Equality for Men and Women

[Brutha]

If you're a man you can never understand what it's like to be a woman and vice versa.

What is the criteria that determints whether someone "understands what it is like to be a woman?".
If you mean that being a woman is the criteria than that sentence is substanceless.
It means: "You can only be a woman when you are a woman."
So what do you mean with the phrase "understands what it is like"?

Originally Posted by Baltar

This has nothing to do with being objective. The only thing we can say about the opposite sex is what we have learned through observation and what they've told us.

If you are objective you say thing based on observation. Their is nothing wrong with it.
The best method to gain knowledge is to make observations.

Sometimes it's necessary to do this in order to create balance that never existed before. Read about affirmative action.

I think that you should live your own values when you want to get other people interested in them.
Sacrificing your values for tactical reasons is a bad thing.
Even when you get positive result in on case you damage your own integrety and the integrety of your values.
It like lying, sure you can gain results by lying to people. But you are paying a heave moral price.

The wikipedia article calls Affirmative action also positive discrimination-
Basically you are saying, this country is discriminating the wrong way.
It is better to discriminate the right way. So don't claim you are against discrimination if that is your position.

Actually, the reason I pointed it out was that there is a fairly strong argument that gender is culturally implanted: women act feminine because they've been taught to act feminine through upbringing.

Lets start with something we can agree on, woman generelly have no wings.

So you can ask is that because they were taught to belief that woman have no wings. Since you, if I remember right, believe in LoA, it should be your postion that woman are socially conditioned to believe that they have no wings.

Therefore that argument whether woman behave the way the are, because of inherent or learned factors is pointless.
In this discussion we try to examine how woman are, and not why they are the way they are.

If we would discuss whether woman have wings in reality, and you would say it isn't clear if woman have no wings because of inherent factors or because of learned factors it would be the same as raising the question in this context.

For those who don't believe in the LoA, we will have the techniquel option to "produce" woman with wings in 200 years or so (probably sooner).
Therefore you can blame our "underveloped" science for women not having wings, the same way you blame our "underveloped" culture for treating women different than men.

In the end people are the way they are.

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Affirmative action is a crutch to counterbalance against prejudiced employers and admissions officers. It is, in truth, weak and stupid: the appropriate action is to find a way to fix the employers and admissions officers, not force them to take people they don't like.

Affirmative action can be used for anything, not just employment or admissions. It's not a perfect system (nothing is), but in my opinion if it's used for a short period of time (not as long as it has been used in the US already) it is beneficial. Of course it would be better to change the people instead of forcing them to do something, but you can't change people. Only they can change themselves.

Originally Posted by Brutha

What is the criteria that determints whether someone "understands what it is like to be a woman?".
If you mean that being a woman is the criteria than that sentence is substanceless.
It means: "You can only be a woman when you are a woman."
So what do you mean with the phrase "understands what it is like"?

By "understand what it's like" I'm talking about experiencing life as a person of that gender. The point is that a man is not qualified to decide what a woman does and doesn't want, and vice versa. Read Radical's post again to see what I'm referring to. I didn't intend to get into a philosophical argument.

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

PS - I wouldn't vote for someone just because they were female. I'd vote for them based on their policies.

Normally I'd do the same, but I feel that right now it's more important to put the first woman in office. After that precedent has been set I think it would be a lot easier for women to run for president in the future, and then it won't be an issue in itself anymore.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Baltar

By "understand what it's like" I'm talking about experiencing life as a person of that gender. The point is that a man is not qualified to decide what a woman does and doesn't want, and vice versa. Read Radical's post again to see what I'm referring to. I didn't intend to get into a philosophical argument.

It's still odd: I don't see how anyone could possibly have experienced life as me; can you understand what it's like to be me?

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by Baltar

By "understand what it's like" I'm talking about experiencing life as a person of that gender. The point is that a man is not qualified to decide what a woman does and doesn't want, and vice versa.

You say men are not qualified to decide what a woman does want or doesn't want without giving good reasons for it.
Instead you use a term that means nothing, but is emotional charged.

Using the subjective "understanding what it's like"-approach is simply a bad way to gain knowledge.
To get good knowledge you have to make observations (and try to be as objective as possible).

If our psychology would be based on subjective "understanding what it's like" it wouldn't progress and would still be the same it was 1000 years ago.
Critising someone for being unable to use that way to gain knowledge is pointless.
If you want to get good knowledge about any topic, making obervations is the way to go whether you are a man or a woman.

Read Radical's post again to see what I'm referring to. I didn't intend to get into a philosophical argument.

But the topic of what people want is an philosophical argument. If you don't want to discuss it why post at all?

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

It's still odd: I don't see how anyone could possibly have experienced life as me; can you understand what it's like to be me?

That's ultimately what it comes down to if you go deep enough. If that's the only way it makes sense, then that's fine with me. The idea extends to the fact that nobody is qualified to decide what another person wants. I remember reading an entry in Steve's blog where he said that we're ultimately alone in life. We can communicate with other people in various ways, but unless we ever develop telepathy or something like the Vulcan mind meld (hopefully there are some Star Trek fans here ) we won't ever know what it's like to be someone else.

That's pretty much all I can say about this. I'm not going to try proving it scientifically because I don't feel the need to. I don't feel that everything needs to be approached like that. You should try listening to your intuition and feelings sometimes. Very often you'll find that they're correct. What's that you say, a man who follows intuition and feelings??? Such a thing surely can't be! I actually suppressed my feelings for years as I was growing up, and now I find that letting them out has been very liberating.

[Michael Chui]

Interesting. Well, at least I know that the entire fields of economics, psychology, and sociology are, inevitably, wrong.

[Brutha]

That's pretty much all I can say about this. I'm not going to try proving it scientifically because I don't feel the need to. I don't feel that everything needs to be approached like that. You should try listening to your intuition and feelings sometimes.

Sure, appealing to emotions in a discussion is a lot easier than appealing to facts.

[Matthew Shea]

Getting back to the original topic, from what I see, this goes way, way back in time to the traditional male and female roles of hunting, gathering and raising the family. The author of those statements is attempting to appeal to those traditional values, but using semi-disguised new age language.

In our society today, many people still believe in those values, but we also (thank goodness) have much more freedom to stray and do our own thing. I'll point out, however, that the benefit of such a belief system is that it, if truly accepted, provides order spiritually and in society as a whole through a common system of roles and behaviors. In other words, order is provided for you, you don't have to examine your conscience and come up with your own system. For most of us here, such a thing is not what we're looking for, but for many, it is. Being a free society, we should certainly have the freedom to choose which way we'd like to live.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Matthew Shea

Getting back to the original topic, from what I see, this goes way, way back in time to the traditional male and female roles of hunting, gathering and raising the family. The author of those statements is attempting to appeal to those traditional values, but using semi-disguised new age language.

It's truly amazing how nostalgic people can be for the Good Old Days (GOD). Stone Age + Internet: just imagine it.

[mtrimpe]

I want to express my support for Jill's statement! Why such different statements for men and women? Why can't men be equal to women? Why this great inequality?

I desperately want to spread love to my lovers and the world around me but this world seems to do everything in its power to prevent me from doing so!

Whenever I feel pity and love for someone, especially a man, I know that I need to suppress my desire to come over, gently stroke his face and comfort him in his time of need. In order to fit in I must say to him 'toughen up dude!' while my heart is filled with tears of compassion!

Whenever I follow my heart and become the gentle loving person I know I am, the world shouts at me and calls me a puss! Men ignore me for in associating with me they lose their appearance of virility, women ignore me for, well I don't know what for but unless I mentally castrate myself and give up all sensual desires towards them, they simply do. And soon, against all my innermost desires, I find myself once again driving around dangerously on my bike until I crash and fall to the floor, all in a misguided effort to prove that I am a man, that I do fit in.

So I accept the role forced upon me by society. I use my mind to control my feelings, hurt myself and take pride in my ability to ignore the pain, ignore my feelings even though I know it's wrong. I remain stuck in my head, limit myself to thinking only. I live in a world that is empty and shallow, devoid of emotion, for every time I let even the smallest amount of emotion in I am forced to realize that the feelings I've been forced to ignore for so long have grown into a large mass of sadness, of grief, of hurt and of suffering.

Oh so sad, is the plight of men!


This post is in honor of Paul Hoch's book White Hero, Black Beast.

[Dating Specialist]

Originally Posted by mtrimpe

I want to express my support for Jill's statement! Why such different statements for men and women? Why can't men be equal to women? Why this great inequality?

I desperately want to spread love to my lovers and the world around me but this world seems to do everything in its power to prevent me from doing so!


So I accept the role forced upon me by society. I use my mind to control my feelings, hurt myself and take pride in my ability to ignore the pain, ignore my feelings even though I know it's wrong. I remain stuck in my head, limit myself to thinking only. I live in a world that is empty and shallow, devoid of emotion, for every time I let even the smallest amount of emotion in I am forced to realize that the feelings I've been forced to ignore for so long have grown into a large mass of sadness, of grief, of hurt and of suffering.

Oh so sad, is the plight of men!

Oh no, please don't do this. Emotions make us human, regardless if you are a man or a woman.

Though society has condiitoned us that women have this priviledge to shed tears as we're more feeling and men to withhold tears as a sign of strength and machoness, but really it's just a matter of finding the best way to release your emotions.

[mtrimpe]

Originally Posted by Dating Specialist

Oh no, please don't do this. Emotions make us human, regardless if you are a man or a woman.

Don't worry, this is no longer what I'm doing. This is however a dilemma that the men of this world face and the force of this social conditioning is probably far stronger than you realize.

When Jill lashed out with a certain amount of anger against the statement that started this thread, she lashed out against the division of responsibilities between men and women as though 'her side' wasn't getting a big enough piece of the pie. The true problem however, is that neither side is allowed to get the whole pie.

If women would allow and encourage men to truly show their sensitive side (without losing all interest in them as partners) they would probably be surprised to find that their desire to open up is very strong and also that there are numerous lessons they need to learn before they can manage their emotions properly.
Conversely if men would allow and encourage women to develop their purpose and achievement (without losing all interest in them as partners) they would find that their desire to do so is very strong and that they still have numerous lessons to learn before they can manager their purpose and achievement properly.

Now many women would say that they've tried to make their partner open up emotionally, but let them ask themselves if they would truly be willing to lovingly spend several hours a day, weeks or months on end, teaching their partner every single lesson towards managing their emotions?
Conversely many men would say that they've tried to make their partner more goal oriented, but let them ask themselves if they would truly be willing to lovingly spend several hours a day, weeks or months on end, teaching their partner every single lesson towards achieving your goals?

[Jill]

When Jill lashed out with a certain amount of anger against the statement that started this thread, she lashed out against the division of responsibilities between men and women as though 'her side' wasn't getting a big enough piece of the pie. The true problem however, is that neither side is allowed to get the whole pie.

Umm...i wasn't lashing out, nor was I angered. I was just really surprised to see the statement that I saw and was commenting on how it didn't make sense to me.

[elainevdw]

Edited... nothing to contribute but responses to a banned individual.

[Michael Chui]

I want to revive this thread in a different direction.

First: I'd like us to set aside the latter four words of the thread title, and instead focus on the first one: equality.

Second: I'd like us to attempt to define equality. That is to say, social equality, between two people. Any two people. Try your hardest not to use any gender-charged words. Well, even three people, or more, if you wish. Between two groups, perhaps?

I'm going to try not to give my own suggestion for a few days, because I'm curious what will come out of this.

[Johanka]

Good point.

I'd define equality as an equal opportunity to realize one's true potential and to have equal access to a plurality of role models when deciding what the true potential is, as it is not necessarily something inherent.

The "true potential" can of course be "to love and support other person/s" as well as "become president of the US".

[Dharma]

Michael,
If I see everyone as me then equality is a moot point. Do you want the conversation to stay in the realm of separate people and stay away from a unified self?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Dharma

Michael,
If I see everyone as me then equality is a moot point. Do you want the conversation to stay in the realm of separate people and stay away from a unified self?

I agree that it would be a moot point, and would opine that you are offering an interesting definition of equality in your question. Would you agree?

[JeffT]

Jill,

If you read the books you will find that Women absolutley can do what the Men are supposed to do. Deida's philosophy is that all humans have a masculine and a feminine essence. Most Men are masculine and most women are feminine, but the opposite can also be true. Way of the Superior Man is writen for people with a masucline essence whether they be male or female.

[Jill]

JeffT, now that makes much more sense!

Michael, in answer to what is equality, I see it as simply a