Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Equality Between Women and Men a Fair Concept?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is Equality Between Women and Men a Fair Concept?

    What do you think?

  • #2
    Originally posted by Equity View Post
    What do you think?
    The concept is fair, but feminism, in the main, isn't seeking equality. Most feminists have a victimhood fixation, and don't see, or want to see, the male viewpoint.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Equity View Post
      What do you think?
      Idk ... is equality fair? As such? When is it, and when isn't it? And what is equality, and how do you measure it?

      M

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Manalysis View Post

        what is equality, and how do you measure it?

        M
        I took this definition from google. It serves the argument that I'm trying to make.

        Equality is "The state of being equal (being the same) in rights"

        Is equal rights between women and men fair?

        I mean "equality" is shoved down our throats morning, day and night from the moment we are born to the moment we die. Nobody in this part of the world ever seems to question whether it is fair or not. Is equality between two unequal entities fair? Is it fair to treat men and women equally when they are so clearly different? Is it fair to treat men and women equally/identically when they have different strengths, limitations and needs?? Is it fair to expect equal outcomes from women and men when they are so clearly different? Is it fair to provide men and women with equal opportunities when they are different?

        Originally posted by Plato the 2nd View Post

        The concept is fair, but feminism, in the main, isn't seeking equality. Most feminists have a victimhood fixation, and don't see, or want to see, the male viewpoint.
        I don't agree that its fair. I think equality is highly discriminatory...but I agree with you on your second point Plato. Even if equality was fair, feminism is not interested in it. Feminism, contrary to what it claims, is not about equality. You can prove this very easily. Whenever a feminist tells me that feminism is about equality, I always ask them to define equality for me. They always proceed to tell me that equality is the pursuit of equal rights for all people regardless of their gender/colour of skin etc. As soon as they tell me this, I ask them "in this case does feminism believe in men having an equal say in abortion to women?"...they instantly go pale faced and turn quiet ...Equality, in feminism, flies out of the window where it does not benefit women. Feminism is a corrupt, sexist ideology that pursues female privilege.
        Last edited by Equity; 04-14-2018, 10:57 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Equity View Post
          Equality is "The state of being equal (being the same) in rights" - Is equal rights between women and men fair?
          Tricky one, isn't it?
          Just to escape the gender issue, consider two people, one normal and one with e.g Down's Syndrome (or children, or any other group that is somehow "not fully" X).
          Some people would rank these two according to what the can do, how much e.g. their labour is worth, etc. etc.
          Other people would rank them according to what they are, e.g. humans, and basically decline to rank them, etc. etc.

          Do "not fully" people have the same right as others to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
          I think most people would say that they have, in pinciple.
          The differences become important when it comes to practical implementation. That's where the "according to..." thinking, where fairness comes in.

          I mean "equality" is shoved down our throats morning, day and night from the moment we are born to the moment we die.
          At least Woman's Lib is, yes.

          Nobody in this part of the world ever seems to question whether it is fair or not. Is equality between two unequal entities fair? Is it fair to treat men and women equally when they are so clearly different? Is it fair to treat men and women equally/identically when they have different strengths, limitations and needs?? Is it fair to expect equal outcomes from women and men when they are so clearly different? Is it fair to provide men and women with equal opportunities when they are different?
          Just to eliminate the Feminist answer we all know:
          They favour discrimination when it is beneficial to them, and against it when it favours men. That's neither equal nor fair, that's mere Gimme politics.

          AFAICS people's willingness to discriminate increases in proportion to their power to define what is "good" and what is "bad".
          If you can define your own group as "good", you are more likely to evolve into a supremacist. Feminists would love to treat men and women differently (and they do) as long as they get to determine that mansplaining, manspreading, defending women and children (AKA "making war"), thinking rationally, being strong, creative, artistic etc. etc. are heinous crimes against humanity, which in this case is women only.
          (As a corollary, if you're forced to accept your own group as "bad", you get the "internalized misogyny" and white knight crowd.)

          If you think that both groups are equally good or bad, there's more of chance of you being a true "egalitarian".
          Accepting equality of opportunity and inequality of outcome seems to accomodate both the "equal" and the "fair", as long as one takes care that inherited inequality of outcome is not allowed to become part of the system such that it prevents equality of opportunity; as it often will over a series of generations.

          I don't agree that its fair. I think equality is highly discriminatory...
          Just a note from the librarian here ... "discrimination" means "seeing or making a difference", so it is sort of technically impossible that things being equal can be discriminatory.
          It's just that "discrimination" has become synonymous with "being treated badly", treated unfairly, oppressed, etc., from the time when e.g. civic rights activists, promoting the view that all races are equal, found discrimination based on race to be unwarranted, hence unfair, oppressive, etc.
          We readily 'discriminate' kids into schools, patients into hospitals, the elderly into homes, criminals into jails. There's a lot of practice around "special needs" already.

          Would you be willing to divide society into two "circles", and granting men rule over one of them, and women over the other?
          With the 'woman circle' given authority over decisions where men are 'not fully' people, and vice versa?

          M


          Comment


          • #6
            Wait for the view of the lone guy moving the fridge ... says it all

            Actually no, Mr Elam sums it up ... theyre getting into a dick measuring competition with people that actually have dicks.

            ...gold.


            "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one" - Charles Mackay

            And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. - Donne

            "What we are seeing in this headless misandry is a grand display of the Tyranny of the Underdog: 'I am a wretchedly longstanding victim; therefore I own no burden of adult accountability, nor need to honor any restraint against my words and actions. In fact, all efforts to restrain me are only further proof of my oppressed condition.'
            "It is the most perfect trump-card against accountable living ever devised." - Gladden Schrock

            "What remains for most men in modern life is a world of expectation without reward, burden without honor and service without self" - Paul Elam

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Manalysis View Post

              Tricky one, isn't it?
              Just to escape the gender issue, consider two people, one normal and one with e.g Down's Syndrome (or children, or any other group that is somehow "not fully" X).
              Some people would rank these two according to what the can do, how much e.g. their labour is worth, etc. etc.
              Other people would rank them according to what they are, e.g. humans, and basically decline to rank them, etc. etc.

              Do "not fully" people have the same right as others to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
              I think most people would say that they have, in pinciple.
              The differences become important when it comes to practical implementation. That's where the "according to..." thinking, where fairness comes in.
              I think equality is unfair in both theory and practice...lol

              Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
              If you think that both groups are equally good or bad, there's more of chance of you being a true "egalitarian".
              Accepting equality of opportunity and inequality of outcome seems to accomodate both the "equal" and the "fair", as long as one takes care that inherited inequality of outcome is not allowed to become part of the system such that it prevents equality of opportunity; as it often will over a series of generations.
              I disagree with you Manalysis. Equality of opportunity is just as unfair as equality of outcome.

              A world that allows both men and women the same opportunities in life is one that allows men and women the same opportunities in abortion i.e. the same right to refuse or allow one. Is this fair? Is it fair to allow man an equal opportunity in a matter that does not pose him the same risk nor present him with the same responsibilities as a woman? Of course the answer is no. I believe that abortion is wrong but I'm just trying to make a point here.

              Let me throw another question at you. Is it fair to allow men and women equal opportunity in a physically demanding job that comes with dangers like firefighting? Men are physically superior to women. Physical Superiority in firefighting puts one at greater risk and presents one with greater responsibilities. Additionally, this is a job where your physical strength can mean the difference between being able to save a life and not being able to save one. Taking these things into account is it fair to allow women and men the same opportunities in this kind of profession? Of course the answer is, again, no.

              Equality is flawed in all its forms.

              Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
              Just a note from the librarian here ... "discrimination" means "seeing or making a difference", so it is sort of technically impossible that things being equal can be discriminatory.
              I was debating equality with a couple of people a few weeks ago and this point came up. How can equality be discriminatory? those two concepts contradict each other....I thought about it and I came to this following conclusion; Equality is a contradictory, self-defeating concept. the only way to achieve equality between two distinct entities, between women and men, is to discriminate between them. The only way to achieve equality between women and men is to give one gender favourable treatment over the other. Equality is discriminatory. It is a contradictory, self-defeating and unjust concept.


              Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
              would you be willing to divide society into two "circles", and granting men rule over one of them, and women over the other?
              With the 'woman circle' given authority over decisions where men are 'not fully' people, and vice versa?

              M
              We need a system that caters to our differences, one that takes into account our different needs, strength and limitations...Men should not be allowed equal rights in matters where they do not carry the same responsibilities and are not exposed to the same risks. The same should apply to women. Equality is a flawed concept. Equity is an interesting one.
              Last edited by Equity; 04-15-2018, 08:37 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Equity View Post
                I think equality is unfair in both theory and practice...
                Well, you have something of a head start, since you didn't give any of your own views, and got to just criticize others'.
                And now you do the same thing with "equity".
                Perhaps we should have ourselves a little concept-fest?
                Let me start by making all kinds of excuses and apologies re the English Language; it's alien turf, and I'll probably lack some nuance here and there.
                That said.
                We have a "discrimination" sideline, and in the main line "equality", and now "equity", and I would argue that we have in effect also "parity" and "identity".

                - Concepts of some kind of "sameness" will of course fail if you insist on applying them to items that are not the same.
                That's bound to lead to a contradictio, at least in adiecto. But that doesn't mean that the concept is flawed or failed, it just means it's employed inappropriately.

                - Giving men and women the same say wrt. abortion (for which an argument might be made, btw.) is treating men and women as identical.
                Idk if anyone has argued for "being equal = being identical".

                - These days, people use "equality" as a label for what should rightly be called "(numerical) parity" - the whole "representation by" and "role model" craze.

                - And by all means, pls. describe what you mean by "equity".

                - Wrt. equality of opportunity, it basically means that we need not introduce artificial obstacles, like laws, regulations, taboos, that prevent people from doing something they else might have done to the profit of themselves and society.
                It also includes rectifying any lack of opportunity that has causes that can be remedied, like curable diseases, or education.
                The main disagreement wrt. the gender debate are the positions on what is an artificial obstacle, and what is a natural one; and what can be remedied and what can not.
                It doesn't mean seeking "identity" (giving girls steroids to make them as strong as boys ...) nor "parity" - once the opportunity is given, people make their own choices.

                - Is fairness a super-value that trumps all other values?

                Let me throw another question at you. Is it fair to allow men and women equal opportunity in a physically demanding job that comes with dangers like firefighting? Men are physically superior to women. Physical Superiority in firefighting puts one at greater risk and presents one with greater responsibilities. Additionally, this is a job where your physical strength can mean the difference between being able to save a life and not being able to save one. Taking these things into account is it fair to allow women and men the same opportunities in this kind of profession? Of course the answer is, again, no.
                Why not? Set the proper standards. Let women who meet the standards do the job, if they want to. Not many can, and not many will.

                Equality is flawed in all its forms.
                Only if you try to apply it to apples and oranges.

                The only way to achieve equality between women and men is to give one gender favourable treatment over the other.
                Possibly. That might be the desired outcome, wherever equality is seen as the most important value.
                It's a fact that men are better oriented wrt. politics and related fields like history and science. Should women have a lesser vote in elections?

                Equality is discriminatory.
                Context is King.
                Wherever you see "discrimination", you have to find the unspoken or unwritten "good" or "bad".
                Almost no one uses it merely for "seeing the difference"; almost everyone uses it for "unfair oppression".

                We need a system that caters to our differences, one that takes into account our different needs, strength and limitations...
                ... and at the same time caters to our similarities, our similar needs, strengths and limitations ...

                Men should not be allowed equal rights in matters where they do not carry the same responsibilities and are not exposed to the same risks.
                The same should apply to women.
                Good luck with that

                M
                Last edited by Manalysis; 04-16-2018, 12:02 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  pretty fucking stupid to try and make things equal that aren't.

                  apples and oranges are fruit, but they aint equivalent.

                  today I was programming stuff and inadvertently made a query to all things 'power' (as in, electrical) and the query returned data streams of Apparent Power, Real Power, and Reactive Power.
                  Theyre all power but they are different dimensionally and the cant be dealt with the same way.
                  Consequently all the functions I'd previously written that relied on the assumption that power was always power, failed.

                  Hmm, aint life funny in the way it rhymes?

                  Feminists will work it out soon enough.

                  .. as will, the boys who have most recently been rendered dickless.

                  things aint equal that aint equal.

                  ...actually Nassim Nicholas Taleb, says the same ... according to to his Fat Tony, that 'ting' aint the same thing
                  Last edited by MatrixTransform; 04-16-2018, 11:24 AM.
                  "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one" - Charles Mackay

                  And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. - Donne

                  "What we are seeing in this headless misandry is a grand display of the Tyranny of the Underdog: 'I am a wretchedly longstanding victim; therefore I own no burden of adult accountability, nor need to honor any restraint against my words and actions. In fact, all efforts to restrain me are only further proof of my oppressed condition.'
                  "It is the most perfect trump-card against accountable living ever devised." - Gladden Schrock

                  "What remains for most men in modern life is a world of expectation without reward, burden without honor and service without self" - Paul Elam

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by MatrixTransform View Post
                    apples and oranges are fruit, but they aint equivalent.
                    Oooh, another word, endless fun.

                    Another note from the librarian: Of course different things can be equivalent _in some respect_, e.g. when compared to a third item.
                    Like, two different species of fruit can be equivalent in nutritional value.

                    today I was programming stuff and inadvertently made a query to all things 'power' (as in, electrical) and the query returned data streams of Apparent Power, Real Power, and Reactive Power.
                    Theyre all power but they are different dimensionally and the cant be dealt with the same way.
                    Consequently all the functions I'd previously written that relied on the assumption that power was always power, failed. .
                    Or you could move to DC ...?

                    Feminists will work it out soon enough
                    Isn't that a little optimistic?
                    Besides the few "equality" feminists, there's a horde of "supremacy" feminists who think gender differences is just fine as long as the feminine is rated highest.

                    M

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      the semantics of 'equal'.

                      or, the differences are semantic?

                      or ... theyre full o' shit

                      I've said it before ... they're after your mind, when what they really need is your heart
                      Last edited by MatrixTransform; 04-22-2018, 11:41 AM.
                      "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one" - Charles Mackay

                      And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. - Donne

                      "What we are seeing in this headless misandry is a grand display of the Tyranny of the Underdog: 'I am a wretchedly longstanding victim; therefore I own no burden of adult accountability, nor need to honor any restraint against my words and actions. In fact, all efforts to restrain me are only further proof of my oppressed condition.'
                      "It is the most perfect trump-card against accountable living ever devised." - Gladden Schrock

                      "What remains for most men in modern life is a world of expectation without reward, burden without honor and service without self" - Paul Elam

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        there is no equality.
                        Originally posted by MatrixTransform
                        where were you before you put yourself last?
                        Originally posted by TheNarrator
                        Everywhere I travel, tiny life. Single-serving sugar, single-serving cream, single pat of butter. The microwave Cordon Bleu hobby kit. Shampoo-conditioner combos, sample-packaged mouthwash, tiny bars of soap. The people I meet on each flight? They're single-serving friends.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          "Equality", yes.
                          Parity, probably not.
                          "...but when she goes off you, she will not just walk away, she will walk away with your fucking skin in a jar." ~~ DoctorRandomercam
                          "The laws of man, they don't apply when blood gets in a woman's eye" - The Black Keys

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Manalysis View Post

                            We have a "discrimination" sideline, and in the main line "equality", and now "equity", and I would argue that we have in effect also "parity" and "identity".

                            - Concepts of some kind of "sameness" will of course fail if you insist on applying them to items that are not the same.
                            That's bound to lead to a contradictio, at least in adiecto. But that doesn't mean that the concept is flawed or failed, it just means it's employed inappropriately.
                            This is interesting. You maybe right. Equality may not be flawed in certain applications. It is however flawed when it is applied to two things that are not the same. This is what I am asking in this thread. Is equality between the two genders fair? Should we have equality between women and men?

                            Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                            - Giving men and women the same say wrt. abortion (for which an argument might be made, btw.) is treating men and women as identical.
                            Idk if anyone has argued for "being equal = being identical".
                            This is exactly what proponents of equality are arguing for. They argue that everyone should have equality and that equality is having the SAME/IDENTICAL rights. Many of them are also successfully arguing not only for equality in rights but equality in outcomes as well. They argue that men and women should have identical outcomes in life. Equality today is lead by feminism and feminism preaches that gender is a social construct and that men and women are IDENTICAL. Therefore, they argue, women and men should be treated identically. Equality today has become treating people identically as per the definition given to it by feminism.

                            Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                            - These days, people use "equality" as a label for what should rightly be called "(numerical) parity" - the whole "representation by" and "role model" craze.
                            Numerical parity is by deifntion equality. Equality is sameness.

                            Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                            - And by all means, pls. describe what you mean by "equity".
                            Recognising that people are different, that they have different strengths, limitations and needs and treating them in accordance with these three things. Equity is treating people fairly as apposed to equally. Equity pursues fairness. Equality, whether its equality of outcome or opportunity pursues sameness. Treating people that are different identically is not treating them fairly.

                            Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                            -- Wrt. equality of opportunity, it basically means that we need not introduce artificial obstacles, like laws, regulations, taboos, that prevent people from doing something they else might have done to the profit of themselves and society.
                            but Manalysis you said that treating things that are different equally is not right. Yet equality of opportunity does just this. It gives the SAME opportunities to different people. Is this fair?

                            Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                            It also includes rectifying any lack of opportunity that has causes that can be remedied, like curable diseases, or education.
                            How can a concept that is based on treating everyone the same rectify disparity? The only way it can do this is by discriminating between groups of people, giving one favourable treatment over others, thus contradicting itself! Equality is a discriminatory, contradictory concept...


                            Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                            - Is fairness a super-value that trumps all other values?
                            It is a broad concept that encourages society to take everything into account when deciding what action to take. So yes, it is a super value.


                            Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                            Why not? Set the proper standards. Let women who meet the standards do the job, if they want to. Not many can, and not many will.
                            Is it fair to give women the same opportunity as men in areas in life where thanks to the differences between the two genders men become exposed to greater risks and responsibilities? Is it fair to pay them the same salary despite their differences? I mean their differences do not stop at the doors of the opportunity... Lets assume that a woman and man both pass a test to become "Firemen"..(lol..i refuse to call it anything else). The man thanks to his biology will become exposed to greater risks than the woman in this job. He will be more effective than her at it. Equality of opportunity will wind up giving them both the same salary despite their differences. it is a deficient concept that is lacking...it stops at the opportunity and life is a lot more than just opportunities. Equality of opportunity is just as flawed a concept as equality of outcome.



                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by MatrixTransform View Post
                              Wait for the view of the lone guy moving the fridge ... says it all

                              Actually no, Mr Elam sums it up ... theyre getting into a dick measuring competition with people that actually have dicks.

                              ...gold.
                              That is a great video.
                              FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                              It's time to call it out for what it is.
                              == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


                              The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
                              http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X