Women are inferior

[cheese]

Why or why not?

Please give serious and considered responses.


*edit
This is a serious thread. Please define your own criteria and respond accordingly.

 

[Da Blob]

Women are inferior and will remain so as long as they are offered inferior opportunities and are the products of inferior environments. It not a permanent condition dictated by genetics or potential, but rather the result of the roles that society has historically assigned to the female.

That being said, I find it preposterous, that so many women my age consider themselves my equal. Not only were they never offered the quality and range of opportunities I was offered, but they did not have to develop the extraordinary self-discipline or make the self-sacrifices necessary to succeed in meeting the challenges inherent in competing for the best of limited opportunities. The passage of the Equal Rights legislation did not make anyone 'equal', automatically and without effort on their parts.

This is not the case for some of the younger women of our society, who were at least given a chance to be who they are and fulfill their potential as equals or superiors to many men across a range of endeavors.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Inferior in what way?

Soon, men will not even be necessary.

 

[cheese]

Whatever way you choose to look at it from, AI, although a purely biological perspective (necessary for reproduction, etc) is probably not worth arguing, though a phyical one may be.

 

[FusionKnight]

Perhaps men and women are better suited to certain types of physical or psychological activities based on inherent physical or psychological differences, but I don't think that justifies a value comparison between the sexes. Both seem equally necessary for the biological, psychological, emotional, social, and reproductive success of the human race...

 

[brain enclosed in flesh]

Both seem equally necessary for the biological, psychological, emotional, social, and reproductive success of the human race...

Hmm, I don't know. My husband's been pretty damn good at asexual reproduction. Ooh, look, another bud!

Cheese, I can't give serious and considered responses to such a topic because it in and of itself is laughable and preposterous. No offense or anything.

 

[GarmGarf]

Soon, men will not even be necessary.

Give it some additional time and women won't be necessary either.

 

[Agent Intellect]

About the only thing I can add is that, for me, people are considered on a purely individual basis - not by whatever group they may fit within. An individual woman is probably just as capable as doing anything that an individual man is capable of doing and vice versa - except on a reproductive level (yet).

 

[cheese]

Cheese, I can't give serious and considered responses to such a topic because it in and of itself is laughable and preposterous. No offense or anything.

u muz b jokin

Why is it so?

 

[brain enclosed in flesh]

Differences in gender aren't something you can refer to as inferior or superior overall. You just can't. I mean, what do you mean by that? Maybe if you narrow it down to inferior or superior at such and such a thing, sure, but overall? Er, nope.

For example, I am far superior to men at growing another human being within my body and then sustaining it with milk that my body produces. No contest there.

 

[FusionKnight]

Doesn't seem to be causing conflict so far...

 

[Anthile]

Thank you, Adaire.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

I forgot to check, is this posted in the Arena like it should be? If not, who would actually be dumb enough to risk HIS neck by responding in it?

Oh wait....

 

[cheese]

Adaire - you're wrong. Anthile as well. You can stop congratulating yourselves about your ability to spot trolling now. I still like you both. (I suspect it's not a 2-way street.)

This is a totally serious thread. It's sparked mainly by some homosexual men I've met who claim women are inferior and unnecessary. I know these views are held by some, including some here, and I'd like to know why. I'd also like to see how these views are answered by those who don't hold them.

I didn't provide an extensive OP because I'm not interested in my own opinion. This is not an Aunt Agony column, nor a place for personal venting. I am collecting YOUR views. And yes, obviously I chose a title that would gain attention. I want responses, and I'm usually terrible at coming up with titles that a) express what I mean and b) get enough responses to be worthwhile. At least that's the impression I get.

So yeah, this is serious and not meant for the Arena. I am also surprised it should be such an issue. I have no history of trolling on the boards, except in that one thread. Maybe I should start a few bullshit threads so the mods can trample on them.

I'm pretty irritated that the idea of requesting you to consider this "given" - that's only become such in recent times! - is so preposterous as to seem insincere. You're all willing to question morals and consider morality subjective, but not this? You're willing to joke-but-not-really about SJs being inferior, or less intelligent, or less capable in some way, etc - but not this? You're willing to consider even murder acceptable, but not this? I find there seems to be an unpleasant blindness to certain cultural axioms, even here, and the worst thing is they seem to be completely arbitrary. There are STILL cultures in the world where women are considered inherently inferior. Why can't you even discuss this?

The only people causing conflict are you nongs. Gah.

ps No Jennywocky, this is not a repeat of previous events. That was a dedicated thread, goddammit.


I hope that clears it up. Please people, I want your contributions.

Adaire - how are you judging who's superior to Da Blob? By those criteria, is it not also possible that a number of women are also inferior to men? If it's a large enough number perhaps a generalisation could be drawn and the reasons extracted (biological, environmental, etc).

Knee-jerk reactions are not considered responses. This is exactly why I asked for them.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I would probably have to agree with Cheese. While I think the thread title could have probably been posed better (I would have gone with "Are Women Inferior?" or something along those lines, as opposed to a statement). But, I also think that this shouldn't be a topic that's designated as being taboo. While I find stereotyping and sexism reprehensible, I think it is even more closed minded to not even address it as an issue - an issue that exists and is quite pervasive. I think discourse on it is important and I'm a bit surprised that people would reply with the attitude that this is "going too far" as opposed to stating their opinion on the matter, or making a reasonable, rational argument as to why they think a certain way.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Okay, but perhaps some defining of superior/inferior is in order. Are we talking physically? Mentally? Intellectually? It's so broad as to be quite difficult knowing where or how to begin and take it seriously. I'd be interested to know if those gay men you mention were being serious and how they made such an absurd justification that women are unnecessary. Unless they want the human species to die out (which I sometimes do too) then it is just ridiculous.

 

[cheese]

It's up to you to define your own framework which houses your worldview. Approach it from any angle you wish - one you're particularly interested in, or that you've heard repeatedly debated (eg many people will argue that men are intellectually superior, and will bring out IQ statistics to support their point), etc.

 

[cheese]

There is NO PUNCTUATION. It is not definitive. Anyone who has a problem with a damn title when the first sentence on the thread shows it's clearly not definitive comes across needlessly picky to me. If you're offended, all you have to do is open it up and realise what it's really about! I don't see a problem here. I don't see a need to change the topic name, but I'm happy for a mod to do it if they consider it necessary. Please consider if it really is necessary.

I expected rational discussion, instead of knee-jerk emotional reactions. That's what yours is. I don't see the need for this when we're apparently all open-minded enough to consider things from every angle, and ESPECIALLY when we're so eager to discard our 'socially-conditioned values' in other threads that don't touch upon fashionably sensitive topics.
This isn't a war and I'm not fighting with you. I just want to know what you think of the issue. Not of the people who bring it up, or think a certain way, etc. By all means defend your sex. Give me reasons. Otherwise you're just a useless flamer. Sorry. Not really.

Marilyn vos Savant is one individual. If you wish to argue it on an individual basis, go ahead. AI's done that already and it's an interesting point. Statistics don't deal with individuals though; they deal with masses, and apparently the IQ ones show that, on average, men are 2-5 points higher than women, and that they are more represented at the upper end of the spectrum. This does not make it impossible for the less-represented gender to produce the top scorer.

Thanks for making an attempt at addressing the topic (sincere). No more derailing please? To everyone.

*edit
Alright, edited shit. Let's get on with it please.

 

[Agent Intellect]

IQ is a dubious standard to judge ones superiority. The vast majority of people in prison are male, so does that mean that men are inferior as social human beings? Men, on average, die younger than women, so does that mean that women are biologically superior?

This, I suppose, is why I (try) not to judge people on the basis of their "group". All I'm saying is that the individual and their own personal skills and qualities is really the only standard one can go by.

 

[Dormouse]

One wonders what the responses would have looked like if the thread had been named 'Men are inferior'...

That said, I also tend to consider inferiority on an individual basis. If anything, I'd rather trace lineage instead of generalize using an entire race or gender.

If there were to be a difference in intelligence levels, what do you believe would cause it? (I am now being a hypocrite and speaking in terms of the general population. And just hypothesising, I know many a girl that could kick any guys ass in sports/math/science ect.)
Hormones or something? I believe there's some evidence of different methods of brain development... In which case it would be possible that IQ tests just happen to cater to the 'male' way of thinking.
Or society itself could be to blame. I see a ton of distinction between girls and boys. Just look at the different sets of toys/movies/books that are aimed at them... And I find those marketed as educational for both sexes tend to be dumbed down.

I actually consider the sexes equal in practically all respects. In any case, they are both necessary for society to continue functioning and each individual has their own strengths and weaknesses to bring to the table.

 

[preilemus]

Umm, I think we are both kind of the same. I don't see why one would be superior, though I can't ignore social structures.

All I can honestly say is that we are biologically different*, and get filtered into different roles based on "common" conceptions (or maybe misconceptions?).

*besides the obvious roles in sex, I don't see why gender should inherently put one at a disadvantage to the other when it comes to, well, anything else; I can't say I've done a great bit of research into this subject, though.

 

[Ghost1986]

i had a nice long reply to this but for some odd reason Firefox crashed. so in short each sex that those things that it is naturally superrior at.

 

[fullerene]

chill, cheese... you got here, like... a month after I did, and I feel like I've been here forever. I don't think most people think you're stirring up trouble. Eh... unless this thread was heavily edited/posts deleted since I looked here. I can't imagine how anyone could think you were just being a nuisance, though... especially because you're not even a guy (if I remember right?), so you'd be a self-depreciating troublemaker.

Anyway: I'm making a conscious, concerted effort not to think hard about the question/answer, and here's why. By choice, I'm not a competitive person. Every time there's competition, or an attempt to classify people in terms of better/worse, nothing good comes of it. I know there's an argument to be made in favor of competition (usually something about how you can sharpen your skills against the other person, and both come out better at whatever they're competing about in the end), but the way I see it, the loser always feels juuust a little bit worse about themselves/possibly jealous, and the winner always feels juuust a little bit smug/gets a tiny bit more arrogant.

These shifts in attitude are not the result of an "actual" competition, but they come about when there's a mutually agreed upon perception (one person perceives themselves as worse, and the other perceives themselves as better, with respect to the same topic). The harder you think about topics like this, the more likely you are to come to a conclusion. And a conclusion, any conclusion, will have some negative effect on you just by arriving at it, unless you somehow land on the (empirically, very unlikely) conclusion that both parties are equally valuable in some way.

So..... thinking about this critically is fail. Some things are just better left unanalyzed.

 

[Dormouse]

^ Everybody's the same! We're all equal, equals I tell you! Shut up, you with your distinction and your natural selection.
There is only uniformity, or varieties that in the end create perfect balance.

(Uh, mild mix of sarcasm and seriousness... Uh, hopefully not insulting? Better not to take me seriously. I'm somewhat out of my mind now or I wouldn't be commenting at all.)

(Actually I generally follow the same thought pattern as cryptonia. It's too much trouble to determine real superiority, and I know it'll end in disappointment for me.)

 

[Cognisant]

The more I study society the more difficulty I have determining who's screwing-over who, it's almost as if society itself is a grand congregation of mutually parasitic relationships.

 

[Agent Intellect]

The only thing that any individual should know for sure is that, whatever you are good at, there is almost certainly somebody better at it.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Yeah, I can't seem to come up with much to debate about on this topic (and I've been mulling it over the past couple of hours). There are obvious physical differences but even then it is too subjective to try and judge which is superior. It really is an apples and oranges type comparison.

<derail> I did find crypts post on competition interesting. Mainly because I disagreed with quite a bit of it . I think it could be the topic of a near future thread. Not up to it at the moment but soon perhaps. <end derail>

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

Time to crack some heads!

Okay, as someone pointed out the majority of people in prison are males. What a gigantic group of fuckups.

But you know what? The extremely high achievers... Nobel Laureates, CEOs, PhDs in science- there's a lot of men in those areas.

I think it's a matter of two different bell curves of a variable I am going to call LifeStrength which includes performance/intelligent/effort/focus/etc.

The female bell curve is not as spread out as the men's. That's why a lot of females are present in somewhat 'average' fields. In the last couple decades there have been more female college graduates, although there are still more male Engineering college graduates. There are plenty of female nurses, and the doctor profession is also starting to be dominated by doctors.

Where as the male curve has the same LifeStrength average- but it's more spread. Manity (men-humanity) get more fuck-ups, and get more big-shots.


Another thing to look at is the willingness to have risk. Men are more willing to risk things for a good benefit than women are. It's part of the factor that leads to more men in jail and more men in sports cars.

And of course, don't forget the F/T difference in all their MBTI scores.

 

[Wish]

There are plenty of female nurses, and the doctor profession is also starting to be dominated by doctors.

Here I thought they were dominated by quacks.

 

[Da Blob]

BTW -I posted first on this thread because I thought someone wanted to start a debate or argument out of sheer boredom.

I indulged in some hyperbole to "get the ball rolling". I am not bigoted against females and it was a calculated maneuver on my part to make such a sweeping generalization.

However, disclaimer aside, I think the myth of the "Glass Ceiling" is a politically-correct fabrication that feeds into the 'victims' stance' of a certain segment of the population.

 

[fullerene]

The more I study society the more difficulty I have determining who's screwing-over who, it's almost as if society itself is a grand congregation of mutually parasitic relationships.

I like that..... a lot. I think I'll end up parroting those views to people in real life in the near future.

 

[Moocow]

Here's a better question, in my opinion. What makes men or women superior to anything at all, let alone each other?
We're the ones making these "values" up from the start.

 

[Cognisant]

To support Moocow's point:
Men are superior because we can pee sideways!

A pretty messed up value, but valid within it's own context.

 

[aracaris]

However, disclaimer aside, I think the myth of the "Glass Ceiling" is a politically-correct fabrication that feeds into the 'victims' stance' of a certain segment of the population.

That's partially true, but only partially. Some people will play the victim as a way to manipulate others into giving them undeserved sympathy, or just as an excuse for not making the effort to strive for better, or possibly for other reasons, but there are of course genuine victims, even if that's the case to a lesser extent now than in the past.

As far as whether women are superior, or men are superior or whatever, it depends on what in particular you are comparing, and on what you (or whomever is drawing the comparison) personally values.

Men tend to be physically stronger, and not very many people even debate that. It is supposedly the case that men are more likely to be extremely high or extremely low intelligence, though there's so many debates about what exactly intelligence is and how it should be measured anyhow. Women tend to have better immune systems, and are more likely to survive to adulthood, more males are actually conceived, but none the less there are more women. Whether any of these things really matter though, and how much, is all again down to personal values.

As far as gender roles, whether one is "superior" to the other, again just comes down to a matter of opinion, and personal values, and what are regarded as traditional gender roles are adhered to less and less now a days anyhow, at least in my neck of the woods. I think that if someone wants to adhere to personal gender roles that's fine, far be it for me to tell them how to live their life, as tempting as it can in certain cases be, so long as they show me the same courtesy (which unfortunately such courtesy isn't always mutual).

 

[shoeless]

men and women aren't "equal", and never will be.

like my math teacher says: "i don't treat people 'equally', i treat them fairly." there is a difference.

that's why if somebody needs help lifting something heavy, they're not just gonna pick the first person they see as to appear, you know, politically correct or whatever -- they're gonna seek out the large, relatively fit guy.

but anyway, a lack of equality does not imply superiority/inferiority. it just implies difference. i mean, we all have our preferences -- i tend to find men more interesting in general, but that could be because i'm, you know, straight -- but there's no way to designate a universal label to either group. i mean you can generalize, sure, but the problem with generalizations is, by definition, the individual gets lost in them. and the individual is probably the most important thing.

but that's just my two cents.

 

[cheese]

chill, cheese... you got here, like... a month after I did, and I feel like I've been here forever. I don't think most people think you're stirring up trouble. Eh... unless this thread was heavily edited/posts deleted since I looked here.

Yes, it's been edited. Why do you think I was addressing Adaire? She deleted all her posts (about 4 in all?) and the general tone of them was upset and accusatory. She then left me an unhappy visitor message. I'm hoping it all chills.

Thanks very much for the responses, people. I'll get round to them later.

 

[Jennywocky]

I have no history of trolling on the boards, except in that one thread...

grrrrr......!


*wink*

ps No Jennywocky, this is not a repeat of previous events. That was a dedicated thread, goddammit.

ROFL!!! I hadn't read this far when I typed the above!!!

Well, honestly, when I saw your OP, I rolled my eyes... it's a typical "troll" opening line. But yes, I believe you're serious at this point in just wanting to hear what people think... and you threw out the source of the question.

I have enough male gay friends who don't think women are inferior that I'm not inclined to think it's an entirely relevant question... but the bottom line... my first instinct... was the first post you received: "In regards to WHAT, exactly?"

The framework/situation (i.e., task at hand) determines suitability.
Otherwise gender is just part of human diversity.

And geez, there are men who are more "feminine" than some women, and women who are more "masculine" than some men!

This question just seems to be a total mess, honestly, in light of realities like that. I'm inclined to think your gay friends are just carrying emotional baggage they're displacing on women.

men and women aren't "equal", and never will be.

but anyway, a lack of equality does not imply superiority/inferiority. it just implies difference.

Basically.

I would word it differently: Men and women have equal inherent value as human beings, but there biological, physiological, psychological, and sociological differentiation that occurs. So there's basic differences there... then heavily amplified by individual differences.

 

[jhbowden]

Women are inferior Why or why not?

No one would argue that women are physically inferior, since that's not something that stands in need of justification, so I'm assuming you're referring to the intellectual capacity of women. It would be an obvious mistake to say that all men are smarter than all women. However, I believe it is true that if we take a man and a woman at random, the man is more likely to be intelligent.

I have no tight explanation why this is the case. I'm not impressed by environmental arguments, given the intellectual superiority of men is something seen in all of the major civilizations. In addition, I'm not impressed by feminist conspiracy theories either, given that women on occasion do make a sizable intellectual contribution, or to find a way to rise to power. So any possible explanation has to be biological.

But just because our explanation is probably biological doesn't necessarily reflect intelligence. If it is true that men have a higher tolerance for confrontation, struggle, and risk, it makes sense they would be more likely to innovate and stand against a consensus, more likely to develop their own mental abilities outside of the parameters of authority, and may be more comfortable going out on a limb in the face of uncertain evidence and universal criticism. This would explain why more men are in positions of power, more men are in jail, and more men are on the bleeding edge of research and development. I've seen this in physics-- the few women in the department back in the day, a few probably more intelligent than myself, always worked cooperatively in groups, trying to discover the "right" answers. That's not a strategy to be a vehicle for change.

Then again, maybe it is innate intelligence, though I have no idea how to test this and make it rigorous. In personal experience men tend to be more compartmentalized in how they approach problems, while women tend to tie everything together. So there might be a sociobiological reason why men keep a level head in a crisis and why women do a better job remembering where they placed their keys.

/rambling off

 

[Dormouse]

I can never remember where I placed my keys.

That said, one thing I do notice is that guys have WAY better conversations. Obviously there are exceptions, but the majority of the time I find male conversation to be much more stimulating. Of course, it's even better if you get both women and men debating a topic, but when they remain in seperate groups...
Well, here's an example:
I'm sitting in class eavesdropping because that's just me, and two guys are having this fascinating discussion on the timespace continuum and some interesting concepts. (Wish I had joined in. Some of their information was faulty.)
I turn instead to the girls talking to the right of me, and all I hear is
I can't BELIEVE she's dating him again... *sniffle*

Yeah. It depresses me. Generally I just attribute it to insecurity on the part of the female population, hence an unwillingness to debate and develop ideas under the scrutiny of their peers.

So basically yeah, guys take more risks and are further rewarded developmentally. Their interaction is different and allows them to test and sharpen their wit, whereas females are inately cautious and more likely to avoid controversial topics unless they are guaranteed their audience will agree.

 

[shoeless]

...to relate this to myers-briggs, the most common personality type for women (at least in the US) is ESFJ, right? which explains the behavior described above.

i don't think it's a woman-thing, i think it's just the distribution of personalities. basically.

it's funny, since INTP's are the exact opposite of ESFJ's. INTP women are like enigmas. we've talked about this before.

 

[Dormouse]

I know, I know, but it still gets on my nerves. There are like three people of my own gender that I can actual have meaningful conversations with, and I'm rarely in contact with any of them. </emo>

 

[shoeless]

i'm sure there's more, they're just more difficult to find. even just the way girls are raised, it's like a social obligation to be (to put it bluntly) ditzy and shallow, but that doesn't mean everyone is ditzy and shallow, they many are socially, especially to people they don't know. that's society's goddamn fault, not the gender's.

 

[Dormouse]

Indeed. And it's not like these people are incapable of translating intelligent thought into speech... Ask the right questions and the discussion is completely illuminated.

There are certain people who seem to have that gift, they just inspire conversation and debate with WHOMEVER they're talking to. I know several people like this, one's an INFJ and the other probably an ENFP. Though I believe the quality has little to do with type and depends more upon trivia and charisma...
Suffice to say, I'm terribly envious of them.

 

[kantor1003]

Several people have already addressed that in order to label one as inferior, we must have a framework, or specific fields/areas where inferiority and superiority can be debated. So far, many has brought it up, but not a single one has dared to actually provide one. Lets throw some general categories out there:
Science
Politics
Art - music, literature, painting, movies etc.
Sports
Philosophy
Feel free to add some more.

It is a fact though, that up to this point in history, men has been dominant in all areas that isn't directly related to family care.

 

[Dormouse]

Up to this point in history, but we would have to consider the next thousand years or so to see how women perform when offered the same opportunities as men...

Or perhaps the thousand after next, when hopefully gender equality will be in action worldwide.

 

[kantor1003]

Up to this point in history, but we would have to consider the next thousand years or so to see how women perform when offered the same opportunities as men...

I agree completely.
One question though; What gave men the chance to claim the dominant role in the first place?
Why isn't men the gender that now has to be offered equality?

If we were equal, I believe we naturally would have developed a gender equal society in all areas. It wouldn't have to be forced.

 

[Anthile]

Men are often rewarded for developing their mental abilities and it is usually seen as something good to do so while women are often reduced to their looks. More so, men find intelligent women often intimidating and unfeminine - so why would they even bother with showing or developing their intelligence? When women want to learn they will have it harder than mean and for a long time they were even completely excluded from education.

 

[Jennywocky]

That said, one thing I do notice is that guys have WAY better conversations. ..
I'm sitting in class eavesdropping because that's just me, and two guys are having this fascinating discussion on the timespace continuum and some interesting concepts. (Wish I had joined in. Some of their information was faulty.)
I turn instead to the girls talking to the right of me, and all I hear is
I can't BELIEVE she's dating him again... *sniffle*

Meh. I guess it's more just the people you're talking to. I guess I don't hang out with shallow/surface people whether they are men OR women, so I tend not to hear that garbage... although I actually do not mind relational conversation... not the sort of backbiting you are describing, but serious discussion of relationships... which I'll get more of from women.

Men do tend to delve into esoteric topics far earlier than women, and in early adulthood when a lot of women are running a household and raising kids while the men further their careers and make more income, men have more TIME to think about such things and explore them and it often aligns with their work. In my opinion, moms (esp those working part-time + being mom) tend to be far more drained than dads in that same bracket, so if conversation ends up being about practical issues, family matters, or surface level socializing, I don't blame them.

So basically yeah, guys take more risks and are further rewarded developmentally. Their interaction is different and allows them to test and sharpen their wit, whereas females are inately cautious and more likely to avoid controversial topics unless they are guaranteed their audience will agree.

I agree that men seem slanted more to challenge and push things, while women generally are more assigned the role of "relational stabilizer" and thus can't really afford to destabilize a situation by arguing various POVs. With guys, too, it's more about independently exploring one's strength/autonomy and achieving impersonal goals that are important to them; with women, there's more focus on maintaining the social/relational net, which demands far more diplomacy and compromise.

Still, the OP suggest men are better?

One question though; What gave men the chance to claim the dominant role in the first place? Why isn't men the gender that now has to be offered equality?

If we were equal, I believe we naturally would have developed a gender equal society in all areas. It wouldn't have to be forced.

it is a valid point. If it were equal, it probably wouldn't have unbalanced so naturally.

To me, it's just because men are more assertive/driven. They enjoy dominating, wielding strength, pushing themselves, thrusting themselves against the environment. To me, that is part of biological makeup.

Women (under estrogen-driven development) are the peacekeepers, the stabilizers, the nestbuilders, the more cautious... We're tailored to be this way. It's not a matter of inferiority, but basically men end up in dominant positions because it matters more to them and aligns more with their natural biological development; it's not as important to women in their roles as facilitators, stabilizers, peacemakers, etc.

 

[Minuend]

Up to this point in history, but we would have to consider the next thousand years or so to see how women perform when offered the same opportunities as men...

Or perhaps the thousand after next, when hopefully gender equality will be in action worldwide.

I believe gender stereotypes and traditions are so strong that there won't be a big difference in the immediate future. Attitudes, role-models and our surroundings are very crucial. Children are strongly influenced by things like Disney Channel (which I think makes a horrible role-model). I could write a book about this, but ughh too lazy.

I agree completely.
One question though; What gave men the chance to claim the dominant role in the first place?
Why isn't men the gender that now has to be offered equality?

If we were equal, I believe we naturally would have developed a gender equal society in all areas. It wouldn't have to be forced.

What does that mean? What about countries that have developed equality? Is that not natural? What would a natural development be? Why is the development we have now, forced?

We are strongly influenced by what we learn as we grow up. That's why people eat pigs with ease, but would never touch cats or insects. So when people grow up hearing females are like that and males like that, often that's what they will believe. And for a lot of people, having a gender identity is important. Feeling like a male or female. And how do we feel like that? We act like we think males and females are supposed to be.

And I don't buy the "wouldn't be able to claim a dominant role"- thing. Women aren't the only ones whose been hated and suppressed. Are you superior to those you are able to dominate?

Males and females used to be more equal before. Women were responsible for creating houses and gather vegetables, while the men were out hunting. Women made the decisions regarding their specialty, while men dominated hunting.

Also, I thought intelligence between males and females couldn't be measured against each other considering the differences in their brains. Intelligent females and males use different areas of the brain. Even two equal intelligent males do not think alike. Since males do better at rotating figures, while females excel at language, I thought it would be easy to create a biased IQ test?

Even if one gender was superior to the other, how would that make a difference? Surely, women wouldn't be denied education. Despite females not being allowed to read books by their parents, allowed to participate at lectures or mingle with males talking about science, there has still been brilliant female scientists back in the days. Who triumphed despite their surroundings. Even if you have a brilliant mind, it's not easy to go against everyone alone. All the constant setbacks and disappointments. If females were not allowed to use their talents, that would be a waste for all humanity.

Individuality is stronger than stereotypes and I want a society who accepts everyone. I don't see people as women or men, I see them as individuals. I can't tell the difference here on INTP forum, and I don't really see that big of a difference between us in real life. I think a lot of the differences are all in our heads.

 

[shoeless]

...you guys should go read about the iroquois. their society was "dominated" by women -- the women appointed governmental positions, the women decided who lived or died, the women ran the house and were responsible for gathering food (the men hunted, but meat was more of a luxury than a sustenance), the families were matrilineal (traced through the mother's bloodline)... et cetera.

kinda makes you wonder why they developed that way while the europeans developed a male-dominated society. hm.