Men aren't worse off.

[AETEN II]

Or, you know, males just remain because they're/we're naturally better at fighting, and therefore would remain to at least in security forces.

I'm not so sure that men are naturally superior to women in terms of combat performance. To top that off elements such as strength and speed are losing their value in a world where warfare is constantly being driven toward indirect combat by virtue of the advent of unmanned attack vehicles, cyber warfare, more and more easily deployed long-range artillery systems, and so forth.

In short, we're going to develop equipment to downplay the importance of any physical advantages you may or may not have over us, and to a great degree such technology has already come into existence.

Not to mention that even if artificial sperm was made, you could never wrench power from the male politicians. It would likely become a possible option for some feminist wackos.

As women gain more and more prominence in the political arena and as our issues become a more concentrated interest within the general public (and don't say it isn't happening ) this effect will begin to weaken. Eventually the presence of women on the congressional/parliamentary floor and in executive positions will become so normative that it will be considered odd to question a candidate's legitimacy based on their sex.

At that point the male politicians will have lost a great deal of their stroke and the power ratio will have moved much closer to a 1:1 ratio.

While I don't doubt the combat ability of women, the average male is greater in physical exertion than the average female. And no, if anything has ever been proved, Infantry still remain the greatest asset on the board. An infantryman can kill a tank, jet, helicopter, armored car, etc, so long as given the right equipment.

[Avenio]

why does it happen.

Patriarchy.

[PapaJacky]

I'm not so sure that men are naturally superior to women in terms of combat performance. To top that off elements such as strength and speed are losing their value in a world where warfare is constantly being driven toward indirect combat by virtue of the advent of unmanned attack vehicles, cyber warfare, more and more easily deployed long-range artillery systems, and so forth.

In short, we're going to develop equipment to downplay the importance of any physical advantages you may or may not have over us, and to a great degree such technology has already come into existence.



As women gain more and more prominence in the political arena and as our issues become a more concentrated interest within the general public (and don't say it isn't happening ) this effect will begin to weaken. Eventually the presence of women on the congressional/parliamentary floor and in executive positions will become so normative that it will be considered odd to question a candidate's legitimacy based on their sex.

At that point the male politicians will have lost a great deal of their stroke and the power ratio will have moved much closer to a 1:1 ratio.

While I don't doubt the combat ability of women, the average male is greater in physical exertion than the average female. And no, if anything has ever been proved, Infantry still remain the greatest asset on the board. An infantryman can kill a tank, jet, helicopter, armored car, etc, so long as given the right equipment.

If women can exert the same, why not?

[Lady-Land]

Hey guys, what did I miss?

[Conformal Veal Theory]

He brings up a legitimate point. I mean, society is pretty much conditioned to where we still treat people with the whole "macho man, dainty woman" stereotype, and yet we give them general equality in terms of politics and economics.

Can't say true equality til you bring down the social stigma as well...

Almost all of the remaining inequalities are cultural. This was the problem with some earlier feminists. They seemed to think legal equality was everything. They were mistaken. Legal inequalities were just a symptom of deeper social inequalities.

[Dracoria]

He brings up a legitimate point. I mean, society is pretty much conditioned to where we still treat people with the whole "macho man, dainty woman" stereotype, and yet we give them general equality in terms of politics and economics.

Can't say true equality til you bring down the social stigma as well...

Yep. It holds in other ways, too; if a male gets into a fight with a female, he's either a horrible person if he wins or a horrible wimp if he loses. And if he just walks away? He's not much of a man. The female is either a victim, a champion, or proves how much a loser that guy who walks away is.

Not just that, but if a woman wears masculine clothes, she only gets a fraction of the abuse as a man wearing a skimpy, low-cut dress.

Not that I've tried this.

I'm more a blouse and skirt guy.

[Lady-Land]

Yep. It holds in other ways, too; if a male gets into a fight with a female, he's either a horrible person if he wins or a horrible wimp if he loses. And if he just walks away? He's not much of a man. The female is either a victim, a champion, or proves how much a loser that guy who walks away is.

Not just that, but if a woman wears masculine clothes, she only gets a fraction of the abuse as a man wearing a skimpy, low-cut dress.

Not that I've tried this.

I'm more a blouse and skirt guy.

Equality cannot be said to have been achieved until a male and a female can act exactly the same and be treated identically. So basically what I'm saying is, if you don't wear a skirt, you're helping shove us back into the Dark Ages.

[AETEN II]

While I don't doubt the combat ability of women, the average male is greater in physical exertion than the average female. And no, if anything has ever been proved, Infantry still remain the greatest asset on the board. An infantryman can kill a tank, jet, helicopter, armored car, etc, so long as given the right equipment.

If women can exert the same, why not?

No, the point is that the average male is stronger and faster than the average women. It's simply easier to have a military the majority of is female. I also get why women are typically not allowed in the extremely dangerous spec ops branches like the SEALs, as even one relationship that started could jeopardize a mission in some circumstance. Maybe if they had all-female squads and all-male squads. Just don't want mixing in a critical mission in case that 'rare possibility' happens.
While women can participate in the military, they should have the tests remain at the current standards, and not lower them as I've heard one person propose before.

[Agymnum]

He brings up a legitimate point. I mean, society is pretty much conditioned to where we still treat people with the whole "macho man, dainty woman" stereotype, and yet we give them general equality in terms of politics and economics.

Can't say true equality til you bring down the social stigma as well...

Yep. It holds in other ways, too; if a male gets into a fight with a female, he's either a horrible person if he wins or a horrible wimp if he loses. And if he just walks away? He's not much of a man. The female is either a victim, a champion, or proves how much a loser that guy who walks away is.

Not just that, but if a woman wears masculine clothes, she only gets a fraction of the abuse as a man wearing a skimpy, low-cut dress.

Not that I've tried this.

I'm more a blouse and skirt guy.

I don't think the social inequalities will ever truly go away, which saddens me.

The day a man can get a divorce because his wife was abusive to him (and not be mocked for it) will be the day I applaud activists for finally achieving true gender equality.

[Aksun]

It is reverse sexism.

Now the men are unequal and the women have more rights and are able to do more things than we can.

To add on to my previous post, there are self defense classes out there just for women to protect themselves against the "thoughts" of men. However, since it has been proven men are victims too, why have we not been able to take these classes as well?

Our society instead of creating a balance on the scales has tipped it over to one side again and (insert 6 letter swear word here) over the values of the society itself.

[Lady-Land]

Or alternatively we could just start getting rid of gender.
I prefer drastic solutions, I guess.

[Aksun]

Or alternatively we could just start getting rid of gender.
I prefer drastic solutions, I guess.

We would need people with intelligence to do that, hell we cant even have congress pass anything in DC.

[Lady-Land]

We would need people with intelligence to do that, hell we cant even have congress pass anything in DC.

It doesn't have to start with congress. It starts with the people - a few people start thinking of sex like they would think of, say, race. The idea catches on. Our government then helps to re-fit society to our new needs.
Ideally, I mean.

[Avenio]

Now the men are unequal and the women have more rights and are able to do more things than we can.

Name one right under the law that women have and men don't. Be specific.

[Choronzon]

But women wont make me sammiches. I ask my girlfriend and she tells me to do it myself.

Fuck this independence shit.

[Aksun]

Now the men are unequal and the women have more rights and are able to do more things than we can.

Name one right under the law that women have and men don't. Be specific.

Not law, but societal norm.

Read into what I said about Women vs Men and Rape.

[Avenio]

Not law, but societal norm.

Right. So you were lying when you said;

women have more rights

Good to know. Because 'rights' have a very specific legal definition.

Read into what I said about Women vs Men and Rape.

Yeah. Again, that's patriarchy. Kind of the whole thing feminism has been working against since its inception, really. It helps if you actually learn what feminism actually is before you go off about it.

[AETEN II]

Or alternatively we could just start getting rid of gender.
I prefer drastic solutions, I guess.

Better idea. Why give a shit?

So long as women are legally equally to men, and the reverse is also true (except in obvious 'special' cases unique to each gender), it's did and done. Society will never change. The most you can do is ensure that everyone is legally equal. Racist jerks still are racist and still ensure that blacks are mistreated when they run across said racist assholes. The only 'change' that can be done is ensuring that future generations aren't exposed to sexist laws. However, basic societal bias will always remain. There's no point in fighting it, all that can be done is those who still hold the extremely sexist and racist views are negatively viewed by society and move the fuck on. The world's got bigger problems. Life's not fair. I know this better than most. If you've got the equality in the eye of the law, stop whining and tackle a bigger problem. Like cancer. That actually kills people. Or extreme poverty. That makes a large portion of people miserable. Fighting over political correctness is both stupid and futile. Fearing political correctness is also stupid.

[Conformal Veal Theory]

Or alternatively we could just start getting rid of gender.
I prefer drastic solutions, I guess.

Or we could just have total gender liberation. The idea of everyone being forced to be androgynous doesn't sound ideal. I mean sure, traditional masculinity and femininity are problematic, but elimination of all gender identifications is absurd.

[Choronzon]

Yeah. Again, that's patriarchy. Kind of the whole thing feminism has been working against since its inception, really. It helps if you actually learn what feminism actually is before you go off about it.

Why bother when the Rush Limbaugh definition requires so much less critical thinking?

[Conformal Veal Theory]

Society will never change.

This really isn't true. Just in the past 10 years, acceptance of GLBT people has improved by orders of magnitude.

[Aksun]

Not law, but societal norm.

Right. So you were lying when you said;

women have more rights

Good to know. Because 'rights' have a very specific legal definition.

Read into what I said about Women vs Men and Rape.

Yeah. Again, that's patriarchy. Kind of the whole thing feminism has been working against since its inception, really. It helps if you actually learn what feminism actually is before you go off about it.

I have read into what you post and it seems to be all negative. I understand your point, but there are laws out there that are unwritten and societal norms that influence our society.

[Choronzon]

Right. So you were lying when you said;



Good to know. Because 'rights' have a very specific legal definition.



Yeah. Again, that's patriarchy. Kind of the whole thing feminism has been working against since its inception, really. It helps if you actually learn what feminism actually is before you go off about it.

I have read into what you post and it seems to be all negative. I understand your point, but there are laws out there that are unwritten and societal norms that influence our society.

And you have failed miserably at explaining how these somehow help women at the expense of men.

[Aksun]

I have read into what you post and it seems to be all negative. I understand your point, but there are laws out there that are unwritten and societal norms that influence our society.

And you have failed miserably at explaining how these somehow help women at the expense of men.

And you apparently cannot read posts. Moving on. So now that we have these problems why don't we try to figure out a solution?
We have the get rid of gender solution already.

[AETEN II]

Society will never change.

This really isn't true. Just in the past 10 years, acceptance of GLBT people has improved by orders of magnitude.

Basic bias won't. At the most primitive level, racism will always remain. Period. Maybe in a hundred years it might change for the better. But we won't likely live to see it.