(April 13, 2014 at 12:42 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Some here might be interested to note that the most 'gender neutral' time period in terms of role playing, in all of history, was back during pre-Neanderthal times. Yep. Women and men pretty much just shared tasks, for the better of the community. It wasn't until many centuries later than men started dominating women in all areas of society, holding them back from education, voting, and government positions--insisting that they were nothing more than second class citizens only useful in terms of child bearing.

You've not accused me of saying this but it seems like every time I openly and honestly talk about this issue, others do. No matter how many times I reiterate "equality does not require interchangeability", no matter how many other posts I make about being pro-choice and pro-feminism, I find I'm quickly slammed with the straw man "oh, so you think women should just be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen then?"

You did not say this. I just felt the need to comment from past experience.

(April 13, 2014 at 12:42 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Some here might be interested to note that the most 'gender neutral' time period in terms of role playing, in all of history, was back during pre-Neanderthal times. Yep. Women and men pretty much just shared tasks, for the better of the community.

Pre-neanderthal times? When is that? How long ago was that? How do you know what pre-neanderthal time human society was like? How do you know they shared tasks?

(April 13, 2014 at 1:00 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(April 13, 2014 at 12:42 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Some here might be interested to note that the most 'gender neutral' time period in terms of role playing, in all of history, was back during pre-Neanderthal times. Yep. Women and men pretty much just shared tasks, for the better of the community. It wasn't until many centuries later than men started dominating women in all areas of society, holding them back from education, voting, and government positions--insisting that they were nothing more than second class citizens only useful in terms of child bearing.

You've not accused me of saying this but it seems like every time I openly and honestly talk about this issue, others do. No matter how many times I reiterate "equality does not require interchangeability", no matter how many other posts I make about being pro-choice and pro-feminism, I find I'm quickly slammed with the straw man "oh, so you think women should just be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen then?"

You did not say this. I just felt the need to comment from past experience.

I actually just see you as chivalrous, and what is quite sad is that so many men lack that quality these days, that it stands out as anti-feminist or a put down even, to many women. I don't gather from your posts that you are against women having equality in the workplace, etc...but, you are of the opinion that chivalry isn't dead, and I happen to agree.

Again, it's a dying artform in our society perhaps because men are confused as to what women want or expect from them. I think technology has also blurred the male/female component a bit, in terms of how we speak to each other through texting, on sites such as these, etc. If I were to remove usernames and pictures, I'd wonder if I was talking to a woman or a man, sometimes. Technology is great in many ways, but it has cheapened the way men and women converse, and thus offline, men talk to women as if they were men. I see it all the time. There are a lot of mitigating factors that have caused the decline of chivalry in our society, so much so, that many women interpret it as demeaning or insulting.

That could be why you receive those 'reactions' at times, because feminism has become synoymous in many people's eyes as women want to 'be' like men. Treated like men.

And that's not why feminism originated in the first place.

---

(April 13, 2014 at 1:04 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote:

(April 13, 2014 at 12:42 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Some here might be interested to note that the most 'gender neutral' time period in terms of role playing, in all of history, was back during pre-Neanderthal times. Yep. Women and men pretty much just shared tasks, for the better of the community.

Pre-neanderthal times? When is that? How long ago was that? How do you know what pre-neanderthal time human society was like? How do you know they shared tasks?

I've read archaeological articles that have suggested this.

---

(April 13, 2014 at 12:52 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote:

(April 13, 2014 at 12:36 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Bolded by me--that is an epic statement ...may I use it in my signature? (being serious) That just struck me funny reading it today.

Go ahead.

I'm flattered.

haha Done!

(April 13, 2014 at 1:00 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: No matter how many times I reiterate "equality does not require interchangeability", no matter how many other posts I make about being pro-choice and pro-feminism, I find I'm quickly slammed with the straw man "oh, so you think women should just be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen then?"

It may be possible for 'separate but equal' to approximate equality, but it will never be exactly equal.

(April 13, 2014 at 1:00 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: You've not accused me of saying this but it seems like every time I openly and honestly talk about this issue, others do. No matter how many times I reiterate "equality does not require interchangeability", no matter how many other posts I make about being pro-choice and pro-feminism, I find I'm quickly slammed with the straw man "oh, so you think women should just be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen then?"

I agree with the sentiment of what you're saying, but...

Equality really doesn't equal interchangeability, but it does equal identical choices, which I feel renders the former point true but moot.

(April 13, 2014 at 1:16 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: you are of the opinion that chivalry isn't dead, and I happen to agree.

I don't see any signs of that personally, as it seems to have worked for me in my life and the women I've dated or had relationships with. It's only in online discussions where my intent seems to be misconstrued. But that's just my experience, FWIW.

Quote:That could be why you receive those 'reactions' at times, because feminism has become synoymous in many people's eyes as women want to 'be' like men. Treated like men.

This might be taken care of with the "third wave" discussed above. Just as some feminists are realizing that there's a distinction between "sexy" and "just a sex object", perhaps feminists will also realize that attaining respect, rights and equality doesn't require becoming a man.

Quote:It may be possible for 'separate but equal' to approximate equality, but it will never be exactly equal.

Perhaps that's where the misconception "equality requires interchangeability" comes from. It's more than a little unfair, as we're not discussing access to services or education.

Consider, which is the superior instrument, the piano or the violin?

They are quite different. The former can provide it's own harmony, has a much wider range and, in the hands of a skilled performer, duplicate the harmony of an entire orchestra. The latter is a superior melodic instrument, allowing the performer such nuance as to make that sharp just a hair sharper as the melody moves to its resolution. They are different but that doesn't mean one is inferior to the other.

Beethoven's Violin Concerto was once arranged as a Piano Concerto. It was awful! The melodies that were originally conceived for violin could only be clumsily followed by the piano. They are not interchangeable instruments by any means.

The violin does not need to become a piano in order to be equal.

(April 13, 2014 at 2:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Perhaps that's where the misconception "equality requires interchangeability" comes from. It's more than a little unfair, as we're not discussing access to services or education.

Consider, which is the superior instrument, the piano or the violin?

They are quite different. The former can provide it's own harmony, has a much wider range and, in the hands of a skilled performer, duplicate the harmony of an entire orchestra. The latter is a superior melodic instrument, allowing the performer such nuance as to make that sharp just a hair sharper as the melody moves to its resolution. They are different but that doesn't mean one is inferior to the other.

Beethoven's Violin Concerto was once arranged as a Piano Concerto. It was awful! The melodies that were originally conceived for violin could only be clumsily followed by the piano. They are not interchangeable instruments by any means.

The violin does not need to become a piano in order to be equal.

I don't agree—the piano is still better—but I've realized that similar isn't necessarily equal either.

1. Sex discrimination is assigning men and women different rights.
2. Neither women nor men have the right to an abortion.
3. Thus denying women the right to an abortion is not sex discrimination.

(April 13, 2014 at 12:50 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(June 11, 1970 at 1:40 pm)FlyingNarwhal Wrote: And again another golden rule of society was "fags can't get married" because if they do society would fail, and your rule is no different.

...and again, I'll point out that your point is a red herring. Same gender relationships do serve a biological role as well. Even in the animal kingdom, we observe same gender couples that adopt orphaned offspring of their heterosexual counterparts. In human civilizations, the prohibition on same gender relationships (contrasted with "women and children first") is far from universal, though in modern times the Islamo-Christian influence may make it seem so.

Personally I have always disliked stretching into the animal kingdom when it comes to defining human morality. Because yes there are homosexual animals, but hamsters eat their babies. If I had a baby and ate it, and then used the fact that some animals eat their babies to justify my position, it wouldn't hold up. There are plenty of reasons I will support gay rights, but using the animal kingdom is a poor reason. Because I could also point to the many species of animals that don't follow "women and children first" if we are going to broaden the discussion to the entirety of the animal kingdom.

Besides, the concept of "women and children first" is relatively new as well, its not as old and universal as you think.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first

That's what I mean when I say that your whole point that "women and children first" is necessary for society, is as baseless as not letting gay people getting married. Your just saying its a universally accepted law that is necessary for the continued survival of civilization, but its not.

(April 13, 2014 at 1:16 pm)Deidre32 Wrote:

(April 13, 2014 at 1:04 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Pre-neanderthal times? When is that? How long ago was that? How do you know what pre-neanderthal time human society was like? How do you know they shared tasks?

I've read archaeological articles that have suggested this.

OK, that doesn't really help. The other question was important too.

(April 13, 2014 at 4:07 pm)FlyingNarwhal Wrote: Besides, the concept of "women and children first" is relatively new as well, its not as old and universal as you think.

The article you referenced was to the phrase "women and children first", not to the practice.

Let me say in advance that you may well find some cultures that didn't adopt the practice. I honestly don't know of any but hey, they might be somewhere in history. It doesn't change that there are certain physical realities that make the practice a must for any civilization that doesn't wish to court extinction. Perhaps there were some that tried and either went extinct or were lucky enough not to have to endure the kind of calamity that would have driven them extinct.

I think we've argued this point as much as we can and need to agree to disagree unless you have something else to offer. I usually end an exchange once it threatens to devolve into "nuh uh", "ya huh", "nuh uh", "ya huh"...