A Thread About A Sensitive Topic

[TheLastLink]

Look, I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm not saying that now, nor was I saying that before. All I'm saying is that it's not common in society to be murdered just for being a man or a woman... to say that it is common is just not true. Yes, I'm aware that it happens, but it's just way too rare to make a difference with respect to how well off you are in society.

Edit: I was gonna end with this before, but I got sidetracked and forgot:

How does whether you win a custody battle or not or get a longer jail sentence determine how good you have it in society? Yes, I know sexism exists, but in most cases, it's required by law NOT to be sexist where something like that is concerned. And don't just say, "because some people are sexist". That's not really answering the question. That's just dodging it.

This isn't about determining "how good men have it in society", this is about applying the same logic that we see when all the would-be-do-gooders lament at how bad the circumstances are for women, to the circumstances for men, and seeing how it holds up (hint, it doesn't).

If you look at all the areas where there is perceived "bias" or "obstacles" or "inequality" against women, when you look at it actually in context, the scales either even out or tip in the other direction.

[totaldile]

Thing is, especially on Tumblr (god forbid), I see a lot more women degrading men than men degrading women.
If a man degrades a woman on Tumblr, the cavalry arrives very quickly.

However, I'm not sure how much this has actually affected attitudes towards women in reality.

Either way, like I said before, the only way men and women are equal is how inequal we are.

There are issues on both sides, and both of us need to get over ourselves and acknowledge this before we can move to any sort of 'true' equality.

I doubt that will ever happen though.

[Phantomboy]

If you look at all the areas where there is perceived "bias" or "obstacles" or "inequality" against women, when you look at it actually in context, the scales either even out or tip in the other direction.

That is an extremely wide assumption to make, especially since it is impossible for one person to know every area an obstacle of inequality exists.

Also, stating an argument against Women's rights as, "Men have it equally as bad" only really punches down at those fighting for cultural equality rather than punching up at those enforcing systems of inequality. By that I mean, it doesn't make sense to argue that it is somehow invalid to push for less societal pressure on women, because men face issues of social pressure as well. It very often that we see people standing up for the issues they face in a day to day schedule because of society. That makes sense, they are standing up for an issue that they feel personally connected to, however, that in and of itself isn't saying that the other group isn't facing issues of their own.

To give a situational example, say I am a member on the "Gold" volleyball team. I see some repeating events of poor calls affecting the teams ability to play properly. These calls happen so often that they team is losing morale, and is becoming frustrated. It would make sense, that our team would be pushing for proper rules being applied to our team as we've only viewed the game from the perspective of our team. We aren't, by protesting, saying "The bronze team isn't facing any of these issues!" Rather, supporting change against issues we've faced first hand.

So, while I don't want to phrase my argument that "Men will only fight for men's rights" and "Women will only fight for women's rights" I think having an understanding of that trend is an important one, and it isn't necessary a negative situation.

[Sebastian Lawe]

I think one of the best solutions to remove inequality of the sexes, is to construct one generic sex.
Make all humans able to give birth or impregnate. Problem solved. Solves issues surrounding homosexual relationships too.

[totaldile]

I think one of the best solutions to remove inequality of the sexes, is to construct one generic sex.
Make all humans able to give birth or impregnate. Problem solved. Solves issues surrounding homosexual relationships too.

...I'm not sure how I'd feel about that. Moreso, I can't think of a way to make that biologically possible :/.

[tta]

case closed

--LOCKED--

[Phantomboy]

Actually, to turn a new light on, in this little convenience store of ours - there is a list, a written collection of languages that are, in most cases, gender neutral languages. If that is of any interest to anyone, here is the link!

Now, I know for many people, especially English speakers, language is reflected in many pronouns so the concept is a little strange. However, I think that, especially for those who are uncomfortable in their biological gender, having a grammatical system that doesn't force one of two genders would feel very liberating.

This may be a little off-topic, but I think it does tie in with our discussions regarding gender in society. Language doesn't influence society, rather language is influenced by society - so it is an interesting thought when discussing making genders more of an equal cultural concept.

[TheLastLink]

I think one of the best solutions to remove inequality of the sexes, is to construct one generic sex.
Make all humans able to give birth or impregnate. Problem solved. Solves issues surrounding homosexual relationships too.

[ElectroYoshi]

I think one of the best solutions to remove inequality of the sexes, is to construct one generic sex.
Make all humans able to give birth or impregnate. Problem solved. Solves issues surrounding homosexual relationships too.

Quite honestly, I don't think that's really an option. To my knowledge, that's not even biologically possible. And even if it were, the process would probably be too long and tedious to really be that practical.

[Sebastian Lawe]

Quite honestly, I don't think that's really an option. To my knowledge, that's not even biologically possible. And even if it were, the process would probably be too long and tedious to really be that practical.

Fish can do it.

[ElectroYoshi]

Fish can do it.

True, but lemme provide another example. A few months ago we were talking about overpopulation in my Environmental Science class, and my teacher talked about a possible solution for it: Sterlize everyone at birth, then have them pass some sort of test. If they do, then they can be re-fertilized.

After my teacher presented this idea, my class got into a very elaborate discussion on the matter. One point that a lot of people brought up was how the sterilizing and re-fertilizing operations could be dangerous. I feel like the whole "one sex as opposed to two" thing might be a bit risky in the same way. If such an idea were to come to fruition, what would prevent it from ultimately harming, possibly even killing, the person? In essence, is it really worth the risk?

[totaldile]

My only issue with a 'single' gender is that there are going to be a lot of people who won't want to change their appearance or their gender identity, including myself.
Which won't really solve anything other than on a biological level, in which there wasn't a problem to begin with.

[Phantomboy]

My only issue with a 'single' gender is that there are going to be a lot of people who won't want to change their appearance or their gender identity, including myself.
Which won't really solve anything other than on a biological level, in which there wasn't a problem to begin with.

I entirely agree. I don't think difference in appearance or biological function is the issue. It is that culture, and thus, people use those differences as justifications to give different levels of respect, courtesy, impressions and rights.

Just as the resolve of racism isn't "All races exactly identical, so that we are all equal" What had to change wasn't the races, rather it was notions of race (I am not meaning to say that racism is no longer an issue, just to be clear, rather it is another issue of discrimination that we can evaluate when talking about sexism.)

I think tll had a point in saying that equal does not mean sameness. Rather it is a certain level of equal opportunities that gives each person, regardless of gender, a fair chance.

[tta]

lets all just be foxes and screw eachother like the animals we are

[ThatOneFox]

U WOT M8

[totaldile]

[Miniike]

This thread is so wrong it's actually kind of amazing.

(except TLL of course)

[ElectroYoshi]

This thread is so wrong it's actually kind of amazing.

(except TLL of course)

Yes, yes, we know. We know there is just one answer to this matter, and we know we're in the wrong for having opinions that don't line up with TLL's in every possible way. Terribly sorry. Won't happen again.

[Miniike]

I'm glad were seeing eye to eye on this.

[TheLastLink]

Yes, yes, we know. We know there is just one answer to this matter, and we know we're in the wrong for having opinions that don't line up with TLL's in every possible way. Terribly sorry. Won't happen again.

I'm glad you've finally come to your senses electro

anyway
So far I haven't seen a single argument in this thread that can't be defeated by one or more of the following questions:
To what are you referring? Are you talking with the full context? Can it be fixed? How is it negative?

Or to be more concise:
Compared to What? What hard evidence do you have? At what cost?