The path to Women's rights, better than equal rights?

how would you rate deaths
is death by fire better than death by drowning?
what about death by starvation?
is there any good death? well maybe death from old age
but basically death is death!
there are many ways to die each having different characteristics but well I think we will all agree that a death of a child is really not good regardless of those different charactereistics! death is death!
and people are people!
some can be strong as an ox while being dumber than a doorknob!
some can be lazy
some can be gentle
some can be whatever!
you will never find two people exactly the same!
if you ever find yourself pinned under a car and that dumb person built like an ox comes and pulls that car off of you are you going to gripe because he can't form a complete sentence? are you gonna treat him like a second class citizen just because he's dumb?
if you are physically or emotionally hurt are you really gonna care much if the person who comes to comfort you can't lift 100 lbs of weight?
we each have our strengths along with our weaknesses. that doesn't mean that what we can contribute to society is of any less worth than another! we can be equal although we are different! we just have our priorities and values screwed up! always have always will have probably!

There can only be one the strongest, doesn't mean the women would be weak but she would be weaker even if she has a strong personality. One has to start, it can't ever be two start at the exact same moment, one was first because everything happens chronologically. It's almost by default men start first because the greatest thinkers have been males from long ago, just looking at Jesus Christ, the thinkers from the Hellenistic Era for the western world or Buddha and Brahma for the Asian world, Confucius, the Prophet Muhammad for Arab countries. Sure there have been matriarchical societies like Native American noteworthy to mention but I don't have too much knowledge about that especially since I'm from a patriarchical society.

There's just no way women can make up several hundreds years of male dominated thoughts coming from a male perspective unless men stop thinking altogether to allow females to catch up and create their philosophies from a female point of view. Until females do they're just parroting men. And even if women would catch up they still couldn't be equals mainly because of the point someone has to begin and I'm pretty sure for western society at least whoever began (this reality we all duplicate, or is currently leading) was a male, who created the position of women as well.

a reply to: johnnyjoe1979
hmmm does that mean that leeches should rule over pennecillan?
since well leeches came first??

by the way there was a goddess before there was a god. the oldest archeological finds depicting a diety depict a female diety!

originally posted by: johnnyjoe1979
There can only be one the strongest, doesn't mean the women would be weak but she would be weaker even if she has a strong personality. One has to start, it can't ever be two start at the exact same moment, one was first because everything happens chronologically. It's almost by default men start first because the greatest thinkers have been males from long ago, just looking at Jesus Christ, the thinkers from the Hellenistic Era for the western world or Buddha and Brahma for the Asian world, Confucius, the Prophet Muhammad for Arab countries. Sure there have been matriarchical societies like Native American noteworthy to mention but I don't have too much knowledge about that especially since I'm from a patriarchical society.

There's just no way women can make up several hundreds years of male dominated thoughts coming from a male perspective unless men stop thinking altogether to allow females to catch up and create their philosophies from a female point of view. Until females do they're just parroting men. And even if women would catch up they still couldn't be equals mainly because of the point someone has to begin and I'm pretty sure for western society at least whoever began (this reality we all duplicate, or is currently leading) was a male, who created the position of women as well.

I'm pretty sure there was a woman before the man in every

mans life .... goes by the name of MOTHER she will have taught

him everything he has learned subliminally at her knee....

The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world

Any man faced in the situation of being hit by a women, of course should not have to put up with that. They should leave, domestic violence is domestic violence whether your are male or female being abused.

I do not quite agree with the sentiment that "If a woman hits a man she should expect to be treated as a man". Most of us would not do such. A likely case would be out of self defense.

After seeing the video of the cop who beat up the college professor because she wasn't listening to him that's where it really ticked me off.

If the woman is 5 foot, about 100 pounds coming at a 6 foot plus man let's say 250 to 300 pounds, hands and fist in a normal fighting stance likely would not hurt him. For him to reply to that with bigger force behind the punch, really is asking for hurting that person. I just don't see that as fair.

Personally, when I have been accosted by someone of the same sex, and as I'm a taller woman my height alone brings more force, by a smaller female, I'd chosen to use a martial art technique. One that was to render them inoperable until they calm down thus inflicting no damage to them.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: ChaosComplex

You do realize that there is a law that makes beating the crap out of another illegal right? I believe it's called assault. I bet if you had pressed charges after the first time it wouldn't have happened again!

Yeah, I'm well aware of that. In reality I don't really believe in pressing charges on someone for a physical altercation (or much else really). Even if someone sucker punched me and kicked my ass I'm not one to get the police involved. Where I'm from you're just asking for more trouble if you get Johnny Law involved.

originally posted by: dreamingawake
If the woman is 5 foot, about 100 pounds coming at a 6 foot plus man let's say 250 to 300 pounds, hands and fist in a normal fighting stance likely would not hurt him. For him to reply to that with bigger force behind the punch, really is asking for hurting that person. I just don't see that as fair.

Besides my unrelenting conscience, the size difference was the biggest factor keeping me from hitting her back. I'm about 6'2'' right at 200lbs, and she was maybe 5'1'' 115lbs? I'm not going to say she would have been helpless if I fought back, because as they say "dynamite comes in small packages", but I will say that I would have had a good chance of doing some serious damage with a single well placed punch. I'm stupidly patient, and I really have no problem getting punched in the face so I guess it worked out in her favor.

This whole conversation just feels wrong. I think that even if it was 100% legal to reciprocate force...I think I would just feel bad hurting a female who is significantly weaker than I. Similarly I am known for walking away from most altercations these days, so I dunno.

I like to think a perfect world would be merit based, as in you are only worth what you prove you are worth. This goes for males, females, of any race, any background.

Now I'm just rambling. I'll say again "The proof is in the pudding".

My view is simple, and unfortunately is why it will never happen. It does matter if you are discussing sex/race/gender etc etc, everyone should be allowed the SAME rights. That does not mean "special" rights, unfortunately that is what everyone seems to be pushing for. If your an American you should all have the EXACT same rights, not special compensation. I am all for equal rights, marriage, jobs, pay, whatever, just do not ask for "special" rights I will not agree to that at all.

Grim

originally posted by: Grimmley
My view is simple, and unfortunately is why it will never happen. It does matter if you are discussing sex/race/gender etc etc, everyone should be allowed the SAME rights. That does not mean "special" rights, unfortunately that is what everyone seems to be pushing for. If your an American you should all have the EXACT same rights, not special compensation. I am all for equal rights, marriage, jobs, pay, whatever, just do not ask for "special" rights I will not agree to that at all.

Grim

I have to agree and it seems that many of these fights for "equality" are just fights to create yet another protected class.

What I have come to think is that one only has power over you if you acknowledge it.

I have been living in a country with radically different values than the one I grew up in, and one of the things I observe is the power of women is much much greater.

-And yet.... if you look at the statistics, you wouldn't see it. There's a much greater number of males in "official" roles of power, in business, in government.....

To see the huge power the women have, you'd have to turn away from those, and delve into the daily personal lives of the people here! To see that- home and family is more important to them than business or government.
In recent threads, it was mentioned that in some of these more "socialist" countries, all people get mandatory paid vacation from work (six weeks in this one). They also work shorter hours (35 a week). It is considered essential that people spend time with their family and friends at home, in order to be productive employees.

As an american, who has a tendancy to dedicate all my energy to work and take it very seriously, this seems lazy to me at times.

It was also posted that a study showed people from Socialist or Communist countries are more likely to cheat. This country is not Communist nor Socialist exactly, but it has more socialist type of values on a continuum type of measure, and I agreed- yes they DO cheat more. They don't see the "official" power as being so all powerful. If you are not a sympathetic and caring person, you will get cheated- doesn't matter whether you are the boss or not. Be a distant and cold researcher running a game, they won't hesitate to cheat you- you didn't spend time talking laughing, sharing yourself with them, getting to know them first!

As an american, I get irritated at times with this, they seem disrespectful of hierarchy and rules.


Every one of my reactions makes clear to me my own bias towards male power.


Because the home is the Womans castle- she runs everything, she does the paperwork (bill paying, budget planning), she decides what they will eat and when, where they will go on vacation, or what kind of social events they will take part in.
Not only for the children, but for the husband.
Employees need to go home to get some guidance and direction from their women, in order to be healthy, happy, balanced workers. That is their idea.



Women teach their families-

-it is not official position you need to respect- we are all equal essentially- it is their behavior and empathy towards other humans. Cooperate with the kind person, don't cooperate with the selfish or insensitive. Reward ethics and morals, not greed or egoism. No matter what kind of role they play in society.

-Take care of your body, it is what carries your mind. Give it the rest, food, water, affection and social bonding, and interdependance that is necessary for it to be an effective vehicle BEFORE you make it go to work hard.

These are the common maternal, feminine values that reflect the power of women in this society. They are different from the male values upon facing challenge and difficulty, being independant, competition for official roles of power, and hierarchy.

As long as the women are looking longingly at the roles of official power outside the home, and respecting them and their rules and dictates, they remain far from their own power, and prisoner to sexism. But it is their OWN sexism. It is their own failure to recognize female power and abilities as valuable.

On this site, people often ponder- why is it that Americans are such sheep??? Why don't they protest more often?

Of course, the answers are complex, but one aspect is this hyper valuation on the masculine.

A society that encourages one to work themselves to exhaustion, for financial reward, then blow off all that tension on the weekend with excessive consumption of alcohol and junk food (work hard, play hard), makes for bodies that are not in optimum condition, and minds that are out of focus.

A society that pushes forward extreme independance creates bodies that are lacking in affective needs and time to "lean" on another and rest- becoming stressed and insensitive.

A society that has religions which teach the body is inferior, the mind superior..... God is a HE, and the enlightened rejects the "lower" drives and needs of their physical shell, to "ascend" to higher dimensions......that society makes people who lose touch with their physical nature, Mother earth, and the experience of other.

If you are feeling enslaved or dominated, it might be useful to analyze whether it is not you enslaving yourself first.

a reply to: johnnyjoe1979

No you can have more than one strongest as it determines how you divide them. Im not sure but id say females are stronger than males when it comes to childr age because they mature faster than boys. Females are more likely than men to survive major injury (the theory is testosterone slows the healing process. Which is odd since testosterone is given for healing too by doctors). Females have stronger legs than the average male. Males have the stronger upper body usually. The strongest wight lifting people out there are all mostly male. Females have a longer life expectancy than males. You just cant make black and white statements like men are stronger than women. When it comes to social strength that entirely depends on too many factors for me try to say who has an advantage where.

a reply to: Nechash

I've been saying for a while now that there should be an app where each individual could vote on issues, policy and representatives, the only thing it would really require is that smartphones be distributed to everyone, and that these smartphones be built with the ability to do fingerprint identification, or retina scan so that each individual only gets one vote per issue, some might say that is to big brotherish, but I disagree with that, I think it would make everyone more accountable and it would give results to voting for everyone to see, the only real problem is that people in different regions have dfferent values, and some people might demand that their spouses or children vote the way they are told to vote by someone standing over their shoulder and watching them as they cast their vote, forcing someone to vote for something that they are actually against.

I am against women's rights black rights gay, alien and fish. I am for equal rights. I think if we continue to segregate and give separate rights to everyone. That is exactly what we get, a segregated society. Nothing changes. You should not say don't treat women a certain way or not to treat blacks a certain way, you should say don't treat anyone one that way.

a reply to: DonVoigt

Just assign everyone a cell number at birth. They have $20 smartphones now, aka the Kyosera Event, so it is affordable. They could even have a center set up in every major city for elderly people or those opposed to technology (Amish, paranoid, etc). So they can come in an fill out a paper ballot. Those using their paper ballot will simply use their cell number as their identification number. This way also, you carry your number with you for life so if you ever default on credit, skip state on bail, etc, if you are going to have a phone, people will be able to get in touch with you. Yeah, a bit big brotherish, but having government involvement in one key area in exchange for government responsiveness, is a fair exchange in my opinion.

I'm sure we could come up with some way for people to opt out if they are really offended by it.

a reply to: Bluesma

My question is, do the women where you are have a choice?

Choice is the "key" word.

Many women have chosen not to be in a traditional woman role.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Bluesma

My question is, do the women where you are have a choice?

Choice is the "key" word.

Many women have chosen not to be in a traditional woman role.

Of course they have choice. Let me point out that thought there are less women in positions of official power, there are still many. Many women who resonate more with their masculine qualities. There are also men who feel more comfortable expressing their feminine qualities, and make their living with those.

Just because a larger number of women choose to live their maternal power (through either motherhood, or care ,service, or teaching careers), than those who choose a career of masculine power (competition, aggressivity, material possession ) does not in itself indicate that the men are sexist! Even if they are taken by surprise by the masculine woman, at first not understanding her direction, that still doesn't mean to me that the man is sexist!

I don't believe in victimization in a general way, and I don't feel comfortable when others try to convince someone they are a victim. To make someone believe they are powerless when they are not, is probably the best definition i can think of for "victimization". The doors are open, we are our own obstacle.

a reply to: Bluesma

Why are you referring to "independent" women as masculine.

Do women give an aborted baby girls any womens rights? didn't think so.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Bluesma

My question is, do the women where you are have a choice?

Choice is the "key" word.

Many women have chosen not to be in a traditional woman role.

I think it also depends upon "where you are from", socio-economically, what the so-called "traditional role" is. It is not part of working class traditions to not work, but laws and conventions were devised that limited women's movements meaning that they could only work from the home. When those were lifted, during the second world war, and women were needed in the traditional male domains of work (from which women had been excluded by law) and found perfectly capable of doing those roles, it opened up the possibility of financial independence not only from their husbands, but due to social organisation, from their father's too.

Equality is not about being the same as men, which, I don't know about you, but I find that idea laughable, it is as you say, all about choice, and not about being dependent upon the head of the household, male or female, financially and morally, to make your decisions for you. I am able to support myself in the best way that I see fit, and as such I should be able to expect to be paid what the job is worth, not at a reduced rate because I am a woman.

Very few of those "traditional" (and often still) male domains require physical strength, and besides, some men are more delicate than women. Bank managers, lawyers, administrative roles, doctors, etc etc etc, are not jobs that require heavy lifting, so women should be paid the same rate as men in those jobs. However, shop work, a traditional domain of ladies, does involve heavy lifting, but I don't see men leaping to say that women can't keep on doing that. It seems to me in fact, that the best paid jobs require the least physical involvement all round, so perhaps, given that argument, it should be men, because they are stronger (allegedly) who do the menial domestic work and they should leave the hard mental lifting to the girls.

Silliness, of course. You're spot in it is all about choice, as well as the freedom of opportunity to make those choices. I have that, but millions of women still do not, which is why the battle for equality goes on. Women around the world are forced to marry, and are forced to have children, and are forced to become prostitutes because those are the only means that they can survive within their societies. Striving for equality is simply a recognition that inequity exists, and it is seldom just about women getting more rights, but about recognising the limitations of any fixed expectation of role in society.

The only human rights movement worth fighting for is human rights itself and I'll always believe that til the day I die.

There is no equality we cannot fight for as one. Either you're for human rights or not. I don't abide hypocrisy.

The worst kind of prejudice is those who should be allies turning on each other.

originally posted by: Expat888
Bollox .. if they want equal then it should be equal across the board ..
What they mean is they want another way to fook men over by picking and choosing when they want "equality" .. more feminist rubbish .

Perhaps women wouldn't need to # you over if they had equality and choice. In a society where women have no rights, and are tied to their fathers, who subsequently "gives" her hand in marriage to another man, the woman has no choice let alone the ability to exercise that right. This is fine, if she is happy, well treated and her role valued, but less so if she is wanting "more" or "less" than that. Under such a system, men make her choices for her, so they only means she has to exercise those rights are by manipulation and intrigue. She was after all forced by socio-economic constraints to marry you, not out of choice because she loved you, so why would she feel any loyalty towards you, since you #ed her over in the first place, from her perspective?

Equality just means equality under law. All are oppressed, or none. Women will still # you over, but that is more about the women you keep company with I would have thought, as well as your inflated sense of your own worth. Like attracts like, is seldom far from the mark.