65 replies to this topic

[libstaK]

HuttonEtAl, on 03 October 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

Just a question...
What are women better at then men? Obviously they are not physically as strong...

Tell me, what makes them equal?

Just as El has said, when you can look forward to pushing a football out of a hole the size of a golf ball, anticipate it with excitement for nine months even - you can join us on our pedestal

Edited by libstaK, 03 October 2012 - 12:35 PM.

[CommunitarianKevin]

libstaK, on 03 October 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

Just as El has said, when you can look forward to pushing a football out of a hole the size of a golf ball, anticipate it with excitement for nine months even - you can join us on our pedestal

Not a fair comparison...we will never be in that situation...you assume men would not be able to handle it better...pure speculation...

Also, do I need to explain to you how women give birth? Their cervic expands, to 9 inches in diameter and gains elasticity. Even though that happens, women still often tare or need to be cut for the baby to fit through. When women do it without drugs, they normally beg for drugs to reduce the pain and make it easier. I am pretty sure a man could beg for drugs and push something big out if they had the anatomy to do that...

[bLu3 de 3n3rgy]

HuttonEtAl, on 03 October 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

So what if he was stoned or drunk?
Oh, so if he wasn't stoned or drunk, he could have knocked her out? Hear that ladies? You are only as good as a stone or drunk man...
Give women some credit...

Of course it makes a difference. Anyone who is severely inebriated is less able to stand up and calculate what is going on. I mean that is one reason why it is illegal to operate machinery or drive under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Science and biology shows us that. Conversely, alcohol and drugs can also be the fuel to situations becoming violent.  What i was talking about 'specifically' was the differences in human physiology between the genders. Yes men can not only exert more force, but absorb more force than females. There is studies that support that women have a different pain threshold to men and process pain slightly differently.

And stop twisting the meaning of what i am saying and calling me sexist and delusional. If you want to continue to understand my views then keep it polite please. For a start, I am not even putting women down as you seem to be suggesting and i don't see any other females disagree with what i am saying either.

As for equality - for as long as women are under pressure or trying to be equal with men, in a patriarchal society, neither gender is doing one another any favours trying to mash out what equality should be. My view is strong that true equality is something that will find it's rightful balance when society begins to recognise each gender for it's strengths, as well as it's weakness, and uniqueness and stops trying to make one conform under the other, and moves away from a patriarchal dominate society into one that encompasses a balance of both.

Edited by bLu3 de 3n3rgy, 03 October 2012 - 12:50 PM.

[libstaK]

HuttonEtAl, on 03 October 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

Not a fair comparison...we will never be in that situation...you assume men would not be able to handle it better...pure speculation...

Also, do I need to explain to you how women give birth? Their cervic expands, to 9 inches in diameter and gains elasticity. Even though that happens, women still often tare or need to be cut for the baby to fit through. When women do it without drugs, they normally beg for drugs to reduce the pain and make it easier. I am pretty sure a man could beg for drugs and push something big out if they had the anatomy to do that...

Women will also never be in the situation of being able to build muscle mass to the same extent as men nor are we susceptible to the effects of testosterone, so to suggest we are the equal to a man in a physical arena is on average also not a fair comparison - there are exceptions, mostly with the help of steroid and the less common biological exceptions but the averages are not in our favour.  That does not make us "unequal" in any legal sense just different and the statistics of crime support that.

[CommunitarianKevin]

bLu3 de 3n3rgy, on 03 October 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

As for equality - for as long as women are under pressure or trying to be equal with men, in a patriarchal society, neither gender is doing one another any favours trying to mash out what equality should be. My view is strong that true equality is something that will find it's rightful balance when society begins to recognise each gender for it's strengths, as well as it's weakness, and uniqueness and stops trying to make one conform under the other, and moves away from a patriarchal dominate society into one that encompasses a balance of both.

Here is the problem. Women make crappy firefighters because they cannot drag my fat ass out of a burning building...but yet women feel discriminated against when the standards are upped, which eliminates them from being firefighters. To recognize women's weaknesses would be not allowing them to do certain jobs, but women view this as sexist and discriminating.

On the same note, women are better with small motor skills which makes them better surgens. Does this mean men should not be surgens?

It seems that if we use science there are clearly some things that women are better at and that men are better at, but in our society that is seen as unequal and discriminating. If women are unequal at some things, and men are unequal at some things, we must assume they are special. Looking at my first argument, you cannot be special an equal...so are women special, or equal?

libstaK, on 03 October 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

Women will also never be in the situation of being able to build muscle mass to the same extent as men nor are we susceptible to the effects of testosterone, so to suggest we are the equal to a man in a physical arena is on average also not a fair comparison - there are exceptions, mostly with the help of steroid and the less common biological exceptions but the averages are not in our favour.  That does not make us "unequal" in any legal sense just different and the statistics of crime support that.

YES! But, a 200 lb woman is physically dominate to a 100 lb man. I dominate a muscle bound man that is 130 lbs just because of my weight...I know this because I have done it...A big woman can dominate a man...

So women are different? So they need special treatment? If they need special treament, why should they not be discriminated against in special cases (such as dragging my pass-out-ass out of a burning building?

[libstaK]

HuttonEtAl, on 03 October 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

YES! But, a 200 lb woman is physically dominate to a 100 lb man. I dominate a muscle bound man that is 130 lbs just because of my weight...I know this because I have done it...A big woman can dominate a man...

So women are different? So they need special treatment? If they need special treament, why should they not be discriminated against in special cases (such as dragging my pass-out-ass out of a burning building?

You're talking about physical weight - if you want to compare apples to apples then there has to be comparable MUSCLE MASS.  A 200lb woman could be obese and prone to a heart attack if she lifted anything heavier than your arm much less having the capacity to drag you out of a burning building.

[CommunitarianKevin]

libstaK, on 03 October 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

You're talking about physical weight - if you want to compare apples to apples then there has to be comparable MUSCLE MASS.  A 200lb woman could be obese and prone to a heart attack if she lifted anything heavier than your arm much less having the capacity to drag you out of a burning building.

So are you arguing that a woman could not pull me out of a burning building?

And yes, I am talking about physical weight...because in the real world things are based on more than 1 factor. A muscle bound 250 lb man will dominate a muscle bound 150 lb man...just like a 250 lb woman will dominate a muscle bound 100 lb man.

If we are going to base things on a single factor, then why not say "women are not physcially capable, they cannot do physical jobs," or should we evaluate different traits (discrimination based on ability,) or should we say everyone is equal and has an equal oppertunity and equal right to everything (including the law?)

I do not really see how a woman, being less capable than a man (based on your opinion of muscle mass,) should be given the same rights, which makes a woman unequal...see my first post...

Edited by HuttonEtAl, 03 October 2012 - 02:00 PM.

[Mantis914]

I've found that women are better than men in language.  I've always heard that females talk earlier as babies, use more words in a day and use more uncommon words.  I find this true as when I was single and out with friends, we could tell each other stuff by non-verbal actions and now that I'm married, I talk even less.

[libstaK]

HuttonEtAl, on 03 October 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

So are you arguing that a woman could not pull me out of a burning building?

If she did not have the muscle mass that was capable of pulling a grown man out, obviously she could not do it. If a man did not have the muscle mass he could not do it either.

Quote

And yes, I am talking about physical weight...because in the real world things are based on more than 1 factor. A muscle bound 250 lb man will dominate a muscle bound 150 lb man...just like a 250 lb woman will dominate a muscle bound 100 lb man.

There you go, neglecting the apples to apples comparison conveniently leaving out the "muscle" equation in your second example "250 lb woman" to support your first which clearly spoke about muscle for both the "muscle bound 250 lb man" and "muscle bound 150 lb man".

That doesn't leave you with a position to discuss against quite frankly.

Quote

If we are going to base things on a single factor, then why not say "women are not physcially capable, they cannot do physical jobs," or should we evaluate different traits (discrimination based on ability,) or should we say everyone is equal and has an equal oppertunity and equal right to everything (including the law?)

I didn't say woman were "not physically capable".  I am saying that each individual has different physical capabilities and that men in general dominate biologically in the amount of muscle mass they carry, there in the matter of LIFTING WEIGHTS AND PHYSICAL FORCE they will GENERALLY hold an advantage over a woman who is carrying less muscle mass regardless of weight.

Quote

I do not really see how a woman, being less capable than a man (based on your opinion of muscle mass,) should be given the same rights, which makes a woman unequal...see my first post...

What do "rights" have to do with it?  A woman has the same rights as a man, each has the right to be judged on what they are physically capable of achieving and also on the consequences thereof - see MY first post.

[Hartmut]

Actually it is quite simple:

Do whatever you like - provided it does not harm anyone!
And that simple, one law should apply - to everything we do,
not just for the 'battle' between women and men.

[Lilly]

Physical brute strength is not the determining factor in social equality. If this was the case then children and elderly people (as well as females) would be considered as being 'less than equal'. If you desire social value to be based on pysical strength alone you're not going to find such in most developed 21st century societies.

[libstaK]

Hartmut, on 03 October 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

Actually it is quite simple:

Do whatever you like - provided it does not harm anyone!
And that simple, one law should apply - to everything we do,
not just for the 'battle' between women and men.

Amen to that.

[Amy the Mighty]

Assault is assault. It doesn't matter what sex you are - the "don't be an a***hole" rule applies equally.

[King Fluffs]

I know some women who are stronger than alot of the blokes I know...

It's an odd feeling to have when you know a female friend of yours would have to fight off a would be attacker for you.

[Bling]

bones101proof, on 02 October 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

Lol, Does that mean I must address you fro now on as Princess Bling? Or how about "Your Blingness" lol

Princess Bling will do. Don't forget to bow also.