Men and Women equal? No, never.

[ideologue08]

In my Philosophy of the Human Person class, we came to the conclusion that men and women were equal as human beings, and could posses the same personality traits (courage, love, etc.), but that they expressed these things differently. Different, but equal nonetheless.

How can two different things be equal?

[NoraBrimstone]

It's six of one, half a dozen of the other.

[downbeatplumb]

So can men, they can just sit down. Whereas you'd find it pretty difficult peeing over a wall...

Challenge accepted.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shewee-SheWee-Wh...rds=shewee

The portable urinating device for women. The portable urinating device for women allows women to urinate whilst standing and without removing clothes. Great for camping, walking, skiing, climbing, traffic jams, travelling, unhygienic public toilets & much more. No more uncomfortable squatting or bare bottoms! Cleaning: Urine is sterile as it leaves the body- so you don't have to clean your Shewee after every use. However, Shewee can be cleaned by machine or hand and withstands temperatures of up to 120°C.

You don't have to clean it!!! I think I would.

[InevitableCheese]

How can two different things be equal?

I guess that really depends on what you mean by equal. Equal as in the same? No. Equally capable of the same things? Not necessarily. Equal in value? I'd say yes. Different roles in society may make us feel like we have to choose which one is more important or superior, but one doesn't really work without the other. If it wasn't for women, none of us would be here. Haha.

Regarding qualities, men may express better the traits necessary for leadership, as women may express certain necessary traits better for other roles in society. But I wouldn't say that those roles, however different they may be, gives us reason to apply different value based on genders. Individuals given value based on merit, maybe, but not the whole gender.

[ideologue08]

How can two different things be equal?

I guess that really depends on what you mean by equal. Equal as in the same? No. Equally capable of the same things? Not necessarily. Equal in value? I'd say yes. Different roles in society may make us feel like we have to choose which one is more important or superior, but one doesn't really work without the other. If it wasn't for women, none of us would be here. Haha.

Regarding qualities, men may express better the traits necessary for leadership, as women may express certain necessary traits better for other roles in society. But I wouldn't say that those roles, however different they may be, gives us reason to apply different value based on genders. Individuals given value based on merit, maybe, but not the whole gender.

I agree with every word you said haha. It's like the whole reason I created the thread was for this post, you've worded my argument better than myself, for that I have to give you credit.

[Sal]

In case I'm accused of sexism; women should in my opinion be able to discriminate against men freely in certain industries such as beauty, child education, fashion etc. Bottom line is; men and women aren't the same thing so why should "equal opportunities" exist? They aren't equal.

I'm of the opinion that anyone should be able to discriminate against anyone they like. If I'm turned down for a job because I'm a man, I don't think I want to work for a company like that anyway. Anti-discrimination laws have good intentions, but they just don't work out in real life. Firstly, because why would some non-white person want to work for a white supremacist in the first place, but also because it's very hard to prove discrimination in the hiring process anyway.

Interesting position.

I think we can all agree on the obvious physical/biological differences between men & women. However, I think everyone should have the same opportunities, despite being different. I'd be surprised if anyone would think that equal opportunity should be discriminated against.

I sorta half & half agree with your position; I think we should respect a business to choose who they want to hire on whatever basis. But I can't let go, not that quite easily, on the notion that we're somehow letting discrimination get a pass in this regard. Here I'm referring to the question of equal opportunity.

Ultimately, it would be much better to get, to use your example, a white supremacist to simply change his views and be more egalitarian via education or cultural information or whatever. But, facing reality, it would be much better not to work for an asshole in the first place, and allow for assholes being assholes.

[davidMC1982]

The concept that men and women are somehow fundamentally different is, to me, not so clear cut. I would suggest that most of the differences we observe are a result of the society we are raised in. This is evidenced by the fact that what we expect from men and women - how we expect them to behave - has changed as society has changed. The differences appear to be getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.

The argument about businesses paying for women to have children is - in the UK at least - a red herring. It is the government that pays maternity leave. The only "extra" cost to the business is that of finding a temporary replacement. It is wider society that pays.

I'm all for personal responsibility, so I tend to lean towards not supporting maternity leave. However, there is definitely a balance to strike between the well-being of the individual and the well-being of society as a whole. There's certainly an argument to be made for supporting parents and enabling them to spend time with their children. As such, my long term aim would be to create a society where all citizens were responsible for their own actions and also in a position to fully take on that responsiblity. As it stands, the financial burden of our current societal system doesn't always allow this.

On the employment issue, there's no sound reason at all to discriminate. Taking "night club security" as an example, one might think it prudent to rule out women because, "clearly, they won't be strong enough". However, all you've done is limit your range of candidates. You've potentially lost a woman who could have been a great employee. Not only could she have been a 6ft, 90kg, kickboxer, physically superior to most of the male candidates, but she could also have been great at conflict resolution and have other characteristics well suited to the task at hand. You lose nothing by starting with the assumption that all candidates are equal and working from there.

Of course, we all have built-in prejudices, despite the fact that many would try to deny it. What an intelligent person does is try to recognise when these prejudices may be affecting their judgement and deal with it. For instance, it can be difficult for women to have the same trust in a male primary school teacher as they do in a female one, just as it can be difficult for a male company director to accept that a male secretary may be as good as a female one, or a female manager as good as a male one. As a good employer you can only try to overcome those prejudices.

[NoraBrimstone]

I still want to hear about something, not related to my genitals, that I cannot do just because I'm a woman.

[davidMC1982]

Grow a beard without hormone treatment or some other drugs?

There are some things you are less likely to be able to do, because of physical differences, like run the 100m in less than 10s, but I can't think of anything that you would necessarily be precluded from doing. Even for physical differences, we'd only be looking at the extreme ends of the spectrum that have little relevence to modern life.

[NoraBrimstone]

Well, I did specify "Not related to my genitals." which is one reason I have less testosterone. That said, there are plenty of women who can grow beards. Especially older women. (And that terrifying woman from that."cooch-cooch-cooch!" Kitten video) Lol

It's true that the fastest men are faster than the fastest women, but if you picked one man and one woman off the street at random and raced them, either one of them could win.