Gender equality sidebar from 'would you fight' thread

[Advocate]

Well, we both said we were getting off topic and needed a new thread, so here it is. I would like to hear from Q Source about what she had in mind in her previous comments, but also what anyone else thinks of the subject we had been discussing. Namely how rights and responsibilities could be balanced between men and women, especially in the military (since that’s how the conversation started) but also more generally.

[Tmy]

Thing is men and women are not equal. Or better yet their not the same. To threat them so would mean they would share bathroom and sleeping facilites. Is anyone proposing that?

[Advocate]

Originally posted by Tmy
Thing is men and women are not equal. Or better yet their not the same. To threat them so would mean they would share bathroom and sleeping facilites. Is anyone proposing that?

I meant equal in the sense of being treated equally, not in the sense of being identical, which is obviously untrue. And currently even the sense I intended is not true, but I think could potentially be made so. I was interested in hearing QS idea about this since it sounded so different from what I am used to hearing. I hope you would agree that two people or groups of people can be equal without being identical.

[Q-Source]

Following the conversation...

Me:
[equal opportunities society] In this scenario, women could do anything that are considered activities only for men and vice versa. For example, they could join the army and the government and society would guarantee that their children are o.k.

Advocate:
And here is where I think you are losing me. Why should the government take care of the children for her? Shouldn't their father do that if she is not able to because of her career?

Of course, if she is married then the husband should assume all the responsability of taking care of their children. I was talking about single mothers.

Society has to facilitate all the conditions for women to do what society expects from them. Joining the draft is one example.

But, as I said, feminists do not look for confrontation with men, they want respect.

What do you think about women doing the historical duties of the house?, do you agree with that?

However, let me tell you something. Femenists have failed to reach their goals because there are many women who do not want to assume the responsabilities that imply equal opportunities between men and women.

Many of them want to follow the current pattern of subjugation.

Just look at the Muslim women... they are the worst enemies of feminism.

Advocate:
The government does not do this for men even in those cases where he has sole custody. Unless you mean something different than it sounds like to me.

You've just mentioned a very important point. In our societies, we also have many discriminatory laws against men, such as the custody of children and the no-help that the system provides for single fathers.

Well, I have risen many different things. So, I would like to know what men think about it.

Q-S

[Advocate]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Following the conversation...

Of course, if she is married then the husband should assume all the responsability of taking care of their children. I was talking about single mothers.
I hope you don't intend to imply that fathers who are not married to their children's mothers do not have a responsibility to their children. To make my own position more clear, I would say that BOTH parents have a responsibility to take care of their children. Who actually takes care of them physically and who works elsewhere to support them should be up to them, but I would not say it should automatically fall along traditional lines.

But, as I said, feminists do not look for confrontation with men, they want respect.
I think most agree with you. Some, obviously, do not. I have met a few like that. I hope they are a minority.

What do you think about women doing the historical duties of the house?, do you agree with that?
It depends which duties you are talking about. Cooking and cleaning and that sort of thing can be done by either partner depending on ability, inclination, and work schedules, and should not be assumed to fall on one partner solely by reason of gender. OTOH there are certain traditionally female roles that must remain the exclusive province of women. For instance, it is well documented that breast feeding is better for the development and well-being of children than formula. So during infancy, this task must fall on the mother. Caring for children after that time is a different issue entirely since there is no biological reason to prefer one gender over the other.

However, let me tell you something. Femenists have failed to reach their goals because there are many women who do not want to assume the responsabilities that imply equal opportunities between men and women.
I definitely agree with that. You are one of very few women I have ever met who recognizes that as a problem though. I have come to believe that it will require a male equivalent to feminism to get women to accept these responsibilities, the same way it took the feminist movement to open up the opportunities.

Many of them want to follow the current pattern of subjugation.

Just look at the Muslim women... they are the worst enemies of feminism.
It depends which Muslim women you are talking about. Muslim women in Muslim dominated countries do not have a lot of choice in the matter. Perhaps Muslim women in the West may be guilty of this, but I have not heard of a Muslim women's movement to force non-Muslim women to accept the conditions that Muslim women accept. In the West, if they accept this they are doing so voluntarily. Is it really subjugation if it is accepted willingly and the option to change their mind is open to them?

You've just mentioned a very important point. In our societies, we also have many discriminatory laws against men, such as the custody of children and the no-help that the system provides for single fathers.
That was exactly my point. It seems to me that so far the feminist movement has gone a long way toward changing those laws that discriminated against women, but has shown little interest in supporting, and sometimes has even actively opposed, changing the laws that discriminate against men.

Well, I have risen many different things. So, I would like to know what men think about it.
Well I hope I have let you know what at least one man thinks.

[Smalso]

A friend of mine (female) were discussing the granting of job opportunities to women in jobs that were traditionally for men. Her position was that if a woman is qualified she should be given an equal chance at the job. I agreed; then asked her about women on the state highway patrol. She said, of course, if they are qualified, they should be granted a chance at the job on the same level as men. I then informed her that, at that time, the first qualification was that an applicant be at least six feet tall and weigh at least two hundred pounds. Oh, well, they have to change that. (They did.) So then I asked her about all the men 5' 10" tall and weighing 190 pounds who were disqualified. Would there not then exist discrimination against certain men? That discussion went on late into the night.

I remember seeing George Will on "This Week" a couple of years ago during a discussion about women in the military in which he stated that there were problems that are not evident to a lot of civilians. One concerned emergency procedures on a navel vessel at sea. He said that carrying a litter with a wounded sailor has always been classified as a two man task. The Navy conducted studies and found that two women or one man and one woman could not perform the task satisfactorily because of the strength required to negotiate ladders, narrow passageways and other restrictions to free movement aboard ship. So, the Navy reissued the standard to require four people, thus occupying two sailors that could be used elsewhere. Are there any current or recent navy people who could enlighten me on this?