Because I forgot the forum was dying.
I wonder who wants that and why.
Because I forgot the forum was dying.
I believe in the idea of equality but I think biological sexes are more complementary as opposed to innate equals. The differences in sex hormone distribution and sexual dimorphism contributes to certain subtle differences, on average. However, it doesn't mean one is better than the other.
That said, everyone should be entitled to all the same civil liberties.
This seems to be the issue that seems to come up a lot in feminism....conflating equal rights with sameness and homogeneity. But you described that distinction much more eloquently than I did. 😀Well, equality before the law is a given of individualism, male or female, to be honest.
Although, I dont think that equality needs to involve sameness and homogenizing, a lot of people seem to think it does, left and right, but I think that's a nightmare. I think the opposite in fact and some difference is a very good thing and deserves recognition instead. I also like some sorts of radical or "amazonian" women's liberation, which seek to practically transcend inequality or oppressions rather than entering a peal for rescue or rights.
There are some sorts of equality I support, mainly redistributions of wealth or responsibility, but it can be misunderstood terribly.
Well, equality before the law is a given of individualism, male or female, to be honest.
There are sex differences, that's innate, although sex isnt the same thing as gender, which is more culturally determined, involves expectations about capabilities and who shouldnt or should work (outside the home) or be educated (beyond domestic duties etc.). So there's more to it than simply equality before the law, there are norms, mores, expectations etc.
Although, I dont think that equality needs to involve sameness and homogenizing, a lot of people seem to think it does, left and right, but I think that's a nightmare. I think the opposite in fact and some difference is a very good thing and deserves recognition instead. I also like some sorts of radical or "amazonian" women's liberation, which seek to practically transcend inequality or oppressions rather than entering a peal for rescue or rights.
There are some sorts of equality I support, mainly redistributions of wealth or responsibility, but it can be misunderstood terribly. Bad generalisations can be made on the back of an ill understood idea. Like saying a woman can do anything a man can do, any man cant necessarily do what another man can do, I cant lift the same as a champion weight lifter for instance. Individual differences are still the greatest whatever you do about group advantages or disadvantages.
This reminds me of a common MRA/misogynist argument " Why should I have to watch what I say around women?! If they want to be treated "the same as everybody else than they should not expect me to use special wording around them."
Yeah, see "like everyone else" means with just a modicum of respect and dignity. You-any even remotely decent human being- would not make discriminatory or derogatory statements about ta person in their pretense.
But then I'm pretty sure they know that and are just being petulant.
Well I think there's something to be said for mannerly conduct, that shouldnt be political, on the other hand sometimes political scenes or individuals have a highly stylised speech all of their own, its as complex or more than some other scenes or people talking "street", and I dont think anyone should be expected to school up on that.
That sort of stuff is bogus, at least I think so, if people are into that then grand but dont assume other people are going to share your interests or coerce them some how into doing so.
This reminds me of a common MRA/misogynist argument " Why should I have to watch what I say around women?! If they want to be treated "the same as everybody else than they should not expect me to use special wording around them."
Yeah, see "like everyone else" means with just a modicum of respect and dignity. You-any even remotely decent human being- would not make discriminatory or derogatory statements about ta person in their pretense.
But then I'm pretty sure they know that and are just being petulant.
The only people who have a problem when I drop an f-bomb in public are women. Some. But always the same gender. I have little time for changing up my vocabulary to coddle people just as I have no time for listening to ranting students on campuses yelling at their professors for saying something they don't want to hear rather than getting on with the business at hand.
Again, not what I fucking meant.
Why should I have to watch what I say around women?! If they want to be treated "the same as everybody else than they should not expect me to use special wording around them."
Well I think there's something to be said for mannerly conduct
The only people who have a problem when I drop an f-bomb in public are women. Some. But always the same gender. I have little time for changing up my vocabulary to coddle people just as I have no time for listening to ranting students on campuses yelling at their professors for saying something they don't want to hear rather than getting on with the business at hand.
On the flipside, I have gotten reprimanded on several occasions about saying f*** in public, because it was not lady-like of me. "Your face is way too pretty to talk like that. It's unbecoming." Usually from older women. Men tend to either be amused or shocked.
No, of course not. There is a big difference between learning all coded/special dialects and bitching about "all women are lazy C**** who should get back in the kitchen."
Ha! What kind of dickhead gets on like that?!
Usually super sexist men or tryhards who are trying to impress other men.
How does this work? Freedoms, opportunity and liberty should should be gender neutral, but the process of 'holding others accountable' should be gender specific?Men should be holding other men accountable when their conduct becomes problematic. Not women.
It was an observation of relative frequency, not a claim that the proposal has never been brought up before. Whether it was at school or in online discussions, self-identified feminists seem far more focused on supposed wage gaps when compared to other issues like the draft.You mean, like the [url="https://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/22/us/women-join-battle-on-all-male-draft.html']National Organization for Women[/url]?
This was back in 81, by the way.
If you want something more recent, there's this:
White house petition asks that women be required to register for selective service.
Some feminists, I should add, are not in favor of women being included in selective service, because they think that selective service should be abolished anyway.