Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Should women be treated equally?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by metalholic
 


I fell in love with my boyfriend three years ago, he is not rich and I don't expect him to buy me stuff, in fact I spent all my savings on buying him a laptop for his birthday, and I'm kind of broke now.I don't expect my future husband to be the sole benefactor and provider for my children and me, that is #ing pathetic.I study law and that will be my future career in which I will give my best to excel.And I don't want to brag or anything but I am more intelligent, I have read more books and I am hungrier for knowledge and more ambitious than any man I have ever met.And let me tell you something buddy, women could be just as easily turned down as man if you guys didn't lose your common sense over a pair of boobs.
edit on 14-12-2012 by adnachiel21 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by adnachiel21
 


Most women I find attractive only have a handful in that department



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
There are some basic biological truths that underlie our relationships with the opposite sex. In today's modern societies we like to pay lip service to "absolute equality" across tha board. In a world where women never got pregnant and people did not raise their own families, you could probably come close to achieving absolute equality, but, unfortunately in some people's view, biology tends to intrude on absolute equality and so our ideas of absolute equality are rather nastily tested as a result.

Using the "selfish gene theory" we all are simply carrying out the dictates of survival as mandated by our genes. Woman want a feathered nest to raise children successfully, protected by a strong male. She'll go for the "rich man" who can do this for her. That is a survival characteristic because her children might not survive to adulthood unless so protected. Men want the freedom to sleep around because disseminating his genes is a survival characteristic. He is more likely to have offspring and spread his genes. He'll choose a large breasted curvaceous and "pretty" woman because good looks denotes good health. Large breasts means plenty of milk. Wide hips means an easier birth, no matter what the social status. The two strategies are diametrically opposed to one another, but for each sex, it works.

We're currently facing a feminization of the culture. Because of intrusive biology, women want to be accommodated for not just pregnancy, but also for the fact that raising children can put them out of the workforce for a time, thus helping cause the 'glass ceiling." Women do not accumulate as much experience, therefore the time-in-grade requirements, whether or not they are overt, are not met. It's very much like an enlisted person who is promoted to sergeant, then gains a commission. He'll very likely never rise above Lt. Colonel not because he isn't smart enough, but because he doesn't have enough time. If that happens to men, tough. If it happens to women, that's "discrimination." Bottom Line is that women want the same 100% opportunities as men, and also want to be accommodated for their biology.

Men, on the other hand, are not accommodated, at least not officially. It is expected they remain true to their partners and not wander off. If they do, it's grounds for divorce and oh, the hurt! It's palpable. So men get no outlet and are expected to conform to the feminine ideal. In times past, that wasn't true. Victorian England men had their mistresses. Ottoman men had their harems. Men of the Nuer warrior caste in India had a matrilineal society where mother's brother (uncle) ruled, but men showed up on the side.

Today, here, we have none of that. But a lot of the bioloogical imperative still rules. That's where the previous poster is right: Women marry up. Men marry equal or down the social ladder. And men are under cosntant seige. They are criticized because they like naked women. It's porn! They are criticized if their sex drives lead them outside of marriage. They are criticized if they do not accommodate the biological imperatives of women. Yet women can still marry up.

It's not really an ideal time to be a male.
edit on 12/14/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


I agree and disagree. Mainly because in today's world I think women want multiple partners and shame on the man if he does so. Or if he does not then to hell with him. I think all in all in todays world a realy relationship is done. Unless those rare occurences where 2 people whose ideal lives rest around raising a family together can find one another.

Other then that it's sleep around and be slept around on. I think alot of this has to do with the music women and men listen to now a days. Which is full of pimpin ,money, and cars.

I think a lot of children today are gonna wake up some time in the future and see their family as dysfunctional idiots. Because the stability of their lives won't be their due to the fact that the kid has know 100 dads in his life and his real dad beats women and sells drugs.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by metalholic
 


I think even that is a mixed up point of view (mixed up as in it can be that way for anyone) . Some may feel that way, while others do not. I personally will not go very far at all with a person unless I know them first and something is "there" before then. I almost got sucked into sleeping around before with someone I knew but I wouldn't accept that, I wanted a relationship. Things of course halted from there as we did not see eye to eye.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalholic
reply to post by schuyler
 


I agree and disagree.


Feel free, but this is a well-established biological imperative. See here, for example. You'll need a better established opinion to just blow it off.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myomistress
Yes, us women SHOULD be held to the same standards because we are all human beings. I can say as a woman that I am tired of all of this gender difference # and women getting the easy part of the deal in certain situations because we're women. I was having a conversation similar to this with my family a while ago but it was about fights. About how just because a man hits a woman, he shouldn't be demoralized for it any more than a woman would be if she assaulted a man or another woman. The whole gender taboo and free rides bull# needs to stop right now. If equality is ever to be reached then it has to be true genuine equality.


You realize this applies to garbage bags and toilet seats too right? jk



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
No women should not be treated equal, they should be treated better.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthSeekerMike
 


I actually don't mind taking out the trash and if I'm in a house that I know a lot of men are in, I actually put the toilet seat back up after I'm done in there. They probably think I have a concealed penis or something.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by metalholic
 


How about Equality for ALL People ? That would be the greatest thing we could work for. Neither sex being more powerful than the other in legal and relationship terms.

It is true that most women want their prospective partners to be Financially Secure and have stable employment.

But you never hear of a financially secure women taking up with a man who has nothing to offer materially. You do often see it the other way around though.

My ex got everything, I got our child... I think I got the best part of the deal. I do not care about material possessions, nor having the latest and greatest of anything. I don't know and have not met any women who thinks like me.

So let's work at equality for ALL people.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
There are some basic biological truths that underlie our relationships with the opposite sex....
...Using the "selfish gene theory" we all are simply carrying out the dictates of survival as mandated by our genes. Woman want a feathered nest to raise children successfully, protected by a strong male. She'll go for the "rich man" who can do this for her. That is a survival characteristic because her children might not survive to adulthood unless so protected. Men want the freedom to sleep around because disseminating his genes is a survival characteristic. He is more likely to have offspring and spread his genes. He'll choose a large breasted curvaceous and "pretty" woman because good looks denotes good health. Large breasts means plenty of milk. Wide hips means an easier birth, no matter what the social status. The two strategies are diametrically opposed to one another, but for each sex, it works.

Good stuff, Schuyler
There is also, the whole - Family Thing...
This may not be as prevalent as in former generations, but, still holds some weight -- and especially in scenarios where one or the other's family has substance (money, fame, power, lineage, etc...).
--- Don't want to get written out of Mom or Dad's (or Grandma's or Grandpa's) will/s...

I have to read wills & codicils constantly...and you might be astonished at how "God-fearing (or not) folk...with a lot of money" are willing to belittle their children in such "legal documents" that are published for anyone (who cares) to see.
I've seen them lambaste their own children (and any offspring that derived through their marriage to the undesirable daughter/son-in-law) as a prelude to cutting them OUT of any inheritance...
So, obviously, more factors can be present than "just" the prospective guy's or gal's "biological imperatives".



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by WanDash

I have to read wills & codicils constantly...and you might be astonished at how "God-fearing (or not) folk...with a lot of money" are willing to belittle their children in such "legal documents" that are published for anyone (who cares) to see.

I've seen them lambaste their own children (and any offspring that derived through their marriage to the undesirable daughter/son-in-law) as a prelude to cutting them OUT of any inheritance... So, obviously, more factors can be present than "just" the prospective guy's or gal's "biological imperatives".


Interesting, but I'm not seeing the connection. If we are dealing with wills and codicils, then we're far beyond biological survival here, which was the basic issue I was dealing with: inherit, built-in, visceral strategies for survival of the genes. We see the shadows of that will to survive in modern behaviors. Women are attracted to powerful, rich men whether or not they have a pot belly. Men are attracted to "beautiful" women no matter what her social status and would sleep around if they could get away with it. That's the basic issue in a nutshell.

Obviously people's behaviors are more varied than simply responding to biological imperatives, and in this case we're talking disaffected parents or even grandparents who are dealing with offspring who have already survived and, in some cases, are parents themselves. Why are these parents disaffected? The children are doing "something wrong" with their lives that the parents object to, and it is "so bad" that the parents are willing to cut them off. They are doing something that is "not good for survival." What could be "so bad"? Who knows? To you and I these reasons may be silly, but to the parents, they aren't. To the parents thus affected, they are cutting their kids off from unearned riches, but this won't affect their survival. In fact, for a male, this is perfectly reasonable behavior. His strategy is to spread his genes, not provide a wealthy home and hearth for his offspring; that's a woman's job. And once the kids survive and are on their own, the woman's job is done as well. So nothing about these wills violates the selfish gene approach.

In fact, one of the more common reasons for the behavior you describe is that a female offspring married a "ne'er do well" guy. She didn't marry up. She married below her station. She put the survival of her offspring in peril. She violated her biological imperative and put the entire extended family at risk. So she gets cut off. It fits.

One un-related issue about "equality." I had a cousin, long dead, who worked in industry when the issue of "equal pay for equal work" first surfaced. Women were demanding the same pay as men for the same job. That's fair, right? So this woman came to my cousin and said, "Will you please move this ladder for me?" And my cousin said, "No. Equal pay for equal work means it is your job to move that ladder, not mine. If you cannot move it, you shouldn't be earning equal pay to me."
edit on 12/15/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
...Interesting, but I'm not seeing the connection. If we are dealing with wills and codicils, then we're far beyond biological survival here, which was the basic issue I was dealing with: inherit, built-in, visceral strategies for survival of the genes...

That's fine (that you don't see the connection)...
Dealing with "biological survival" is fine... Biological survival, though, can take on other characteristics, when other factors are involved (such as - Better Biological Survival Than The Rest)...in which case - just as you noted - often times, it is the female offspring (or even - adopted daughter) that "marries down"... I have seen just as many (if not more) times when it is one of the male "heirs" that marries outside the good-graces of "the family"... But - we can surely surmise that, just as often as the potential heirs choose to mate in opposition to the Family's approval...there would certainly be "as many times" when the potential heirs elect "their inheritance" over their "choice of mate", and thus - do not choose according to how they would have, if biological instinct (selfish gene) dictates.
What's the connection?
The biological appeal of big breasts & wide hips (child-bearing & nurturing machines) may have to be subjected to the allegiance to money &/or family.
Which is what you state, below...


Obviously people's behaviors are more varied than simply responding to biological imperatives, and in this case we're talking disaffected parents or even grandparents who are dealing with offspring who have already survived and, in some cases, are parents themselves. Why are these parents disaffected? The children are doing "something wrong" with their lives that the parents object to, and it is "so bad" that the parents are willing to cut them off. They are doing something that is "not good for survival." What could be "so bad"? Who knows? To you and I these reasons may be silly, but to the parents, they aren't. To the parents thus affected, they are cutting their kids off from unearned riches, but this won't affect their survival. In fact, for a male, this is perfectly reasonable behavior. His strategy is to spread his genes, not provide a wealthy home and hearth for his offspring; that's a woman's job. And once the kids survive and are on their own, the woman's job is done as well. So nothing about these wills violates the selfish gene approach.

In fact, one of the more common reasons for the behavior you describe is that a female offspring married a "ne'er do well" guy. She didn't marry up. She married below her station. She put the survival of her offspring in peril. She violated her biological imperative and put the entire extended family at risk. So she gets cut off. It fits.

If you thought I was arguing with you - I was not...
Just highlighting another facet.
Thanks for the reply.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by WanDash
If you thought I was arguing with you - I was not...
Just highlighting another facet.
Thanks for the reply.


No, it's cool. As someone who has cut off one of my offspring, it made me think about the issue more than I would have.
edit on 12/15/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
No, it's cool. As someone who has cut off one of my offspring, it made me think about the issue more than I would have.

Sorry if it was/seemed judgmental.
I know there are times when the stereotypcial answers don't fit...
Wish you well.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalholic
I want you to think about the standards women put on men as a whole. Generally they want you to build a nest so that they may come and mate. To create a new family for future generations. Much like animals.

Not all animals are like this and not all people.

Again lets think about women. What do they want?

Should men expect the same from them?

Should men turn them down if they don't have money?

Should they turn them down if they don't have a car?

Should they be turned down if they are not tight enough?

Should they be turned down if they don't have a job or they're own place?

They do want to be treated as equals do they not?

This is just me thinking out loud about the general b/s between male and female relations and how stupid it is for women to want to be treated as equals.

Let's be honest here women never leave home unless some MAN provides them with a place to live. Need I say more?


Within the law men and women alike should be treated equally as Citizens. As per individual choices, that is for the individual to decide. Men and Women are free to set any standard they want, from the reasonable to the unreasonable. If Men or Women set unreasonable standards then they will pay for their stupidity themselves as Women in their late 20's to mid 30's are paying for their stupidity in setting unreasonable standards.

That said though, I would prefer an end to traditionalism in totality. Way I see it, if society isn't going to help or enable me to do the things traditionalists would demand upon me, I would have to be a total moron to still try and carry out my end of the social contract.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
anyone ever here about the BOUNTY theory ?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by metalholic
Let's be honest here women never leave home unless some MAN provides them with a place to live. Need I say more?


I moved out when I was 18, I've lived with 4 different men (two as room mates, two I was (and one I still am) in a relationship with). I've also lived in a house share. The majority of those instances, I was the one who had my own place.
If you're going to argue that women should be treated equally, and should expect the same treatments as men, you can also argue that a very large population of men should just stop seeing women as the weaker sex.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by metalholic
 





Let's be honest here women never leave home unless some MAN provides them with a place to live. Need I say more?


Just... Wow... I moved out of home when I was 14 due to a bad home life. I hated men because of what happened. I've had my own flats before, but I now live with my boyfriend as he didn't want to move. Hes happy with having me there. I contribute all I can and (all he will allow me too) but he likes looking after me. Is that not a man thing anyway..? To be the protector..?

We are the same but different, and thats good..

Like previous posters have should everyone regardless of age, colour, shape, size, nationality and gender should be treated equally..

Stop generalising.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by metalholic
 


Tight enough? I am married to my second and last husband.
When we got married I had a full-time job and a small house that
I was paying for.






top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join