|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2021 11:26:27 GMT
What you think about gender equity?
In history we see men being dominant while women being subordinated.
Today we see an equity between them. All females allowed to do what males doing....
|
|
|
|
Post by 𝘛𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘴𝘬𝘺 on Dec 2, 2021 13:03:23 GMT
It goes very slowly, slowly. But the change and success in the last 100 years is incredible.
Sadly not all girls have all right untill today!
This is a nice threadnumber for a presentation.
And Boys still can't make no Evelution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Dec 2, 2021 13:33:17 GMT
I don't think that in the past 200 years, most women were slaves (men were more sought after due to their more physical qualities), so emancipation may not be the word you are looking for.
With the exception of places like Saudi Arabia, we see more societal freedom for women and more danger for them. i.e. they don't have societal norms of compliance to a husband any more, but they are expected to serve in the militaries of many countries should the need arise, expected to work in potentially harmful fields, &c.
I see full equality impossible, merely because of biology (women are naturally better than men at creating relationships with other people and are often more creative, men are better at stuff like puzzles and physical things and the like). I have a sort of middle of the road stance for an Oklahoman, far right probably for much of Europe, that if a woman needs to, by all means go and work, but I don't think that they should go into jobs that can be dangerous for them, which would be common sense given the strengths of men versus the strengths of women. You could say I see the role of a woman primarily as a homemaker.
BUT BEFORE I GET CANCELLED, let me say that I would say that the primary role of a man is a homemaker as well. While I think every capable man should work, his work should never get in the way of his more important job of raising a family. I don't think that every (every) woman should work. This is merely because of different societal norms and different psychological and physiological strengths.
All in all, I would say that the role of women in the last 200 years has neither taken a huge leap forward, nor a step back. I would say that their lives have often become worse, but in exchange for that, they get more choices on what to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2021 14:26:33 GMT
at one side i would advocate women equality to let them have same rights and chances as men do.
on tbe other side there is the increasing social family problem:
when women work as much as men they would neglect homeworking, cooking, washing, cleaning so on.
so men would also need to do homework, spending less time in their jobs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Dec 2, 2021 15:00:05 GMT
What you think about gender equity? In history we see men being dominant while women being subordinated. Today we see an equity between them. All females allowed to do what males doing.... Unfortunately, I don't think men and women have reached equality in modern society although stuff has got better. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Dec 2, 2021 15:18:45 GMT
To the work topic, I think a heterosexual couple where the husband works and the wife stays at home is bad for both. The husband doesn't get to make contact with his family and the wife doesn't get to work.
But those problems are nothing compared to developed countries where girls go to school for a few years if lucky and then face forced marriage at 13 and start producing children. Their purpose is to work before they're able to get children, then when they're able to they get children and work more in poor conditions. They are never meant to get educated and live a happy life and bring welfare to the society. They are meant to produce children who will inevitably live in poverty and hunger.
But there are problems in developed countries too. Women generally have lower wages, they face sexual abuse, they don't get to work like discussed before and face many other types of discrimination.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2021 15:25:12 GMT
Ah, tradition: the peer pressure from the dead. From a historical standpoint, the main reason why women had less rights was due to them being physically weaker than men. That was pretty much it. That's how the Patriarchy was formed: father figure was the leader, so we see things from his PoV, and this bled out to the majority of cultures. And the cultures who didn't follow such had different circumstances, like harsher conditions, which made women in charge more as men went out to hunt more. I'm not too interested discussing about it, but the point is that i find it quite amusing how a lot of history can be formed simply due to one fact alone. Ah butterfly effect. There really isn't any reason to discriminate against men and women on anything, unless proven so. For instance, it is understandable why women are less wanted in physically demanding jobs like construction, but if one is willing and one is capable, then why not? As for family issues, i don't know, i'm not too much of a family person(not a good thing to say if one wants to become a politician), and i'm more willing to consider options outside the family. For one, it can cause a lot of mental issues. Of course, if you are lucky and get a good family, then you're good. The problem is, letting chance dictate the life of one is kinda a good way to create problems. Broken families, poverty, etc. It's an interesting issue to tackle as we move forward as a society, but it is quite a divisive one i must say.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2021 15:32:08 GMT
there are contemporary studies where women surpassed men in some countries with education and following job career and causing more social problem than needed. cuz traditions will have to be thrown overboard, the traditional role of men is no longer anymore being the dominant....
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Dec 2, 2021 15:37:22 GMT
there are contemporary studies where women surpassed men in some countries with education and following job career and causing more social problem than needed. cuz traditions will have to be thrown overboard, the traditional role of men is no longer anymore being the dominant.... That is also a sign of another real problem, boys not being good at school, which atleast partially is a result of tradotions. No gender is better or superior compared to others, but still traditions make it look like men were. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Dec 2, 2021 17:08:59 GMT
Oswald Spengler quoted a famous French author Anatole France once. And I think it is a great quotation.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids all men to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread - the rich as well as the poor."
And Spengler makes a logical conclusion that we have tendency to forget about - equality of rights means nothing without equality of opportunities.
A modern world is talking more and more about "equality of rights" and less and less about "equality of opportunities".
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Dec 2, 2021 17:34:04 GMT
Oswald Spengler quoted a famous French author Anatole France once. And I think it is a great quotation. "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids all men to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread - the rich as well as the poor." And Spengler makes a logical conclusion that we have tendency to forget about - equality of rights means nothing without equality of opportunities. A modern world is talking more and more about "equality of rights" and less and less about "equality of opportunities". But equality of opportunities to me sounds a bit off as it is impossible. I mean yes, everyone can be given the same chances to achieve something, but achieving something is always dependent on things you cannot affect. I'm not saying you're saying so, but I don't think "equality of opportunities" is an excuse to inequality, social, economical or any other kind. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Dec 2, 2021 18:51:06 GMT
Oswald Spengler quoted a famous French author Anatole France once. And I think it is a great quotation. "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids all men to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread - the rich as well as the poor." And Spengler makes a logical conclusion that we have tendency to forget about - equality of rights means nothing without equality of opportunities. A modern world is talking more and more about "equality of rights" and less and less about "equality of opportunities". But equality of opportunities to me sounds a bit off as it is impossible. I mean yes, everyone can be given the same chances to achieve something, but achieving something is always dependent on things you cannot affect. I'm not saying you're saying so, but I don't think "equality of opportunities" is an excuse to inequality, social, economical or any other kind. Well, a state-sponsored education including a high one is very achievable step in many countries. A child from a poor family and from a rich family couldn't ever reach equality of opportunities if there's a huge discrepancy in their education level. But this is often simply ignored. We just create this social gap right from the childhood and then try to convince the poor that at least they have the same rights before the law (a questionable statement too, since poor guys can't afford best lawyers anyway). So far I see only the attempts of the rich and powerful to cover the inequality with noise and empty talks about equality of rights. Equality of rights is a good start, but not an "aim in itself". We have to provide people with means to benefit from equal rights. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Dec 2, 2021 18:56:31 GMT
But equality of opportunities to me sounds a bit off as it is impossible. I mean yes, everyone can be given the same chances to achieve something, but achieving something is always dependent on things you cannot affect. I'm not saying you're saying so, but I don't think "equality of opportunities" is an excuse to inequality, social, economical or any other kind. Well, a state-sponsored education including a high one is very achievable step in many countries. A child from a poor family and from a rich family couldn't ever reach equality of opportunities if there's a huge discrepancy in their education level. But this is often simply ignored. We just create this social gap right from the childhood and then try to convince the poor that at least they have the same rights before the law (a questionable statement too, since poor guys can't afford best lawyers anyway). So far I see only the attempts of the rich and powerful to cover the inequality with noise and empty talks about equality of rights. Yes, agree with that. A tax funded and high quality education for all is a must in order to achieve equality. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Dec 2, 2021 19:01:32 GMT
Well, a state-sponsored education including a high one is very achievable step in many countries. A child from a poor family and from a rich family couldn't ever reach equality of opportunities if there's a huge discrepancy in their education level. But this is often simply ignored. We just create this social gap right from the childhood and then try to convince the poor that at least they have the same rights before the law (a questionable statement too, since poor guys can't afford best lawyers anyway). So far I see only the attempts of the rich and powerful to cover the inequality with noise and empty talks about equality of rights. Yes, agree with that. A tax funded and high quality education for all is a must in order to achieve equality. Plus taxation that is socially just. The richest should carry a heavier burden since they profit from the current system most. |
|
|
|
Post by alexandrvasilevski on Dec 2, 2021 19:49:24 GMT
Kinder. Küche. Kirche
|
|
