The possibility and desirability of a truly non-sexist sociaty

[carnex]

Can we eliminate sexism? Depends on how you define it and what you think by elimination. First of all each human is an individual. There will always be people that hate other gender. That is simple human nature. But if we leave that, what I would call "natural level" then we have different task. And that is preventing people from preferring their own group. Which is again, absolutely impossible without help of science maybe eons in the future.

But even than, with all that settled, we have problem that I mentioned first which is definition of sexism. And i could go on forever. So answer is NO.

And for your questions. Zhukov (great name BTW, love the crazy bastard that threw people on knives but stooped the unstoppable). Women takes 9 months to produce 1 child and is of increasingly reduced capacity to profile for herself and other during that time while men can impregnate women at amazing rates and just get sleepy. So much originates from that that it's not funny. Predispositions of our bodies, our prevailing mental tendencies etc.

So, again, no. It's not possible and I'm not sure that it would even be beneficial given the expects consequences of something like that. There is so much crazy that actually do amazingly good things but are handicapped in other areas, like human relations.

Women and men aren't physically equal, so there'll always be a situation where one is incapable of performing at the level of the other. Such cases include (famously) childbirth, or the more extreme fitness requirements of the elite military.

Just for the record, this is the case only if you take the average man and the average woman. There's women that exceed men in certain capacities that men are on average better at and men who exceed women in certain capacities that women are on average better at.

This is done on averages, which is why things like the military should allow women into all positions, as well as ending gender segregation in all other fields. Because you don't fit the phsyical fitness requirements solely for being a man or a woman, you have individual fitness requirements for everybody. To use the logic that men are stronger than women, which is already a fallacy, it means that a asthmatic, anemic 18-year old boy that weighs 80 pounds should be accepted into the special forces where 160-pound woman in peak physical condition with excellent training. Which would you rather take into battle with you?

I hope, for the love of everything that is true, that this was a pure flame bait. What you said is almost the equivalent of "Take a quadruple total amputee woman and put her in weight lifting competition with toddler and see who wins." Given equal physical condition and fitness level males outstrip females. There is no buts or whats or whys.

That said, if women can satisfy the requirements for job, without lowering them, she should get the job with jobs that are somehow gender specific excluded.

 

[AVATAR_RAGE]

Yes we can eventually eliminate sexism, but only through open mindedness. So yeah the ideologies of our current society and the general ignorance of the uninterested.

Allow to to clarify what I mean without using the "theoretical futures". Women's rights and men's rights groups play an important part in aiding equal rights for both genders, however people on both sides still take offence to others existence. Blinded by a self righteousness they cannot see that ultimately they both aim for the same thing; equality. Human ignorance is the ultimate blockade halting equality, we can squabble and quibble over this scenario and that scenario, but at the end of the day both MRG and WRG are in the right, even if a minority of their members are in the wrong.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Like urinals in the men's bathroom and not the women's.

That actually hurts women indirectly, seeing as most toilets are the same size (in the same building, not counting handicap toilets) so men have more places to pee than women...

 

[masticina]

That was funny

Mostly because we are animals, we got an animal side to use. We need to eat and sleep and guess what part of our natural needs is sex to.

Unless you somehow want to remove the animal side of our human existence you will fail.

Understand me well here oh I have heard about "perfect societies" where sex isn't even needed anymore to get children and all. Those are truly abhorrent if you think about this though.

In the end we always will remain animal and that animal has basic desires. Just because you wish us not to be you can't remove it. It always will be there in the dept of your mind.

 

[carnex]

Like urinals in the men's bathroom and not the women's.

That actually hurts women indirectly, seeing as most toilets are the same size (in the same building, not counting handicap toilets) so men have more places to pee than women...

Well that also reminds me that society is sexist because men can relieve himself without taking off his pants or skirt while women can't and actually has to wear skirt for that benefit!

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Like urinals in the men's bathroom and not the women's.

That actually hurts women indirectly, seeing as most toilets are the same size (in the same building, not counting handicap toilets) so men have more places to pee than women...

Well that also reminds me that society is sexist because men can relieve himself without taking off his pants or skirt while women can't and actually has to wear skirt for that benefit!

Not anymore!

Women just have to accept their new equality!
Captcha: Come what may

 

[Hoplon]

The only realistic depiction of a society that is with out sexism was one in which people had complete control over their biology able to migrate between genders or not have one at all if they so wished.

That i think is, while not impossible, unlikely. Still, worth moving towards.

 

[Vault101]

As for the life boat example, I always thought it was more that men were supposed to be gentlemen (selfless and chivalric) and should put their families before themselves. I know self preservation is important, but that was how I always saw it, not that men were strictly disposable.
.

its also a bullshit example based on the attitudes of an entirely different time

 

[Verlander]

You misunderstand me. I'm referring to elite roles within the military that require you to complete physical tests, one of which is completion of an obstacle course in a set time and method. Everyone, male and female, can apply to the position, but no women have ever passed the test. It's been deemed too physically demanding, and potentially damaging to their reproductive organs. They're free to try the course, but no woman has succeeded.

There's never been a woman on the moon either. However, I doubt you would say that it is impossible for a woman to make it to and walk on the moon.

Now, 99% of men fail too, so I'm in no way saying that "men r bettur thn wimen" like a stupid sexist droolie, but I am recognising that, physically, we are not equal. Equal means "the same as", and we are not the same as each other. No one is better than the other for this, but it's still a distinction.

Again, there's the problem with generalizations. You're casting out an entire 100% of women, yet not 100% of men. 99% of men so far have failed, but you're not disqualifying them, yet you disqualify all of women because a woman hasn't done it yet. Like I said, there hasn't been a woman on the moon, but nobody in their right mind would be stupid enough to say "yeah, women could't possibly do that".

No no no, you're still not getting it. Equal means "the same as". There is a fundamental physical difference between men and women. This isn't a broad generalisation, it's a biological fact. Women have organs (specifically uterus, ovaries etc) that men do not. Again, not saying that makes them more or less valuable, only that there is an identifiable difference that stops the word "equal" being applicable.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equal

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Its a difficult situation I think. There are certain jobs in the world that women are plainly not cut out for. Sorry to say, but Military is one of them - or to be more specific, front line combat deployments. My sister went through Army basic training and the men in the group were held to a much higher physical standard than the women. The men had to be able to do 10 pull ups(which isn't alot) while the women had to only be able to do 3. Men had to do 50 push ups, women only 10(and they could rest their knees on the ground) men had to be able to run a mile in under 10mins, the women just had to be able to run a mile, with no time limit what so ever. The men had to carry one another on their backs through an obstacle course. No woman was made to do it.
Its a sad reality, but the Army started to slacken the physical requirements for being a soldier because women couldn't pass. So now we have sub-par soldiers. I imagine in similar physically demanding professions(firefighter, police officer, construction worker, etc...) that in order to meet gender equality quotas, the job requirements were slackened. And I don't think that's a good thing. Call me an optimist, but if I need to be rescued from a burning building, I'd like to know the firefighter coming to save me wasn't given a pass on slinging people over her shoulder or timed on how quickly she moves.

Now in any other job where women can preform to the same standard as men, absolute completely equality. No questions asked.



Captcha: Box of Chocolates. Not sure if it means something...

 

[Verlander]

No no no, you're still not getting it. Equal means "the same as". There is a fundamental physical difference between men and women. This isn't a broad generalisation, it's a biological fact. Women have organs (specifically uterus, ovaries etc) that men do not. Again, not saying that makes them more or less valuable, only that there is an identifiable difference that stops the word "equal" being applicable.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equal

You're still making a generalization. You're assuming that all men are stronger than all women. If you were to say "the average man is stronger than the average woman", you'd be correct, people won't contest that, because its true. But you're applying this average as if it applies to everybody, generalizing the strength of every single man and every single man, and excluding women would exceed the average while including men who fail to meet the average.

No, because I'm not (nor have I ever in this conversation) referred to strength. That's something that you've introduced to this discussion.

 

[Nieroshai]

There are a series of ideals we should aspire to: equal representation, equal rights, equal opportunity, the ability to use spell check, etc. Will we ever accomplish these things? Who knows? Should we try? Yes. Especially the last one.

 

[Verlander]

No, because I'm not (nor have I ever in this conversation) referred to strength. That's something that you've introduced to this discussion.

Well then, do tell me, what "physical differences" that are specifically not that make women completely incapable of serving in the special services that are specifically not "strength"?

It's somewhat irrelevant to my point though, you've seized on this while ignoring what I've been saying (and conveniently ignored the other example I gave, that of childbirth).

Scientifically, the reason that the biological gender "male" and "female" exist, is because they contain different sexual organs. In short, they're not the same as each other (which is what "different" means). Again, there is nothing about superiority here, just identifiable difference.

 

[Verlander]

And whats the significance of different reproductive organs in treating people differently, in segregating significant portions of society, like whether or not an entire gender is allowed entry into a profession, based off of their genitals? What if people of those gender are infertile? What if they lack some of typical reproductive organs, like testes or ovaries? What if they're intersex or trans? How does any of that translate into barring an entire gender from a profession?

Well, to quote my original post:

Depends on how you define sexism.

There is a difference between literal equality, and societal equality. We literally aren't equal, insofar as we physically aren't equal.

Socially we are fast becoming an equal society (in my country) - there may be a lack of representation of women in the upper echelons of business, but that will take time. Legally we are equal, and markets and advertising react to money, so that will take slightly longer.

The two can entwine - the physical inequality in childbirth has created an inequality in fathers rights, for instance. Mostly, however, I highlighted it as a reminder that the word "equality" is often misused, and that different people's perceptions of sexism may not match.