# Gender equality will never be achieved.



## Ziwosa (Sep 25, 2010)

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.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

If what you say is true then Gender equality could be achieved if Men toned down their libido/horny-ness and matched that of women's.

How would that fix anything apart from perhaps empowering men in having a choice when it comes to sex?

Also, what about women that have more sexual desire than men? I've certainly met a couple like that.


----------



## zynthaxx (Aug 12, 2009)

The first question is: Do we really _need_ gender equality? Wouldn't it be enough with a general level of fairness on an interpersonal level? Quid pro quo seems to work pretty well, in my opinion.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

zynthaxx said:


> The first question is: Do we really _need_ gender equality? Wouldn't it be enough with a general level of fairness on an interpersonal level? Quid pro quo seems to work pretty well, in my opinion.


The answer to your first question is no. Do you need a car? Money? Chinese food?
Most things in the world are 'wants' not needs.


----------



## ghenwa (Apr 10, 2012)

Isn't it interesting how only males have replied to this? And how everyone who has replied so far believes that gender equality isn't needed? But, nah, that's too far-fetched, there's no way the two are correlated.

Because, you know what, it's true. _Males _don't need gender equality. You're already the top of society! Masculinity is prized, and you're positively brimming with it! Why would you need equality? Women however, no, they're full of femininity and all that gushy stuff. That's what they're supposed to be according to society, yes, but at the same time, femininity is seen as degrading. Women don't get equal pay. Women aren't treated the same. Most of the time, women aren't even treated as _humans_. Nah, there's absolutely no way women need equality. 

I do, however, agree that humans may never achieve gender equality. Not when so many people aren't aware of the actual inequality going on. Not once have I thought that desire for sex would affect this, but rather what is considered right in terms of *expressing desire for sex*. Many women desire sex, just as much as men, but are discouraged from expressing it. Rather than not having the same level of desire, it's expression.


----------



## Anthoric (May 31, 2012)

We will never have gender equality for two reasons.

One, everyone has their own agenda.

Two, simple evolutionairy biology, just because we've built cities and rockets and such dosen't mean we've moved past all the things that kept us going as cave dwellers.

And maybe three is, I think people have forgotten what equality means, or at least what they mean when they say it.


What we need to do, in order to over come the two above things, is learn to use our differences to work together in harmony.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Ziwosa said:


> 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.


The desire for sex isn't the same for all members of one sex, and some women have a much higher desire than some men for sex. Whilst generally men do have a higher desire for sex, this doesn't mean that all men have a higher desire for sex than women.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Cetanu said:


> If what you say is true then Gender equality could be achieved if Men toned down their libido/horny-ness and matched that of women's.


Read my response to his post for my opinion on this, although we seem to agree that some women have higher sex drives than some men and vice versa.



> How would that fix anything apart from perhaps empowering men in having a choice when it comes to sex?


Empowering? Isn't that a little bit pathetic to be using such a word? As for choice, men do have a choice when it comes to sex, they aren't being forced into having sex any more than women are.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

zynthaxx said:


> The first question is: Do we really _need_ gender equality? Wouldn't it be enough with a general level of fairness on an interpersonal level? Quid pro quo seems to work pretty well, in my opinion.


I don't think that could work in most contemporary societies.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Cetanu said:


> The answer to your first question is no. Do you need a car? Money? Chinese food?
> Most things in the world are 'wants' not needs.


It's so very easy for a member of the privileged group to say something like this. It's a like a straight person asking if gay people "need" gay marriage, or a white person asking if ethnic minorities "need" to be treated like equals. I think equality is a bit more important than material possessions such as a car or money, or even Chinese food.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

I foresee much butthurt in this thread.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

skycloud86 said:


> It's so very easy for a member of the privileged group to say something like this. It's a like a straight person asking if gay people "need" gay marriage, or a white person asking if ethnic minorities "need" to be treated like equals. I think equality is a bit more important than material possessions such as a car or money, or even Chinese food.


Okay I'll bite.

*Will you die tomorrow if gender equality and gay marriage isn't fixed up?*
No.

*Do you need it?*
Same answer.

*Do you want it?*
Yes.

*Is there anything wrong with that?*
No.

*Would it be good if it was in place?*
Yes.

*Do you require it for your heart to continue pumping blood around your body?*
No.

*Do you understand yet?*
I hope so.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Cetanu said:


> Okay I'll bite.
> 
> *Will you die tomorrow if gender equality and gay marriage isn't fixed up?*
> No.
> ...


OK, so you wouldn't mind swapping places with a woman, or a gay person because obviously you don't "need" equal rights?


----------



## ghenwa (Apr 10, 2012)

skycloud86 said:


> Empowering? Isn't that a little bit pathetic to be using such a word? As for choice, men do have a choice when it comes to sex, they aren't being forced into having sex any more than women are.


I have to disagree on that last point. I believe that women have less choice when it comes to sex. Society comes down pretty hard on women who 'put out' but also on women who are 'prudes'. There's a lot of pressure put on women in terms of sex, especially in doing it 'the right way'. Like I said, women are discouraged from expressing their own sexuality - and I do not mean their boobs spilling out of their clothes on magazine covers, I mean that women are discouraged from expressing their own want for sex and their own pleasure gained from it. When it comes to sex and sexuality, society pretty much decides it for women. I do not call this equality.

/and by society, i mean men

I'm not saying that men are the only people contributing to lack of gender equality. Women also regularly contribute, often without knowing. Actually, people on both sides are often unaware, and this lack of awareness contributes to gender inequality. Furthermore, people who are made aware often deny having contributed or deny there being inequality in the first place. /wink wink nudge nudge

*Cetanu. *I think what you're failing to understand is that you're coming from a privileged position. You are a man. You have lived your entire life as a man, and not once have you lived the injustices faced by marginalized groups. Of course you don't think anything needs fixing, because you _don't realize there's anything wrong. _


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

ghenwa said:


> I have to disagree on that last point. I believe that women have less choice when it comes to sex. Society comes down pretty hard on women who 'put out' but also on women who are 'prudes'. There's a lot of pressure put on women in terms of sex, especially in doing it 'the right way'. Like I said, women are discouraged from expressing their own sexuality - and I do not mean their boobs spilling out of their clothes on magazine covers, I mean that women are discouraged from expressing their own want for sex and their own pleasure gained from it. When it comes to sex and sexuality, society pretty much decides it for women.
> 
> /and by society, i mean men
> 
> ...


Sorry, I should have been more clear. What I meant was that men aren't forced into sex as much as women are.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

skycloud86 said:


> OK, so you wouldn't mind swapping places with a woman, or a gay person because obviously you don't "need" equal rights?


I am a bisexual male and have wanted to have a relationship with a male at one point (ended up not going through with it)

Did I give a shit about gay people's rights when it comes to marriage?

No... Because I don't need to get married to commit myself to someone.




ghenwa said:


> *Cetanu. *I think what you're failing to understand is that you're coming from a privileged position. You are a man. You have lived your entire life as a man, and not once have you lived the injustices faced by marginalized groups. Of course you don't think anything needs fixing, because you _don't realize there's anything wrong. _


You need to stop putting words in my mouth.

When did I say nothing needs to be fixed? Quote it for me.

Maybe instead of manipulating me and being dishonest... You could just... Not do that. Thanks.


----------



## zynthaxx (Aug 12, 2009)

ghenwa said:


> Isn't it interesting how only males have replied to this? And how everyone who has replied so far believes that gender equality isn't needed?


I'm pretty sure I wrote that we need a system that allows for fairness for the individual, where gender isn't part of the question at all. 
For example: Getting paid more or less in a case where the deciding factor is the amount of dangliness of your genitals is simply not OK. The problem I have with many who claim to strive for gender equality, is that they in effect want to achieve it, not only by raising the worth of women in the work place (or in the eyes of their bosses), but also through lowering the worth of men (through assigning jobs based on quotas rather than competence, for example).

The sexual application of gender equality that @Ziwosa mentioned in the OP is another aspect that is very much real and obvious: Sex is (traditionally) a lot riskier for women than for men, both from a biological and from a social standpoint, and so it's very much the women's choice. Would you rather have gender equality here? My gut feeling is that it would hurt most women's situation more than it helped..


----------



## lboogy85 (May 27, 2012)

I agree with this as well as racial equality


----------



## zynthaxx (Aug 12, 2009)

skycloud86 said:


> I don't think that could work in most contemporary societies.


Would gender equality?
If we're striving to achieve impossible goals from the start, let's at least strive for the best goal available.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Cetanu said:


> I am a bisexual male and have wanted to have a relationship with a male at one point (ended up not going through with it)
> 
> Did I give a shit about gay people's rights when it comes to marriage?
> 
> No... Because I don't need to get married to commit myself to someone.


Many people don't need marriage to commit themselves to each other, but when it comes to the need for equality, that need isn't the same as when someone uses the word to describe what they want ("I really need a pizza", or "I really need to watch that film"), and yes, it isn't the same "need" used to describe things that keep us alive, such as breathing, but you can't just downgrade the need to equality to the same level as someone's want disguised as a need.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Ziwosa said:


> 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.


----------



## Zeitgeist (Feb 7, 2012)

Ziwosa said:


> 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.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

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.


----------



## Jetsune Lobos (Apr 23, 2012)

As a ******, 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.


----------



## Ziwosa (Sep 25, 2010)

rshortman said:


> 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.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

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.


----------



## WoodsofDesolation (May 19, 2012)

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.


----------



## Ken Ho (Jun 4, 2012)

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?


----------



## Skum (Jun 27, 2010)

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.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Ziwosa said:


> 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!


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

Falling Leaves said:


> 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.


I will further this by stating that the MORE legislation we pass in an attempt to create equality, the more it will be exploited by both sides to create further corruption. When you put a boy and girl together as small children, they treat one another as equals (unless you are one of those insane parents which corrupt the minds of your kids by letting them watch adult TV). World peace is impossible, and so is true gender equality. 

Male and female are different, and there are biological and psychological differences. It is not about one being better than the other, it is about that there are different roles which need to be played and each individual has their own. Stop trying to go jump into another role just because someone told you you arn't allowed to do it and calling it inequality. 

Even when there was oppression, society worked. People were happy. Women were happy because they didn't know any better. They were not angry at the system because they did not know they COULD be angry at the system. So instead, they were content. Now, women have rights and freedoms and they and men have this constant strife for equality. I am not suggesting we revert back, I am saying we have lost focus. Stop worrying so much on the principle of equality and look at the big picture. Societal rules were created for the people as a whole to be happy, get along, and grow. Work for a dynamic that works the best for the purposes, not just for a silly principle based on half-assed moral standards. 

No, people didn't walk around smiling all the time, but too much of anything is a bad thing, and I say that goes for freedom too. We are humans, we make mistakes, and we abuse something if we get too much. In the US, we have too much freedom, we are getting spoiled and we will decay our own country from the inside out due to our own greed and insecurities.


----------



## Obsidean (Mar 24, 2010)

ghenwa said:


> “*A woman’s worst nightmare? That’s pretty easy. Novelist Margaret Atwood writes that when she asked a male friend why men feel threatened by women, he answered, “They are afraid women will laugh at them.” When she asked a group of women why they feel threatened by men, they said, “We’re afraid of being killed.*”
> —A Woman's Worst Nightmare


Lets not forget that men kill men at a higher rate then that of women.

As for the question, no, I don't believe that there will be equality for the sexes. However, I do believe "true equality" can be achievable. Which simply means letting people find the contingencies they like, regardless of sex/gender etc.


----------



## Psychophlegmatic (Apr 29, 2012)

Signify said:


> When you put a boy and girl together as small children, they treat one another as equals (unless you are one of those insane parents which corrupt the minds of your kids by letting them watch adult TV).


I agree with you about child corruption and adult television. My parents were more ignorant than insane..but still... As a young child, my favorite tv show was Law and Order SVU and my favorite movie was The Thing. Scary stuff for a little kid..definitely gave me a negative outlook on life at a young age. If I have kids...they aren't watching any of that. I won't allow it.


----------



## Radiant Flux (May 7, 2010)

I think eventually we'll reach it. I don't think of black people any different than white people. That was once not the case, and so I am pretty much racism free. It'll get better as generations go by and women learn to treat men with equal respect and men learn to treat women with equal respect.

One day, when someone says "you look like a girl!" to a boy, it won't be an insult.

PS--
I think everyone confuses the terms "equal" and "equivalent". I think equal is far more unreachable than equivalent, as being equal would indicate no gender distinctions other than genitalia at all (something I find in part attractive, but mostly impossible). Equivalent however, indicates the equal respect and opportunity to both genders, one never abusing or overpowering another simply because of their gender, but both having loosely defined looks and roles.


----------



## Sapphyreopal5 (Jun 11, 2012)

Equality of the sexes in terms of having equal opportunities, equal pay, etc. is definitely possible in my opinion. And no, it doesn't mean women automatically get favored in child support/custody cases, nor does it mean she is more valued just for being a woman as some feminists may believe. Part of the problem is people being butt-hurt because of negative relationships, whether they have been butt-hurt in intimate relationships or they have mommy and/or daddy issues or more serious cases like sexual abuse. And of course, stereotypes and prejudices that have been carried down and successfully ingrained into people's way of thinking for many generations also prevent women and men from having the same opportunities regardless of sex. 
And I'm not getting into the physical differences with strength and such, as that is a different discussion in my opinion, as appearances should not be relevant to judging one's competence, honesty, etc.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

Gender equality is inevitable.. But the Genders are not identical and never will be.. That's something that seems to confuse a lot of people.
The explanation is quite simple really. Our Biology does not match our ideologies. 

Equal is a moral/political question.. Identical is a scientific one.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

Hecait said:


> I agree with you about child corruption and adult television. My parents were more ignorant than insane..but still... As a young child, my favorite tv show was Law and Order SVU and my favorite movie was The Thing. Scary stuff for a little kid..definitely gave me a negative outlook on life at a young age. If I have kids...they aren't watching any of that. I won't allow it.


Is now or later a good time to mention I grew up on Dragon Ball Z? As a 5 year old, that show was glorious.


----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

The notion that there is a significant difference between men and women in desiring sex is contrived. 
For contemplations sake. Think of something you enjoy. Now think of it as being more difficult to attain. Consider if it was a commodity or something that was a shared desire. Consider it to be something that brings with it a risk that could cause loss of life or even loss of your livelihood. 

Different personalities will have different assumptions. Some people will associate it to extraneous factors, other to internal ones. What does the desire to sex mean universally? Compulsion to reproduce perhaps. Maybe for some it is a pleasurable physical or psychological desire. Whatever stance they take, it certainly wont change what it is.


----------



## bellisaurius (Jan 18, 2012)

Are we asking about equality of outcome or equality of oppurtunity?

Also, if both sexes are roughly equal, but one has a wider gausian distribution of talents (there are more men with below average IQs, but also more males with above average), what does that mean to equality?


----------



## Wakachi (May 24, 2012)

bellisaurius said:


> Are we asking about equality of outcome or equality of oppurtunity?
> 
> Also, if both sexes are roughly equal, but one has a wider gausian distribution of talents (there are more men with below average IQs, but also more males with above average), what does that mean to equality?


It means that relying on a group assumption is merely manifested insecurities that expect entitlements from empathy or other similar structures from the larger group. Self interest loves fiddling with the high throne(s).

In a construction that needs 4 pieces of nails to support a "side", is 1 nail "unequal" to 1 side? If the nail doesn't bind the side correctly with the rest of the construction or the side is easily breakable, then it is impractical regardless of what it is. Politics have always existed to justify the plain of basis in the manner happiness is permitted; it is not a question of whether or not gender equality can be achieved at humanity's current state. It is a question of who has the right to exercise potentials and what *kind* of potentials does equality issues manifests itself. If you're convinced you are getting all the rice you can get from the bowl you're given, you wouldn't bitch at the wif- I mean chef.

And secondly, on a rate of -10 to 10, rate Justin Bieber's "masculinity" in terms of gender norms.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

HonestThief said:


> Biting tongue right now trying not to type a million things. I'm split for both sides partially. Not that my opinion matters. I'm a guy and unless I agree wholeheartedly with the feminists on here I will be picked apart and thrown to the dogs. So with that I stop my forum lurking and make my leave :frustrating:


This is out of topic, but I find this post _so _adorable!


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Belovodia said:


> The question is: Why have women historically, been so oppressed?
> Or, to put it another way, why have men been so afraid of women that they had
> to oppress them to feel safe?


Very good point. Surely if it were natural for women to be the passive, subservient sex, then we wouldn't need laws and gender roles and societal expectations to keep them down? The natural state of things is neither a patriarchy or matriarchy.



> And, in this day and age in the western world, are most men still secretly afraid/threatened
> women?


I think many men still are, especially if a woman is more intelligent than them, or has a higher-paying job.



> I personally suspect that at the deepest level, the problem is of a spiritual nature.


Organised religion can be blamed for a lot of the bigotry in the world. Now, I'm not saying all religious people are bigots, but I am saying that their religions have a long history of bigotry.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

HonestThief said:


> Biting tongue right now trying not to type a million things. I'm split for both sides partially. Not that my opinion matters. I'm a guy and unless I agree wholeheartedly with the feminists on here I will be picked apart and thrown to the dogs. So with that I stop my forum lurking and make my leave :frustrating:


Not necessarily, but I think it's because we see a lot of the same things said over and over again, and it gets annoying to have to reply to the same arguments.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Arrow said:


> Can I just say this isn't respective only to women as well? I get scared at times too when I go into bad neighborhoods that have high crime rates and that I don't know well enough. I often at times feel that I have to appear tougher and be prepared to engage in physical fights and altercations because I know that it is more likely that men will want to engage in brawls with me or even kill me in order to take my possessions or just simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If I go into certain areas where there is a lot of urban crime or is not safe of course I am on guard. Being a man doesn't change that and give me some magical form of protection. Being afraid is a human response to danger, women aren't the only ones who may feel vulnerable in these cases or feel as if they can't protect themselves if the wrong person comes around the corner.


Noone is saying that men can't feel afraid as well, but it's different for women. They often can't walk down a public street in the middle of the day without being harassed. Whilst a man only has to fear a high-crime area, women have to be on their guard in most public places.


----------



## Lokkye (Dec 28, 2009)

I don't think equality is really the problem. I'd say men and women have different wants and needs. So, the kind of treatment for either men or women should be different, since they have different needs and wants. Some equality could be achieved but you can't expect men and women to be treated absolutely equally. In all fairness, I'm not promoting sexism. It is in fact equality which I'm advocating. But as the saying goes, different strokes for different folks.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Lokkye said:


> I don't think equality is really the problem. I'd say men and women have different wants and needs.


Perhaps in general, but there are few major differences. 



> So, the kind of treatment for either men or women should be different, since they have different needs and wants. Some equality could be achieved but you can't expect men and women to be treated absolutely equally. In all fairness, I'm not promoting sexism. It is in fact equality which I'm advocating. But as the saying goes, different strokes for different folks.


We shouldn't be treating anyone based on their biological sex, we should be treating them based on their personality, their actions, their needs and wants as an individual human being.


----------



## Lokkye (Dec 28, 2009)

skycloud86 said:


> We shouldn't be treating anyone based on their biological sex, we should be treating them based on their personality, their actions, their needs and wants as an individual human being.


I'm not necessarily saying that one should be treated better than the other. You do raise a good point about treating someone based on their personality, actions etc. I didn't eliminate that aspect. But I think you must have misunderstood my intentions. I'm not saying treated differently in the respect that women or men should be deprived of some things that the other sex is being given. I meant it in the respect that both sexes require different things. You can't expect women to have exactly the same priorities or obligations as men and vice versa. And I'm not saying this in an absolute sense either. Yes, some women could perform some tasks that are usually associated with men, and conversely, some men can also perform some tasks that are usually set out for women.
Like I said, I'd prefer a society where women and men are treated equally in a social/legal respect. In other respects, they are too different to be given _exactly_ the same treatment.


----------



## TheCrucible (Jul 23, 2011)

In America, having a penis only gives you about a 50% chance to be treated well. If we can't treat each other well, then it will be difficult to treat other right. I will say that both genders have strong holds on certain areas of society that aren't likely to be changed soon. What specific equalities/inequalities does the OP speak of?


----------



## HonestThief (May 28, 2012)

Amaterasu said:


> This is out of topic, but I find this post _so _adorable!


Thanks I guess? haha


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

skycloud86 said:


> . They often can't walk down a public street in the middle of the day without being harassed.


This is such an exaggeration and diminishment of male of feelings that I don't even know what to do with this response. Fear happens to everyone and is a natural response based on ones surroundings. There are young boys who live in bad areas every single day and are afraid of being hurt by other stronger men. Again this is not subjective to only women. As such women are not the only beings who can be one scared by their surroundings. Regardless no, not every woman faces harrassment every single time she walks out the door. 



> Whilst a man only has to fear a high-crime area, women have to be on their guard in most public places.


This is again your interpretation. Anyone could hurt anyone. The fear of violence is alive in all people. Men could just as likely get hit or be hurt by a man as a woman. If anything it's even more likely because male on male violence is the most common form of violence. It's more likely for a man to be hurt by a man then a woman.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Arrow said:


> This is such an exaggeration and diminishment of male of feelings that I don't even know what to do with this response.


Except that it isn't, you just want it to be. I'm not downplaying the feelings of men, what I am saying is that women are harassed. Just because I state this fact, doesn't mean that men aren't, or that their feelings aren't as valid as those of women.



> Fear happens to everyone and is a natural response based on ones surroundings. There are young boys who live in bad areas every single day and are afraid of being hurt by other stronger men. Again this is not subjective to only women. As such women are not the only beings who can be one scared by their surroundings.


I know, probably because I didn't say anything to the contrary.



> Regardless no, not every woman faces harrassment every single time she walks out the door


. 

Of course not, but when was the last time you got whistled at, or groped in public, or harrased on public transport?



> This is again your interpretation. Anyone could hurt anyone. The fear of violence is alive in all people. Men could just as likely get hit or be hurt by a man as a woman. If anything it's even more likely because male on male violence is the most common form of violence. It's more likely for a man to be hurt by a man then a woman.


It's clear that you can only see the male perspective here. I'm not just talking about non-sexual violence, I'm talking about harassment, sexual assault/rape and various other things that happen far more to women than to men.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

skycloud86 said:


> Except that it isn't, you just want it to be. I'm not downplaying the feelings of men, what I am saying is that women are harassed.


And this is not a difference between men or women. Men and women are both harassed. Why would you bring that up in the first place (and only place importance on women being harassed) if not with the aim to give one's set of grief more worth then another's. It's obvious that you are aiming to express that women's fear or predicament is more valid in some way. You feel women experience either more of it or you believe that they have more cause to fear it. 

If you didn't feel this way there would have been no purpose in you attempting to argue my point that fear between men and women is no different at it's core by bringing up harassment which can happen to both genders but which you only pointed out happens to women. Fear against violence is not regulated to gender. You are attempting to distance them and quantify the fear between sexes in order to underscore my point that they are both similar responses to their environments and that there are no quantifiable differences between the two in regards to their fear. Otherwise what is the purpose of arguing against my point, if you agreed that the fear against violence is not different? 



> Of course not, but when was the last time you got whistled at, or groped in public, or harrased on public transport?


You seem to always want to ask personal questions. For what it is worth I have been heckled, prejudiced and discriminated against for both my gender and for my ethnicity/race so I can definitely express that it does happen. This belief that men don't have to deal with these things is a fallacy. If you believe it or not it certainly happens so it's not as if I don't have any experience with these experiences. I've been groped in public by women, slapped by women and harassed by women, so yes it does happen. However it simply doesn't mean as much because as a man I am supposed to enjoy it (or tolerate and accept it) and thus my discomfort is not valued in the same way a woman's would be. I've certainly been harassed physically for my race but that's a separate issue. 



> It's clear that you can only see the male perspective here. I'm not just talking about non-sexual violence, I'm talking about harassment, sexual assault/rape and various other things that happen far more to women than to men.


I certainly see the female perspective, my point though is that violence is still violence. I don't see why one is deemed to be worse then the other. Both would be fearful, terrible experiences that I would never want to experience or have any other person experience. 

It would be horrible to be raped (which is more likely to happen to women, but can also happen to men) however I also don't believe it would be better to be beaten up and gunned down and be killed by a gang of men or by a person more powerful then myself (which is more likely to happen to men, but can also happen to women). 

What I am expressing is that both men and women fear violence and I don't think either one would be something they would want to happen to them. Just having a penis is not a magical shield against violence, sometimes it's the direct opposite. Sometimes it's a magnet for violence. It's not anymore fun being a guy in a violent situation against yourself then it is being a woman, which is my main point. But I am sure you will contest that. Regardless fear is not something only one gender feels, both are capable of feeling it so fear against violence is not something only one gender deals with.


----------



## Holgrave (Oct 11, 2011)

@Arrow: @skycloud86 is not saying that only women feel fear. You wrongly inferred that. The post was merely explaining what women have to go through. :dry: Yes, we all realize that it's hard to be male as well. But violence isn't the only thing women have to deal with. There's sexism, misogynism, traditional female archetypes, lesser wages, society trying to control birth control and abortion, and that's all I can think of at the moment, but I'm sure someone else can capitalize on it.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

Holgrave said:


> The post was merely explaining what women have to go through.


My point was that those aspects he was speaking about aren't things that only women go threw. Which was the entire point I was making at the very beginning before he jumped in with the harassment argument. 



> There's sexism, misogynism, traditional female archetypes, lesser wages, society trying to control birth control and abortion


And of course misandry doesn't exist, tradional male archetypes aren't a big deal to men, being obligated to work more hours to be the provider isn't something that is seen as things men must do, men aren't expected to die for their country or to protect women even if they are not able or not prepared to do so against aggressors stronger then them, men's value of course isn't directly linked to how much they make or what they can do and of course men do not have to in anyway compete for the right to mate and be seen as a viable living entity by proving their worth to others and more. 

The problems you have described are not just problems women face but humanity as a society face. For every problem women have, men have an equal problem that is just as heavily weighted from the same issue. To deny that is to deny understanding of the others situation. That was my point. 

Society suffers as a whole, life is suffering. Women aren't the only ones who suffer from the way the world is. Men do as well. This belief that women have the monopoly on suffering is a fallacy, believing that men have it better simply because they have a penis or because they have a y chromosome is equally as wrong and it's ridiculous to imply as such. Suffering is universal no matter the sex or gender. All pain is pain. All violence is violence. All strife is strife. Believing that your pain means more then anyone else's or believing that your pain is more legitimate or more significant than others is pure arrogance.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Arrow said:


> My point was that those aspects he was speaking about aren't things that only women go threw. Which was the entire point I was making at the very beginning before he jumped in with the harassment argument.
> 
> 
> 
> And of course misandry doesn't exist, tradional male archetypes aren't a big deal to men, being obligated to work more hours to be the provider isn't something that is seen as things men must do, men aren't expected to die for their country or to protect women even if they are not able to or are less able to defend their aggressors against women who may be more capable, men's value of course isn't directly linked to how much they make and men do not have to in anyway compete for the right to mate and be seen as a viable living entity and more. The problems you have described are not just problems women face but humanity as a society face. For every problem women have, men have an equal problem that is just as heavily weighted from the same issue. That was my point. Society suffers as a whole, life is suffering, women aren't the only ones who suffer from the way the world is. Men do as well. This belief that women have the monopoly on suffering is a fallacy, believing that men have it better simply because they have a penis or because they have a y chromosome is equally as wrong and it's ridiculous to imply as such. Suffering is universal no matter the sex or gender.


Good point. But maybe @Holgrave and @skycloud86 feel inclined to sympathize with what women have to face because we live in a largely patriarchal society that mostly seems to favor males?


----------



## Holgrave (Oct 11, 2011)

Arrow said:


> And of course misandry doesn't exist, tradional male archetypes aren't a big deal to men, being obligated to work more hours to be the provider isn't something that is seen as things men must do, men aren't expected to die for their country or to protect women even if they are not able to or are less able to defend their aggressors against women who may be more capable, men's value of course isn't directly linked to how much they make and men do not have to in anyway compete for the right to mate and be seen as a viable living entity and more. The problems you have described are not just problems women face but humanity as a society face. For every problem women have, men have an equal problem that is just as heavily weighted from the same issue. That was my point. Society suffers as a whole, life is suffering, women aren't the only ones who suffer from the way the world is. Men do as well. This belief that women have the monopoly on suffering is a fallacy, believing that men have it better simply because they have a penis or because they have a y chromosome is equally as wrong and it's ridiculous to imply as such. Suffering is universal no matter the sex or gender.


Again, you seem to be incorrectly inferring. I never said that men don't have issues either. I believe I did say that we all know that men also have a hard time. IMO, this whole thing is more of a qualitative issue than a quantitative. Obviously, different people have different view points.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

FacelessBeauty said:


> we live in a largely patriarchal society that mostly seems to favor males?


I would be more willing to agree with this if it was true that all men benefit over all women, but that is just not the case. Perhaps a white man has privlege over a white woman, but in this world with mixed races, a decline of men experiencing higher education and the fact that most men wind up dead, jailed or in the military rather then in college just spells that the male privilege has a very minimal effect in today's society or that men are simply more likely to shoot themselves in the foot. 

Generally I just don't agree with this philosophy. There are arguments made that men make more money then women then average but no one factors in that men work more hours then women do on average, there are talks about harassment and how women are harassed yet no one mentions the fact that when men are harassed they are less likely to report it because they don't want to be seen as weak.

This same phenomenon occurs in depression, rape and assault. I mean there is a reason why suicide victims are largely male in nature. They feel helpless and don't feel supported and they see killing themselves as the only way out. Men are less likely to report these things because they feel they won't be validated and they feel that their claims won't be taken seriously. Again all of these things that are happening to women can just as easily happen to men and often times do, but it simply is under represented and under reported - not because these things don't happen but because men do not feel as if they would be taken of merit. 

Men can be taken advantage of sexually, men can be taken advantage of by the court systems, men can have all of these same things and same atrocities done to them as women - but they are less valued simply because, well they are men. I'm not saying women don't have problems and I am not trying to belittle all the problems they face, but acting as if males don't face a wealth or number of issues is an obscene slight and disgusting ignorance of male problems.



Holgrave said:


> Again, you seem to be incorrectly inferring.


No. My point was simply to get you to understand that the parities involved (men and women) aren't that different then you believe they are. My aim was to get you to see that men and women both have problems that are created by their gender. Women have much of the same problems men do when it comes to expectations and the world crashing in on them and asserting authority, but for some odd reason the male issues aren't as valued. Perhaps because men don't feel comfortable admitting or complaining about them because they don't want to feel or seem weak and dis-empowered.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Arrow said:


> I would be more willing to agree with this if it was true that all men benefit over all women, but that is just not the case.
> 
> Perhaps a white man has privlege over a white woman, but in this world with mixed races, a decline of men experiencing higher education and the fact that most men wind up dead, jailed or in the military I just don't agree with this philosophy. There are arguments made that men make more money then women then average but no one factors in that men work more hours then women do on average, there are talks about harassment and how women are harassed yet no one mentions the fact that when men are harassed they are less likely to report it because they don't want to be seen as weak.
> 
> ...


I never once said all. I said a _largely_ patriarchal society that _seems_ to _mostly_ favor males. Don't misinterpret my loose generalization into an absolute. I'm not saying that these things don't happen to men and I'm not saying that women's problems are any more or any less important. To me it's no different. I'm just saying that if you look across the globe and throughout much of recorded history regardless of race, religion, and economic and social standing, the power dynamic seems to mostly favor the male species, and that leads some to sympathize with women more. You can't deny that.


----------



## PlacentaCake (Jun 14, 2012)

Arrow said:


> It's obvious that you are aiming to express that women's fear or predicament is more valid in some way. You feel women experience either more of it or you believe that they have more cause to fear it.


I didn't notice that at all about the individual’s statement that you were responding to. I just think that [maybe] this person wants people to accept the statistics. Awareness and acceptance is at least a start. After this person said they *weren’t downplaying what men go through,* they pointed out_ facts_. I can clarify: statistically, more women are raped and sexually harassed in their lifetime. In fact, in the US alone, 16 % of women and 3% of men are victims of rape or attempted rape. That is quite a bit of difference. 

I do believe that a majority women know they are vulnerable, even physically, many and have already been victims of sexual assault. One in six women in the United States has been or will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. That is not a small deal and I don’t think that is acceptable. Not only do I think it is not acceptable because I am a woman, but because I am a human being with empathy. I can offer no ideas for a solution, but I don’t think minimizing or having a lack of awareness/acceptance of facts about it is the right way to start.

How to Prevent a Potential Rape: 24 steps - wikiHow

Because women are alert to how vulnerable they are, from the experiences they’ve had or witnessed, I believe they begin learning to have an arduous awareness in order to remain safe.

_I would like to preface the next few points by saying that I know each can be true for many men.
_
1) _What they wear and their environment:_
There could be a day for example - Where our example woman decides to put on a pair of shorts and a tank top, because it is hot. [The shorts are medium length and the tank top is the latest style. This woman is fashion conscious, so she puts on some makeup and does her hair. She throws on a belt, a long necklace, dangle earrings, and a pair of heels.]

Now, because she looks cute, she might need to have more awareness. She might get hit on, have an attempted “brush against the boobs”, a horn honk from a guy in his car, or a guy ask for her number. That is _slightly_ uncomfortable, _for some_, depending on how bad it is, but not so terrible (well, this is my opinion from my experiences). 

THEN AGAIN, in her life, she may have some negative experiences associated with looking her best. She may be cautious when she goes outside; remembering the time her butt was grabbed unexpectedly and how that made her feel, when she was cornered and how frightened she was, when she was held down or raped (maybe she associates looking her best with that event), when she was assaulted (even in the smallest way), or when she felt frightened for her safety in anyway.

Long story short, our example woman, because of trauma and anxiety from events in her past, might be in an enhanced state of sensory sensitivity this particular day; having an extreme response to stimuli, while doing a near constant scan of her environment for any potential threats. This is all at the same time that she is trying to remain "normal". She may even suffer severe panic attacks if she comes across a situation that is similar to one in her past. She might embarrassingly 'over-react' to loud and sudden noises or become agitated in highly crowded or noisy environments. [This is something called Hypervigilance, which can happen to victims of sexual assault/rape] In addition, some basic things like ponytails and long hair while jogging are absolute no no’s because they are easy for rapists to grab.

2) _Who they talk to: _
Women are conscious of the people they talk to, where they go within and around buildings, the actions of others, and their actions - at bars, clubs, coffee shops, bookshops… etc. Women have to be conscious of body signals (red flags, who is a creep and who isn’t, but instincts aren’t always right), where they set their drinks, their exits, creepy guys staring at them from across the room, who is rubbing up against them, who might be following them, what is around the corner, noises, *being alone at night*, if they are in a corner of the loud club by themselves, if they’ve had too much to drink, who they go home with, if the guy has been drinking, (47% of rapes in the US happen when both are drinking), and where their pepper spray and other self defense items are.

Right I’m done now. I am tired of typing. I suppose if some people aren’t going to be aware and accept facts, that is their choice.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

@_christicake_ I already acknowledged that women are more likely to be raped. Even factoring in that male rape will likely go unreported I still do believe women are more likely to be sexually assaulted. I don't know what you are talking about there. My point was that while women are more afraid of being sexually assaulted it so follows that men are just as aware or afraid of being jumped and attacked as well as killed. Most violence after all is male on male violence, most homicides victims are males, most victims of shootings that occur are male victims. I wouldn't wish any experience on either one and I don't feel any fear should be disregarded simply because of the gender of the person who is afraid.


----------



## PlacentaCake (Jun 14, 2012)

Arrow said:


> @_christicake_ I already acknowledged that women are more likely to be raped. Even factoring in that male rape will likely go unreported I still do believe women are more likely to be sexually assaulted. I don't know what you are talking about there. My point was that while women are more afraid of being sexually assaulted it so follows that men are just as aware or afraid of being jumped and attacked as well as killed. Most violence after all is male on male violence, most homicides victims are males, most victims of shootings that occur are male victims. I wouldn't wish any experience on either one and I don't feel any fear should be disregarded simply because of the gender of the person who is afraid.


lol, well, I feel like a douchewaffle... I'm sorry. I guess I was arguing that the person wasn't disregarding men and then got carried away a little. I tend to ramble.


----------



## Holgrave (Oct 11, 2011)

Arrow said:


> No. My point was simply to get you to understand that the parities involved (men and women) aren't that different then you believe they are. My aim was to get you to see that men and women both have problems that are created by their gender. Women have much of the same problems men do when it comes to expectations and the world crashing in on them and asserting authority, but for some odd reason the male issues aren't as valued. Perhaps because men don't feel comfortable admitting or complaining about them because they don't want to feel or seem weak and dis-empowered.


First of all, I don't think you're reading my posts thoroughly. Never once had I sad that men don't face the mostly the same problems. I'm not discounting men. There may be others here who are, but I'm not one of them.

As for your suicide fact, here you go:


> More than four times as many men as women die by suicide; but women attempt suicide more often during their lives than do men, and women report higher rates of depression. Men and women use different suicide methods. Women in all countries are more likely to ingest poisons than men. In countries where the poisons are highly lethal and/or where treatment resources scarce, rescue is rare and hence female suicides outnumber males.


 Source


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

Holgrave said:


> First of all, I don't think you're reading my posts thoroughly.


You listed off a list of points that explained why women have it harder for various reasons. My point was simply to show the duality for men to show that they were in accordance. No more, no less since apparently no one was seeing them. 



> _but women attempt suicide more often during their lives than do men, and women report higher rates of depression_


Of course they attempt it more, they are *alive* and therefore have more opportunities to attempt it more times continuously, while the men who are more prone to practice suicide are already dead from their first attempt. I don't get what you were attempting to show me. Women have higher reported rates of depression because they are more likely to seek treatment more for their depression. Lots of men who are depressed do not seek help for it, nor do they admit that they are depressed.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Men generally choose more violent forms of suicide such as shooting or hanging, whilst women generally choose methods such as overdosing, which doesn't kill as much as a bullet to the head or strangulation. This probably explains why women attempt suicide more, because a suicidal woman may take more attempts than a suicidal man.


----------



## Noctis (Apr 4, 2012)

I am not sure it can be achieved because of the conflict between traditional gender supporters vs non traditional gender activists.


----------



## goodgracesbadinfluence (Feb 28, 2011)

HonestThief said:


> Biting tongue right now trying not to type a million things. I'm split for both sides partially. Not that my opinion matters. I'm a guy and unless I agree wholeheartedly with the feminists on here I will be picked apart and thrown to the dogs. So with that I stop my forum lurking and make my leave :frustrating:


I have to bite my tongue all the time with topics like this. It's my own fault because I seek it out. But still. 



Arrow said:


> Can I just say this isn't respective only to women as well? I get scared at times too when I go into bad neighborhoods that have high crime rates and that I don't know well enough. I often at times feel that I have to appear tougher and be prepared to engage in physical fights and altercations because I know that it is more likely that men will want to engage in brawls with me or even kill me in order to take my possessions or just simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If I go into certain areas where there is a lot of urban crime or is not safe of course I am on guard. Being a man doesn't change that and give me some magical form of protection. Being afraid is a human response to danger, women aren't the only ones who may feel vulnerable in these cases or feel as if they can't protect themselves if the wrong person comes around the corner.


Nah, I agree with you. I didn't mean to imply it was unique to women; I was trying to tell the person I quoted that I agreed with what she said about that, because I can come across as very high-and-mighty with this topic and I was trying to tone down my own potential arrogance.

I don't know any men who are exactly thrilled to walk around in unknown neighbourhoods. And I'm honestly the exact same way; like when I'm walking around with a group of just women, I am expected to protect all of us if something went wrong. I've been told that before. It's a logical choice, seeing as I'm easily the physically strongest of all my female friends, but it doesn't detract from it being a burden. And I don't bear that burden all the time, like men do. 

I believe a lot of women look for a scapegoat instead of trying to modify their negative behaviours. Or like, a lot of women only seem to care about sexism when it "hurts" them, ignoring the benevolent sexism like men being expected to fix electronics, cars or help women carry heavy things. I understand being worried to walk alone at night and stuff like that, but that's not a women-only issue and it is also a feeling, therefore it is not sexism. 

I actively fight gender roles and benevolent sexism in my own life. That's all I think needs to be done. If BOTH men and women worked to fight all forms of discrimination toward them, even in their own lives, it would definitely help open the path to a more gender-equal world.


----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

skycloud86 said:


> The desire for sex isn't the same for all members of one sex, and some women have a much higher desire than some men for sex. Whilst generally men do have a higher desire for sex, this doesn't mean that all men have a higher desire for sex than women.


Well said, though I will add one thing.
Men do not have a higher desire for sex, they have a higher reason to motivate towards seeking and attaining sex.

Which in some weird distorted sense actually makes any woman claiming that sex is a human need, borderline abusive for refusing the needs of men who make advances on them. Oh the wacky world of affection dependency. Hook it to my veins!!!


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

NephilimAzrael said:


> Which in some weird distorted sense actually makes any woman claiming that sex is a human need, borderline abusive for refusing the needs of men who make advances on them. Oh the wacky world of affection dependency. Hook it to my veins!!!


If that were true, why is rape a crime?


----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

skycloud86 said:


> If that were true, why is rape a crime?


In other words you cannot refute what I said, so you resort to use of a hot button get out of jail free card like rape.
I'm guessing here that you are associating technology solely with tool application because I only mentioned tools? Scusi, but what is the legal system? A social justice tool. Rape was considered an issue before relevant laws came about. Otherwise why would there be legal tools in place to address it? There was of course the enforcement of punishment too before the legal system. Or do you really assume there was zero reprecussions for offenses in ancient times? Pull the other one mate.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

NephilimAzrael said:


> Or do you really assume there was zero reprecussions for offenses in ancient times?


Eh, it depends on the culture and the time in which the culture existed. For example, in many ancient societies slaves did not receive justice for being raped (both male, female, and child slaves), unless the master saw fit to sue for justice (but he was mostly likely the one using them as sex slaves in the first place). If we look in the bible, we can see that rape, fornication, and adultery were all viewed in the same light. And what I mean by this is, it wasn't the act of rape/fornication/adultery that was viewed as wrong, but the fact that a man violated the "property" (the woman) of another man. 

This is why if a man had sex (consensual), or raped a *non-married/betrothed* woman, he would not receive any capital punishment, but instead would be forced to marry her (because the woman was not yet the property of a husband or fiance). However, if a man did have sex with, or raped a married/betrothed woman, he would be sentenced to death (because he violated another man's property). And in the case of consensual adultery, the woman would be put to death as well. So in this case the man dies because he violated another man's property, and the woman dies because she violated her master's lordship over her. 

So I guess it's more prudent to ask how frequently, if at all, that rape was punished in ancient times due to it's "immorality" and the fact that it abused and physically injured a victim, as opposed to it being punished based on "who" was being raped, and whether their social status or the person that owns them, created a political justification for the punishing of their rapist.


----------



## PlacentaCake (Jun 14, 2012)

NephilimAzrael said:


> Well said, though I will add one thing.
> *Men do not have a higher desire for sex, they have a higher reason to motivate towards seeking and attaining sex.
> *
> Which in some weird distorted sense actually *makes any woman claiming that sex is a human need, borderline abusive for refusing the needs of men who make advances on them*. Oh the wacky world of affection dependency. Hook it to my veins!!!


Testosterone. Also, you're certainly asking for it, aren't you?


----------

