I don't understand gender equality.

[Lither]

Something that has bugged me for years is the concept of gender equality. I'll outline some of my issues with it.

We are taught through the means of religion that no man is better than another. Nowhere in any testament or teaching is the quality of womankind brought up, indicating that if God were the ruler and creator of all, he did not intend for gender equality. All the great religious figures are not women, apart from the Virgin Mary, who plays a minor role, and bears no real power to change the earth. Mary does not display great knowledge either, which proves that during the old times, god or none, women were not seen as equal.

But the majority of us believe in the Scientific concept. This is just as, if not more proof that women are nor created to be equal to men. The brains of both genders work differently, and it is proven that men are better at estimating time, judging speed of things, carrying out mental mathematical calculations, being able to orient in space and visualize objects in three dimensions, etc. Men being superior in spatial and mathematical skill (the staples of human knowledge) proves that through evolution they are the superior species.

I respect women, but the idea they are equal to men is preposterous. They are basically a different species, and historical, religious and scientific evidence points towards the domination of the male race. Women are fantastic creatures, but they must understand this and suck it up.

I just wanted to clear that up. I've been reading around and this forum seems suitable for a debate like this. Too often do ignorant people pay no heed to my facts and interpret equality in their own, false way.

 

[Ilyena]

Tedius, is that you?

Women and men are not a separate species and the Virgin Mary actually plays a pretty major role in Christian religions (Catholocism especially).

being able to orient in space and visualize objects in three dimensions, etc.

Wtf?

This isn't meant to be serious, is it?

 

[Kandy-Sugar]

I'm going to move this over to The Sleeping Forest. Please keep this clean. I don't want things to get out of hand here.

Thanks.

 

[Martel]

Alright, now I'm irritated.

We are taught through the means of religion that no man is better than another. Nowhere in any testament or teaching is the quality of womankind brought up, indicating that if God were the ruler and creator of all, he did not intend for gender equality. All the great religious figures are not women, apart from the Virgin Mary, who plays a minor role, and bears no real power to change the earth. Mary does not display great knowledge either, which proves that during the old times, god or none, women were not seen as equal.

If there is a God, Christian or otherwise, who can tell what He is thinking? Simply because it is not revealed to humanity? In my opinion, that is a very arrogant and rather shortsighted viewpoint. Simply because you are unaware of something does not mean that it does not exist.
There is also the point to make that the Christian religion is not the only one. There are plenty of other religions out there, and there are Goddesses. Explain that, if you would. These religions are no less valid than the Christian religion.

But the majority of us believe in the Scientific concept. This is just as, if not more proof that women are nor created to be equal to men. The brains of both genders work differently, and it is proven that men are better at estimating time, judging speed of things, carrying out mental mathematical calculations, being able to orient in space and visualize objects in three dimensions, etc. Men being superior in spatial and mathematical skill (the staples of human knowledge) proves that through evolution they are the superior species.

Human knowledge is not the absolute be-all and end-all of everything. Human knowledge, when you look at it, has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the world that we live in. We simply see things and label them, so that we may comprehend them in our minds. Does this mean that we actually comprehend them in truth? No, it doesn't. Human knowledge is but one way of looking at things - that does NOT make it the right way. If you are going to use human knowledge as a basis for your theories, I suggest that you look at it in its entirety - there are no "staples" to it, and there are always exceptions to the rules. I believe that girls actually had higher test-schools than boys in schools, overall. Would this not count against your theory?

Also, I'd like to point out that evolution is a theory. A THEORY. It is an established belief but, like all beliefs and all knowledge, it is an interpretation. There are many different ways of looking at things, all of them equally as valid.
Sorry, but people shoving the evolution theory down my throat irritates me immensely. In my opinion, it is a ridiculous leap made from a few little steps. Although I have a very low opinion of so-called human "knowledge" and its arrogant assumption that it knows exactly how existence works.

I respect women, but the idea they are equal to men is preposterous.

This is in itself a contradiction. You clearly do not respect someone that you view as your inferior.

They are basically a different species, and historical, religious and scientific evidence points towards the domination of the male race. Women are fantastic creatures, but they must understand this and suck it up.

If you intend to take a scientific standpoint, then you are incorrect in saying that men are women are a separate species, and you have failed to account for ALL of the evidence. There have been many historical female figures, and men are by no means the dominant half of the human race. Perhaps there are not as many mentioned in religious or historical texts outright, but that does not mean they were not there, simply because they were not included in these books. The majority of history books and religious texts were written by men, and men had a very different attitude to women back then.

I just wanted to clear that up. I've been reading around and this forum seems suitable for a debate like this. Too often do ignorant people pay no heed to my facts and interpret equality in their own, false way.

I would say this forum is suitable for a debate like this, but the way you have structured your argument hardly allows for debate. I, for one, find a great deal of this extremely offensive, and you are stating it as though it is fact, with little to no reasoning.
Your "facts" are nothing more or less than your opinion, and I'd appreciate if you remember that, please.

 

[Gaige]

The fact in the long run is, that we are not defined by religion and science. Equality is in the eye of the beholder. If you want to treat your fellow human being with decency and compassion, then should you really be looking at the Bible for this. A book in which people attenpt to kill their brother out of base jealousy. Where rape of woman is considered morally acceptable. Where a man is more willing to give his daughters to rapists than the male guests in his house.

You shouldn't use the Bibe as an excuse to label women a different species, at least in my opinion. Don't hide behind facts and figures.

 

[Bambi]

the bible was probably wrote by a bunch of arrogant men anyway

Relgion is a bollocks argument in this debate anyway, Im not religious in the slightest, and as mentioned above, theres other religions that have Godesses

And female or not, I'd still kick your arse foo'

I respect women, but the idea they are equal to men is preposterous.

You're right, we're better

 

[Lither]

The fact in the long run is, that we are not defined by religion and science. Equality is in the eye of the beholder. If you want to treat your fellow human being with decency and compassion, then should you really be looking at the Bible for this. A book in which people attenpt to kill their brother out of base jealousy. Where rape of woman is considered morally acceptable. Where a man is more willing to give his daughters to rapists than the male guests in his house.

You shouldn't use the Bibe as an excuse to label women a different species, at least in my opinion. Don't hide behind facts and figures.

Your argument about the eye of the beholder is false, because equality signifies the mental, genetic and physical similarity between person-to-person, or species-to-species. I already gave you a detailed scientific argument, but the bible one was just to sweep the religious people's arguments to side.

 

[Sir Kenneth]

*knocks gently on the monitor* Wake up people What we got here is a troll. Credit where credit is due though, Lither here is definitely one of the better trolls, with him using big fancy words and such, but still a troll none the less.

Lither, from one member of the male species (or race if you prefer it, you seem to be unable to make up your mind as to whether or not we're a species or a race) I give you a troll score of 5 out of 10.

 

[Lither]

*knocks gently on the monitor* Wake up people What we got here is a troll. Credit where credit is due though, Lither here is definitely one of the better trolls, with him using big fancy words and such, but still a troll none the less.

I am not a troll. I am attempting to state my opinion on this matter, and I have displayed infallible logic thus far.

I'm going to move this over to The Sleeping Forest. Please keep this clean. I don't want things to get out of hand here.

Thanks.

Thank you.

 

[Gaige]

Huh? Look. Look at Aristotle, for example. For thousands of years his teachings were accepted as fact, before being found false. What's to say your little scientific methods won't be found false? If you are a male, which seems blatently obvious, I'm embarassed to be the same gender as you.

 

[Lebreau]

Hahahahaha you're so funny. Infallible logic? No. Just no. :mark: No.

I'm pretty sure women have been proven to be better at languages/language mechanics... I actually went to try and find something on it, although as I think you're a troll I don't know why I'm bothering

1. An average man performs better on tests of spatial and mathematical ability, while women perform better on tests of verbal ability and memory.
2. Men’s IQ has greater variance, which means that there are more men than women in the very high and very low IQ groups.

from: http://www.steadyhealth.com/article...structures__mental_and_physical__a613_f0.html

I didn't read the whole page so I could be shooting myself in the foot, but I don't really mind. I'm just having a bit of fun

Women also have higher pain tolerance, I do believe... and equality really doesn't depend on gender. It's the person themselves tbh.

Oh, and, your religion stuff? Bible was written by humans. How can we know that's what "God" wants? I'm not atheist but I'm not religious either. So religion debate isn't going to have much of an effect.

 

[Lither]

Huh? Look. Look at Aristotle, for example. For thousands of years his teachings were accepted as fact, before being found false. What's to say your little scientific methods won't be found false? If you are a male, which seems blatently obvious, I'm embarassed to be the same gender as you.

Aristotle had a basic form of math, the religious beliefs of a kingdom on his head, and no way of seeing the world around him properly. Our current science has developed so that our answers are reliable and true - because they pertain to other scientific rules which have no alternative, giving us now a good foundation.

Hahahahaha you're so funny. Infallible logic? No. Just no. :mark: No.

I'm pretty sure women have been proven to be better at languages/language mechanics... I actually went to try and find something on it, although as I think you're a troll I don't know why I'm bothering

from: http://www.steadyhealth.com/article...structures__mental_and_physical__a613_f0.html

I didn't read the whole page so I could be shooting myself in the foot, but I don't really mind. I'm just having a bit of fun

Women also have higher pain tolerance, I do believe... and equality really doesn't depend on gender. It's the person themselves tbh.

Oh, and, your religion stuff? Bible was written by humans. How can we know that's what "God" wants? I'm not atheist but I'm not religious either. So religion debate isn't going to have much of an effect.

As humans we were not created with a whole vocabulary and language system, so the verbal aspect relies on memory. A good memory is not as good as the traits males possess.

 

[Dionysos]

Well you're right that men throughout history have been the majority of the key figures, but they have also written the history. Men had for the longest period ruled, but that is because women traditionally ended up running the house and looking after children in most cultures, and they were not educated in the same ways as men. There are many females in history too which have had quite a lasting impact, though many of these are distorted images used now to promote feminism, but they deserve as much mention as the many distorted images of man we have passed down to us.

As for religion, the Bible was written by men (divinely dictated or not), and views of women at the time differed much from the views at least the western world now holds, so it is not surprising that women were not as important as men in the Bible. However the Virgin Mary is a pretty darn important figure, only just below Jesus, and respected all the same. There are many religious women that have been remembered and respected in history too, though it is usually their sanctity and ascetic lifestyles that have earned them that respect.

It's not so much that women aren't capable of what men can do, it's more a case of, until recently, women had pretty much had their roles laid out to them since ancient times, and men being the physically stronger species naturally took control of the other aspects; leadership and warfare being the most important among them as these are essentially most of what has been recorded (or at least remembered and recited) throughout history.

It's like what can be observed in many animals, so I can see what you are getting at, dominant males will set themselves up as rulers and are in charge of the females. So in the early days, when man started to settle, it just naturally came about like that; men in charge of women, and women doing work around the house. However we are creatures that, as our civilisation advances and we gain the luxury to think about improving our lifestyles, constantly develop our ways of thinking and our perceptions, and we now accept that women can do just as much as men can.

Yes there are differences, it is to be expected as the sexes develop differently, think differently, and have differing levels of strength, but again so do people in general. What a person can or cannot do should be decided by them themselves, and a person should know their own bounds, and not have them decided for them.

 

[Martel]

Aristotle had a basic form of math, the religious beliefs of a kingdom on his head, and no way of seeing the world around him properly. Our current science has developed so that our answers are reliable and true - because they pertain to other scientific rules which have no alternative, giving us now a good foundation.

Yeah, I'm willing to bet they thought along those lines back then, as well.
Any answer that can be disputed is not reliable, and what is "true" is a matter of perspective. Scientific facts are little more than commonly held opinion. Commonly held opinion does not equate to absolute fact.

 

[Lither]

Yeah, I'm willing to bet they thought along those lines back then, as well.
Any answer that can be disputed is not reliable, and what is "true" is a matter of perspective. Scientific facts are little more than commonly held opinion. Commonly held opinion does not equate to absolute fact.

Then the same could be applied for the facts for gender equality. If you do not use my scientific facts, you cannot use any. What is fact though is that through history males had the dominant role, and if you do not use biological and chemical information then all you have to rely on is history. The most powerful, clever and charitable men have been Male. Gandhi, Mandela, Hitler, Obama, William the Conqueror - all the male.

 

[der Astronom]

Whether or not it is true genetically that men are superior to women in the sciences is irrelevant; that is only a general statement that does not pertain to every single individual human being of either gender. For there are scientists of both genders; there are women who are biologists; women who are mathematicians; women who are physicists; and even women who are architects and engineers. If there were not so many women who filled these roles in the past, then it would be because of a male-dominated society, usually due to religion and culture. But women figures in science persist, in spite of these ridiculous cultures and beliefs. That some women such as Hypatia, Sophie Germain and Emmy Noether even make discoveries that impress their male colleagues is enough to show that not every woman is inferior in sciences. That is now no longer an issue; there are more women studying in science fields, now that they are not discouraged from it.

I can understand if you wish to say that men make for better lumberjacks than women; genetically, it makes sense. Traditionally, it's more efficient, but if a woman makes a discovery, using her own intelligence that bewilders and stuns her male colleagues, it doesn't matter exactly by which processes her mind went through to get there, and it doesn't matter if you think they're inferior; the fact is, she may be well suited to being a scientist, just as well, if not better than her colleagues of the opposite gender. And with there being fewer manual labor jobs around now, I think it's acceptable to let women take jobs in science, if they can do it. And I think quite a few of them can.

 

[Lither]

I hope you realise that since equality has become relatively universal we have hit a global recession. Think about that one.

 

[der Astronom]

I hope you realise that since equality has become relatively universal we have hit a global recession. Think about that one.

That is a non sequitur. Please provide evidence that global recession is the result of equality.

 

[Bambi]

I hope you realise that since equality has become relatively universal we have hit a global recession. Think about that one.

You think this is the first recession we have had?

 

[Martel]

Then the same could be applied for the facts for gender equality. If you do not use my scientific facts, you cannot use any. What is fact though is that through history males had the dominant role, and if you do not use biological and chemical information then all you have to rely on is history. The most powerful, clever and charitable men have been Male. Gandhi, Mandela, Hitler, Obama, William the Conqueror - all the male.

There are no facts for gender equality, only the interpretation of equality, which differs between individuals. Scientific facts are agreed-upon interpretations of how aspects of this world works, and history is little more than a perspective on past events that, it is likely, were not witnessed in their entirety by the writer, or even witnessed at all in the case of certain Roman writers. There is no certainty that those you mentioned did not have wives that they went to, who were the driving force behind their success.

About all that can be discerned from history is the attitude that men had towards women, which is one similar to your attitude - they are inferior to men. For that reason, amongst others, history is biased and, if you seek "facts", ultimately unreliable and useless.

There have also been female figures who have stood up and made themselves stand out in society. Cleopatra, Boudicca, Emmeline Pankhurst, Magaret Thatcher, etc.