|
Post by Merkuri on Oct 23, 2003 10:30:30 GMT -5
Clothing though, from our earlier discussion, I still maintain was partly designed to keep women in their place. Men designed the garments, not women and one of the major facets of those designs were ease of sexual accesability for the man to the woman. It was simply easier to just thrust the skirts up, especially of a struggling woman, than to remove the hosen that men (in Western European society) wore. (To use an argument I had used against me in a much earlier discussion: ) Did you know that men wore everything first? Dresses, makeup, hosiery, all were first worn by men. Just about every article of clothing was first designed and worn by men. The only notable exception being the wrist-watch. (Why can't I spell that as one word? It comes out looking like wristacoch.) And did you ever stop to think that dresses may have been preferred by women to give them more accesibility to the TOILET? As much as I hate dresses, it's much easier to pee in them. All right, I'll give you that. Men still occupy a higher social position in a lot of cases, especially when it comes with what they can get a way with and sex. The thing is, why should gender be thrown away? There are differences between the sexes. No matter how you slice it, there are differences. Physically and mentally, men and women are different. Do those differences matter? Yes, they do in certain circumstances. As an employer, why should I be forced to hire a woman in my factory to do heavy lifting if I don't want to? It's my company, should I not have the right to hire whomsoever I wish? Yes, there are differences between the sexes... but where do those differences really come from? "Sex" and "gender" refer to two different things. Sex is the physical, anatomical side of the equation and gender is the social, behavioral side. The usual theory is that a persons sex determines their gender. That is, their genetic, physical makeup (chemicals in the brain, etc.) determines their behavior. Example: Because men have a y-chromosome it makes them more agressive than women. There's a different theory that's beginning to find acceptance, though, that gender determines sex. Backwards, huh? How could a person's social behavior determine their physical makeup? Simple. Example: Society says that men should be more agressive than women (i.e. gender is that men are more agressive). Thus, men who are more agressive are seen as more attractive and therefore have more chances to pass on their genes to the next generation. Via Darwin, gender has just determined sex. So just exactly how much difference between the genders is "natural" and how much we've bred into ourselves is hard to determine. Yes, the sexes are different now, but who's to say things won't be different in a thousand years from now. Gender is not a constant, it's a variable. I'm not as gung-ho about the idea of gender dissapearing as I used to be, but a professor of mine in college had a good point when she said that we will never be completely equal until gender is gone. Using her argument, let's start from scratch and see what we can know for certain about men and women. Well, the physical differences are the obvious place to start. Men impregnate women, and women carry the babies. Therefore, women are linked to babies more than men, and therefore are linked to the household more than men. Already we've saddle women with having the responsibility of the household while men are physically free from the kids and the house and can even go and impregnate another women while his first mate is stuck with the kid. It's nearly impossible to come away with men and women being completely equal unless you can throw away the differences between them.
|
|
|
Post by Ahnemesis on Oct 23, 2003 10:40:06 GMT -5
Nothing wrong with a dress. I like to feel them on me at times. Does it make a difference? Sometimes I feel sexy in one. But, that does not stop me from feeling the same way in a pair of cutoffs and a t-shirt. It's a mood thing. Not a clothing thing. ( not all cases apply here! ) What I'm trying to say is the gender seperation will always be there. Thats okay. Whats not okay is to deliberately harness a group of people because of their sex. How many baby boys are burried in the desert and left to die because they are not wanted? How many young boys are prostitiuted each year because they can make money for the family? Ten years old? Try six years old. How many young boys are kept out of education simply because it is seen as a waste to teach them? All over the world the situation is tragic for women. On this scale, women have it harder. But trying to keep a civilized country's viewpoint, I have to agree that both sexes have it hard as we are trying to overcome ourselves. The training we've been given since childhood no longer works in the real world. I agree Hussar, that gender should never be thrown away. I am a woman and content to be so. And your right, I don't agree with some of the rules about hirering. I am for credential hireing only. If you've got the qualifications...thats what counts. I also believe it is up to the company to hire who they feel is best for them. I think this is an interesting topic. One I hope continues for a while. You all have very interesting ideas on the issue as it's something that we face everyday. By the way, on the clothing issue, remember when men wore dresses too?
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Oct 23, 2003 10:58:13 GMT -5
By the way, on the clothing issue, remember when men wore dresses too? Ever seen a monk's robes on TV? (I mean a real vow-of-silence monk not a DnD martial arts monk.) Ever wonder what's under there? It's not pants. Oh, and while we're on the topic of clothing, here's a little historical fact about dresses. In the 16-17 hundreds (I may be off by a few hundred years, so don't quote me) before people had learned the joys of hygene, women never would complain about how men could "whip it out" and pee anywhere they wanted to. You see, they hadn't invented underwear then and women didn't wear anything under that dress. If they had to pee, they did. Right where they stood. They'd walk away and there'd be a little puddle. THAT'S what dresses were for. Edit because I'm a spelling Nazi
|
|
|
Post by Little Blue Dragon on Oct 23, 2003 11:02:29 GMT -5
Thanks for the image
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Oct 23, 2003 11:05:12 GMT -5
My pleasure.
|
|
|
Post by CharleHu$$tle on Oct 23, 2003 11:22:24 GMT -5
OK how many women are on the front line of wars getting Killed serving our military?!? How many women have been drafted durning a war?!? Hmmm..... Now who has it easier?!?
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Oct 23, 2003 11:38:14 GMT -5
OK how many women are on the front line of wars getting Killed serving our military?!? A lot more today then there used to be. See, even though I'm a pacifist and to be bluntly honest the idea of being drafted makes me want to pee in my pants, I believe that women need to be included in the draft. If we want equality, we need everything that goes with it. Edit: more spelling errors
|
|
|
Post by CharleHu$$tle on Oct 23, 2003 11:48:25 GMT -5
Hey MErkuri I am with you. I agree that women and men should be 100% equal But it's not the case. Say you Hit me and I hit you back. Now I am a WOmen beater who is going to jail cause the Cops Will always Side with the women. Trust me I've seen it with my own eyes. (I Have never hit a WOmen in my LIFE!)
When you get a Divorce- The women gets the children in about 90% of the cases no matter who bad she si and how good the father is.
Once again Another reason women have it easier.
|
|
|
Post by Loki3 on Oct 23, 2003 12:19:44 GMT -5
Charlie..........
I can tell you never have been in the Military. Women are more and more being ALLOWED to act in more defined roles on the battle field. As far as your point wich I am (As usual) confused about,........................... You are judging women on something they have no control over.
I served in the Military and I can tell ya Women DONT have it easier, they do the same jobs as men, and I had several under my Command that frankly could out perform any soldier in my unit. WITH EASE.......
And to be succient about this, if anything........ Women in the Military have it 10 times as hard because of the Macho Draconum attitides of alot of Men carry in the Military, thus it makes the woman have to work twice as hard to get the same amount of recognition as a man would.
As far as.........
Worng. You simply are WRONG. If the women hits you, and you relay that to the police it is State Law in all but 2 states (Alaska, and Ohio) that the Police have to, HAVE TO.... arrest you both. If it doesnt happen then there is circumstances that are not being told.
As far as.........
This also simply isnt true, I have a friend who is an Attorney who specializes in Divorce and Custody he told me today when I called and asked him about this, that the actual number is now closer to 50 / 50. The fact of the matter in regards to this is this.
MOST yes I said MOST fathers would rather COP OUT on there kids and let the mommy do the raising, while they be let free to have fn, thus placing the burden on someone else. When me and my wife divorced I had 2 daughters that I went to court for and was awarded custody. Not because I am better, it was becasue the judge and the judicial system aknowledged my rights as a father to have his kids.
Not attacking ya Charlie, however ya seem to have very black and white ideas in alot of things..............
Why is it that people have to worry about sho has it easier, depending on the situation, and the person it goes both ways.
|
|
|
Post by CharleHu$$tle on Oct 23, 2003 12:34:58 GMT -5
Um Loki Sorry man but I have to call Bullcrape on tha Domestic Violence man. Growning Up where I have and Still Living in the Same Enviroment. I can personally With my own eyes say that you are WRONG! Just cause the law says that that's what is supposed to happen it raley ever does! My Cussion who has never hit a women in his life. Well his Girl Got drunk and Went off on him. SHe hits Like a Boxer too! I watched the whole thing he never touched her back. She ran up in the Room called the Cops and His ass was handcuffed and IN the Wagon in minutes.
I kept telling the officers what really happened but they didn't care.
Welcome to reality. What the law says and who enforces it are two very seprate things.
The man is always considered the Aggresser. Well at least in the places I've seen and Been to.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Oct 23, 2003 12:50:35 GMT -5
Just so things don't get side tracked.
Ahnemesis, your not off topic just because role changed for men and women some, the question still holds.
Are nurses tought of of being mainly women, yes and yet there are male nurses.
There are women as well as men who design dresses of today.
I orginally placed this question in this country alone, well maybe Canada to, because I have been to other countries. There are countries overseas where women hardly have any right at all. so naturally they have a hard time. but in this country its different.
There is a very good reason the military should not have women fighting in the front lines. There are a couple reason about women, but the main reason they shouldn't be in the front lines has nothing to do with women.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Oct 23, 2003 13:18:53 GMT -5
Why is it that people have to worry about who has it easier, depending on the situation, and the person it goes both ways. Because that's what this post is about. I think it's a good jumping off place for discussion, but I do agree with you that it's different in different cases. See my first post.
|
|
|
Post by Wyrmfire on Oct 23, 2003 13:32:47 GMT -5
Actually, BTW, there are no women serving on the front lines. The military allows them to serve, but not on the front lines, in the down and dirty. They are just in technical capacities and stuff like that.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 23, 2003 13:49:39 GMT -5
Hi Merkuri, Back to the dress code. Women may have found some things about dresses convieniant true, but men were never enforced, societally and, in some places, by LAW to wear them; women were. A woman caught in men's clothing, in seventeenth century France, for instance, could go to the guilotine for it. Now that may be an extreme case, but it happened. Remeber the "bra burners" and what that was all about. Hey, that was the NINETEEN sixties. Merely thirty plus years ago. Burning those bras was the great "frig you man!" of women who were only just then winning the freedom not to wear them from a society that tried desperately to retain the control that they represented to the male populace. Draxy PS: My God! My daughter just got back from Wu Shu and told me... it's snowing here in Vienna! I'm still such a Florida boy that this excites me no end. It's not even Halloween yet! D
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Oct 23, 2003 14:12:47 GMT -5
Men have been forced to wear pants. At least in one place I know of. Yale Divinity school still has a law on the books that lists three offenses that merit expulsion. Prostitution, nightwalking (whatever that is... no one knows), and cross-dressing. That went for men and women. This law's actually still in effect, but the don't actually enforce it in regards to women (or else most of the female students would be gone). They'd probably be a lot more likely to enforce it against men wearing dresses.
|
|