Sweden Aims for "Gender Neutrality"

[Shell B]

As it stands, it's significantly more difficult for a male to admit to weakness than it is for a female, something which gender neutrality laws would help to change.

Seriously? Haha, show me a study for that one, pal.

---

The good in traditional roles? Why are they good- because you find them adorable? I think they often times enforce sexism. I'd rather split things 50/50 with anyone I was romantically involved in.

*sigh* Didn't I point out that I didn't care which sex took on each "traditional" role? I like them because they promote steady, stable homes for children. They allow for homemaking in a way that the non-agricultural way of living we keep now does not. This is coming from a woman who tried being a stay at home for a few months and hated it. My point is, children do well when they are in the care of one or both of their parents, not being shuffled to a sitter or a daycare. I like that. Also, I fail to see how that is not splitting things 50/50. Staying at home is harder than any other job I have ever done and that is saying a lot, considering I went from welding to being a chef.

Wouldn't it be a great world where men weren't any more feared than women?

It would be illogical. I'm not afraid of women because the average woman can't kick my ass. That being said, I'm not really afraid of one sex more than the other. I wouldn't leave my kid in a bathroom full of any adults.

I'm not saying we should start sharing bathrooms, but I get very sick of people acting like modern crime is one sided on a basis of gender.

I love it when arguments devolve into these kind of off-hand accusations. Who the hell acted like modern crime is one-sided? I'm willing to bet I can cite specific examples of more female killers than any other person in this thread. That's just assuming that no one else researches historic crimes on a regular basis.

[R-e-n-n-a-t]

*sigh* Didn't I point out that I didn't care which sex took on each "traditional" role? I like them because they promote steady, stable homes for children. They allow for homemaking in a way that the non-agricultural way of living we keep now does not.

And that is precisely why it's sexist. You actually think that too.

[Shell B]

And that is precisely why it's sexist. You actually think that too.

Are you being deliberately obtuse because you have some sort of gripe? Does something ride on me being the big fat sexist? Here's the problem with your retarded label. A. I don't give a fuck if a man is the stay at home mom and another man works while they play house. Any other gender scenario is fine as well. B. I don't see anything wrong with both partners working, either.

Bottom line, one person cooking, cleaning and raising the kids full time is more stable. That is not to say that kids raised different won't be fine. I just happen to like that kind of set up. Hey, unless you want to suggest that every couple should dump their kids at daycare the day after birth or work different shifts until their kids go to school (which is hell on a relationship), you're a fucking sexist too.

[R-e-n-n-a-t]

And that is precisely why it's sexist. You actually think that too.

Bottom line, one person cooking, cleaning and raising the kids full time is more stable.

False.

[Shell B]

False.

Well, when you have something more concrete to add backed up by even so much as your particular brand of sweeping conjecture, let me know. Hell, if you even want to explain how my statements have been even remotely sexist or why you seem to have a Shell bug up your ass, let me know.

[Reforged]

Whilst I think the idea of "gender neutrality" has good intentions, I think some of the things talked about in that article would just lead to unfairness. For instance, ignoring the physical differences between male and female athletes and having them compete against one another would in most cases lead to male-dominated sports victories.

What does everyone else think? Should we ignore the genetic / physical differences between males and females in order to promote a "more equal" society, and is such a society really more equal?

I think the Swedes have it right. I mean, genetic differences in people of the same sex already make the playing field in the athletics uneven. I'm fairly certain I couldn't outrun any Olympian, male or female. Should I complain that I don't have my own category? Besides, should that come to be I have no doubt females would dominate other areas that aren't sports related.
This is exactly what the womens rights movement has been aiming towards; equality. Its a victory for democracy which is a rare thing these days.

[R-e-n-n-a-t]

False.

Well, when you have something more concrete to add backed up by even so much as your particular brand of sweeping conjecture, let me know. Hell, if you even want to explain how my statements have been even remotely sexist or why you seem to have a Shell bug up your ass, let me know.

I'm claiming a negative, whereas you're claiming a positive, and you know how that goes on atheist forums. Burden of proof, etc.

I'm going to abandon this though, since neither of us is going to admit defeat. I've seen enough studies claiming near equality that I can't logically be swayed, whereas you've either seen contrary studies or you're arguing from bias, and either way I can't know for sure which is correct about you. It comes down to the only possible outcome being for one of us to walk away, so that's what I'm doing.

[Violet]

[Faith No More]

* Vaeolet Lilly Blossom sees no point in the existence of the urinal.

Because men need a place to pee without having to worry about the seat being down or getting a few drops on the rim of the toilet. Also, the urinals help us get in and out quickly.

[Violet]