Since Women Are Equal, Then Why Can't They Get Their ? Whooped?
Options
Comments
-
...So if she smacked Webster...is she allowed to get dat' work... -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »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.
I'm sorry i didn't know you weren't intellectually equipped to discuss the philosophical nature of power dynamics and abstracts. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »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.
I'm sorry i didn't know you weren't intellectually equipped to discuss the philosophical nature of power dynamics and abstracts.
lol Your argument being stupid has nothing to do with what I'm capable to discuss. Saying something doesn't exist in nature or outside of the mind doesn't make sense when you can find real world examples of it easily enough. Again, there are plenty of companies in this very country where everyone is given a fair shot to prove their worth regardless of race, gender, etc... -
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.
You have not provided adequate proof women are generally not good leaders when/if given the opportunity
The lack of opportunities does not mean women aren't good at it....
And while it's true men are physically stronger, one could argue women on average are better communicators/ have better interpersonal skills. Skills necessary to effectively lead/manage ppl , especially in today's world where physical strengthen is much less a factor...making them ideal candidates for managerial positions
And in one study, female managers outperform male on employee engagement scores
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-the-manager/201504/are-women-better-managers-men
That said, no one sex is superior to the other. As individuals have our strengthens and weaknesses. There are very few limitations imposed on us purely by biology
Yet men are still given more opportunities to lead/manage, why? And why are women better, or least perceived to be better, communicators?
It is more so a manifestation of the how we are socialized and less to do with any real physical /biological differences between men and women
Or in other words, while biology plays a role, i think there is a stronger case to be made that culture does more to influence our life stance, our behaviors, and the opportunities we are given
-
oh great... another why can't i beat up women thread.
-
The title of this thread got me laughing
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »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.
I'm sorry i didn't know you weren't intellectually equipped to discuss the philosophical nature of power dynamics and abstracts.
lol Your argument being stupid has nothing to do with what I'm capable to discuss. Saying something doesn't exist in nature or outside of the mind doesn't make sense when you can find real world examples of it easily enough. Again, there are plenty of companies in this very country where everyone is given a fair shot to prove their worth regardless of race, gender, etc...
Your real world examples are human constructions. Again something that doesn't exist outside of the mind. -
$ineedmoney$ wrote: »
...So if she smacked Webster...is she allowed to get dat' work...
lol @ his shirt saying "tear it up" -
Your real world examples are human constructions. Again something that doesn't exist outside of the mind.
If you consider a business to be an abstraction that has no basis in reality, then you might as well say society itself is an abstraction making this whole discussion pointless. Most of us live in the real world though, and are treating these things as real world things that can be actively manipulated.
Yes, they are human constructions, but so are the concepts of equality or inequality. You're not actually arguing any point, you're just deflecting. -
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.
That just there official policy but in reality since no two people can be the same they evaluate you on your merits and distribute responsibilities according and what I'm telling you is that on average men have more desirable traits and merits -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Your real world examples are human constructions. Again something that doesn't exist outside of the mind.
If you consider a business to be an abstraction that has no basis in reality, then you might as well say society itself is an abstraction making this whole discussion pointless. Most of us live in the real world though, and are treating these things as real world things that can be actively manipulated.
Yes, they are human constructions, but so are the concepts of equality or inequality. You're not actually arguing any point, you're just deflecting.
That is the whole point. It's not a deflection it's a statement. We are arguing over abstracts like they are universal qualities when they aren't even real.
You don't live in the real world you live in a constructed reality an artifice.
In this reality adjacent civilization we can pretend that equality is a real achievable concept that can usher in this new dawn but in practice it only shoe horns people into mediocrity. -
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.
That just there official policy but in reality since no two people can be the same they evaluate you on your merits and distribute responsibilities according and what I'm telling you is that on average men have more desirable traits and merits
And I'm saying "Prove it." I don't know if what you're saying is true or not, but you saying it doesn't make it so and your arguments for that conclusion haven't really supported it.
That is the whole point. It's not a deflection it's a statement. We are arguing over abstracts like they are universal qualities when they aren't even real.
You don't live in the real world you live in a constructed reality an artifice.
In this reality adjacent civilization we can pretend that equality is a real achievable concept that can usher in this new dawn but in practice it only shoe horns people into mediocrity.
No we're discussing principles and practices that can put into real action. That makes them real. You're trying to abstract them to a point where there is no point discussing them. Every race has a start. When you go watch the Olympics, you see everyone line up at the same place. That's putting everyone on an equal footing. Of course, everyone won't reach the end at the same level, but they started off on the same level. Companies are the same way. Most of them are stratified with each level having real requirements and responsibilities. You're making it seem like a level playing field is all in people's minds, however for companies of this type the rules are documented and laid out tangibly. So it's not nearly as abstract as you're suggesting. -
I'm not abstracting anything, they are abstracts. Equality is not real. People dont start at the same level Don't end at the same level and the prime motivator for most people is to raise their level change their position relative to those around them. And then pass those advantages they acquired onto their children.
Equality is a fable told by the rich to appease the masses. -
Lonious Monk you want me to prove that men have more desirable traits??? okay
Men take more risks http://journal.sjdm.org/jdm06016.pdf risk taking is linked to success WHY??? because to the brave go the spoils and women are clearly prone to taking risks which is probably why all the most dangerous jobs are done by men
Physically men are faster, bigger, stronger i won't give you stats for that because it's common knowledge.
men also produce more geniuses http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1274952/Men-ARE-brainy-women-says-scientist-Professor-Richard-Lynn.html
men are more aggressive https://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/psych406-7.2.pdf
so so far we have greater aggressiveness, risk taking, superior physicality and greater potential for genius..... these are all traits that when applied in a positive environment make men a better and on top of that men are better at science and math
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mYeZ9by-eM
-
That's a privilege they have. We all get the better end ot the stick in some areas.
-
That's a privilege they have. We all get the better end ot the stick in some areas.
horseshit -
Lonious Monk you want me to prove that men have more desirable traits??? okay
Men take more risks http://journal.sjdm.org/jdm06016.pdf risk taking is linked to success WHY??? because to the brave go the spoils and women are clearly prone to taking risks which is probably why all the most dangerous jobs are done by men
Physically men are faster, bigger, stronger i won't give you stats for that because it's common knowledge.
men also produce more geniuses http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1274952/Men-ARE-brainy-women-says-scientist-Professor-Richard-Lynn.html
men are more aggressive https://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/psych406-7.2.pdf
so so far we have greater aggressiveness, risk taking, superior physicality and greater potential for genius..... these are all traits that when applied in a positive environment make men a better and on top of that men are better at science and mathhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mYeZ9by-eM
Everything you just listed has upsides and downsides though. Yes, risk taking can be a good thing. It can also work out to be a bad thing. For every dude, that's taken a risk and won big, there are probably 5 who took the same risk, crashed, and burned. You can't run a society with everyone being like that. Sometimes playing it safe is the right thing to do. If you believe that's a more feminine trait, then it would stand to reason that the world also needs the feminine way. So that doesn't make men intrinsically better under all circumstances. It just makes men better suited for some tasks or solutions.
The same goes for aggressiveness. I shouldn't have to tell you that aggression is not always the best way to address an issue. Overaggresiveness causes as many or more crises is it solves.
The problem with the argument you're making is that treats society way to simplistically. I would agree that men are better at certain things that women and women are better at certain things than men. You are making the argument that men are better by only highlighting what men excel at and then acting like those things are then end all and be all to running a healthy society. They aren't though. For example, women tend to be better communicators. Communication is pretty important to maintaining a healthy society.
My thing is I don't agree with chauvinists like yourself or feminists. You guys only look at one side and try to force that side to be the right one, when the truth is somewhere in the middle. -
Nah what dude is saying that women shouldnt realistically try to compete in the realms where men excel.
They should compete in the realms they excel.
The problem with some women is they want to step into a mans shoes, and then complain that the shoe is too big. -
oh great... another why can't i beat up women thread.
Word. The strange thing to me is that some ? seem obsessed with beating the ? out of women. Like it's not just that they think that it should be socially-acceptable, it seems like the fact that is ISN'T socially excepted is offensive to them.
? is bizarre. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Lonious Monk you want me to prove that men have more desirable traits??? okay
Men take more risks http://journal.sjdm.org/jdm06016.pdf risk taking is linked to success WHY??? because to the brave go the spoils and women are clearly prone to taking risks which is probably why all the most dangerous jobs are done by men
Physically men are faster, bigger, stronger i won't give you stats for that because it's common knowledge.
men also produce more geniuses http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1274952/Men-ARE-brainy-women-says-scientist-Professor-Richard-Lynn.html
men are more aggressive https://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/psych406-7.2.pdf
so so far we have greater aggressiveness, risk taking, superior physicality and greater potential for genius..... these are all traits that when applied in a positive environment make men a better and on top of that men are better at science and mathhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mYeZ9by-eM
Everything you just listed has upsides and downsides though. Yes, risk taking can be a good thing. It can also work out to be a bad thing. For every dude, that's taken a risk and won big, there are probably 5 who took the same risk, crashed, and burned. You can't run a society with everyone being like that. Sometimes playing it safe is the right thing to do. If you believe that's a more feminine trait, then it would stand to reason that the world also needs the feminine way. So that doesn't make men intrinsically better under all circumstances. It just makes men better suited for some tasks or solutions.
The same goes for aggressiveness. I shouldn't have to tell you that aggression is not always the best way to address an issue. Overaggresiveness causes as many or more crises is it solves.
The problem with the argument you're making is that treats society way to simplistically. I would agree that men are better at certain things that women and women are better at certain things than men. You are making the argument that men are better by only highlighting what men excel at and then acting like those things are then end all and be all to running a healthy society. They aren't though. For example, women tend to be better communicators. Communication is pretty important to maintaining a healthy society.
My thing is I don't agree with chauvinists like yourself or feminists. You guys only look at one side and try to force that side to be the right one, when the truth is somewhere in the middle.
You asked me to prove that men have more desirable traits and while every trait can have a situational downside it is my contention that the traits found in men at greater proportions create more benefits than they do disadvantages. REMEMBER i said that men are better at the things that actually count so in other words we excel at more important ? ... the things women excel at are important but they are not more important than the things that men excel at.
In modern capitalistic society if you don't take risk and are not intelligently aggressive then you won't gather more wealth than the next person and the whole goal is to be richer than the next guy. This lack of risk taking and aggressiveness is why women are less likely to ask for a rise or fight for that promotion.... therefore they get out competed by men and then feminist cry about sexism.
http://www.catalyst.org/system/files/high_potentials_in_tech-intensive_industries_the_gender_divide_in_business_roles_2.pdf
Men/boys also excel at stem fields and obviously in the age we live in that's an advantage, most women/girls don't even want to go into stem even when the opportunity is made easy for them and when they do get into it they don't stay in it
quite frankly studies suggest that men are also more willing to suffer and live under hierarchy so of course we will do better in a highly structured society. -
You asked me to prove that men have more desirable traits and while every trait can have a situational downside it is my contention that the traits found in men at greater proportions create more benefits than they do disadvantages. REMEMBER i said that men are better at the things that actually count so in other words we excel at more important ? ... the things women excel at are important but they are not more important than the things that men excel at.
In modern capitalistic society if you don't take risk and are not intelligently aggressive then you won't gather more wealth than the next person and the whole goal is to be richer than the next guy. This lack of risk taking and aggressiveness is why women are less likely to ask for a rise or fight for that promotion.... therefore they get out competed by men and then feminist cry about sexism.
http://www.catalyst.org/system/files/high_potentials_in_tech-intensive_industries_the_gender_divide_in_business_roles_2.pdf
Men/boys also excel at stem fields and obviously in the age we live in that's an advantage, most women/girls don't even want to go into stem even when the opportunity is made easy for them and when they do get into it they don't stay in it
quite frankly studies suggest that men are also more willing to suffer and live under hierarchy so of course we will do better in a highly structured society.
I'm not saying any of that is wrong, and I can see why it would feed your beliefs. I just don't agree with much of it. You are right that modern capitalistic society probably awards more men oriented traits than woman oriented traits, but that should be expected given that men have developed the current society. Had it been more of a joint venture, society probably would have been a lot different. Would it have been better or worse? No one can really answer that question.
At best, your argument supports the idea that men are better suited to succeed in today's world. That is true, but that's not the same as saying that men are better than women as you seemed to be implying before. -
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.
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.
.
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.
Bruh
The term 'equal' can mean 'same'..... BUT 'equal' can describe having "equivalent value", despite not being "exactly the same"
Think two dollars are equal to 8 quarters, yet they are different in appearance, feel, utility, etc
And the practice of treating ppl equally does not require they be treated the same, just that you don't give only one party special treatment. As I was alluding to it can mean you treat them as equally valued beings (i.e., workers, students, etc). Reasonable accommodations DOES NOT confer special treatment. If you are in charge of teaching a blind child and deaf child a lesson and you want to give them equal access to the lesson that means accommodating both children with the necessary tools they need to learn. You give the blind child braille reading materials, for instance. And/Or the lesson may require you to use sign language for the deaf child. Not just providing both children with only braille reading materials and expecting the deaf child to succeed
And really there is no such thing as absolute value. Value is the importance that we attach to things no? So in this sense, all values are subjective
You believe a man is superior to a woman or "man's work" is more valuable to the advancement of mankind, that is their opinion.... Considering women and only women can bear children, and then are generally are the care taker of said children, a case could be made women are more valuable, superior. Both cases have their merits but there's no right or wrong answer really. Not to mention our obligations and what's expected of both men and women has changed over time and changes from culture to culture
Even money is only worth what people believe it is worth. It depends on the judgment and agreement of majority. We want to make inequality less of a reality it's possible and we have the freedom to do so. It is the next step to human progress. Besides what that means for women, I believe that requires taking into consideration the differences between boys and girls and how they can best absorb and retain information in our schools. Boys are currently falling way behind. I'm also an advocate of giving men the right to sign away their financial obligations to a child they fathered under certain circumstances.....
-
mryounggun wrote: »oh great... another why can't i beat up women thread.
Word. The strange thing to me is that some ? seem obsessed with beating the ? out of women. Like it's not just that they think that it should be socially-acceptable, it seems like the fact that is ISN'T socially excepted is offensive to them.
? is bizarre.
This narrative yall keep pushing has zero basis at least on the board. I haven't seen anyone here(except maybe zombie) say they are eager to beat up women, but simply say how is it fair if someone puts their hands on you, you cannot defend yourself because of their gender, but we are pushing for equality.
Yall must be feminists masquerading as black people bec yall stay saying diminishing arguments with jokes that have no basis -
CashmoneyDux wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »oh great... another why can't i beat up women thread.
Word. The strange thing to me is that some ? seem obsessed with beating the ? out of women. Like it's not just that they think that it should be socially-acceptable, it seems like the fact that is ISN'T socially excepted is offensive to them.
? is bizarre.
This narrative yall keep pushing has zero basis at least on the board. I haven't seen anyone here(except maybe zombie) say they are eager to beat up women, but simply say how is it fair if someone puts their hands on you, you cannot defend yourself because of their gender, but we are pushing for equality.
Yall must be feminists masquerading as black people bec yall stay saying diminishing arguments with jokes that have no basis
I try to say exactly what I mean, B. I said that SOME ? SEEM obsessed with beating up women. I never said everyone who disagrees with 'If a woman hits me, I'm ? her up!' is one of these people and I never said that anyone actually said that.
I'm not a ? who's posts you have to read between the lines to find the meaning of. The fact that this thread exists is an example of what I mentioned. Also, if you don't feel that way and you aren't saying that...then cool. *shrugs* -
The top five threads:
1. Cops
2. Best excuse to beat women
3. White tears
4. Tariq
5. ? identification
