Seriously?

Dude, I can tell you this much: any guy who thinks my being a woman makes me inferior will quickly wind up with a bloody stump where he used to have genitals.

I can understand the logic of what you're saying if we were living in some stone age culture where women had to be basically used as breeding stock. Things have changed, society has changed, our environment has changed. Most importantly, the traits that make someone a good leader or an effective worker have changed.

I strongly suspect you're either a troll or....... no, that's pretty much it. You're a troll, right?

Women can take their rightful and natural position above me anytime they like.

Primitive, outdated nonsense and a misunderstanding of social roles.
Gender is (and always has been) demonstrably irrelevant; only individual capability and role-acceptance have any bearing on the level of success anyone might attain in any given role. All selection bias (including gender) must be removed in order for the individuals with the right capabilities to have the opportunities to accept any given role.

I think the premise that one gender should be placed above another is inherently flawed. Though my female gender creates a bias within me that would love to be top of the pecking order. But ultimately, we are the human race. The genders are designed to work together to ensure the survival of the race. Therefore, the individual roles held by each respective gender is moot as long as propagation of the species occurs. Women and men are equally special in the biological and sociological roles they play. It should be a balance, a harmony, not a hierarchy. When you get into more complex gender roles, such as those of the LGBT community, a hierarchy simply doesn't work. One can't say that the LGBT community doesn't contribute to society simply because they often don't reproduce. Though I suppose from a strictly biological, propagation of the species point of view, they don't contribute. However, the LGBT community is beneficial to the greater society in other ways.

Greatest I Am, if such bigotry is moral then immorality is moral.

(November 13, 2012 at 12:57 pm)TaraJo Wrote: Seriously?

Dude, I can tell you this much: any guy who thinks my being a woman makes me inferior will quickly wind up with a bloody stump where he used to have genitals.

I can understand the logic of what you're saying if we were living in some stone age culture where women had to be basically used as breeding stock. Things have changed, society has changed, our environment has changed. Most importantly, the traits that make someone a good leader or an effective worker have changed.

I strongly suspect you're either a troll or....... no, that's pretty much it. You're a troll, right?

If you were on a sinking ship and telling other women that they were equal to men and should flip a coin with them to see who gets to have a seat in the lifeboats, --- then you are not a moral woman.

Regards
DL

---

(November 13, 2012 at 1:07 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: Primitive, outdated nonsense and a misunderstanding of social roles.
Gender is (and always has been) demonstrably irrelevant; only individual capability and role-acceptance have any bearing on the level of success anyone might attain in any given role. All selection bias (including gender) must be removed in order for the individuals with the right capabilities to have the opportunities to accept any given role.

So if the ship was sinking, you would float away in the life boat and leave women on the ship would you?

That is equality and if you do not put women first then you are not much of a moral man.

Regards
DL

According to what definition of "moral"?

(November 13, 2012 at 2:59 pm)festive1 Wrote: I think the premise that one gender should be placed above another is inherently flawed. Though my female gender creates a bias within me that would love to be top of the pecking order. But ultimately, we are the human race. The genders are designed to work together to ensure the survival of the race. Therefore, the individual roles held by each respective gender is moot as long as propagation of the species occurs. Women and men are equally special in the biological and sociological roles they play. It should be a balance, a harmony, not a hierarchy. When you get into more complex gender roles, such as those of the LGBT community, a hierarchy simply doesn't work. One can't say that the LGBT community doesn't contribute to society simply because they often don't reproduce. Though I suppose from a strictly biological, propagation of the species point of view, they don't contribute. However, the LGBT community is beneficial to the greater society in other ways.

No argument but in developing policy, especially if you understand the role of sanctity that Haigt speaks of, then morality dictates that women be placed above men.

That lifeboat scenario shows the culmination of the logic trail.
Your is not bad but take it to the extreme and you will recognize the truth of the premise. That would also place women ahead of gays exactly for the reproductive reasons you site. If for some unknown reason man had to begin over again and only one human could be saved, it would have to be a woman and hopefully a pregnant one.

Nature and logic should and does dictate morals and women first is the way to go.

Regards
DL

---

(November 13, 2012 at 3:21 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: Greatest I Am, if such bigotry is moral then immorality is moral.

It is not bigotry.
It is discrimination. Positive discrimination or affirmative action.

Regards
DL

---

(November 13, 2012 at 4:02 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: According to what definition of "moral"?

I kind of thought that you had replied without viewing those links.
Have a look and they answer your question.

Regards
DL

Irrationally unfair treatment of another group of people is bigoted. Explain how it isn't.

And explain how your discrimination is 'positive'. Like I said, what definition of "moral" are you using?

What's moral about treating women as if they're not equal to men?

Men and women's well-being are both equally important.

---

(November 13, 2012 at 4:09 pm)Greatest I am Wrote: If for some unknown reason man had to begin over again and only one human could be saved, it would have to be a woman and hopefully a pregnant one.

Nature and logic should and does dictate morals and women first is the way to go.

I'm sorry but that 'logic' is fallacious. That's the naturalistic fallacy.