Gender equality will never be achieved.

Originally Posted by Ziwosa

I have never claimed such thing to be true, however people act upon what group someone belongs to, and not on the individual itself.
That's why there are any groups in the first place. Groups being male/female/hetero/straight/black/white/ ...

I don't think that groups necessarily exist because people act based on the groups they belong to. People act upon the groups they belong to because it is expected of them and other people put them into groups in the first place.

Originally Posted by Ziwosa

It just occurred to me that for as long as the desire for sex isn't equal between genders, there can be no equality between them.

Now of course, certain gender roles have nothing to do with a sexual desire, but it seems to me that this is the one that's probably never going to be equal. And it's also the one that's the root cause for a lot of gender differences.

Anyone disagree? This is the internet after all.

I don't really understand the question. Equality for whom? Who is getting the short end of the stick in your opinion?

Because of my faith and prolly in part because of my personality, I tend to believe male and female energies being two halves of a whole, the harmony between yin and yang. Eastern philosophy likens it to the wings of a bird; you need both or the bird won't be able to fly. The proof is in the fact that countries which oppress one gender via religion are third-world countries which suffer financial disparity, political strife, overt leadership corruption, civil mutiny, village displacement, death and starvation of millions of innocent civilians. That's not a healthy culture imo. That's a sick, broken winged bird who cannot fly.

Though the feminine 'yin' is more commonly oppressed by societies, I do see the reverse happening in developed countries like the U.S., U.K., and Australia. We try to overcompensate for centuries of female oppression by tearing men down and disparaging the importance of men in society. Feminism is guilty of this, attempting to remove men from positions of authority everywhere, signing in law which takes away paternal rights and favors the mother in court, even when she is at fault or is an unfit mother, and making all men in society appear stupid, unduly aggressive, deadbeat, or otherwise inferior via popular culture. Sure, I get that women are upset, but the reaction since the 1960's bra burning movement has been one of mass immaturity and lack of foresight.

My point is there is no such thing as an inferior or superior gender, nor has either been historically fair to the other. As humans, we fail A LOT at recognizing each other's value and acheiving harmony. To its credit, the aforementioned developed countries have come close but have ultimately failed. This has little to do with sexual desires as the OP suggested, though sexual desire and sex, rejection, and denial may play a role in the dynamics between men and women. I see it as just one example of emotional immaturity, fanatiscism, and unfullfilled needs destroying harmony between the sexes. There are many other examples, though.

Just as how nothing in life can be truly fair, nothing in life will ever be truly equal.

We can set whatever legislation we want to ensure that men and women have equal rights but, ultimately, it is a futile endeavour; the ways in which our society chooses to perceive each gender has been - and will always be - unequal.

The world in which we live in is too heavily ingrained with double standards and preconceptions for true equality to be acheivable. The best we can aim for is a total lack of discrimination rather than a presence of perfect parity.

As a faggot, I feel somewhat exempt from this vicious cycle. So, basic remedy for the tangled complexities of the situation? Everyone should be homosexual.

Their are enough people in the world as it is, anyways.



If we focused our numbers more on science and technological advancements (practically synonymous, no?) instead of procreation and delusions of grandeur we would find the means of birthing more humans without the sperm and egg bit. With this shift of focus I'm sure we can easily find that latter part before the issue of our numbers waning out became apparent.

Bam. Just made a simplified justification of why everyone should be gay.

Or, er, yeah. Something to that extent. I think.

Originally Posted by rshortman

I don't really understand the question. Equality for whom? Who is getting the short end of the stick in your opinion?

I did not have a question, I postulated that gender equality will never be achieved because of some gender differences, such as sexual desires.

Who's getting the short end? I don't feel that I have enough objective information to make an opinion, not even a personal opinion.

I agree that gender equality is never going to be fully achieved. Simply because the biological and physiological differences makes true equality impossible. I do however believe that equal opportunity can be attained which, for all intents and purpose, is just as effective when it comes to equal rights.

As long as people keep thinking that there is no use for equality, we will not have equality. As long as people THINK that we can't change inequality then inequality WON'T change.

Gender equality CAN be achieved, but WON'T because people refuse to acknowledge that gender inequality exists. Yes, even today. It's easy for men to say that the struggle for gender equality is useless because cis-men are the ones that benefit from gender inequality whether they want to acknowledge that or not. Or, men will say that women have nothing to complain about when men are looked at as the breadwinners, the rational ones, the strong ones, sexually uncontrollable, shouldn't be feminine etc., not realizing that these characteristics originate from patriarchal ideologies. So it's not about women wanting to be better than men, it's about erasing the ideology that one gender is better than the other, and we so happen to live in a society that upholds patriarchal ideology, which is not only dangerous to women (as we are all no doubt aware of with slut-shaming, victim-blaming, body-policing, rape-apologists, feminine-shaming [such as insults like "you're a pussy!" and much more that women have to face, even from other women) but, as I've mentioned, men as well (not holding them accountable for sexual assault/rape, violence against women, deterring them from showing emotions, etc).

Gender inequality doesn't have to be unachievable. People make it unachievable.

My opinion as to whether there could be gender equality is "no", in agreement with your point of view.

We now break the word "equality" into two definitions to see why I think it is not possible in our world.
The first one takes equality as treating everyone as an equal. However, because of the difference among people, this kind of "equality" is by no means an "equality". To see this, think about an average girl asked to run so long as another average boy can. If this is practised in PE lesson in school, acronym for physical education, a barrage of complaints must ensue.

Thus, a more practical definition to equality should be "Treatments commensurate with the ability of the individuals."
Girls tend to be physically less strong than guys, so their workload, if employed in a company, should be minimized with regard to physical work. They should be placed in jobs that suit their capabilities the most, such as works that require co-operation with peers with an aim to achieve a definite result. As for boys, the contrary is true.

However, since people vary a lot in terms of their innate predisposition and talent, stereotypes should not be used in justifying what "treatments" are to be offered. Thus, individual assessments are needed, so as to ascertain what work is to be assigned. However, the cost in determining the strength and weakness is too high to make this policy workable. Thus, equality among different people can not be achieved, let alone gender equality, which presupposes that each member within each group is treated "equally" or "fairly" (i.e. males in the group for male are all equally treated.)

This is how the conclusion is arrived at. What do you think?

I think we're having some problems understanding "equality" and that's because it's a highly loaded word.
Just look at all these people referencing physical capabilities and *evolutionary biology.* Y'all are confused.

Gender is regarded as an identity, and the main issue is that the more "feminine" side of the spectrum is put down. I think a more appropriate question would be to look at whether society can give up its need to dominate and control in regards to gender, race, ableism, etc.

For what it's worth, I think it *can* if people learn to stop being so personally threatened by statements like "men need to stop doing _____" or "white people need to stop doing ______." It always turns into "Well, not ALL ____ do that! I'm a good person!" And that is derailment.

Originally Posted by Ziwosa

It just occurred to me that for as long as the desire for sex isn't equal between genders, there can be no equality between them.

Now of course, certain gender roles have nothing to do with a sexual desire, but it seems to me that this is the one that's probably never going to be equal. And it's also the one that's the root cause for a lot of gender differences.

Anyone disagree? This is the internet after all.

SOMEBODY IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET.

Anyway... Nah, I don't disagree.

We're obviously not equal, so why would there be equality? If we were, we wouldn't have so many obvious differences.

I think both genders should have the same opportunity to get the same jobs, and such, but when it comes down to the way people view you... Well, if you dress like a skank, man or woman, you'll be treated like one.

In certain countries, women are allowed to go into the army as long as they can lift 30 kilos or something. Whereas a man has to lift 60. That's not equality. That's cheating.

A woman in peak physical condition isn't gonna be as strong as a man in peak physical condition. Barring freak occurrences and bizarre genetic factors, and other strange exceptions.

A woman really has to prove herself in a man's world-- Like the army. So she has to lift 60 kilos. Maybe that's impossible for her. If it is, it's probably not something she should be doing anyway. Some men can't do it either. But, they're all required to lift that amount, because they have to carry a backpack of that weight.

So what ends up happening? The lady gives her backpack to a guy on the team, and he gets to carry the load for two people. I'm sorry, but what? Yeah. That's what they call equality.

I call it, ''spoiled little princess'' syndrome. Wake up and smell the hummus, ladies!