Gender equality

[Jonluw]

Because of biological differences. There are differences between the sexes, period. Also in the way our brains work. However, the individual differences have potential to overrule the differences of sexes so whatever.

Basically this. On average a woman is less likely to be physically suited to a job involving difficult manual labour and simply hiring them in the name of anti-discrimination is both stupid and counter productive in delivering equal treatment of different groups of people.

By all means hire a woman who does have the capability for the job, as you would anyone else, but as soon as you start positively discriminating to meet arbitrary minority quotas, you are almost as bad as one who blindly denies access to a job based solely on gender, skin colour, or whatever else.

Discrimination isn't always a bad thing. It is practically impossible to act without basing your actions on some kind of preconception based on a grouping characteristic of whatever you might be interacting with and it is almost certainly unhelpful in the majority of cases. The only problem comes when you refuse to adjust your preconceptions despite new knowledge which contradicts you.

Yeah, thanks for writing out a more elaborate post that fits with my views.
I haven't had the energy to articulate myself properly lately, hence the sloppy posts.

 

[Torrasque]

Do you think there is a reason you see mostly X gender in Y roles?
Why do you think there is job inequality?
On a scale of 1-10 (10 being highest) how sexist would you say you are?I think the reason there are gender roles, is because society and history has decided that there is. I'd like there to be no gender roles, but I'm not going to cry when there isn't.

I think there is job inequality, because society and other people have decided that there is inequality between genders; guys better at certain jobs, girls better at certain jobs, etc. While there is evidence that supports guys make better heavy lifters than girls, and girls deal with kids better, there is also lots of support contrary to that opinion. I think the simple fact that not everyone has accepted this, is the reason that these opinions still exist.

How sexist am I...
Probably a 3.
I'd like there to be just as many guys as girls in any role, but I'd also like my doctor to be female, my electrician to be male, and my professor to be funny.

 

[ramboondiea]

no there shouldn't be perfectly equal, as a species were not androgynous enough for that to work,
by sexist level, id say 5-6, but not derogatorily, im just very old fashioned in my behaviour (largly im nicer to women, open doors, offer to help if they look like there struggling etc,)

also i think thie whole sexist things gone to far the other way, if anything male-centric occurs then it is deemed sexist, but a women only activity its A-OK beause they are standing up for rights

 

[Torrasque]

Because of biological differences. There are differences between the sexes, period. Also in the way our brains work. However, the individual differences have potential to overrule the differences of sexes so whatever.

Basically this. On average a woman is less likely to be physically suited to a job involving difficult manual labour and simply hiring them in the name of anti-discrimination is both stupid and counter productive in delivering equal treatment of different groups of people.

By all means hire a woman who does have the capability for the job, as you would anyone else, but as soon as you start positively discriminating to meet arbitrary minority quotas, you are almost as bad as one who blindly denies access to a job based solely on gender, skin colour, or whatever else.

Discrimination isn't always a bad thing. It is practically impossible to act without basing your actions on some kind of preconception based on a grouping characteristic of whatever you might be interacting with and it is almost certainly unhelpful in the majority of cases. The only problem comes when you refuse to adjust your preconceptions despite new knowledge which contradicts you.

Yeah, thanks for writing out a more elaborate post that fits with my views.
I haven't had the energy to articulate myself properly lately, hence the sloppy posts.

Very well said.
Basically: "As soon as you try to not be discriminatory, you are being discriminatory. Just be discriminatory, because it makes sense" right?

I hate it when someone says "well, we want X for this role, and you're not X. You fit the role just as well as they do, but you're not X. So I'm sorry, no dice". It happens in games, in jobs, its so gay >.>

 

[Torrasque]

also i think thie whole sexist things gone to far the other way, if anything male-centric occurs then it is deemed sexist, but a women only activity its A-OK beause they are standing up for rights

A guy-only activity is deemed sexist and frowned at. A girl-only activity is cheered at and totally not sexist *cough*

 

[Rayne870]

personally i don't give a damn as long as the women pass the same testing that men do. ie no womens push-ups or lighter fitness levels for women in the military, or emergency services. everything else is largely intellectually based and gender has little to no meaning there. on the flip side of that i prefer a man when it comes to specific things that a guy would go to a doctor for so that the doctor shares some personal experience/common ground.

 

[Sarge034]

Edit-NINJA'D!!!!!!!

I am cool with compleat equality. However, that means in oppertunities and requirements. Did you know that the police department, fire department, and millitary have different standards for women?
http://www.apft-standards.com/run.html

Do they do a different job?

To drive the point home, I know a fire fighter who hates haveing women in his department. He in not sexist, but he does fear for his life. It is a known and proven fact that women do not have the upperbody strength that men do. That cuppled with the relaxed phisical requirements makes him wonder if a woman could carry him out of a burning building if he were to be knocked unconscious.

So my point is that I want full equality in both requirements and oppertunites.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

Men and women are not physically equal. They should be treated as equal before the law, but in the realm of the physical they are not equals. Men have a much larger capacity for strength and endurance than women do. Women were not built to be the powerhouses that men were.

I once heard about a study preformed on the differences in aptitude of Olympians based upon sex. Women in their prime compete at approximately the same level as an adolescent boy(14-15 years old). This is why there is gender testing when people compete in the Olympics. Women simply cannot compete with men in this area.

This may seem trivial, but it's not. This is why there are a lot fewer women in the physical dominated fields. Construction, sports, and the armed forces.

The differences don't even solely manifest themselves in the areas of the muscles, either. Men have far more testosterone than women do, a chemical that controls such areas as aggression and risk taking. This is why there are more men at the top of fortune 500 companies. Men are more likely to take risks to receive the rewards. It also has to do with confidence and how likely a person is to lead vs how likely they are to be lead. This is why men dominate the fields of power in government.

Men and women are not the same creatures. They are different biologically and serve different functions entirely. There is absolutely no point in comparing the sexes and their relative merits, unless you really want a war of the sexes. Sex roles are placed upon people so that we're not comparing apples and oranges like: how many women are in construction vs how many men are.

You can determine for yourself how sexist I am.

 

[sarge1942]

I'm fairly equal on all fronts.

But soon as I here a non-qualified person for a job cry they aren't given a fair shake because of what's between their legs. My cynicism alarm goes off and I start asking for the key information.

Take the military. They flat out have different physical requirements for women on the PRT which is basically your 6 month check to see if your in shape.

Women tend to have around 1/3rd to 1/4th the push up and sit up requirement. Ok physical difference in muscle mass...but then have even long times to run a mile and a half, so same time killing their fast more agile claim.

And when in bootcamp women on long runs with their 60-80 pound packs, its not uncommon for all of them to finish with a man now hauling two full packs on his back...

So it's not equal. But same time does this stop a woman from being a paper pusher or say Tank gunner? Paper pusher she's fine. Tank gunner, well if you can't lift the 60 pound shell and load the main gun if the loader/autoloader is taken out...no. Yet that example can cover a man as well. Nothing to do with equality but your ability.

It's a hairy situation, but at times I notice many female have no problem to demand to be equal then throw right back up they are female and can't do the same things...

So how equal am I? Round a 9.

How tolerant am I of people who just fall back on the sexist BS to make excuses for their inability to be equal? A 1.

^THIS if what i'm getting out of it is what this person ment to say.
(if this quote doesn't work i'm sorry)
for things like the military or the police force or something that requires some form of military strength, i find it a little sexist that the women have lower qualifications than men, if a firefighter has to run into a building to pull out someone who weighs say 190 pounds, and that is lower than the amount the men have to be able to carry, and higher than that of the women... well if a female firefighter finds said person, said person is not going to make it out of that house. Just to clarify, i think this is sexist to men, because they could potentially be beat out of a job because they are unable, and sexist to women because they are lowering the bar for them "there's no way you could EVER be as good as us men, here i'll take i bit of that weight for you".

wow... i got beat to this point by a whole lot more people than i thought.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

The reason more males or female do a certain job is that they are more suited to it. Although I don't think women should have lower physical requirements for things like Law enforcement and armies. Those requirements are there for a reason.

 

[Admiral Stukov]

On a scale of 1-10 (10 being highest) how sexist would you say you are?

1, maybe 2. I simply think that the outdated gender-roles of "Women should do A, B and C, and Men should do D, E and F" has no place in a modern society.

 

[Sarge034]

I do joke about fems making me sammiches, and "back in the kitchen!", but I think fems are more capable at pretty much everything. I'd LOVE to have more fems in government than guys.

I firmly believe women would make good frontline soldiers, there is no convincing reason they should be prohibited... The UK Armed Forces recently reviewed the situation and declined.

Also... Women do make some pretty bitchin' sammiches...

I don't know about the UK, but of here in the US the driving reason for not allowing women to be involved in a combat MOS (Military Occupational Specialty...ie job) is rape. If a male is captured they will be tourtured and might be killed. If a woman is captured.... Well women are already looked at as second class citizens over there and we are looked apon as infidels by the terrorists. So my question becomes what would they NOT do to her? Then what happens if she is rescued and BAM she findes out she is pregnate? Her religion does not allow her to abort the pregnancy.

I can't even begin to think about how much physoclogical damage this incident would cause a woman.

I think trying to keep them out of the fight is the best option. Let them serve but not combat MOS.

 

[Digital_Hero]

hmm, for the reason that x gender is in y role, maybe because said gender excels in said role?

If you want to talk job inequality, from where I am it seems like more of a racial thing these days than gender. Most places i've applied at (or went) had a healthy mix of male and female, however certain places carried a certain race within all of their staff =_=

And finally, how sexist am I?
Depends how my mood is striking me, and present company. For instance, normally I could care less about gender issues, but if one side bothers me, and it IS usually the female side, I will make sexist remarks shamelessly.

Also, in regard to certain things that favor a particular gender (i.e. WOMENS cancer foundations) im less inclined to offer sympathy, due to the fact that there is no need to write out men, or to campaign with the main goal being ONLY to assist women. however this is not to say its exclusive to women, I shut down men about this kind of thing as well, albeit less frequently.

However, I digress and in answer to your question, normally i'd be about a 6 because I find humor in it. if someone instigates it, between 8 - 10. Like I said, depends on the mood

 

[BanthaFodder]

there are jobs that are better suited for men and there are jobs that are better suited for women.

to quote Futurama, "and this our women's basketball court. no can dunk, but good fundamentals..."

 

[Odbarc]

At the job I work, sometimes the ladies are unable to do particular jobs. They ask men for help. And that's fine.
But never is there a situation where the men are unable to do any of the jobs where they would need to as a woman for help. Sometimes, it requires two men and those jobs are never include women.

It's fair to say particular jobs are better suited to a particular gender than another. It's not sexist, it's fact. It's not fair to say you are absolutely incapable of attempting a job because of your gender.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I think you'd get less arguments on the question "How do you bring up kids?"

Base facts: Men are mutations of women that have greater muscle/bone structure, less hormones and rely on adrenaline far more. They also have a greater affinity for visual stimuli.

Social constructs will push women towards caring roles due to their inherent child-bearing organs, with men going towards strength roles because of their inherent bone/muscle structure.

Generalisations: Men pit their competitive nature against each other in tests of withstanding or dishing out damage, women pit themeselves against each other in terms of acquiring.

Men seek out a sense of self-worth, with their sexual peak coming early; while women seek out their society-worth first, and their self-worth tends to come later.

Both Men and Women are able to do any job; but certain inherents (whether genetic, social or expected) will tilt the balance towards them. Most of these are based on survival, so they're buried a LOT deeper than simple intellect.

Women are attracted to Men that don't resemble them pre-pregnancy, but to similar men during pregnancy (due to the alteration in bodily chemicals). Men are hardwired to seek multiple mates, and so are women. Their bodies alter during pregnancy though to protect the child.

Alpha males have been in control of the world for a long time because they've acquired enough resources to solidify that position. Alpha females get there by emulating Alpha males long enough to be accepted, and then solidify their own powerbase.

Beta males/females can only achieve equality by taking on ownership of the resources stockpiled - whether it be genetic, financial, power or the like.

"Sexism" is one of those battles where the Beta's try to take from the Alpha's in order to become an alpha. Equally most "isms" are Beta trying to attack Alphas, but often it's simply Betas attacking Alpha's holders (also Betas).

Alphas will pick who they feel comfortable with; regardless of gender, creed, colour, or any other circumstances. The "isms" are just fights against what bias has been shown in the past.

Society enforces the biases usually, in order to protect the Alpha resources. And Society consists of all the Alphas and Betas. (Gammas and Deltas are ignored - usually the infirm or criminal tendency)

But most Betas know this, and have formulated plans to hold resources in their own areas. With the use of their skills, they will employ their own powerbase, and seek to become Alphas. And once they are Alphas, they will discriminate against the Betas as much as the old ones.

The sheer scale of the problem is that most "-isms" don't have a neutral side. No-one can fully understand both "being male" and "being female", especially with both sides throwing misinformation in with the snippets of real information there.

We're a mixed up animal that's trying very hard not to be an animal. And I don't believe we'll ever come to a conclusion until we're able to share Truths without the biased communications we have at the moment.

That said, once we've achieved that, we'll no longer be human.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Killing people thats more a mans job just because we are wired differently than women, not saying women can't but I think women fighting infantry roles would mess up unit cohesion just because men are wired to protect women and all that jazz.

There is no scientific evidence proving that men are "wired to protect women" in any sort of capacity. In fact, even the supposed "evidence" that claims that we're supposed to be "wired" to protect OUR OWN OFFSPRING are pretty sketchy and full of pragmatic holes.

If you've got problems with unit cohesion due to female fighters in the group then it's not an issue of biology, but rather an issue in discipline (both in the individual soldiers as well as their officers).

Or quite simply, the officers aren't being nasty enough to the recruits to insure that their recruits despise their hardass officers enough to forget any kind of animosity towards female recruits in the unit.

But then again, that's what you get when your recruits only get a few months of bootcamp training before being shipped of to fight abroad (*cough*USMC*cough*), as opposed to more professional armed forces who demand no less than several years of training and discipline before even TRUSTING their recruits to carry a live weapon in a battlezone.

 

[Cpt Corallis]

I actually got into an argument with someone over this not too long ago. They were complaining about the recent EU ruling that women have to pay the same insurance premiums as men (previously they got a cheaper deal) and I asked them if they thought a woman should have the equal right to have any job they were capable of doing.
They answered "yes"
I asked them if Women should be given equal pay as men and again they said yes.
When I asked them if, by that logic Women should pay the same rates of insurance and tax as men, they got irritated at me.

My point was simply that Equality works both ways, Women cannot complain about equality in negative things, like insurance policies, and then demand to be treated equally in everything else. I do believe that for pretty much every situation, except childbirth, Women can be equal to men.
However, in certain situations, such as nursing, Women are more likely to get a positive response from the people in their care. This is really nothing to do with capabilities, instead being down to how the different genders are viewed by the average person.

 

[darth gditch]

Hmm, well, ignoring the differences in brain development and hormones, I firmly believe that jobs and roles should be fully based on ability.

Now, as for realities. Men, on average, have higher muscle mass. This means that jobs that require a good bit of physical labor, i.e. construction, the military, sailors, ect. These jobs are going to be dominated by men due to a physiological advantage. Does this mean that only men will do these jobs? No. This means that more men will. Women are typically more in touch with their emotions. Doesn't mean all women are, just that it is a general trend. Thus women tend to have an advantage when dealing with children, counseling, teaching ect. Does this mean men can't do these jobs? No. Just more women tend to.

As for pay differences and sexist behavior, these are archaic holdovers from the when the world was "man's world" and women were to take care of the kids and keep the house presentable. And really, I think it's the 50's that at least Americans are hung up on. For some reason, we Americans tend to think things were "better" then.

 

[The_Healer]

Well, gender inequality used to make more sense, when people were required to do hard labour of some kind in the majority of jobs.

Men are more naturally suited to this, don't argue. They are physically stronger and on average have better hand to eye co-ordination.

This trend hasn't changed, nor should it have. The majority of labour jobs are done by men.

The rise of the desk job, however, is where the equality should be. Men and women have no advantage over one another when it comes to desk jobs. The inequality we see in the corporate environment is (in my opinion) completely down to sexism.

I'd put myself realistically around a 5 on the scale of sexism. I think I'm just being realistic but obviously I'd offend the feminists among us.