Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is the war on women they asked for and gotten. That's why be careful of what you wished for, if you wanted equality this is what equality is all about.
How is it equal. Is equality not having separate sports teams based on ability or having sports for both genders. Is equality not having separate restrooms or having restrooms for both genders. Does equality mean we all have to give up our identities and become gender neutral or does equality mean being afforded the same constitutional and legal rights and responsibilities and opportunities?
Come on now. In human history there were few instances of high profile men who passed on excessive DNA through having many wives and many sons. As has been mentioned King David, Genghis Khan, Montezuma. Those men had great harems. That just means the other men only had one or two wives thus not passing on DNA to any great extent which was the majority of men. Later most societies transitioned into monogamous ones.
That had nothing to do with some men not being desirable to women. Historically, women did not choose who they would marry or mate with, it didnt matter if the guy was desirable in her eyes. They were given in marriage by their fathers, sold, or captured in battle. Khans first wive was given to him at age 9.
You once again diagnose oppression based on the acts of extraordinary hyper successful men in history. The overwhelming majority of men were dirt poor and with no power other than slight greater physical strength.
Last edited by Julian658; 01-17-2020 at 12:44 PM..
I'll say this one more time. I'm not equating the past with the present. My very first post I stated there is no war on women. This entire debate between us was base on posts stating women were NEVER OPPRESSED. That is was all just biological differences. You and another poster have been denying or evading the fact that yes until very recently women were oppressed by arbitrary laws and sociatial constraints and even that they did not want equal rights, were happier and even privileged when they were oppressed. If you cant understand the difference between biological differences, evolution and man made intentional and arbitrary laws then we just agree to disagree.
The achievements have not been all the same because women were forbidden to achieve. How many women in history do you read about that were warriors, leaders of nations, inventors, authors, explorers, architects, scholars. Until very recently CEOs, politicians, physicians, surgeons, judges, lawyers, scholars, architects, astronauts, physicists, etc.
You keep contradicting yourself.
Again you fail to differentiate the difference between biological, hormonal and physiological and laws that have denied legal rights and social opportunities.
No one has even disputed the biological , hormonal or physiological differences between the genders. Which again have nothing to do with arbitrary laws set by man to prevent women from employment, equal pay, education, owning property, custody of their children, divorce, wearing pants, using birth control, driving a car, being in public un-escorted, holding political positions, teaching, combat, etc.
Care to address that instead of posting pictures of silverbacks, talking about lions and pregnancy.
First of all I suggest you immerse yourself into the Nordic gender paradox. Read as much as you can on this and get back to me.
You once again diagnose oppression based on the acts of extraordinary hyper successful men in history. The overwhelming majority of men were dirt poor and with no power other than sleight greater physical strength.
It matters not if they were extraordinary hyper successful or dirt poor. Men made and enforced laws, all of them because it was to their advantage. If the overwhelming majority of dirt poor men were against laws their shear numbers in force, protest, voting or ignoring the laws would have prevented those laws from being so for centuries.
First of all I suggest you immerse yourself into the Nordic gender paradox. Read as much as you can on this and get back to me.
I've read all I need to. If you have immersed yourself you would be able to discuss and give real examples of the need for passage of such inequality laws and adherence to social constraints based on biological, hormonal and physiological differences. But you cant seem to instead you post pictures of different species and links to literature you most likely never read as it doesn't address the subject.
Men made and enforced laws, all of them because it was to their advantage.
In democracies millions more women vote than men. There are millions more voting age women than men too. So women put those men in office. Why would they do that if it was to their disadvantage?
Quote:
In recent elections, voter turnout rates for women have equaled or exceeded voter turnout rates for men. Women, who constitute more than half the population, have cast almost ten million more votes than men in recent elections.
I've read all I need to. If you have immersed yourself you would be able to discuss and give real examples of the need for passage of such inequality laws and adherence to social constraints based on biological, hormonal and physiological differences. But you cant seem to instead you post pictures of different species and links to literature you most likely never read as it doesn't address the subject.
The Nordic countries have gone the extra mile to provide equality for women and yet most engineers and CEOs are men. In fact the Nordic nations are doing worse in this regard than nations that are less egalitarian. Women from some Muslim countries are achieving more. That is the paradox!
In democracies millions more women vote than men. There are millions more voting age women than men too. So women put those men in office. Why would they do that if it was to their disadvantage?
Yes now that women got the vote. And ta da, thats when laws began to change. Men in office are no longer to a woman's disadvantage, there are also women in office and women can still vote. Today the line is drawn at partisan votes.
Before women got the vote is when inequality laws were prevalent.
Can we please acknowledge I'm talking about historically when women did not have equal rights. I am well aware and totally agree in our society today women are NOT oppressed and women DO have equal rights.
Its not that hard to understand my position as I have repeated it several times for clarity.
The Nordic countries have gone the extra mile to provide equality for women and yet most engineers and CEOs are men. In fact the Nordic nations are doing worse in this regard than nations that are less egalitarian. Women from some Muslim countries are achieving more. That is the paradox!
Present
Being engineers or CEO's or SAHMs or nurses is not the issue. We have LAWS in place that gives everyone the legal right to pursue any job they wish and non discrimination laws to prevent employers for barring equally qualified persons based on sex, race, religion, etc. Today women in most countries are not oppressed. There is no war on women.
Past: Women were not allowed to be engineers and CEO's. Employers had the legal right to discriminate based on sex, race, religion, martial status, pregnancy. Jobs were advertised as men's jobs and women's jobs. Women were paid less for the same work. Women were oppressed.
Where most of the world is as such. Muslim countries not so much. Why.
Why are there laws prohibiting women from the same rights as men in Muslim countries? Are those women oppressed. Are they as free and advanced as women in the US? Why or why not.
Present
Being engineers or CEO's or SAHMs or nurses is not the issue. We have LAWS in place that gives everyone the legal right to pursue any job they wish and non discrimination laws to prevent employers for barring equally qualified persons based on sex, race, religion, etc. Today women in most countries are not oppressed. There is no war on women.
Past: Women were not allowed to be engineers and CEO's. Employers had the legal right to discriminate based on sex, race, religion, martial status, pregnancy. Jobs were advertised as men's jobs and women's jobs. Women were paid less for the same work. Women were oppressed.
Where most of the world is as such. Muslim countries not so much. Why.
Why are there laws prohibiting women from the same rights as men in Muslim countries? Are those women oppressed. Are they as free and advanced as women in the US? Why or why not.
I'm thinking of a song & dance number from a musical film called, "How To Succeed In Business, Without Really Trying" from the 1960s. My fiance showed me this. The song is called "A Secretary Is Not A Toy." It's probably on Youtube.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
