Since Women Are Equal, Then Why Can't They Get Their ? Whooped?
Options
Comments
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
I think your real problem is you want me to make a soft argument you want me to soften what I say because it sounds extreme to you.
Objectively speaking history has proved that men are better at the things that actually count like War, leadership and science even art. You can look all throughout history and even in our contemporary times and you won't find too many woman of comparable skills in the fields mentioned.
And if you look Within each Society and judge it by its own standards you will find the same pattern that you find in Western Society..
Namely that men are the ones pushing that Society forward. Women should be able to be free to live up to their potential and there are some women who are better than men but the male gender is overall better at most things of importance... it is what it is sorry I can't be nice about it
What you're saying is just false. Men may have appeared to be better at things like leadership, science, and art throughout history, but that's largely because men are the ones that have had the opportunity. For most of history, at least in the west, women haven't really been able to participate in those things to a major degree. Hell, you could make the same argument about blacks in America. Whites could say that if you look through history they've been better at those things than us in this country, and that might be true, but it kinda ignores all the barriers we had set in front of us. As blacks have gained more opportunities, you'd seen great black leaders, scientists, and artists. The same goes for women. The male dominance is really just a hold over from times when physical might is what determined everything, and in that one area, men are unquestionably superior to women on average.
amongst black people.. black men a better than black woman the pattern I mentioned in my last post still holds. Which is why I said going by the standards of each Society men are still better in the things that count. there is no black female equivalent to Miles Davis, Marcus Garvey or George Washington Carver.
our physical differences and biological differences have real consequences in our motivations and drives. -
Black people black men at the top
White people white men at the top
Chinese people Chinese men at the top
East Indian people East Indian men at the top
Hispanic people Hispanic men at the top.
^^^^^^ this is historical and contemporary reality so you cannot just blame Western Society for it it's always been this way amongst all people.
And I suspect it's because our biological differences force men no matter the circumstances to build ,to succeed, to fight to conquer.... as long as men are around women don't have to have the drive to do any of that. I know that as a man if I don't provide if I don't produce some kind of wealth, stability and safety for myself and for my children and women then I will be s*** in the eyes of other men and woman. However all a woman has to do is be pretty or be willing to give the ? up and her life can be set.
Which is why today even with all the freedoms woman have women on average still don't work as hard as men in the workforce -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
I think your real problem is you want me to make a soft argument you want me to soften what I say because it sounds extreme to you.
Objectively speaking history has proved that men are better at the things that actually count like War, leadership and science even art. You can look all throughout history and even in our contemporary times and you won't find too many woman of comparable skills in the fields mentioned.
And if you look Within each Society and judge it by its own standards you will find the same pattern that you find in Western Society..
Namely that men are the ones pushing that Society forward. Women should be able to be free to live up to their potential and there are some women who are better than men but the male gender is overall better at most things of importance... it is what it is sorry I can't be nice about it
What you're saying is just false. Men may have appeared to be better at things like leadership, science, and art throughout history, but that's largely because men are the ones that have had the opportunity. For most of history, at least in the west, women haven't really been able to participate in those things to a major degree. Hell, you could make the same argument about blacks in America. Whites could say that if you look through history they've been better at those things than us in this country, and that might be true, but it kinda ignores all the barriers we had set in front of us. As blacks have gained more opportunities, you'd seen great black leaders, scientists, and artists. The same goes for women. The male dominance is really just a hold over from times when physical might is what determined everything, and in that one area, men are unquestionably superior to women on average.
amongst black people.. black men a better than black woman the pattern I mentioned in my last post still holds. Which is why I said going by the standards of each Society men are still better in the things that count. there is no black female equivalent to Miles Davis, Marcus Garvey or George Washington Carver.
our physical differences and biological differences have real consequences in our motivations and drives.
A lot of cultures in Africa prior to colonization shared responsibility between men and women. The two groups had different responsibilities and roles in leadership, but women weren't relegated to second class the way they have been in the West. And you can't treat the black community in the West as being totally separate from the West. In America the patriarchy has been just as ingrained in the society than the racist institution, hell to some extent, more ingrained. So yeah, there hasn't really been a female Marcus Garvey or a female George Washington Carver, but that's less because black women are incapable of doing things like that and more because black women would have never received the opportunity to rise to those heights given the barriers to them.Black people black men at the top
White people white men at the top
Chinese people Chinese men at the top
East Indian people East Indian men at the top
Hispanic people Hispanic men at the top.
^^^^^^ this is historical and contemporary reality so you cannot just blame Western Society for it it's always been this way amongst all people.
And I suspect it's because our biological differences force men no matter the circumstances to build ,to succeed, to fight to conquer.... as long as men are around women don't have to have the drive to do any of that. I know that as a man if I don't provide if I don't produce some kind of wealth, stability and safety for myself and for my children and women then I will be s*** in the eyes of other men and woman. However all a woman has to do is be pretty or be willing to give the ? up and her life can be set.
Which is why today even with all the freedoms woman have women on average still don't work as hard as men in the workforce
Again, much of that is due to the fact that there was a point in all cultures where physical might is what determined who controlled the power. Men were always stronger in that way, so they almost always had the power. It doesn't mean women were stupid or couldn't lead. In fact, when you look at instances where women did get power such as with Hatshepsut or Elizabeth I, they are considered among the best leaders ever of their respective cultures. -
The first thing that this piece of garbage thinks about while pondering women's equality is the opportunity to physically abuse a female .....
.....what a ? ....probably raised by a ? ....father probably left both of em like a ? ... -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
I think your real problem is you want me to make a soft argument you want me to soften what I say because it sounds extreme to you.
Objectively speaking history has proved that men are better at the things that actually count like War, leadership and science even art. You can look all throughout history and even in our contemporary times and you won't find too many woman of comparable skills in the fields mentioned.
And if you look Within each Society and judge it by its own standards you will find the same pattern that you find in Western Society..
Namely that men are the ones pushing that Society forward. Women should be able to be free to live up to their potential and there are some women who are better than men but the male gender is overall better at most things of importance... it is what it is sorry I can't be nice about it
What you're saying is just false. Men may have appeared to be better at things like leadership, science, and art throughout history, but that's largely because men are the ones that have had the opportunity. For most of history, at least in the west, women haven't really been able to participate in those things to a major degree. Hell, you could make the same argument about blacks in America. Whites could say that if you look through history they've been better at those things than us in this country, and that might be true, but it kinda ignores all the barriers we had set in front of us. As blacks have gained more opportunities, you'd seen great black leaders, scientists, and artists. The same goes for women. The male dominance is really just a hold over from times when physical might is what determined everything, and in that one area, men are unquestionably superior to women on average.
amongst black people.. black men a better than black woman the pattern I mentioned in my last post still holds. Which is why I said going by the standards of each Society men are still better in the things that count. there is no black female equivalent to Miles Davis, Marcus Garvey or George Washington Carver.
our physical differences and biological differences have real consequences in our motivations and drives.
A lot of cultures in Africa prior to colonization shared responsibility between men and women. The two groups had different responsibilities and roles in leadership, but women weren't relegated to second class the way they have been in the West. And you can't treat the black community in the West as being totally separate from the West. In America the patriarchy has been just as ingrained in the society than the racist institution, hell to some extent, more ingrained. So yeah, there hasn't really been a female Marcus Garvey or a female George Washington Carver, but that's less because black women are incapable of doing things like that and more because black women would have never received the opportunity to rise to those heights given the barriers to them.Black people black men at the top
White people white men at the top
Chinese people Chinese men at the top
East Indian people East Indian men at the top
Hispanic people Hispanic men at the top.
^^^^^^ this is historical and contemporary reality so you cannot just blame Western Society for it it's always been this way amongst all people.
And I suspect it's because our biological differences force men no matter the circumstances to build ,to succeed, to fight to conquer.... as long as men are around women don't have to have the drive to do any of that. I know that as a man if I don't provide if I don't produce some kind of wealth, stability and safety for myself and for my children and women then I will be s*** in the eyes of other men and woman. However all a woman has to do is be pretty or be willing to give the ? up and her life can be set.
Which is why today even with all the freedoms woman have women on average still don't work as hard as men in the workforce
Again, much of that is due to the fact that there was a point in all cultures where physical might is what determined who controlled the power. Men were always stronger in that way, so they almost always had the power. It doesn't mean women were stupid or couldn't lead. In fact, when you look at instances where women did get power such as with Hatshepsut or Elizabeth I, they are considered among the best leaders ever of their respective cultures.
I am not one to romanticize African history... all African societies that had women in greater power were more primitive . all the great African societies were patriarchal Mali , songhai even the Zulu.
Physical might still determines who's going to rule because that physicality which is rooted in biology has real life social effects.... big strong men don't act the same as weaker men or women because physicality affect confidence and confidence affects how people perceive you.
And I don't think women are stupid just that they are not as good as men in things that actually count. -
desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »Women are not equal but we pretend they are for the sake of societal peace.
Different is not less, it is not more and sometimes it requires additional measures in order to achieve equal treatment of both genders
Its not just for the sake of "peace" but rather the advancement of the human race lol
That said, one should hit anyone without provocation or reason, be it a man hitting a man, a man hitting a woman hitting a man, or a woman hitting a woman, plain and simple.
HEY!!!!! you are back i missed you have you gotten over the trauma of the election yet???
If we have to put additional measures in place to achieve equality for women then that means women aren't really equal it means we are lowering standards to accommodate their inferiority.
you Advance the human race by denying the truth of male female inequality??? lies equal advancement???
? a trump
But I digress ...
Equal does not mean exactly the same
As I was saying different doesn't mean one sex is superior
And we’re not so different that this has to often be taken into consideration
The actual structural and cultural barriers in women face are not based on our capacity to learn, lead, reason, etc
That said, women make up at least half the population. By empowering women with access to the same opportunities, technologies and capital as men naturally that benefits us all, no?
What?
e·qual
ˈēkwəl/Submit
adjective
1.
being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value.
"add equal amounts of water and flour"
? feminists
Lol
Smh
Equal is qualified by quantity, size, /or and value NOT sameness
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
I think your real problem is you want me to make a soft argument you want me to soften what I say because it sounds extreme to you.
Objectively speaking history has proved that men are better at the things that actually count like War, leadership and science even art. You can look all throughout history and even in our contemporary times and you won't find too many woman of comparable skills in the fields mentioned.
And if you look Within each Society and judge it by its own standards you will find the same pattern that you find in Western Society..
Namely that men are the ones pushing that Society forward. Women should be able to be free to live up to their potential and there are some women who are better than men but the male gender is overall better at most things of importance... it is what it is sorry I can't be nice about it
What you're saying is just false. Men may have appeared to be better at things like leadership, science, and art throughout history, but that's largely because men are the ones that have had the opportunity. For most of history, at least in the west, women haven't really been able to participate in those things to a major degree. Hell, you could make the same argument about blacks in America. Whites could say that if you look through history they've been better at those things than us in this country, and that might be true, but it kinda ignores all the barriers we had set in front of us. As blacks have gained more opportunities, you'd seen great black leaders, scientists, and artists. The same goes for women. The male dominance is really just a hold over from times when physical might is what determined everything, and in that one area, men are unquestionably superior to women on average.
amongst black people.. black men a better than black woman the pattern I mentioned in my last post still holds. Which is why I said going by the standards of each Society men are still better in the things that count. there is no black female equivalent to Miles Davis, Marcus Garvey or George Washington Carver.
our physical differences and biological differences have real consequences in our motivations and drives.
A lot of cultures in Africa prior to colonization shared responsibility between men and women. The two groups had different responsibilities and roles in leadership, but women weren't relegated to second class the way they have been in the West. And you can't treat the black community in the West as being totally separate from the West. In America the patriarchy has been just as ingrained in the society than the racist institution, hell to some extent, more ingrained. So yeah, there hasn't really been a female Marcus Garvey or a female George Washington Carver, but that's less because black women are incapable of doing things like that and more because black women would have never received the opportunity to rise to those heights given the barriers to them.Black people black men at the top
White people white men at the top
Chinese people Chinese men at the top
East Indian people East Indian men at the top
Hispanic people Hispanic men at the top.
^^^^^^ this is historical and contemporary reality so you cannot just blame Western Society for it it's always been this way amongst all people.
And I suspect it's because our biological differences force men no matter the circumstances to build ,to succeed, to fight to conquer.... as long as men are around women don't have to have the drive to do any of that. I know that as a man if I don't provide if I don't produce some kind of wealth, stability and safety for myself and for my children and women then I will be s*** in the eyes of other men and woman. However all a woman has to do is be pretty or be willing to give the ? up and her life can be set.
Which is why today even with all the freedoms woman have women on average still don't work as hard as men in the workforce
Again, much of that is due to the fact that there was a point in all cultures where physical might is what determined who controlled the power. Men were always stronger in that way, so they almost always had the power. It doesn't mean women were stupid or couldn't lead. In fact, when you look at instances where women did get power such as with Hatshepsut or Elizabeth I, they are considered among the best leaders ever of their respective cultures.
I am not one to romanticize African history... all African societies that had women in greater power were more primitive . all the great African societies were patriarchal Mali , songhai even the Zulu.
Physical might still determines who's going to rule because that physicality which is rooted in biology has real life social effects.... big strong men don't act the same as weaker men or women because physicality affect confidence and confidence affects how people perceive you.
And I don't think women are stupid just that they are not as good as men in things that actually count.
Smh
Many ppl, including women who've internalized this garbage, think this way
The idea that women can’t be trusted with decision making or to lead
And that's why structural and cultural barriers to independence and self realization women face persist
-
desertrain10 wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
I think your real problem is you want me to make a soft argument you want me to soften what I say because it sounds extreme to you.
Objectively speaking history has proved that men are better at the things that actually count like War, leadership and science even art. You can look all throughout history and even in our contemporary times and you won't find too many woman of comparable skills in the fields mentioned.
And if you look Within each Society and judge it by its own standards you will find the same pattern that you find in Western Society..
Namely that men are the ones pushing that Society forward. Women should be able to be free to live up to their potential and there are some women who are better than men but the male gender is overall better at most things of importance... it is what it is sorry I can't be nice about it
What you're saying is just false. Men may have appeared to be better at things like leadership, science, and art throughout history, but that's largely because men are the ones that have had the opportunity. For most of history, at least in the west, women haven't really been able to participate in those things to a major degree. Hell, you could make the same argument about blacks in America. Whites could say that if you look through history they've been better at those things than us in this country, and that might be true, but it kinda ignores all the barriers we had set in front of us. As blacks have gained more opportunities, you'd seen great black leaders, scientists, and artists. The same goes for women. The male dominance is really just a hold over from times when physical might is what determined everything, and in that one area, men are unquestionably superior to women on average.
amongst black people.. black men a better than black woman the pattern I mentioned in my last post still holds. Which is why I said going by the standards of each Society men are still better in the things that count. there is no black female equivalent to Miles Davis, Marcus Garvey or George Washington Carver.
our physical differences and biological differences have real consequences in our motivations and drives.
A lot of cultures in Africa prior to colonization shared responsibility between men and women. The two groups had different responsibilities and roles in leadership, but women weren't relegated to second class the way they have been in the West. And you can't treat the black community in the West as being totally separate from the West. In America the patriarchy has been just as ingrained in the society than the racist institution, hell to some extent, more ingrained. So yeah, there hasn't really been a female Marcus Garvey or a female George Washington Carver, but that's less because black women are incapable of doing things like that and more because black women would have never received the opportunity to rise to those heights given the barriers to them.Black people black men at the top
White people white men at the top
Chinese people Chinese men at the top
East Indian people East Indian men at the top
Hispanic people Hispanic men at the top.
^^^^^^ this is historical and contemporary reality so you cannot just blame Western Society for it it's always been this way amongst all people.
And I suspect it's because our biological differences force men no matter the circumstances to build ,to succeed, to fight to conquer.... as long as men are around women don't have to have the drive to do any of that. I know that as a man if I don't provide if I don't produce some kind of wealth, stability and safety for myself and for my children and women then I will be s*** in the eyes of other men and woman. However all a woman has to do is be pretty or be willing to give the ? up and her life can be set.
Which is why today even with all the freedoms woman have women on average still don't work as hard as men in the workforce
Again, much of that is due to the fact that there was a point in all cultures where physical might is what determined who controlled the power. Men were always stronger in that way, so they almost always had the power. It doesn't mean women were stupid or couldn't lead. In fact, when you look at instances where women did get power such as with Hatshepsut or Elizabeth I, they are considered among the best leaders ever of their respective cultures.
I am not one to romanticize African history... all African societies that had women in greater power were more primitive . all the great African societies were patriarchal Mali , songhai even the Zulu.
Physical might still determines who's going to rule because that physicality which is rooted in biology has real life social effects.... big strong men don't act the same as weaker men or women because physicality affect confidence and confidence affects how people perceive you.
And I don't think women are stupid just that they are not as good as men in things that actually count.
Smh
Many ppl, including women who've internalized this garbage, think this way
The idea that women can’t be trusted with decision making or to lead
And that's why structural and cultural barriers to independence and self realization women face persist
Woman can and should be given opportunity to lead it's just that I acknowledge that on average women are not as good at it. -
Feminist always want to blame culture and not biology. But it's the interplay of them both that has put woman in the inferior position no amount of changing the culture will change the fact that biologically speaking women will never be equal to men
-
desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »Women are not equal but we pretend they are for the sake of societal peace.
Different is not less, it is not more and sometimes it requires additional measures in order to achieve equal treatment of both genders
Its not just for the sake of "peace" but rather the advancement of the human race lol
That said, one should hit anyone without provocation or reason, be it a man hitting a man, a man hitting a woman hitting a man, or a woman hitting a woman, plain and simple.
HEY!!!!! you are back i missed you have you gotten over the trauma of the election yet???
If we have to put additional measures in place to achieve equality for women then that means women aren't really equal it means we are lowering standards to accommodate their inferiority.
you Advance the human race by denying the truth of male female inequality??? lies equal advancement???
? a trump
But I digress ...
Equal does not mean exactly the same
As I was saying different doesn't mean one sex is superior
And we’re not so different that this has to often be taken into consideration
The actual structural and cultural barriers in women face are not based on our capacity to learn, lead, reason, etc
That said, women make up at least half the population. By empowering women with access to the same opportunities, technologies and capital as men naturally that benefits us all, no?
What?
e·qual
ˈēkwəl/Submit
adjective
1.
being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value.
"add equal amounts of water and flour"
? feminists
Lol
Smh
Equal is qualified by quantity, size, /or and value NOT sameness
Either you dumb af or you think I'm dumb af. But to engage you in a debate on a word you used but clearly don't understand the meaning of is me trolling myself. Nah rain drop. Drop top. -
It's a double standard but the TS already knew that. The people in this society are funny. Refusing to acknowledge the double standards out of some false sense of conscientiousness is asinine. Ray Rice was immediately forgiven by his wife, but still prosecuted with additional consequences against his professional career. I guess he got what he deserved, but why not Solange Knowles? Let's ignore her actions and listen to "Cranes in the Sky."
The purpose of this thread I gather was to expose the moral inconsistencies of society. It worked. Don't expect cogent arguments on it though, you won't find any here. -
I am not one to romanticize African history... all African societies that had women in greater power were more primitive . all the great African societies were patriarchal Mali , songhai even the Zulu.
Physical might still determines who's going to rule because that physicality which is rooted in biology has real life social effects.... big strong men don't act the same as weaker men or women because physicality affect confidence and confidence affects how people perceive you.
And I don't think women are stupid just that they are not as good as men in things that actually count.
Your logic is faulty though. You believe (I think) that men have dominated society to a degree that women haven't been able to compete freely, but you're also using that as evidence that women can't compete on the same level.
Either way, you haven't supported your conclusion. You'd have to point out instances where women and men were allowed to compete on a level playing field, and men consistently performed better. Maybe there is an example of that somewhere, but so far you haven't provided it. -
desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »Women are not equal but we pretend they are for the sake of societal peace.
Different is not less, it is not more and sometimes it requires additional measures in order to achieve equal treatment of both genders
Its not just for the sake of "peace" but rather the advancement of the human race lol
That said, one should hit anyone without provocation or reason, be it a man hitting a man, a man hitting a woman hitting a man, or a woman hitting a woman, plain and simple.
HEY!!!!! you are back i missed you have you gotten over the trauma of the election yet???
If we have to put additional measures in place to achieve equality for women then that means women aren't really equal it means we are lowering standards to accommodate their inferiority.
you Advance the human race by denying the truth of male female inequality??? lies equal advancement???
? a trump
But I digress ...
Equal does not mean exactly the same
As I was saying different doesn't mean one sex is superior
And we’re not so different that this has to often be taken into consideration
The actual structural and cultural barriers in women face are not based on our capacity to learn, lead, reason, etc
That said, women make up at least half the population. By empowering women with access to the same opportunities, technologies and capital as men naturally that benefits us all, no?
What?
e·qual
ˈēkwəl/Submit
adjective
1.
being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value.
"add equal amounts of water and flour"
? feminists
Lol
Smh
Equal is qualified by quantity, size, /or and value NOT sameness
Either you dumb af or you think I'm dumb af. But to engage you in a debate on a word you used but clearly don't understand the meaning of is me trolling myself. Nah rain drop. Drop top.
I initially said : equal does not mean exactly the same
Which it doesn't
"Same" and "equal" are not congruent terms
Equal is qualified by quantity, size, /or and value NOT sameness
What I was suggesting is that, while we all have our own weaknesses and strengthens, each of us is equal in our value as a being
And treating all ppl the same does not acknowledge their equal value as beings
For example, imagine we have 2 children. One is blind. The other is deaf. Treating these children "the same" and treating them "as equals" are two different things. Treating students the same means giving them an identical education (i.e. giving them both reading material in braille). Treating students as equals means acknowledging each one has equal value as a learner, which in turn means giving them each what they need to fulfill their value as a learner
Furthermore we are all individuals and there are very few limitations imposed on us purely by our gender, limitations are placed upon us by attitudes and beliefs that surround us. It is those attitudes and beliefs that need to change
But yea maybe you should just fall back -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
I am not one to romanticize African history... all African societies that had women in greater power were more primitive . all the great African societies were patriarchal Mali , songhai even the Zulu.
Physical might still determines who's going to rule because that physicality which is rooted in biology has real life social effects.... big strong men don't act the same as weaker men or women because physicality affect confidence and confidence affects how people perceive you.
And I don't think women are stupid just that they are not as good as men in things that actually count.
Your logic is faulty though. You believe (I think) that men have dominated society to a degree that women haven't been able to compete freely, but you're also using that as evidence that women can't compete on the same level.
Either way, you haven't supported your conclusion. You'd have to point out instances where women and men were allowed to compete on a level playing field, and men consistently performed better. Maybe there is an example of that somewhere, but so far you haven't provided it.
I deny the possibility of there even being a Level Playing Field between human beings. Woman haven't been able to compete equally because equals don't exist.... feminism egalitarianism tries to artificially create this level playing field. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
I am not one to romanticize African history... all African societies that had women in greater power were more primitive . all the great African societies were patriarchal Mali , songhai even the Zulu.
Physical might still determines who's going to rule because that physicality which is rooted in biology has real life social effects.... big strong men don't act the same as weaker men or women because physicality affect confidence and confidence affects how people perceive you.
And I don't think women are stupid just that they are not as good as men in things that actually count.
Your logic is faulty though. You believe (I think) that men have dominated society to a degree that women haven't been able to compete freely, but you're also using that as evidence that women can't compete on the same level.
Either way, you haven't supported your conclusion. You'd have to point out instances where women and men were allowed to compete on a level playing field, and men consistently performed better. Maybe there is an example of that somewhere, but so far you haven't provided it.
I deny the possibility of there even being a Level Playing Field between human beings. Woman haven't been able to compete equally because equals don't exist.... feminism egalitarianism tries to artificially create this level playing field.
By equal field playing I simply mean being given equal opportunities. That most certainly exists even if only on relatively small scales (e.g. performance of doctors at a particular hospital). Whether women or men compete equally is one thing, but whether women or men are given the same opportunity to compete is something different. -
desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »Women are not equal but we pretend they are for the sake of societal peace.
Different is not less, it is not more and sometimes it requires additional measures in order to achieve equal treatment of both genders
Its not just for the sake of "peace" but rather the advancement of the human race lol
That said, one should hit anyone without provocation or reason, be it a man hitting a man, a man hitting a woman hitting a man, or a woman hitting a woman, plain and simple.
HEY!!!!! you are back i missed you have you gotten over the trauma of the election yet???
If we have to put additional measures in place to achieve equality for women then that means women aren't really equal it means we are lowering standards to accommodate their inferiority.
you Advance the human race by denying the truth of male female inequality??? lies equal advancement???
? a trump
But I digress ...
Equal does not mean exactly the same
As I was saying different doesn't mean one sex is superior
And we’re not so different that this has to often be taken into consideration
The actual structural and cultural barriers in women face are not based on our capacity to learn, lead, reason, etc
That said, women make up at least half the population. By empowering women with access to the same opportunities, technologies and capital as men naturally that benefits us all, no?
What?
e·qual
ˈēkwəl/Submit
adjective
1.
being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value.
"add equal amounts of water and flour"
? feminists
Lol
Smh
Equal is qualified by quantity, size, /or and value NOT sameness
Either you dumb af or you think I'm dumb af. But to engage you in a debate on a word you used but clearly don't understand the meaning of is me trolling myself. Nah rain drop. Drop top.
I initially said : equal does not mean exactly the same
Which it doesn't
"Same" and "equal" are not congruent terms
Equal is qualified by quantity, size, /or and value NOT sameness
What I was suggesting is that, while we all have our own weaknesses and strengthens, each of us is equal in our value as a being
And treating all ppl the same does not acknowledge their equal value as beings
For example, imagine we have 2 children. One is blind. The other is deaf. Treating these children "the same" and treating them "as equals" are two different things. Treating students the same means giving them an identical education (i.e. giving them both reading material in braille). Treating students as equals means acknowledging each one has equal value as a learner, which in turn means giving them each what they need to fulfill their value as a learner
Furthermore we are all individuals and there are very few limitations imposed on us purely by our gender, limitations are placed upon us by attitudes and beliefs that surround us. It is those attitudes and beliefs that need to change
But yea maybe you should just fall back
Actually women while being inferior are actually more valuable than men -
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
I am not one to romanticize African history... all African societies that had women in greater power were more primitive . all the great African societies were patriarchal Mali , songhai even the Zulu.
Physical might still determines who's going to rule because that physicality which is rooted in biology has real life social effects.... big strong men don't act the same as weaker men or women because physicality affect confidence and confidence affects how people perceive you.
And I don't think women are stupid just that they are not as good as men in things that actually count.
Your logic is faulty though. You believe (I think) that men have dominated society to a degree that women haven't been able to compete freely, but you're also using that as evidence that women can't compete on the same level.
Either way, you haven't supported your conclusion. You'd have to point out instances where women and men were allowed to compete on a level playing field, and men consistently performed better. Maybe there is an example of that somewhere, but so far you haven't provided it.
I deny the possibility of there even being a Level Playing Field between human beings. Woman haven't been able to compete equally because equals don't exist.... feminism egalitarianism tries to artificially create this level playing field.
By equal field playing I simply mean being given equal opportunities. That most certainly exists even if only on relatively small scales (e.g. performance of doctors at a particular hospital). Whether women or men compete equally is one thing, but whether women or men are given the same opportunity to compete is something different.
Yeah but I don't have an issue with equal opportunity. Women already have it -
Society will always be a bunch of hypocrites
-
They can get their ass kicked.
I can't relate -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
I am not one to romanticize African history... all African societies that had women in greater power were more primitive . all the great African societies were patriarchal Mali , songhai even the Zulu.
Physical might still determines who's going to rule because that physicality which is rooted in biology has real life social effects.... big strong men don't act the same as weaker men or women because physicality affect confidence and confidence affects how people perceive you.
And I don't think women are stupid just that they are not as good as men in things that actually count.
Your logic is faulty though. You believe (I think) that men have dominated society to a degree that women haven't been able to compete freely, but you're also using that as evidence that women can't compete on the same level.
Either way, you haven't supported your conclusion. You'd have to point out instances where women and men were allowed to compete on a level playing field, and men consistently performed better. Maybe there is an example of that somewhere, but so far you haven't provided it.
The idea of a 'level playing field' is in itself a logidesertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »Women are not equal but we pretend they are for the sake of societal peace.
Different is not less, it is not more and sometimes it requires additional measures in order to achieve equal treatment of both genders
Its not just for the sake of "peace" but rather the advancement of the human race lol
That said, one should hit anyone without provocation or reason, be it a man hitting a man, a man hitting a woman hitting a man, or a woman hitting a woman, plain and simple.
HEY!!!!! you are back i missed you have you gotten over the trauma of the election yet???
If we have to put additional measures in place to achieve equality for women then that means women aren't really equal it means we are lowering standards to accommodate their inferiority.
you Advance the human race by denying the truth of male female inequality??? lies equal advancement???
? a trump
But I digress ...
Equal does not mean exactly the same
As I was saying different doesn't mean one sex is superior
And we’re not so different that this has to often be taken into consideration
The actual structural and cultural barriers in women face are not based on our capacity to learn, lead, reason, etc
That said, women make up at least half the population. By empowering women with access to the same opportunities, technologies and capital as men naturally that benefits us all, no?
What?
e·qual
ˈēkwəl/Submit
adjective
1.
being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value.
"add equal amounts of water and flour"
? feminists
Lol
Smh
Equal is qualified by quantity, size, /or and value NOT sameness
Either you dumb af or you think I'm dumb af. But to engage you in a debate on a word you used but clearly don't understand the meaning of is me trolling myself. Nah rain drop. Drop top.
I initially said : equal does not mean exactly the same
Which it doesn't
"Same" and "equal" are not congruent terms
Equal is qualified by quantity, size, /or and value NOT sameness
What I was suggesting is that, while we all have our own weaknesses and strengthens, each of us is equal in our value as a being
And treating all ppl the same does not acknowledge their equal value as beings
For example, imagine we have 2 children. One is blind. The other is deaf. Treating these children "the same" and treating them "as equals" are two different things. Treating students the same means giving them an identical education (i.e. giving them both reading material in braille). Treating students as equals means acknowledging each one has equal value as a learner, which in turn means giving them each what they need to fulfill their value as a learner
Furthermore we are all individuals and there are very few limitations imposed on us purely by our gender, limitations are placed upon us by attitudes and beliefs that surround us. It is those attitudes and beliefs that need to change
But yea maybe you should just fall back
Your fallacy is in promoting the belief that we are all equal or possess the same value on some metaphysical level. There is no evidence for this. Any value you recognized is assigned not inherent, meaning it's arbitrary and subjective.
Your attempt to establish a difference between "same" and "equal" is hilarity. If they are not the same they are not equal. There's a word for that, difference. Things that are different can be and are naturally analyzed to determine value.
You are trying to conflate equal or equal treatment with accommodations. Accommodations are what allow the blind deaf or otherwise disabled to enjoy life on a level to some degree of similarity to their non disabled counterparts.
However physically these two groups of people are not equal not even to each other. Their value to society is not even the same. Their duties and obligations are inverted. People without disabilities are expected to contribute to their society while society is expected to serve perpetually those with maladies.
So again even the position is not the same.
As i stated before men and women have widely different expectations and obligations to society which means even on a citizen level we're not equals.
Your philosophy is trash. Basura. -
The idea of a 'level playing field' is in itself a logi
No, it's not. For example, the company I work for is a level playing field. They don't give a ? what race, gender, sexual preference, age, etc... you are. They just want you to do your job. If you do it well you're rewarded. If not, you suffer consequences. Either way, the only thing that determines how far you go is how good a job you do. That's a level playing field, and I'm sure there are many other examples in the country. -
SuperManuel wrote: »Allah_U_Akbar wrote: »Troll thread?a
Or legitimate question?
Tell us what you think.
I saw pinky in real life a few years ago. She. Is very short.sje should loose that weight and get back to the size she was in that gif. I like bbws not midget bbws.
Lol that ain't happening bro -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
The idea of a 'level playing field' is in itself a logi
No, it's not. For example, the company I work for is a level playing field. They don't give a ? what race, gender, sexual preference, age, etc... you are. They just want you to do your job. If you do it well you're rewarded. If not, you suffer consequences. Either way, the only thing that determines how far you go is how good a job you do. That's a level playing field, and I'm sure there are many other examples in the country.
Level playing field is a concept. It does not exist in nature. It doesn't exist outside the mind. In fact in order for an equal playing field to exist an inequality must be present because a governing body or powerful body superior in position and resource to enforce or impose this concept.
Without such a body people would revert to naked tribalism. Currently it's covert tribalism. You can't tell me what your company believes because you aren't in the board rooms. You can only tell me what they espouse. What they tell you to believe. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
The idea of a 'level playing field' is in itself a logi
No, it's not. For example, the company I work for is a level playing field. They don't give a ? what race, gender, sexual preference, age, etc... you are. They just want you to do your job. If you do it well you're rewarded. If not, you suffer consequences. Either way, the only thing that determines how far you go is how good a job you do. That's a level playing field, and I'm sure there are many other examples in the country.
Level playing field is a concept. It does not exist in nature. It doesn't exist outside the mind. In fact in order for an equal playing field to exist an inequality must be present because a governing body or powerful body superior in position and resource to enforce or impose this concept.
Without such a body people would revert to naked tribalism. Currently it's covert tribalism. You can't tell me what your company believes because you aren't in the board rooms. You can only tell me what they espouse. What they tell you to believe.
? , I'm betting the ? you said doesn't even make sense to you. I already gave an example of a level playing field. There are others, especially here in a Capitalistic society where how much green you can make is often more important than anything else about you.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XNrWuZV3jjw
