The Subjection of Women - John Stewart Mill

[_Fortigurn]

The other point to this example is that it forces the feminist to admit that men and women are different therefore should take on different roles in society. The fact that they won't do this with combat shows that they want to keep the old customs that benefit them but get rid of the ones that don't benefit them.

I'm not sure that it's always about feminists wanting to jockey for benefits, but I am sure that a lot of it is about the misconception that 'equality' means 'sameness'. This leads to an artificial androgonysation of the species, in order to impose an equally artificial concept of 'equality' on the population.

It's nothing to do with equality in reality, it's just people playing God.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Ajax... :-)

The other point to this example is that it forces the feminist to admit that men and women are different therefore should take on different roles in society.


Ohhh hold the phone!

I do not know of any feminist who doesn't admit and proclaim men and women are not the same. To suggest this is an argument of feminists is nonsense.

And... because PEOPLE are different, does it mean the law should determine who gets what opportunity?

Let me be more clear.

I guarantee there are some women who are stronger than some men. There are some women who can run faster than some men. There are some men who are more patient than some women. There are some men who enjoy parenting more than some women. There are some women who can fly a plane better than some men. Some men who can cook better than some women.

The idea that ALL women should be denied rights because they are women... (different and must have a different role) is really nonsensical... not to say obnoxious! (don't mean to be rude). :-)

PEOPLE are different. Why should ALL women be denied rights because some women can't do certain things... or ALL men be disallowed certain opportunities because SOME men can't do certain things?

People who claim women should not have the same rights, opportunities, and privileges as men are wanting to base the inequality, not on skill, or ability but on a body part. :-(

The fact that they won't do this with combat shows that they want to keep the old customs that benefit them but get rid of the ones that don't benefit them.

I think the same rules should apply for men and women... (Personally I don't think anyone should ever go to war but that is just me!) ;-)

I think TD is doing her best to be fair and I respect that since most I've talked with could care less about fairness to nonfeminine beings.

Why thank you Ajax... :-)

We werent' born into a fair world, and making it fair is a very difficult thing to figure out, let alone get 240 million people to agree upon it and implement it into some form of culture for boys and girls to grow up with.

Nope... life is not fair. We can do our best to provide equality for all human beings.

But why some people think it is good, healthy, or beneficial to deny half the human race rights or opportunities to participate in society is beyond me.

I truly don't get it... other than knowing some people need this sort of power and control over others, fearing what happens when a subservient group becomes equal.

It is all disheartening to think there are men who still see women as something less than human. :-(
~dancer~

[_Fortigurn]

Hi Ajax... :-)

The other point to this example is that it forces the feminist to admit that men and women are different therefore should take on different roles in society.


Ohhh hold the phone!

I do not know of any feminist who doesn't admit and proclaim men and women are not the same. To suggest this is an argument of feminists is nonsense.

You only read half of his sentence:

The other point to this example is that it forces the feminist to admit that men and women are different therefore should take on different roles in society.

I've placed the other half in bold. His point is that this is one entire argument, that since men and women are different they should take on different roles in society. Apparently he has not seen feminists make this argument. Neither have I. Your experience with feminists may differ from ours.

And... because PEOPLE are different, does it mean the law should determine who gets what opportunity?

He didn't say that.

I guarantee there are some women who are stronger than some men. There are some women who can run faster than some men. There are some men who are more patient than some women. There are some men who enjoy parenting more than some women. There are some women who can fly a plane better than some men. Some men who can cook better than some women.

The idea that ALL women should be denied rights because they are women... (different and must have a different role) is really nonsensical... not to say obnoxious! (don't mean to be rude). :-)

No one is talking about denying any rights to all women.

I don't think that this discussion can continue effectively while you're responding to ideas other than those expressed by the people talking with you.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Fort...

Where am I misunderstanding?

Do you or do you not think women should receive the same rights, privileges, and opportunities as men?

Some folks here seem to be saying men and women are different therefore they should have different roles... am I mistaken?

Let me clarify... I think I speak for 99 percent (or so), of feminists... :-)

Men and women are different in some respects.
Men are different than other men.
Women are different than other women.
Humans are different than each other.
All humans should have the same rights and opportunities as each other.
Specific humans body parts should not be the determining factor in giving or denying rights and opportunities to human beings.

Do you disagree with any of the above?

~dancer~

[_Fortigurn]

Hi Fort...

Where am I misunderstanding?

I gave a few examples in my post above.

Do you or do you not think women should receive the same rights, privileges, and opportunities as men?

Yes. It surprises me that after several posts of mine saying exactly that, you're still asking me.

Some folks here seem to be saying men and women are different therefore they should have different roles... am I mistaken?

Some folks here are saying men and women are different, and therefore it is legitimate to provide them with roles which take those differences into account.

Let me clarify... I think I speak for 99 percent (or so), of feminists... :-)

Men and women are different in some respects.
Men are different than other men.
Women are different than other women.
Humans are different than each other.
All humans should have the same rights and opportunities as each other.
Specific humans body parts should not be the determining factor in giving or denying rights and opportunities to human beings.

Do you disagree with any of the above?

No I don't disagree with any of the above. Given everything I have written, I have no idea why you would even ask me if I disagreed with any of the above.

[_harmony]

Some folks here seem to be saying men and women are different therefore they should have different roles... am I mistaken?

Some folks here are saying men and women are different, and therefore it is legitimate to provide them with roles which take those differences into account.

"Provide"? There's a big difference between providing an opportunity to take on a role (which the person may or may not choose to accept) and mandating through legislation or societal fiat the acceptance of that role. If some men choose to be the stay at home parent while the wife is the breadwinner, why should he accept the role society provides for him: that of breadwinner?

[_Fortigurn]

Some folks here seem to be saying men and women are different therefore they should have different roles... am I mistaken?

Some folks here are saying men and women are different, and therefore it is legitimate to provide them with roles which take those differences into account.

"Provide"?

Yes. Enable, if you prefer.

There's a big difference between providing an opportunity to take on a role (which the person may or may not choose to accept) and mandating through legislation or societal fiat the acceptance of that role.

I agree. I have not seen anyone here arguing that roles should be mandated through legislation or social fiat.

If some men choose to be the stay at home parent while the wife is the breadwinner, why should he accept the role society provides for him: that of breadwinner?

I see no evidence that the role of 'breadwinner' is provided for him by society. No one has argued that if even men choose to be the stay at home parent, they should accept a role provided for them by someone else.

We really have entered the Twilight Zone in this thread. There are invisible posts to which you and LD appear to be replying.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Fort...

Some folks here are saying men and women are different, and therefore it is legitimate to provide them with roles which take those differences into account.

No need to only discuss differences between men and women ... there are many differences between men, and many differences between women.

So... once everyone has equal opportunities and rights, we have provided everyone with all sorts of roles, and they can choose whatever role they wish?

I'm thinking our society is certainly moving toward this. I mean just notice how many new roles have been provided for women in the last hundred years or so.

:-)

~dancer~

[_Fortigurn]

Hi Fort...

Some folks here are saying men and women are different, and therefore it is legitimate to provide them with roles which take those differences into account.

No need to only discuss differences between men and women ... there are many differences between men, and many differences between women.

While people continue to confuse equality with androgyny, there will be a need to discuss differences between men and women.

So... once everyone has equal opportunities and rights, we have provided everyone with all sorts of roles, and they can choose whatever role they wish?

People should always be able to choose whatever they wish (I'll keep saying this until you believe I mean it). But I don't believe a 'rights' based society can actually achieve this, for the reasons I've given.

I'm thinking our society is certainly moving toward this.

I don't.

I mean just notice how many new roles have been provided for women in the last hundred years or so.

Yes, like 'porn star', 'telephone sex line operator', and 'front line cannon fodder'. Isn't progress wonderful?

[_harmony]

I mean just notice how many new roles have been provided for women in the last hundred years or so.

Yes, like 'porn star', 'telephone sex line operator', and 'front line cannon fodder'. Isn't progress wonderful?

Actually, I think she was meaning more like engineer, astronaut, and basketball coach. Why you would choose the roles you did intrigues me. Perhaps you subconsciously only see women as sex objects (your first two examples) or military pawns, and not as productive members of society like engineers, etc.