Feminism and Sexual Equality page 12

353 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Galdos:
Originally posted by Megaladapis:

Depends what you are talking about. In reality i.e. job pay – no. But should we be? I think yes. I believe men and women are equal in the way that we are all human beings, we all have basic rights and should be treated with respect and dignity and one gender doesnt have more power than another. But I do believe some aspects we are no equal. for example as a woman I can lift some things because generally woman are less muscular than men, so men can do some things better, but that does not make us un equal genders.

rights come with levels of competency.
we are not the same just because we are all human beings. we are physically and mentally different.

some companies do reward men with higher payment, but only because they are more valuable(like you said – physically better for the position) . <labor jobs and such

at this moment in time, women have the mentality of an infant, and it raises the question as to whether they should even be allowed to vote anymore.

WRONG.

Rights are UNDENIABLE to citizens when not in the case of social contract. (crime)

 
Flag Post

Galdos-

“rights come with levels of competency”

WRONG.

RIGHTS are UNDENIABLE to citizens when not in the case of social contract (crime).

Employers have the UNDENIABLE right to choose the best people for the job, and if men are better at a job, then they also have the right to pay them more.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Galdos:

rights come with levels of competency.
we are not the same just because we are all human beings. we are physically and mentally different.

some companies do reward men with higher payment, but only because they are more valuable(like you said – physically better for the position) . <labor jobs and such

at this moment in time, women have the mentality of an infant, and it raises the question as to whether they should even be allowed to vote anymore.

The rights of an individual is dependent upon the perception of that person by the society or community in which he/she lives. Depending on which sociopolitical concept you support, the rights of any given person can vary from heavily discriminatory policies to ones that provide social equity for all, regardless of ability or skill. From what I’ve learned, however, competency generally does not have—or should not have—any causal relationship to rights. Moreover, why should the rights of the incompetent be less than the more able? Oppressing those who already cannot succeed through their own self-insufficiency is not only unethical, but it’s unnecessary.

Ignoring the arbitrary subjectivity of the term “competency,” the incompetent will naturally fall to the bottom of society unless subsidized, or given support, by those in-power. If society would abstain from positively discriminating in favor of certain demographics, most of which are incompetent, then the inferior would remain inferior and the superior would rise above the latter. Then again, the reason for positive discrimination is to negate the oppression those demographics receive from society, but that’s a discussion for another time. Nevertheless, it’s generally true that the incompetent would oppress themselves by natural inferiority; therefore, the superior oppressing them with intent is unreasonable. Prohibiting the same rights the competent enjoy to the incompetent is similarly as absurd.

Social equity is necessary for a productive and progressive society. Social equity does not require positive discrimination or handicapping in order to provide equal ability among all citizens, though; that would actually lead to social stagnancy. Equity of opportunity is what society needs, for it will provide all with the opportunity to achieve greatness if they are capable to do so. It would not raise the incompetent above the status they could achieve on their own accord, nor would it handicap the competent in any way. Like you said, “we are physically and mentally different.” Equity of opportunity would respect these differences while also not oppressing anyone for an arbitrary or unethical reason.

As for the rest of what you said, I seriously doubt it’s true. Which companies reward men more than women because they assert males are more valuable? Unless that company is in some foreign, developing nation, where the exploitation of children and women is common, I call bullshit. With your misogynistic and inaccurate claim of women having the “mentality of an infant,” care to provide a citation to support that? Or are you just being a sexist fool? Considering the next sentence after that claim, I’m assuming the latter.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Nokkenbuer:
Originally posted by Galdos:

rights come with levels of competency.
we are not the same just because we are all human beings. we are physically and mentally different.

some companies do reward men with higher payment, but only because they are more valuable(like you said – physically better for the position) . <labor jobs and such

at this moment in time, women have the mentality of an infant, and it raises the question as to whether they should even be allowed to vote anymore.

The rights of an individual is dependent upon the perception of that person by the society or community in which he/she lives. Depending on which sociopolitical concept you support, the rights of any given person can vary from heavily discriminatory policies to ones that provide social equity for all, regardless of ability or skill. From what I’ve learned, however, competency generally does not have—or should not have—any causal relationship to rights. Moreover, why should the rights of the incompetent be less than the more able? Oppressing those who already cannot succeed through their own self-insufficiency is not only unethical, but it’s unnecessary.

Ignoring the arbitrary subjectivity of the term “competency,” the incompetent will naturally fall to the bottom of society unless subsidized, or given support, by those in-power. If society would abstain from positively discriminating in favor of certain demographics, most of which are incompetent, then the inferior would remain inferior and the superior would rise above the latter. Then again, the reason for positive discrimination is to negate the oppression those demographics receive from society, but that’s a discussion for another time. Nevertheless, it’s generally true that the incompetent would oppress themselves by natural inferiority; therefore, the superior oppressing them with intent is unreasonable. Prohibiting the same rights the competent enjoy to the incompetent is similarly as absurd.

Social equity is necessary for a productive and progressive society. Social equity does not require positive discrimination or handicapping in order to provide equal ability among all citizens, though; that would actually lead to social stagnancy. Equity of opportunity is what society needs, for it will provide all with the opportunity to achieve greatness if they are capable to do so. It would not raise the incompetent above the status they could achieve on their own accord, nor would it handicap the competent in any way. Like you said, “we are physically and mentally different.” Equity of opportunity would respect these differences while also not oppressing anyone for an arbitrary or unethical reason.

As for the rest of what you said, I seriously doubt it’s true. Which companies reward men more than women because they assert males are more valuable? Unless that company is in some foreign, developing nation, where the exploitation of children and women is common, I call bullshit. With your misogynistic and inaccurate claim of women having the “mentality of an infant,” care to provide a citation to support that? Or are you just being a sexist fool? Considering the next sentence after that claim, I’m assuming the latter.

Self-sufficiency doesn’t matter. If they want they can live on the street for drugs and alcohol.
Competency doesn’t matter. People have the choice to be idiots or not.
There is no such thing as natural inferiority. That is called racism.

What matters is that RIGHTS are RIGHTS and they are UNDENIABLE to citizens when not in the case of social contract. PERIOD.

If someone or a group of people is better at a job than another person or another group, the employer has the RIGHT to pay the better workers more, even if those better workers happen to be men.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

Self-sufficiency doesn’t matter. If they want they can live on the street for drugs and alcohol.
Competency doesn’t matter. People have the choice to be idiots or not.
There is no such thing as natural inferiority. That is called racism.

What matters is that RIGHTS are RIGHTS and they are UNDENIABLE to citizens when not in the case of social contract. PERIOD.

If someone or a group of people is better at a job than another person or another group, the employer has the RIGHT to pay the better workers more, even if those better workers happen to be men.

I think ya pretty much TOTALLY MISSED THE POINT Nokkenbuer is making.

Granted, an employer does have a “right” to pay either gender, race, creed, etc. differing wages based on compentancy.
However, such IS NOT what is being discussed here.
It is when women are either denied a position solely because of their gender OR are being paid a lower wage while doing//producing the same as the men.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
However, such IS NOT what is being discussed here.
It is when women are either denied a position solely because of their gender OR are being paid a lower wage while doing//producing the same as the men.

Agreed. This is especially true, when both are performing the exact same job, to similar levels of competency, and yet the woman because she is a woman, is paid less of a wage than the male in the same department. At one time this was common practice, where you would judge the body of a person before you judged the mind, or the job they were performing.

Thankfully that is slowly changing, but there are still plenty of holdouts of the old way of doing things, mostly because their leadership can still remember the time (as recent as the late seventies) when that was still the case.

We owe a sizable debt really to Ford’s Dagenham plant in the UK, back in the 70s, where the issue of equal pay for equal work finally reared its head, and won through. Once Ford had to acknowledge that in one major country, it had no choice but to acknowledge it in other major countries too, and it spread to other companies and cultures from there.

 
Flag Post

Ford Dagenham plant strike

“Impact:
The strike was, however, to have an enduring legacy. Spurred on by their example, women trades unionists founded the National Joint Action Campaign Committee for Women’s Equal Rights (NJACCWER), which held an ‘equal pay demonstration’ attended by 1,000 people in Trafalgar Square on 18 May, 1969.7

“The ultimate result was the passing of the Equal Pay Act 1970, which came into force in 1975 and which did, for the first time, aim to prohibit inequality of treatment between men and women in terms of pay and conditions of employment.824910 In the second reading debate of the bill, the machinists were cited by MP Shirley Summerskill as playing a “very significant part in the history of the struggle for equal pay”.11 Once the UK joined the European Union in 1973, it also became subject to Article 119 of the 1957 Treaty of Rome, which specified that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work.12"

There has been an exceptionally revealing movie about this issue of EQUALITY.

Needless to say, esp. since I am a raving, card-carrying, lefty SOCIALIST, this movie is one of my favorites….right along w/ Iron Jawed Angels

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

Self-sufficiency doesn’t matter. If they want they can live on the street for drugs and alcohol.
Competency doesn’t matter. People have the choice to be idiots or not.
There is no such thing as natural inferiority. That is called racism.

What matters is that RIGHTS are RIGHTS and they are UNDENIABLE to citizens when not in the case of social contract. PERIOD.

If someone or a group of people is better at a job than another person or another group, the employer has the RIGHT to pay the better workers more, even if those better workers happen to be men.

Actually, self-sufficiency is extremely important in a society, even on the individualized level, as is competency. That being said, there is such a thing as natural inferiority and that is evident in daily life, regardless of whatever idealistic beliefs you may hold. For example, who is naturally superior: an individual who was born without functioning limbs or the contrary? Natural superiority is determined by the intrinsic worth and value any given individual holds. Worth and value, however arbitrary, are typically defined along the parameters of ability, function, and potentiality for productive behavior. In a society, the most able-bodied and productive people are intrinsically worth the most within that community because their ability and potentiality for productivity can yield more fruitful results than those who are not recognized as having such qualities. That being said, an individual who can use his or her limbs is naturally more productive in a physical or laborious way than one who cannot. This should be obvious to anyone who has a reasonable brain and an ability to think.

What I’m saying is not racist, for it is not targeting any specific race; in fact, I have not mentioned or alluded to racial differences once in all my posts. My points are discriminatory, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Does not nature discriminate against those who are not the fittest for survival? Do not employers discriminate against those who cannot fulfill the duties necessary for a given position? Do not leaders and organizers discriminate against those who are incapable of performing the best for a given job or assignment? A manager firing an incompetent employee is discriminating against that employee just like nature allowing a species or group to die out is discriminating against those organisms for being unfit to survive in the environment in which they lived. Are those forms of discrimination wrong? If not, then neither is the discrimination against the incompetent in favor of those who are naturally and intrinsically superior. If so, then we have nothing else to discuss.

When I refer to an “incompetent individual,” I do not mean Negroids or Mongoloids anymore than I do Caucasoids or Australoids; race is not the target of my discrimination. I similarly do not mean males or females or hermaphrodites of any sort, for sex is not the target of my discrimination. Neither are short people or tall people or handicapped people or mentally retarded people my target. The people I am discriminating against are those who fail to competently fit in their given position or environment. This can include anyone from the aforementioned demographics, as well as anyone outside of them. In society, just as in nature, there are those who are naturally and intrinsically more superior than others, for not all men are created equal.

Just because not all people are created equal in worth or value or ability, that does not mean the inferior do not deserve the same rights of equity of opportunity that those who are superior can exercise. That is the point in my counterargument: equality among all in society does not necessarily include equity of ability, only equity of opportunity. If the latter is given, then the inferior will fall—and the superior rise—to their designated positions and statuses within society. Will more people of a given demographic be inferior than others? That is entirely possible, but that only indicates an issue in either society or in the demographic, not in the means of discrimination.

Rights are deniable, but that in no way indicates that the denial of those rights is ethical or appropriate whatsoever. Rights also do not require equity of ability in a constitutional democracy or egalitarian society, only equity of opportunity. Once you realize that the U.S. Declaration of Independence is fallible and that ethics extend past the writings of century-old colonists, you may be able to discuss this further. Until then, I foresee that we are simply at different states of perceptual reasoning and ethical belief, thus meaning we will never agree until at least one of us changes our view.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Nokkenbuer:

Actually, self-sufficiency is extremely important in a society, even on the individualized level, as is competency. That being said, there is such a thing as natural inferiority and that is evident in daily life, regardless of whatever idealistic beliefs you may hold. For example, who is naturally superior: an individual who was born without functioning limbs or the contrary?

That only holds so long as the person without limbs is unable to find a productive place in socity, like Nick Vujicic, or we are able to graft limbs onto them suitable for them to become productive (or anything else they require to be productive citizens). In some cases it could well be argued that a person without limbs is ‘naturally superior’ to one with limbs, as there is much more potential for structural grafting of specialised equipment to take place.

I would not use the term natural in this instance, but rather use the term primitive – prior to augmentation or improvement by sentient ingenuity. As such, a primitive individual with limbs may be seen as more desirable in many instances, to a primitive individual without limbs. However, once you move away from the primitive state, the potential is there for the balance to swing radically.

The choice is really yours; whether you wish to stay in the primitive state or not.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

That only holds so long as the person without limbs is unable to find a productive place in socity, like Nick Vujicic, or we are able to graft limbs onto them suitable for them to become productive (or anything else they require to be productive citizens). In some cases it could well be argued that a person without limbs is ‘naturally superior’ to one with limbs, as there is much more potential for structural grafting of specialised equipment to take place.

I would not use the term natural in this instance, but rather use the term primitive – prior to augmentation or improvement by sentient ingenuity. As such, a primitive individual with limbs may be seen as more desirable in many instances, to a primitive individual without limbs. However, once you move away from the primitive state, the potential is there for the balance to swing radically.

The choice is really yours; whether you wish to stay in the primitive state or not.


I stated later on in that paragraph: “That being said, an individual who can use his or her limbs is naturally more productive in a physical or laborious way than one who cannot. This should be obvious to anyone who has a reasonable brain and an ability to think.” That embolded part is what answers your refutation. Nevertheless, having limbs that do not function only indicates that the individual is physically inferior to someone whose limbs do. There is no promise or requisite that the physically inferior individual would be superior in intellect or creativity or inspiration. Due to that, arguing that the worth of an individual’s other abilities justifies or nullifies his or her physical inferiority is irrelevant, for that physical incapability is ever-present. Although that person may have other qualities that justifies his or her worth to society in another aspect, that physical inferiority is still there.

Regardless of whether technology can be created to accommodate for the person’s physical inferiority, that is similarly as irrelevant because the same equipment can be constructed without the existence of its designated user. The case you’re using with the handicapped individual having potential is fallacious, since you are misplacing the potentiality. The potential lies in the creators or constructors of such technology, not in the ones who would utilize it. The handicapped individual would be the recipient of the inventor’s competency and superiority, not the motivation or inspiration. If anything, the relatively limbless person is simply an excuse for or example of the technology’s capabilities. That is simply not sufficient to justify the physical inferiority of that person.

When I use the term “natural[ly],” I am referring to the intrinsic, inborn quality of any given organism; therefore, when I speak of “natural” inferiority or superiority, I am speaking of the innate quality of value or worth with which a person is born. The term “primitive” indicates a different meaning more akin to originality in primal qualities as compared to inborn ones. Whereas “primitive” is often used in a generalized and popular sense, “natural” can pertain to an individual entity. In order to render an individual without limbic ability equal in physical worth to one with it, extra time, energy, material, and accommodations would be needed. Those are not necessary, however, and it would be better to let these physically inferior people either find a position they can efficiently fill or fail and fall into the inferior crowd within society.

Everyone has a specific place in their community or environment and when those in power begin to accommodate or handicap as a means of creating an artificial equity of ability, it disrupts social order and oppresses the competent and superior in favor of the less able. Unless the handicapped individual has high intrinsic potentiality for productivity that justifies accommodation, doing so would infringe upon the rights and status of those who are naturally superior. In other words, why give a man with no arms bionic limbs when in doing so, the means of producing that technology takes away from the other uses to which the material could be put? Moreover, why diminish the accomplishments, status, and ability of those who were naturally superior when the process of doing so yields more consumption than production? Unless the accommodated individual produces more with the accommodation than he or she consumed by being accommodated, it’s simply not worth accommodating for the person.

I apologize if what I said was confusing or unclear. I only say this because I feel I may have been either (or both) and if that is the case, I’m willing to clarify.

 
Flag Post

WRONG.

Physical handicaps such as a woman being on average less strong than a man or being born with no arms or legs or mental handicaps are PHYSICAL inferiorities, not NATURAL inferiority. These are not always set in stone.

Otherwise, being self-sufficient is a choice.

Being competent is a choice.

Proving it is a choice.

So if men are better at a job than women, such as hard labor etc. etc., than they will be paid more, as it is common sense to pay the best workers more. Even if they happen to be men.

 
Flag Post

Why in the fuck is there still sexism and racism in society? Hasn’t that shit been sorted out by the Whigs and Conservatives?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

WRONG.

Physical handicaps such as a woman being on average less strong than a man or being born with no arms or legs or mental handicaps are PHYSICAL inferiorities, not NATURAL inferiority. These are not always set in stone.

Otherwise, being self-sufficient is a choice.

Being competent is a choice.

Proving it is a choice.

So if men are better at a job than women, such as hard labor etc. etc., than they will be paid more, as it is common sense to pay the best workers more. Even if they happen to be men.

A physical reality is a natural one; therefore, the inferiorities or handicaps of the former is that of the latter. Both are “set in stone,” though they can be accommodated for. Women do not and cannot grow more muscle mass than their genetics dictate, especially after puberty, anymore than a male can. Women tend to have less muscle mass than males and what is not guaranteed is infallible consistency or absolute circumstances.

I don’t see how self-sufficiency is related to this discussion.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Nokkenbuer:
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

WRONG.

Physical handicaps such as a woman being on average less strong than a man or being born with no arms or legs or mental handicaps are PHYSICAL inferiorities, not NATURAL inferiority. These are not always set in stone.

Otherwise, being self-sufficient is a choice.

Being competent is a choice.

Proving it is a choice.

So if men are better at a job than women, such as hard labor etc. etc., than they will be paid more, as it is common sense to pay the best workers more. Even if they happen to be men.

A physical reality is a natural one; therefore, the inferiorities or handicaps of the former is that of the latter. Both are “set in stone,” though they can be accommodated for. Women do not and cannot grow more muscle mass than their genetics dictate, especially after puberty, anymore than a male can. Women tend to have less muscle mass than males and what is not guaranteed is infallible consistency or absolute circumstances.

I don’t see how self-sufficiency is related to this discussion.

Yeah, I agree with you, but I think that there’s been a misunderstanding.

Galdos spoke of natural inferiority as if it makes a person less of a person. I disagreed. It does not.

So in a sense, his so-called natural inferiority, which means “rights come with competency”, does not exist.

What does exist is the natural inferiority that makes women not as good at jobs as men, etc etc.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

Yeah, I agree with you, but I think that there’s been a misunderstanding.

Galdos spoke of natural inferiority as if it makes a person less of a person. I disagreed. It does not.

So in a sense, his so-called natural inferiority, which means “rights come with competency”, does not exist.

What does exist is the natural inferiority that makes women not as good at jobs as men, etc etc.

Women are not as capable on average as men in specific positions. Women are generally equal in competency when it comes to jobs and employment as a whole, though there are some at which they are either better or worse than men. I agree that natural inferiority does not diminish the value of a human individual, only the chances that he or she will accomplish certain goals. I do agree, though: there is more of a misunderstanding than a disagreement between us.

 
Flag Post

Intelligence is not gender specific, and men are stronger, bigger, and faster.

No. The genders are not equal; men are logically superior. However, our society focuses on intelligence, so…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by I_love_you_lots:

Intelligence is not gender specific

Citation needed.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by I_love_you_lots:

Intelligence is not gender specific, and men are stronger, bigger, and faster.

No. The genders are not equal; men are logically superior. However, our society focuses on intelligence, so…

Firstly, a citation is needed to support your claim of intelligence not being gender specific. Although I agree, my concurrence means little if the claim is false. Secondly, where is your evidence that “men are stronger, bigger, and faster”? While it is true that the male sex tends to be stronger, bigger, and faster, that in no way guarantees all males while have such superior qualities when compared to any female. Moreover, those qualities are not inborn, but developed over time; while a male may have more durable and powerful muscular and skeletal structures, that does not mean those innate physical superiorities will outperform a female’s body given she trained herself and developed a better physique.

Males are born with physically superior bodies to females when it comes to certain activities, such as labor, lifting, brawn, force, and speed. The male’s skeletal structure is ill-fitted for giving birth, however, and that is where females are physically superior. The only verifiable reason why males are born with these physically superior qualities is that the male sex evolved as the protectors, hunters, and fighters between the sexes. If females were to evolve in this way, they would be in the position of males in terms of physical superiority (and such instances of females hunting, protecting, and fighting can be found among certain species in nature).

Regarding males being “logically superior,” where is your evidence for that? It is true that males generally use the left hemisphere of their brain predominantly over their right, whereas females utilize both hemispheres equally. It is also true that the left hemisphere tends to process more logical and analytical data while the right hemisphere tends to process more abstract and creative information. Neither of the aforementioned necessarily indicates logical superiority on the behalf of males. To claim that males tend to be more logically apt would be a legitimate claim; however, logical aptitude is not the same as logical superiority. Females are more apt to comprehending and perceiving from an emotional or creative perspective, both of which are crucial qualities necessary for an ideal individual. One could argue that the female brain is superior because it provides for an equal basis between the hemispheres upon which an individual can improve and customize, whereas males tend to be biased toward logical and analytical thinking.

How does society focus on intelligence? From what I’ve observed, much of society belittles intellect and wisdom rather than exalt or revere it. The main focus of society is popular culture and entertainment. The reason for this is that humans are naturally self-centered and egotistic; therefore, society best exemplifies the natural tendencies of the human individual by adopting a hedonistic perspective. Evidence of this can be found in the types of television people generally watch: rather than viewing documentaries, educational programming, and lectures; people watch sitcoms, “reality TV,” and pop culture news. Rather than reading non-fiction, people would rather immerse themselves in fiction and fantasy novels. It’s not necessarily bad that people do these things, but it nevertheless indicates a pleasure-seeking mindset in society, or at least one that seeks to escape reality.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by I_love_you_lots:

Intelligence is not gender specific, and men are stronger, bigger, and faster.

No. The genders are not equal; men are logically superior. However, our society focuses on intelligence, so…

No, they aren’t.
You’re just an ignorant sexist.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by kevinmitnick:

No, they aren’t.
You’re just an ignorant sexist.

While I do not agree with [him], simply insulting someone without any substance or basis or argument makes you no better. If you want to contribute to the discussion, then so be it. Whining about other people’s views, some of which you perceive to be “sexist” or “ignorant,” however, gives others the impression that you either don’t have an argument or you’re seeking to cause trouble. In either case, I doubt many will appreciate your fruitless endeavors.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by johnsmith321:

i think that Pattiarchy is undeniable did u know that 90% of all women are abused by men EVERYDAY?

Did you know that if someone mentions percentages and numbers without posting sources for them, I’d like to treat their post as if it wasn’t there, but I can’t since it is there and I can see it.
This bothers me.
Do you really want to bother me?
Do you want to be a bother to me?
Do you?

 
Flag Post

At least here in Brazil, over 90% of assassins also don’t face trial. What does this prove? I also wonder where they got all the data for unreported rapes.

 
Flag Post

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/01/08/the_enliven_project_s_false_rape_accusations_infographic_great_intentions.html

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by johnsmith321:


the numbers dont lie buddy

Those numbers are not at all related to the ones you brought up first.
Also, they are highly questionable.
This makes you an enormous bother.