Feminists: An Observation

[Number_6]

You're never going to have absolutely equality of men and women. Remember our conversation about the firefighter who needs to carry you from a burning building? Most women are not going to be able to lift a 250 pound person and carry them to safety.

But, in the interests of "equality," some fire departments give women an easier physical test than men, so that they can pass and become fire fighters. Is that truly equality? No. It's socially engineered equality, and it may well result in someone's death. Perhaps both the female firefighter and the person she's trying to carry to safety.

See, when the Constitution says "all men are created equal" (and we'll understand that to include women in 2006), it simply means that all are created equal under the law--that we are all the same under the law, regardless of race, class, or gender (the holy trinity of the left). It doesn't literally mean that all people are created equal.

Genetically, men and women are not equal. They are not the same as one another. Yet many branches of feminism proceed on the assumption that they are the same, that biological differences mean little or nothing, and that gender is just a social construct. These branches of feminism are flawed, because they refuse to acknowledge empirical evidence that contradicts their position.

Rational feminists need to acknowledge the fact that men and women are different. Yes, there are many, many variations, and some men are more like women and some women more like men, but on the whole, a woman is more like a woman than a man is like a woman.

These differences have real world consequences, that cannot be denied no matter how many Lawrence Sumners the left forces to resign for forwarding a hypothesis based on observed evidence that the left doesn't want to acknowledge.

 

[Number_6]

What is your point?

And, you fucking well better have a damned good one, because you're skating on extremely thin ice, right now.

No, you're being irrational and reactionary.

 

[The Question]

Just to be clear, I have not called TQ a Nazi in this thread, although I do think the label is appropriate given his stated views. I called him a "Nazi apologist," meaning that he tries to excuse and minimize the crimes of Nazi Germany. Even if you don't think he's a fell-fledged Nazi, he's clearly an apologist.

I guess that makes me an apologist for lots of things. I'd probably even find myself accused of being a WordInterrupted apologist, if someone accused you of something you didn't do.

 

[Friday]

No, you're being irrational and reactionary.

No. You called me a bitch. How is my being upset with that irrational and reactionary?

You are never allowed to do that, no matter who the fuck you are.

What the fuck are you thinking?

 

[Number_6]

Ah. Look at TJHairball's User Title, and then get back to me.

 

[Friday]

Rationalizing your way out of using abusive language isn't helping your case.

It wasn't a smart move on your part.

 

[The Question]

Um, Friday? I don't think he was calling you a bitch. I think he was talking to TJHairball specifically, whose user title is, "Wordin's Boi" which he read as, "Wordin's Bitch." He wasn't aiming "Bitch" at you at all, from what I can see.

 

[Friday]

No. He was clearly addressing me.

 

[Number_6]

Meaning what? That you impute motives to me in calling TJHairball "Wordin's Bitch" instead of "Wordin's Boi" (pretty much the same thing, as one could use "boi" and "bitch" interchangeably in this usage) because I am male and must therefore hide some secret misogyny and sexism?

It's not my fault that you thought I was calling you a bitch, something that I've never done before and would be coming from completely out of left field. Why did you think that I would call you a bitch? What possible reason could I have had for doing it? None. And there's no pattern of behavior that you can point to and say "well, he called me a bitch before." So you're rushing to judgment based on my gender.

That's particularly unfair.

 

[Big Dick McGee]

All women are bitches sometimes. We just learn to live with it. The good ones know they're sometimes bitches, and appreciate that we don't hold it against them.

 

[Morrhigan]

Number_6, it seems that you are using the term "equal" when what you mean is "the same". Men and women are not the same - each gender is able to do things that the other can't - but they are equal in that the different things that each contribute to the human race are of equal value.

This is how we can say "all men are created equal" and based our civil rights on that premise even before women's suffrage. Not that all men can do everything equally well. Some men run faster, some understand mathematics at levels far higher than others, some can build houses. That makes them different, but does not make them unequal.

 

[Number_6]

Certainly it makes them unequal. If you are a better singer than I am, we are not equal in that area of talent. If I am a better bass player than you are, we are not equal in that area of talent.

Human beings are not equal. We can be treated equally under the law, but that does not make us intrinsically equal.

And we do not all contribute equally to the human race. I'm not about to argue that my contributions equal Jonas Salk's, for example.

The problem I have is that there are many who read the word "equal" and demand equality of outcome as well as equality of opportunity. To guarantee equality of outcome requires some sort of "Harrison Bergeron" solution.

 

[missmanners]

Oh please..... as if any man could some how be my equal. I hardly think so.


mm

 

[The Question]

^^Ahem.

 

[TJHairball]

You're never going to have complete equality. Men and women aren't equal.

The defense rests its case. Sexism is not dead.

There is no intrinsic quality of women that makes them inherently less valuable than men; this makes men and women equal as bulk groups, intrinsically... but our society still treats them as such, measured empirically.

Buy me a new title if you don't like my current one... I don't (and never have) bothered with all that crap.

Chew on that statement for a bit, and then try and figure out why I'm not saying what you probably think I'm saying.

I can see you trying to misuse the term, and make claims that are clearly false on top of that.

Read the link I posted you. With the same qualifications, women do still earn less.

And to say the least, sexism is not dead at all. Legally demonstrable sexual discrimination is becoming rarer, but it's very clearly not dead.

I don't have to step further than the opinion pages of a newspaper to see clear sexism demonstrated. I don't even have to leave here to see that.

 

[Number_6]

You're a fucking moron if you can't understand the point I'm making.

You go back to pretending like reality doesn't exist, and nothing can stop you from attaining your utopian dream.

Men and women are not equal. They are inherently different from one another, and those inherent differences preclude equality.

There can only be equality under the law. You can't mandate anything else, jackass.

 

[Number_6]

The defense rests its case. Sexism is not dead.

There is no intrinsic quality of women that makes them inherently less valuable than men; this makes men and women equal as bulk groups, intrinsically... but our society still treats them as such, measured empirically.

See, this is where the root of your ignorance appears to lie. Saying that men and women aren't equal doesn't mean that one is superior to the other.

And there are qualities intrinsic to most men and most women that do, in fact, make one sex superior to the other, as a group, in certain areas.

On the whole, men have greater upper-body strength than women, or at least have the capacity to build greater upper-body strength than women.

And men aren't particularly good at making babies.

If you'd set aside your self-righteous indignation for a minute or two, you might realize that what I'm saying is that in order to make the world a better place, we need to start with the facts, both in terms of the differences between men and women and in terms of where we really are now in the effort to make men and women equal under the law, instead of the grossly exaggerated version provided by groups like NOW.

But, you appear incapable of laying aside your own prejudices and hatred, so I'll leave you to wallow in them.

 

[TJHairball]

You're a fucking moron if you can't understand the point I'm making.

You go back to pretending like reality doesn't exist, and nothing can stop you from attaining your utopian dream.

Men and women are not equal. They are inherently different from one another, and those inherent differences preclude equality.

They are inherently different... but by no means is either inherently superior to the other, or intrinsically of greater worth.

There are differences, yes; but these differences do not generate fundamental inequality of the whole.

There can only be equality under the law. You can't mandate anything else, jackass.

Since law is mandate, and mandate is law, that's a hollow point.

 

[TJHairball]

See, this is where the root of your ignorance appears to lie. Saying that men and women aren't equal doesn't mean that one is superior to the other.

Yes it does. You're trying to use an entirely inappropriate definition for the term.

There's a difference between socioeconomic equality and identical characteristics. Equality is not identity; it is about overall parity. It is about the lack of a superiority/inferiority relationship.

And there are qualities intrinsic to most men and most women that do, in fact, make one sex superior to the other, as a group, in certain areas.

And in other areas, the other is. And?

On the whole, men have greater upper-body strength than women, or at least have the capacity to build greater upper-body strength than women.

And men aren't particularly good at making babies.

If you'd set aside your self-righteous indignation for a minute or two, you might realize that what I'm saying is that in order to make the world a better place, we need to start with the facts, both in terms of the differences between men and women and in terms of where we really are now in the effort to make men and women equal under the law, instead of the grossly exaggerated version provided by groups like NOW.

By and large, we have most of the legal foundation for an egalitarian society.

Not all of it, of course.

What's left is the hard part. It's easy to stand around and pass laws. It's hard to change the culture of "Woman, get me a sammich... worthless bitch..."

It's hard to get rid of prejudices rooted for generations and faithfully transmitted from parents to children. Sure, most men have an easier time than most women in building upper body strength; sure, most women can withstand higher g-forces than most men without blacking out ... ok, that one's probably not taught to most kids.

Which brings me to the next point. When we put together all the prejudices that are present (from the mythologically to the partially or even fully correct), the prejudices by and large favor men arbitrarily more than women. Perhaps not as much where you are, but down here in the Bible Belt, I run into highly sexist individuals on a daily basis. And more often than not, they tend to be sexist in a manner that doesn't favor women.

But, you appear incapable of laying aside your own prejudices and hatred, so I'll leave you to wallow in them.

Prejudices and hatreds?

Here, you have called me names, and you cry of prejudice and hatred? 6, shame.

 

[TJHairball]

Oh yes... further reading about women in the military - always a hot topic when this comes about.

Frankly, everything I've read indicates that women are physiologically better suited for combat aircraft than men... smaller, lighter, more compact, more tolerant of g-forces... etc. There's a lot of mythology floating around about double standards and actual physical capabilities.

And why? Because a number of people hold arbitrary sexist prejudices.