Gender Equality

[Gio Takahashi]

http://i34.tinypic.com/slnpyu.jpg
Credit for Image (http://n-exu-s.deviantart.com/art/Equal-67254941)


I have come across this issue several times and I have found that some people, both men and women, are opposed to equal gender laws. Some men say that women are not fit enough to do certain jobs and some women say that men can never be the primary parent because every child needs a mother. Women cannot serve in the army because their bodies are not as good as men or they are just open to sexual harassment. These are just a few of many "reasons" that I have heard to justify unequal gender laws.

The question posed:
Why don't we have equal gender laws?

My opinion:

Yes, genetically, both men and women are different but that does not justify unequal gender laws. Some women say that we cannot have equal laws by giving this stereotypical case. A woman and man are divorcing and they fight over custodial rights. Some argue that the woman is entitled to having the rights because it is a natural thing (women acting as caregivers). I have to disagree. I know someone who's mother was extremely abusive and when her parents divorced, she was forced to go with her disgusting excuse of a mother. In the end, she had to run away back to her father because of how abusive her mother was.

Another case exhibited by many men is that we cannot have equal gender laws because women should not fight if a draft was reinstated. I have to disagree again. Wouldn't having a draft and equal gender laws show that war is pointless? Wars are started to protect a country's interests and natural resources (its people are one of them). The children are left behind and it does not show how there should be unequal gender laws but instead it shows how pathetic war really is.

Furthermore, some men and women say that certain jobs should be gender exclusive therefore there cannot be equal rights. Example: manual labor should be done by men because they're naturally stronger. I have to disagree again. Employers always discriminate against potential employees (work experience, age, etc.)y trying to find the best worker that will fit in the company's working environment. What does gender equality have to do with that? Nothing.

I believe that regardless of the differences between men and women of any race, color or ethnicity, all laws should be gender equal.

Source (http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=651592&hl=)

I think this merits a good thread for Mediator's Hut.

Fight!

[Seegtease]

Men and women ARE different, and generally speaking (I don't need anybody to lecture me on exceptions, please), there are things women do better than men, and vice versa. Men are stronger. Women are more nurturing. It goes a lot further than that, but those are the basic levels. We have more women nurses because they tend to be better at it, and patients usually feel more comfortable with a woman caring for them then a man. We prefer to have men on our police force because while there are a few women who can handle it, there are many who would break down in some of the situations they'd have to face, and that's assuming they could get through the fitness exam.

The differences are so blatantly clear that somebody would have to be in denial to not see them.

[SpaceProg]

Men are *generally* stronger, yes. Though I've seen some women that could bench Zeet with no trouble.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm all for equal treatment of the sexes. But both need to know that sometimes being equal is a step down.

[Killer_Man_]

Men are *generally* stronger, yes. Though I've seen some women that could bench Zeet with no trouble.

If they can bench me or Zeet, then they are no longer women. :X More like when men are body builders, they just don't look human anymore.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm all for equal treatment of the sexes. But both need to know that sometimes being equal is a step down.

What do you mean?

[Bloodcinder]

She means that sometimes seeking to be "equal" with the other gender doesn't mean stepping up to their level--it means stepping down to their level. That is, not only does unfair treatment sometimes get to be given up but bonuses are given up as well.

[reginacroft]

Men and women are different in many aspects.
It has been proven women have a higher pain tolerance than men. Yay.
The whole reason why men tend to go out and fight and work is it goes back to the olden times. The women would be pregnant or too young (yes....12 was a popular age, but that didn't have the stigma it does today) or nursing back to health, so the male would go out and fight, get the food, or so on. Doesn't mean women can't do those things.

In Greece women were either respected as equals or sometimes held in higher regard for the whole baby thing.

I do not find that the lack of equality in jobs STILL is fair. And the everyone can be drafted is a bad idea. As mentioned the children could be left behind.

The one thing I can't stand is a female wanting equality against the evil men. The men can't do the things a female can. ....... Doesn't that seem almost like a flipped idea? Women are segregated. Let's be equal. Men are evil, making us unequal, let us get treated better!
I know a couple people like that.

Equality is good but remember that others have their own values, and if they don't want to wear pants but skirts all the time, that's their choice, female or male.

[Z]

It has been proven women have a higher pain tolerance than men. Yay.
Apparently that's always just been a false assumption as stated by the author below.


Pain tolerance

It seems to be the general consensus that women have a higher tolerance for pain than men by virtue of the fact that they give birth. This is dubious logic, but a lot of people believe it anyway.

And it's false.

Here is a bit of evidence (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20060605/scratch_hea.html?source=rss) that men have a higher pain tolerance than women: Bradon Wilhelmi, a plastic surgeon who authored the paper, discovered that women have, on average, 34 nerve fibers per square centimeter of facial skin while men only possess around 17 nerve fibers over the same area.
"Because women have more nerve receptors, they may experience pain more powerfully than men, requiring different surgical techniques, treatments or medicine dosages to help manage their pain and make them feel comfortable," Wilhelmi said.
Here is another article (http://www.hbns.org/news/pain04-09-03.cfm):

Men’s higher tolerance for pain is not just macho posturing but has a physiological underpinning, suggests a study in which subjects were given a monetary incentive to keep their hand submerged in ice water.

And another (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=26934):Women feel pain more than men despite the popular notion that the opposite is true, according to research.

Scientists investigating gender differences in pain have found that not only do women report more pain throughout the course of their lifetime, they also experience it in more bodily areas, more often and for longer duration when compared to men.
And another (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3185):Males are better at tolerating pain than females because of a key difference in how the sexes transmit pain messages, researchers have found.Intuitively, of course, this makes perfect sense. Men and women are designed differently. Women are designed to be workers (stamina, cooperation, and multi-tasking) and men are designed to be soldiers (strength, speed, and coordination). When men aren't fighting each other, they are fighting nature. A high tolerance for pain can be the difference-maker in the struggle of life and death.

I don't know how the myth of women having a higher tolerance for pain ever got started, but I wouldn't be surprised to find the Matriarchs of Feminism promoting the idea.

[reginacroft]

Because according to that author we as females have more nerve endings, it makes the fact that the same injuries can cause us more sensation.

[Z]

Which also means that if a man and a women are both in the same accident, the man will walk away less injured than the woman.

Either way you want to interpret it, a man feels less pain than a woman and can tolerate more pain than a woman.

Double Post
During the experience, in which they submerged their right hand in cold water up to their wrist until they could no longer tolerate the pain, the researchers measured their pain and took blood pressure and heart rate measurements. After removing their hand from ice water, the students completed questionnaires that measured their pain, stress, perceived performance, and motivation to keep their hand submerged.

Like in previous pain studies, males had higher pain thresholds and tolerances than females

[SomaticCorpse]

I think the one thing that's always left out, is this:

When a woman gets preggers, she can't lift anything or do any strenuous activity. So, someone has to pick up the slack, because if she's fired for being preggers, the company will get sued.

Now, let's assume a man gets sick for the same duration of the 9 months or so... We'll say 6 or 7 for comfort zone, before maternity leave. If a man were to require as much assistance/coverage, then he would be fired.

How exactly is this fair!? I mean, obviously, the girl (more than likely) got preggers by choice (whether you consider the use of b.c. or non-use of condoms, etc.). So, a woman, even it's something that can be controlled, benefits from the situation, no matter what.

Of course, the argument could be: men don't get preggers, so they don't understand. Well, this is true; but you have to understand that choice is what leads to being preggers - unlike age with menopause or senility with inherent mental defects.

I'm not bitch all that much, but it does tend to suck an ass-load, when you have to cover for someone - just because they're preggers. In other words, they show up to work and collect the full pay-check, but you have to do all of their responsibilities, until after the kid is born. You don't receive anymore pay, because of that - and to suggest that would be considered sexist.

There's a marginal line that will always remain blurry, this is just one of them.

[Bloodcinder]

Now, let's assume a man gets sick for the same duration of the 9 months or so... We'll say 6 or 7 for comfort zone, before maternity leave. If a man were to require as much assistance/coverage, then he would be fired.
Not exactly true. If the man has an illness or disability, he can't be fired directly because of those.

[Mydra]

Look how things are in here, Finland. Bodomi may know better, but anyway, things are much better here about that.

[Bloodcinder]

If neither you nor Bodomi can explain why that is the case, I'll just have to say that sounds like "Europe equals more better than America."

[Mydra]

But I don’t have any experience on that area...

But what I think I know, we don’t have different laws for women and men.

[Bloodcinder]

Finland has mandatory conscription of all adult males but not of females.

[Mydra]

Hmm, that. Though I’m not sure if females need to do non-militinary service, which men can do too.

[SpaceProg]

"Can" does not equal "have to" as mandatory makes it.

[Killer_Man_]

Regina, they could always make a law for that. If you are married(Note married) and one of you get drafted, the other can not be drafted.

It's much like if you are the only male child.

Second most high end companies do have paternity leave too.

[Seegtease]

I'm with Z. I've heard it said that women can handle pain better time and time again, but I've always thought it was BS. I could sock a woman in the shoulder the same way I'd sock a guy and guess who would whine more?

Well, either that, or it means women are more whiny. Which do you ladies confess to?

[Bloodcinder]

Well, although I'm not agreeing with those who say women can handle pain more, what you just referred to, Zeit, is about handling damage, not pain. In this generalization you've created, it's assumed that the woman sustains more damage.

[Z]

I don't think it really matters. He was just trying to underline a currently accepted point but I understand what you mean.

All that said, though, I think it is most definitely unfair that women are still being discriminated against in the workplace and being stripped of employment opportunities due to their gender.

From the article:
A woman and man are divorcing and they fight over custodial rights. Some argue that the woman is entitled to having the rights because it is a natural thing (women acting as caregivers). I have to disagree.

I would certainly disagree as well. Just because someone is female does not mean she is a better caregiver than her male counterpart. In fact, my girlfriend's aunt and uncle are going through something like this as we speak.

Her aunt initiated the divorce and agreed to join custody. A month later, she realized this would mean that she would not receive child support payments so she took it back and requested full custody purely for the money. Now my gf's uncle (who is an excellent caregiver) is having to fight just to see his kids at all. Meanwhile, the aunt initiated the divorce becuase she cheated on the uncle with some strange asshole who lives hours and hours away. This new boyfriend of hers has also been eyeing her 16 year old daughter to the point that the daughter has felt unsafe alone with him. If the aunt gets full custody, I'm not sure what the hell they will be able to do.

Point is, a woman should not get custody be default.

Another case exhibited by many men is that we cannot have equal gender laws because women should not fight if a draft was reinstated. I have to disagree again. Wouldn't having a draft and equal gender laws show that war is pointless? Wars are started to protect a country's interests and natural resources (its people are one of them). The children are left behind and it does not show how there should be unequal gender laws but instead it shows how pathetic war really is.

We should not have equal gender laws because women shouldn't have to fight in the draft? Hmm. I wouldn't complain if women were saved from the draft but that has to do more with me being anti-draft rather than anti-equal gender laws.

Furthermore, some men and women say that certain jobs should be gender exclusive therefore there cannot be equal rights. Example: manual labor should be done by men because they're naturally stronger.

I obviously don't agree with this one. That's just stupid. If a woman wants to try a manual labor job, let her try. If she can't cut it, fire her. In any case, you shouldn't be able to turn her away right from the get-go just because she's female.

[Seegtease]

I obviously don't agree with this one. That's just stupid. If a woman wants to try a manual labor job, let her try. If she can't cut it, fire her. In any case, you shouldn't be able to turn her away right from the get-go just because she's female.

Problem is, with gender equality coming into play, you are at risk of a lawsuit for firing a woman in such a job, even if your reason was legit. Eventually, it gets to some lame crap about how you don't have enough women on your construction crew, and you should stop hiring men and meet your quota of women, even if you can't find any as fit as your current crew.

[Killer_Man_]

Problem is, with gender equality coming into play, you are at risk of a lawsuit for firing a woman in such a job, even if your reason was legit. Eventually, it gets to some lame crap about how you don't have enough women on your construction crew, and you should stop hiring men and meet your quota of women, even if you can't find any as fit as your current crew.

There should never be a quota and people should be able to run bussiness how they please. Cause there has been a few times when I was younger, I was denied employment, though I couldn't prove it but later one of friends who was working at the place. Noticed two black guys, a asian girl and a hispanic girl got hired.

To me, that's unequal.

[Arainach]

Ah, affirmative action: Giving the white man an excuse to think that he wasn't fired for plain old sucking since 1968.

[Seegtease]

Well sometimes they are denied for no good reason other than they need more variety in their pool. In KM's case though, he probably just sucked.

[Killer_Man_]

Well sometimes they are denied for no good reason other than they need more variety in their pool. In KM's case though, he probably just sucked.

I didn't even get hired for one thing.

Second, you can't suck at getting a job at McDonalds at the age of 16.

Third, my grades were high, and I was taking cooking/resturant classes in HS.

Ah, affirmative action: Giving the white man an excuse to think that he wasn't fired for plain old sucking since 1968.

Don't give me that bullshit Ary. To be honest, if you want freedom to the people. People should have a freedom to run the business, hire who he wants and etc.

I've held the same job for four years, so obviously I don't 'suck' at a job.

AA, makes the races distungished and if you want to make everyone equal. No one should have a upper foot hold by race, gender and etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

It should be base on skill, not by gender/race.

[Seegtease]

Second, you can't suck at getting a job at McDonalds at the age of 16.

Yes, you can. Even more so, you can suck at the actual job, which takes a certain degree of anti-talent to accomplish.

[Jasmin Jaquine]

Second, you can't suck at getting a job at McDonalds at the age of 16.


Yes, yes kids the age of 16 can suck at getting a job at McDonald's.

I know that not smiling if they did an interview will generally not get you hired. Being self-righteous will not get you hired, and a host of other little details that go into working in the "team" environment that is McDonald's.

Just two cents.

[Bloodcinder]

Ah, affirmative action: Giving the white man an excuse to think that he wasn't fired for plain old sucking since 1968.
Have you changed your stance on AA? I recall you used to be dead-set against it on NHF.

Second, you can't suck at getting a job at McDonalds at the age of 16.
All me to reiterate what everyone else is saying: yes you can. Especially in certain states, like WV, if you are under 18 you can't even use a fry vat. Therefore kids who are 16 specifically suck at getting fast food jobs in this state, and I suspect it's similar in others.

Now there's something to talk about. Who wants to hire a kid who isn't even allowed to do half of the things a person two years older could do? Better find a reason not to hire him, because we can't discriminate based on age.

[Gio Takahashi]

Sure, you can suck at McDonalds. Even if you work at McD's you still have to you know, work, if you don't work, you will suck.


And that is correct, most states don't allow kids younger than 18 to use heavy machinery. that's not Age discrimination, that's called safety precaution.

and before you get into "but 16 and 18 is no big different" Sure it is. 16, you're still a minor, and 18, you are considered as an adult, and all the rights that is granted with being 18.

And lastly, it's so the business can protect themselves, in a way.

[Killer_Man_]

Perhaps it was an age thing but I know the only laws in WI, is that you can not use any meat slicing equipment unless you are 18. That's the only law as far as I know.

Regardless, the only reason I threw a fit cause it was to me. A few sucker punches to go, ROFL U DID NOT GET IT CUZ U SUCKORZ.

-.-;

[Gio Takahashi]

Well yes, Especially meat slicer, which is considered as a heavy machinery, and uses a sharp disc. It's quite easy to get injured on it. I know I have.

[Killer_Man_]

I haven't, my older brother has before when he worked at a Deli.

[Arainach]

Have you changed your stance on AA? I recall you used to be dead-set against it on NHF.I disagree with it, but I also think that most of the reasons and examples people give against it are bullshit, and that it gets blamed in a lot of totally unrelated cases. America: the land of no personal responsibility.

[deathofcheese]

I disagree with it, but I also think that most of the reasons and examples people give against it are bullshit, and that it gets blamed in a lot of totally unrelated cases. America: the land of no personal responsibility.QF...oh wait, I'm not supposed to do that any more.

I think people are passed over for hiring or promotion in favor of satisfying Affirmative Action instead of only considering skills, but the majority is just people who want to play the reverse race card. Additionally, it probably wouldn't make sensational news so you wouldn't hear about it in the media too much.

My mom was just telling some story to my cousins this weekend about how someone she knew who was an amateur gourmet chef but wasn't hired for an institutional job instead of a couple of black women who she knew couldn't cook. Pretty subjective rendering, I know, but I wasn't paying all that much attention; I was trying to read to pass the long car ride.

Besides, I doubt you'd ever be able to prove it. Even if you somehow got some data comparing the different skills to show that the person passed over was actually superior, the person in charge of it could simply say that they felt the person they picked was a better choice, which wouldn't required a large amount of bullshit to cover up.

[Killer_Man_]

I wasn't going for the reverse race card.

I was just saying there should be no 'quota' on how many females you must hire, how many blacks, asians, whites and etc.

[Arainach]

And there aren't. Those have been ruled unconstitutional.

[deathofcheese]

I wasn't going for the reverse race card.

I was just saying there should be no 'quota' on how many females you must hire, how many blacks, asians, whites and etc.I wasn't trying imply that you were. I was trying to speak generally. Sorry.

[Killer_Man_]

And there aren't. Those have been ruled unconstitutional.

I know this article isn't based on the USA but things like this is what makes me mad.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027029/Hairdresser-ordered-pay-4-000-Muslim-woman-refusing-job-wears-headscarf.html

And the thing is, since she runs a small bussiness. She's pretty much SOL and perhaps goes bankrupt.