(April 13, 2014 at 1:22 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:(April 12, 2014 at 11:44 pm)FlyingNarwhal Wrote: Do you not hear yourself? Men are expendable? Really dude, really?
I said, "if need be, we are the more expendable". This is true from a reproductive standpoint as well as a psychological one. A society that loses half its male population will recover in a generation. A society that loses half its female population is decimated and will take much longer to recover, if it ever does. We are psychologically also wired to be the protectors of women and children, placing our bodies between them and harm's way. It's what we do.
I don't think if half the men in the world died, women would a) suddenly become polyamorous and b) start having more children. Monogamy is the in thing, if half the men die women are still going to find one man they want to have kids with and have the amount of kids she wants to have. Unless considering women then choose to fulfill their biological design, as men did through their death, and literally are required to be baby makers to replenish the population. That is only if we are talking about having a government force a biological role onto its citizens though, it's ludicrous.
(April 13, 2014 at 1:22 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Societies may vary on some of the other issues you hyperbolically brought up. Some may treat women equally while others regard them as chattel, per your example. But what remains unchanged in every example I know of is "women and children first". It's the golden rule that stays in place when the cities are burning, the land is overrun and all else needs to be dumped in favor of survival. When things really get bad for a civilization, when most of the men are dead, the women will take on a similar role guarding the children, risking their own lives as need be.
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. Your just abstractly claiming that without your rule the pillars of society would crumble, with no real reasoning behind it. Why are men's life expendable to our government? Your pushing this idea that the genders should be forced to fulfill their biological role, but I should not be forced to sign away my life because when it came time for the gender coin flip, I got a dick at random. And you know what would be a better rule than "Woman and children first"? How about just "children first". I'm sure we could probably save more children that way.
(April 13, 2014 at 1:22 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Sorry, I know this isn't politically correct to say. I know every time I point this out, the PC cops, white knighters and other idealists spring into action to deny this fundamental aspect of gender dimorphism, acting under the misguided notion that, dammit, equality requires nothing less than total and complete interchangeability!
I'm not worried about something being politically incorrect. The PC stuff is bullshit, I hear ya. I'm not mad about that, I'm not mad at all really. I just disagree that any government should make anyone adhere to their biological role. And I know I keep taking it back to gay stuff, but if you were to really look at the biological role of a man the main purpose is to fuck women, and only women. From a purely biological stance. But you and I will agree that you shouldn't be forced to follow that role by your government. It's not that what you said may not be politically correct, it's that your reasoning falls flat with this biological role thing. As a personal moral stance I have no problem with what you said either. There are a lot of men that would risk their life for their woman, and believe that if they were floating on driftwood after the Titanic crash they should freeze in the icy water so their girl can live. That's all fine, well, and dandy. Its their life and their choice as to what they want to do with it. But as far as taking that personal moral stance, and making it a government enforced moral stance? Nah fuck that shit.
(April 13, 2014 at 1:22 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Luckily, equality doesn't require interchangeability, contrary to the prevailing PC wisdom. Women can be equal and yet different.
I also believe in equal yet different, however I don't think this is one of those cases. For example women get maternity leave and some men get a little paternity leave. Now I think men should get more paternity leave then they have now, but definitely not as much as a woman needs. I think that is an instance where you can treat someone different, and yet still fairly.
