the division of labour between hunter/gatherer and child-rearing.

Ah, evolution rears its ugly head again- well maybe, maybe not- men and women evolved into what they are today. I think you are talking about the ever popular social biology. Our genes made us do it, which are things like men sewing seeds because they can freely do it. And women being more selective because they can only pop out a batch every 9 months. Men being very visual when it comes to the ladies, while woman look more for success in a male. However I am happy the country strives for equality before the law and in the work place when it comes to gender, race, and religion.

And there are some cases where the physical demands of the job, put some women at a disadvantage. That is a proven fact. But I said "some" women. I'm sure you can find big burly women to do some tough jobs if you look for them.

The question is, how hard would it be to reverse those roles? Just like the Star Trek Next Generation episode Angel One where the women are the warriors and the men are small, meek and effeminate. Actually I think there may be some evolution involved to explain larger more muscled men. I wonder in a modern society that does not rely on manual labor how many thousands of years it would take for that trait to go away?

The liberals are going to jump all over this--they hate it when you feed them politically incorrect facts--their minds do not conform to reality, no question!

You're mistaken in your semi-usual way and oh, I'm happy not to conform to your reality... Speaking of politically incorrect, are men smarter than women? How about equal pay for the same work? Just curious...

 

[dt3]

How about equal pay for the same work? Just curious...

I'm all for that. Unfortunately, in the jobs I've worked in I have always seen women (not all women, but some) who get by without doing the same work but still getting the same pay. That makes me angry.

 

[LiberalVichy]

I think you are talking about the ever popular social biology. Our genes made us do it, which are things like men sewing seeds because they can freely do it

Your genes don't 'make you' do anything, insofar as you are a rationally capable actor, but they do influence your perception of things. The origin of all values people have is somewhere rooted in biology, despite the popular conceit humans have about their own universal divinity the fact is that there is no a priori reason to value any state of affairs over any other; the prerequisite for action is a preference for one future state of affairs over another and this is only possible due to biological factors. That some of the influences of this would develop around areas that had such a strong effect as survival behaviours.
Furthermore, given your 'summary' of the position you seem to think I am taking, it doesn't seem entirely clear you either read or understood it. The 'straw man' and also irrelevancy of some of your examples would see to raise its head here.
Also, the whole idea of 'women warriors', even ignoring inclination, is laughable. Do you know what happens when you get punched in the throat with no cartilidge ridge to reinforce it? Choking a woman unconscious is about 5x easier than a man, and that's not even including strength variables. Star Trek is not evidence. Quite impossible and otherwise unlikely things occur on it all the time. Like having a functioning economy without money.

 

[Minor Axis]

I'm all for that. Unfortunately, in the jobs I've worked in I have always seen women (not all women, but some) who get by without doing the same work but still getting the same pay. That makes me angry.

Have you ever witnessed a male slacker? I think they are there. I was in the U.S. Navy when the first female pilots showed up. Once the Navy made the decision to allow women, then the program had to work and unfortunately there were some who were given lots of extra help to get through the program which aggravated people. However the women I work with today in aviation are just as competent as the men.

That's called liberal equality--where some people are more equal than others!

That's what you call it. Another figment of your imagination.

Your genes don't 'make you' do anything, insofar as you are a rationally capable actor, but they do influence your perception of things. The origin of all values people have is somewhere rooted in biology, despite the popular conceit humans have about their own universal divinity the fact is that there is no a priori reason to value any state of affairs over any other; the prerequisite for action is a preference for one future state of affairs over another and this is only possible due to biological factors. That some of the influences of this would develop around areas that had such a strong effect as survival behaviours.
Furthermore, given your 'summary' of the position you seem to think I am taking, it doesn't seem entirely clear you either read or understood it. The 'straw man' and also irrelevancy of some of your examples would see to raise its head here.
Also, the whole idea of 'women warriors', even ignoring inclination, is laughable. Do you know what happens when you get punched in the throat with no cartilidge ridge to reinforce it? Choking a woman unconscious is about 5x easier than a man, and that's not even including strength variables. Star Trek is not evidence. Quite impossible and otherwise unlikely things occur on it all the time. Like having a functioning economy without money.

I admit that reason plays a big part in the decisions we make, however our genes/instincts are much more than just perceptions. We act on them daily. Your statement is not a revelation. Everyone knows that there are physical differences between men and women. But that is rarely the basis for gender equality debate. Today most of those physical differences in skilled jobs are mitigated by technology. Such as women warriors that pilot fly-by-wire aircraft. What might be really more applicable would be a debate on relative intelligence. If women are just as smart, if not smarter than men, in todays world, there should be no inequality. I'll just stand over in this corner and allow someone else to go first.

What do you mean, Star Trek is not evidence?? Ok, then there is the Amazons!

 

[LiberalVichy]

The problem with your view is that you don't take into account how much genes affect what we want, and how that varies between the sexes. For similar reasons, women will be good at thing that men will not and vise versa. It does seem, and makes some evolutionary sense, that men are better at dealing with reality in objective and material ways, whereas women seem to be better at evaluating the relationships between people and perceiving how to influence them. Also household management. This is entirely reflected in the sphere of employment, as well as the fact that men have always had different interests than women on the whole. These two factors are going to make a noticeable difference in employment patterns.

 

[SRC]

I'm glad I don't give a fuck what you think or don't think.

 

[LiberalVichy]

I'm glad I don't give a fuck what you think or don't think.

What I think ought to be rather irrelevant, the point is the ideas - whether they are true or false. Agreeing or disagreeing with a person is kind of nonsensical, the ideas are all that matters.

 

[Minor Axis]

The problem with your view is that you don't take into account how much genes affect what we want, and how that varies between the sexes. For similar reasons, women will be good at thing that men will not and vise versa. It does seem, and makes some evolutionary sense, that men are better at dealing with reality in objective and material ways, whereas women seem to be better at evaluating the relationships between people and perceiving how to influence them. Also household management. This is entirely reflected in the sphere of employment, as well as the fact that men have always had different interests than women on the whole. These two factors are going to make a noticeable difference in employment patterns.

Maybe you have not taken into account when women first showed up in certain work places for the first time, the male hierarchy in charge did not take kindly to it. There are lots of documented cases where men and women were doing the exact same job, but the men got better pay. This is usually the subject of gender equality debates. Just google "Walmart Sex Descrimination" for a recent prime example. Forbes link.

 

[LiberalVichy]

Maybe you have not taken into account when women first showed up in certain work places for the first time, the male hierarchy in charge did not take kindly to it.

I would just like to point out that systematic violence - both private and state - were condoned and practiced. Insofar as this sort of thing perpetuates itself without violence, IE people have peculiar notions, that is really none of my business. People are free to act on their ideas.
Also the present economy has absolutely nothing to do with the free market. I am not going to try to defend the outcome of really anything in this Fascistic festival of State Capitalism. I'm not saying that present income ratios between anybody is the natural one, I am just saying that the natural one will vary and it is important to take these things into account when examining such issues. Most modern feminism, like modern race theory, is absolute baldurdash and has totally demonized any open and rational approach to such subjects.

 

[gillibean]

When you learn to use grammar and spell properly, I'll consider believing anything you say.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Interesting OP....from up to where I reached. Had to stop. Too hard on the eyes.

Just some well intentioned advice Liverachi. For text heavy writing/reading, paragraphs are your friend.

 

[HANUMAN]

I like women and I like being a man. I like women that like me being a man. Thats about my take on all things to do with sexism, oh and I like sex, with women.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Here is how I would prefer the hiring process go:

All QUALIFIED candidates behind one way glass.

The employer shouldn't have any preference for color, religion, gender etc.

The most qualified, and the best overall condidate gets the job. The problem is, you would still have people griping.

 

[SouthOfHeaven]

Here is how I would prefer the hiring process go:

All QUALIFIED candidates behind one way glass.

The employer shouldn't have any preference for color, religion, gender etc.

The most qualified, and the best overall condidate gets the job. The problem is, you would still have people griping.

:homo::nod:

 

[groundpounder]

The most qualified, and the best overall condidate gets the job. The problem is, you would still have people griping.

There is some solid stuff flying around in here, none so much as this post right here.

If I hadn't been such a rep-giving whore, I'd rep this on the spot. Very meritorious post, E!

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

There is some solid stuff flying around in here, none so much as this post right here.

If I hadn't been such a rep-giving whore, I'd rep this on the spot. Very meritorious post, E!

Thank you Jay...I can't rep you righ tnow either or I'd do it just because

 

[GraceAbounds]

Get a room you two.