[firebee]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	huh? Well that sounds like a functional representative sample I guess. I'll try to remember this bit of wisdom next time someone asks me about any sort of qualifications for anything. I'll just explain that any attempted rational evaluation of qualifications as related to comparing humans, one against the other is invalid since we all have more similarities than differences. Thanks for the tip!

If it's helpful for you to know that a 5'7" woman is the same height as a 5'7" man, and you did not know this before, then I am glad to have told you.

An actual rational evaluation of qualifications -- as opposed to a (poor) attempt at such -- should indicate that taking the extreme ends of a metric that exhibits the highest degree of sexual dimorphism is not likely to give an accurate picture of how the differences between the male and female populations play out on an ordinary practical level.

[Clueless]

Originally Posted by firebee To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If it's helpful for you to know that a 5'7" woman is the same height as a 5'7" man, and you did not know this before, then I am glad to have told you. An actual rational evaluation of qualifications -- as opposed to a (poor) attempt at such -- should indicate that taking the extreme ends of a metric that exhibits the highest degree of sexual dimorphism is not likely to give an accurate picture of how the differences between the male and female populations play out on an ordinary practical level.

Yeah, well let me clue you in on something as well. I intentionally used that exaggeration as a method of avoiding the idiotic discussion you've now drawn me into.

Suffice it to say that men, generally, are slightly larger and have slightly greater physical strength. But fine, I'll go where I didn't want to go and also add that generally speaking, a 5'7" male is capable of physically dominating a 5'7" female of the same weight.

I suppose this generalization is something with which you disagree?

Or should we ignore those statistics posted by Saggita just prior to your post here? If women (generally speaking) were physically equivalent to men I can't figure why (on average) male deaths from female aggression wouldn't roughly balance female deaths from male aggression.

Can you?

---------- Post added 06-14-2012 at 11:10 AM ----------

What puzzles me greatly is why people must conflate the notion of legal equality with physical homogeneity. Why must the two genders be physically the same to justify legal equality?

Why can we not strive for equality under the law while still recognizing the reality of biological differences?

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But fine, I'll go where I didn't want to go and also add that generally speaking, a 5'7" male is capable of physically dominating a 5'7" female of the same weight.

Well, that will certainly be relevant to how my coworkers and I work together about the same time that bug reports are filed with a baseball bat.

Which would certainly be amusing, but I don't think the developers would like it.

[Clueless]

And yet it does nothing to diminish the fact that certain occupations are more well suited to a person with greater physical strength, all other things being equal.

You are aware that there are still occupations in this world that take place outside an office building and do not involve handling documents or office equipment?

[zibber]

Oh, come on. I see mega scrawny construction workers on the regular. It's an industrialized world, remember?

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh, come on. I see mega scrawny construction workers on the regular. It's an industrialized world, remember?

Pick a fight with one. Report back.

[SelfMadeBum]

Pick a fight with me and report back.

[Clueless]

Badass are ya?

[Ravendicon]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What puzzles me greatly is why people must conflate the notion of legal equality with physical homogeneity. Why must the two genders be physically the same to justify legal equality? Why can we not strive for equality under the law while still recognizing the reality of biological differences?

Although I don't agree with a lot of the things you've said on this thread, we are definitely in agreement on this point.

I've had this same argument with folks like Zibber and Firebee before. Trust me, you won't make any progress. It requires a very different world perspective to understand that style of thinking.

[Saggita]

	Or should we ignore those statistics posted by Saggita just prior to your post here? If women (generally speaking) were physically equivalent to men I can't figure why (on average) male deaths from female aggression wouldn't roughly balance female deaths from male aggression.

Dude, you do know that those statistics doesn't mean women are weaker, right? They mean people are killing more women than men are getting killed on wars. Which I thought it was pretty relevant.

Of course there is a difference in which female and male body are constructed but I still don't understand how this has to do with the topic in question. What does physical strength has to do with equality? Some men are stronger than women, some women are stronger than men. Though no one should ever tell women never can be stronger than men.

So... What's the problem, again? I was trying to keep myself away from this thread so I don't really know what is going on around here.

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Pick a fight with one. Report back.

I'm sorry; I am outside of that brutish paradigm. Do you have a less moronic exercise for me?

---------- Post added 06-14-2012 at 06:50 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Ravendicon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Although I don't agree with a lot of the things you've said on this thread, we are definitely in agreement on this point. I've had this same argument with folks like Zibber and Firebee before. Trust me, you won't make any progress. It requires a very different world perspective to understand that style of thinking.

I think every individual is completely different from the next. There is no physical homogeneity between the "sexes", nor within them.

Those last three words seem to take me so much further than the two of your implied perspectives, don't they? Don't you think we might have been talking past each other?

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by Ravendicon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Although I don't agree with a lot of the things you've said on this thread, we are definitely in agreement on this point. I've had this same argument with folks like Zibber and Firebee before. Trust me, you won't make any progress. It requires a very different world perspective to understand that style of thinking.

If you agree with my assertion here but disagree in other places is it possible I've communicated poorly/you've interpreted poorly?

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And yet it does nothing to diminish the fact that certain occupations are more well suited to a person with greater physical strength, all other things being equal. You are aware that there are still occupations in this world that take place outside an office building and do not involve handling documents or office equipment?

Ok, so you agree that people should have equal rights. Why bring up this "but but but, men are stronger on average!" at all? Why bring up "but but but, there will probably be more men in hard labor jobs!" It seems more just a way to say "people are different, and you can see some differences on a gender-wide scale" Yes, and? Does not affect individual situations one iota. Doesn't really have anything to do with the topic of this thread, at all.

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm sorry; I am outside of that brutish paradigm. Do you have a less moronic exercise for me?

Not if you insist on refusing to recognize certain realities. There's only one way I know of that you could learn it. Don't pick a fight then, take one to a gym and have a contest of strength, then report back.

Not saying women can't or shouldn't do these things. What I'm saying is that men generally are better suited biologically. Your post about scrawny construction workers indicates a lack of understanding with regard to the physical nature of the work itself. Looks can be deceiving. That particular male will be several times as strong physically as another inactive male and certainly as another inactive female.

---------- Post added 06-14-2012 at 12:04 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ok, so you agree that people should have equal rights. Why bring up this "but but but, men are stronger on average!" at all? Why bring up "but but but, there will probably be more men in hard labor jobs!" It seems more just a way to say "people are different, and you can see some differences on a gender-wide scale" Yes, and? Does not affect individual situations one iota. Doesn't really have anything to do with the topic of this thread, at all.

My sole purpose here is to try and get each side to see the others perspective. There are certain valid points on each side which are being totally ignored by the other.

[Ravendicon]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think every individual is completely different from the next. There is no physical homogeneity between the "sexes", nor within them. Those last three words seem to take me so much further than the two of your implied perspectives, don't they? Don't you think we might have been talking past each other?

I think every time we have argued, we have talked past each other. I think the reason I confuse your real opinion is because you are often arguing alongside people who definitely have the opinion that there should be homogeneity between the sexes, physical difference be damned.

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you agree with my assertion here but disagree in other places is it possible I've communicated poorly/you've interpreted poorly?

You convey a certain emotional attachment to the idea of men and women's cultural roles. I think that is what people are responding to. I've been in your position before. It's hard to communicate with people who misinterpret your intent.

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by Ravendicon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You convey a certain emotional attachment to the idea of men and women's cultural roles. I think that is what people are responding to. I've been in your position before. It's hard to communicate with people who misinterpret your intent.

Probably because I've argued with greater frequency on the side of having the male perspective understood, while refusing to ignore biological differences. There's no emotional attachment. It just is what it is. I look upon the blind spots in either argument with equal disdain.

---------- Post added 06-14-2012 at 12:50 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think every individual is completely different from the next.

Of course they are!

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There is no physical homogeneity between the "sexes", nor within them.

Are you able to recognize that there is a greater degree of homogeneity within them than between them? (i.e woman have uteruses, men have dicks, generally speaking)

I find no usefulness in denying biology for the sake of legal equality. Again, why must these two concepts be conflated? Recognizing biological differences in no way validates any argument against legal equality.

[Ray9]

Evidence of a war on women is everywhere. Just last night I was in a national sporting goods store and it became clear to me. First of all the name of the is Dicks, an obvious attack on females. I went to the women's section and couldn't find a jock strap anywhere. This has been going on for as long as I can remember. Women, like blacks are oppressed almost automatically. Stand outside a tanning parlor and see how many blacks use them. We obviously need more government to remedy these atrocities.

[jhan6120]

Perusing this discussion, I ran across the following phrase:

"Traditional nuclear family gender roles were imposed on women in a way that can only be described as oppressive."

This is very typical of Marxist critical theory, which contemporary gender studies is largely based on. Although it seems to take on an historical 'flavor,' it is in fact aextremely subjective. It is not an argument, but an assertion based on a vague sense of moral superiority. One could just as easily assert that the traditional family has offered women the greatest sense of freedom. and she would be no more correct.

It really just sounds like this individual is looking for external justifications for her personal dislikes. Again . . . another hallmark of the gender/cultural studies mindset.

---------- Post added 08-21-2012 at 06:06 PM ----------

War on women? Let me give a personal example that I've seen with two of my male friends' marriages:

Both men are married with 4-5 year old children. A few months after their kids were born, their went back to work. Both women felt guilty about leaving their kids at home, so both quit their jobs after about 6 months.

After a year or so, both women - one more than the other - became resentful about 'having to stay at home' instead of work. One did a mental tug-o-war with herself by working, then not working, then working again. One tried working but decided to stay at home 'permanently-for-the-time-being.' Both women became more and more resentful at the perception than they were in 'no-win' situations, and made life miserable for their husbands, themselves, and, worst of all, their children.

At no time did anyone ever think to tell these women that it was THEIR CHOICE TO GET MARRIED AND HAVE KIDS. At no time did anyone ever tell these women HOW LUCKY THEY ARE THAT THEY ACTUALLY HAVE CHOICES AND HAVE HUSBANDS WHO SUPPORT THEM, considering 2/3 of the world lives in abject poverty under a bridge somewhere, or in 3rd world s___holes under brutal fascist theocracies, or under the yokes of soul-killing caste systems women are valued at about the same level as cattle.

NOPE. These women - promised that they could HAVE IT ALL by 3rd wave feminism, are miserable that their lives did not turn out to resemble a Nike commercial. Imagine the surprise when life showed them that in the REAL WORLD, having something HERE means giving up something THERE. There is no such thing as a free lunch. There are only 24 hours in a day.

The more supportive and 'sensitive' men get; the more they take on nurtuting and caregiving roiles in their children's lives; the more household duties they take on . . . the more MISERABLE women become. It's uncanny. Or is it?

On the one hand, women were actively taught by feminist stalwarts that if they stayed home and raised kids, they'd be losers. On the other, there's that nagging 'nurturing' instinct that NATURE installed in women in order to keep the human race going. Contemporary feminism, in all its social constructionist glory, ignored this aspect of NATURE and in doing so threw contemporary women into a tailpsin.

The war on women is an INTERNAL WAR, being fought within women themselves. Today's women were brought up in a YOU CAN HAVE IT ALL entitlement culture. Combine that with the victim ideology of Critical Theory a la contemporary feminism, and you have a real s___storm.

Men? We get to work until we die. Our choices are real simple. Work, jail, or the Salvation Army. Do you hear us complaining? Nope.

The most miserable women I see are the ones in their mid 30's to early 40's on public transportation heading to work at 7 AM. They all have that 'Wait a minute, this isn't how it was supposed to turn out!!' look in their eyes. And they are ALL single (no wedding bands and engagement rings). For them work was only supposed to be one of life's many 'choices.' When it turned out to be an OBLIGATION, they were flummoxed.

Sometimes it seems like today's women are more interested in choices than in having to accept responsibility for their choices. If things turn out great, it was all THEIR doing. If things turn out bad, it was someone else's fault. Whine whine whine, blah blah blah . . .

I say, SHUT THE HELL UP and get to work!!

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by jhan6120 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	<snip beating around the bush

First, welcome to the forum. Second, I'm not quite sure that I understand where you're at on this issue. Seems like you've let reality get in the way of a very attractive bit of idealism.