Knotty problems

[Fatigue]

I've been talking with my girlfriend a lot recently on various issues, the morality of violence, religion, the whole shebang. The biggest talking point, however, has been womens issues. I'm very liberal towards towards women doing whatever they want when it comes to careers and how they live their life. She offered a bunch of scenarios and I said flatly that I would not be influenced by their gender, she argued that I would and it went on from there. When it came down to it I found that yes, in certain things, despite my mind going 'yeah that should be ok', my heart was going 'I'm not 100% comfortable with that'. I suppose I put it down to my upbringing and societal views influencing me etc, but what I wonder is: can I be blamed for feeling as I do about such things? My mind is liberal but my heart is clinging to the 'old ways' as it were. I remember her saying that so long as women are viewed with even the slightest difference to men then gender equality won't exist. Can't be helped really though, can it...at least for now.

Any thoughts?

[Denny Crane!]

I've been talking with my girlfriend a lot recently on various issues, the morality of violence, religion, the whole shebang. The biggest talking point, however, has been womens issues. I'm very liberal towards towards women doing whatever they want when it comes to careers and how they live their life. She offered a bunch of scenarios and I said flatly that I would not be influenced by their gender, she argued that I would and it went on from there. When it came down to it I found that yes, in certain things, despite my mind going 'yeah that should be ok', my heart was going 'I'm not 100% comfortable with that'. I suppose I put it down to my upbringing and societal views influencing me etc, but what I wonder is: can I be blamed for feeling as I do about such things? My mind is liberal but my heart is clinging to the 'old ways' as it were. I remember her saying that so long as women are viewed with even the slightest difference to men then gender equality won't exist. Can't be helped really though, can it...at least for now.

Any thoughts?

Yes women generally won't make it in the construction trades, a lot of people start off as labourers which requires a lot of physical strength. Is it impossible? No, unlikely yes. This is because there is a difference in physical attributes.

Other than that I see no differences whatsoever. Politics, media, business, industry or any other job I am struggling to think of what possible difference if a man or woman is doing it. I would be interested to hear the examples.

Peter

[Fatigue]

The only ones we butted heads with were frontline military roles, the whole 'women and children first' thing in disaster scenarios; generally ones that involved violence and death. Also, unisex teams in some particularly bloody sports, such as rugby, football and ice hockey. I also jokingly said motorsport because most women 'didn't get our obession with it' she let it slide, fortunately. More than those though, was the whole choosing one gender over another when it came down to giving jobs and getting places. Shows how much its been on her mind lately; been looking for a job for months now with few replies, so I suppose any kind of gender discussion would reflect the frustrations she's going through.

[Hub'ite]

Shows how much its been on her mind lately; been looking for a job for months now with few replies, so I suppose any kind of gender discussion would reflect the frustrations she's going through.

If I was hiring for a job and an attractive woman came in for an interview I would hire her on the spot. Maybe thats just me though.... Maybe she could get a job at Hooters.

[Fatigue]

No Hooters where I live I'm afraid.

[Hub'ite]

No Hooters where I live I'm afraid.

You have my deepest sympathies.

[Denny Crane!]

The only ones we butted heads with were frontline military roles,

Can a woman make the same kind of decisions under pressure? I guess so though in my experience in very tense dangerous situations are generally not handled well by women though there are very notable exceptions.

the whole 'women and children first' thing in disaster scenarios; generally ones that involved violence and death.

This is the strange thing, if there is to be total equality then that would negate the women first rule wouldn't it. You can't have it both ways, if we are all equal then lives are equal as well.

Also, unisex teams in some particularly bloody sports, such as rugby, football and ice hockey. I also jokingly said motorsport because most women 'didn't get our obession with it' she let it slide, fortunately. More than those though, was the whole choosing one gender over another when it came down to giving jobs and getting places. Shows how much its been on her mind lately; been looking for a job for months now with few replies, so I suppose any kind of gender discussion would reflect the frustrations she's going through.

Anything where physical strength or agression is an issue will ultimately fall on mens shoulders, can be a blessing and a curse though making us less suited for other things.

PEter

[rez]

The very idea of utter equality in everything that concerns men and women is based around a rather silly oversight.

Surely we must have noticed that men and women are in fact quite different. I for one tend to see it a lot, maybe its just me, what do i know?

Men are naturally suited to deal with more strenuous physical situations, we are built on a larger frame and thus we have the advantage in that field.

Which brings me to my next point. War is serious business, we must have the very best out on the frontline and if we are to select from a pool of people where one group is generally adverse to intense physical combat and one which has been directed into that tradition for thousands of years. I know who i would choose. This is not to say that women cannot handle frontline duty. I am most positive that there are women who would make excellent soldiers in large numbers ALL over the world. However they are in the minority to men, and the time taken to train a naturally disadvantaged woman up to frontline duty would be longer than for a man. In the business of war it is far more practical to send men to kill each other. Whatever Perk that is...

In bloody sports the same principle generally applies. For instance rugby is a sport played paticularly well by men because it requires intense physical ability. This is not to say women are no good at rugby. i know many girls who would most likely trample my unmotivated behind into the mud! But the nature of the sports argument lies in its purpose. Sport is entertainment (for the most part). As such we want to see the best show possible. And therefore we need the best competitors. So having a uni sex team would decrease the overall quality of the game because men are suited the sport. If the quality of the game is not as good as it could be then the entertainment factor goes down and the sport would fall into the abyss of the unknown.

However, the exact same argument works both ways. For instance uni sex gymnastics teams at the olympics (please forgive the example i am woefully uninformed on women's sports). Women are naturally more suited to gymnastics as on the whole they are a more nimble breed. Inserting men, who are of undoubted quality as gymnasts, into a female category will bring the overall quality down and reduce the entertainment factor.

If for some reason you believe men to be superior gymnasts then disregard the example and think of a general sport in which women dominate.

Other than these two principles women are on par with men as much as they want to be. They can do anything we can and i am certain that the one thing you are the best at will be surpassed by a girl somewhere in the world.

Furthermore Women for the most part are not motivated by ideals such as these

"If I was hiring for a job and an attractive woman came in for an interview I would hire her on the spot. Maybe thats just me though...." - Hu'bite

Which only serve to undermine the quality of any institution purely for the reasons of lust. Found predominantly in men.

[PacSubCom]

I can't imagine Fatigue's girlfriend was talking about war and blood sport, or construction jobs.

[Denny Crane!]

PSC: He must of been lying when he posted that she was then

General: How much do you think sexism is still an issue in the modern workplace? I personally have not witnessed it, though as an employer I cannot deny that hiring a woman who could potentially request maternity leave has implications and puts strain on a small business.

Disclaimer:
Of course I would never let it affect my decision when hiring people

Any notable examples? Do people think more legislation is needed?

Peter

[mongoose]

The very idea of utter equality in everything that concerns men and women is based around a rather silly oversight.

Surely we must have noticed that men and women are in fact quite different. I for one tend to see it a lot, maybe its just me, what do i know?

Men are naturally suited to deal with more strenuous physical situations, we are built on a larger frame and thus we have the advantage in that field.

You seem to be assuming that equality means "equal numbers of men and women doing X, regardless of their abilites". Real equality would simply mean allowing capable men/women to do jobs that are normally limited to the opposite gender.

For example, if a woman is capable of doing a job that involves strenuous physical situations, then why should she be denied it?

[rez]

"You seem to be assuming that equality means "equal numbers of men and women doing X, regardless of their abilites". Real equality would simply mean allowing capable men/women to do jobs that are normally limited to the opposite gender."

I believe you misunderstood me as what i believe is in fact what you said.

I referred to the UTTER equality speeches i am bombarded with by feminists.

[mongoose]

I believe you misunderstood me as what i believe is in fact what you said.

I referred to the UTTER equality speeches i am arded with by feminists.

Ah, yes, those are silly. Some people have a slightly warped looking definition of equality...

[Zenith Darksea]

Well, when it comes to intellectual activities, women certainly must be awarded equality. In fact women quite often plain surpass their male counterparts (when I've seen The Apprentice on TV, which isn't often [I disapprove of the values that that programme promotes], it's usually been the women who are doing best), so if you had a situation where a man and a woman were competing for the same job, it would be inexcusable not to simply give it to the best candidate, regardless of gender.

When it comes to physical activities, there simply can't be the same sort of equality. While I'm not wild about it, I don't see any reason to bar women from military service. However, there are some sections of this where only men could do the job. Take the SAS (or whatever your own country's special forces are) for example. A woman generally doesn't have the physical build to be able to cope with the sort of stress that they go through. The SAS themselves have said that when it comes to mental pressures, women generally outperform men, and they were often much better shots as well. But if a woman had to carry a hundred pound bergen and a machine gun up a mountainside at night time, you'd eventually see the disadvantages.

I have to admit, when it comes to the 'women and children first' ethic, I'm a bit of a dinosaur too. I'm sure it would be (justifiably?) offensive to many feminists, but it has always seemed to me to be a man's natural instincts to try to protect his spouse. Perhaps that's just biologically how we're meant to be?

[Gwendylyn]

I'll stay away from the subtopic on war for now because there is actually evidence in both directions when it comes to frontline combat and while I know what I want ideally, the military isn't a place for ideals but for pragmatism.

I have to admit, when it comes to the 'women and children first' ethic, I'm a bit of a dinosaur too. I'm sure it would be (justifiably?) offensive to many feminists, but it has always seemed to me to be a man's natural instincts to try to protect his spouse. Perhaps that's just biologically how we're meant to be?

There are sameness feminists who go extreme and demand that there is no difference between men and women at all whatsoever. Those are the same women who will yell at a man for holding the door open for her. Even when acknowledging biological differences, a lot of extremeists ignore that quite frankly men and women are wired differently because, like animals, different genders covered different roles - protector/provider and caretaker - in a time when our actions meant the survival of our species. That requires largely different personalities tied to gender. Just because now, in our society, we no longer need biologically-tied roles doesn't mean the instincts and mental wiring will disappear overnight.

When it came down to it I found that yes, in certain things, despite my mind going 'yeah that should be ok', my heart was going 'I'm not 100% comfortable with that'. I suppose I put it down to my upbringing and societal views influencing me etc, but what I wonder is: can I be blamed for feeling as I do about such things?

You can't be blamed for simply going along with how evolution wired you. Once you are aware of it, though, you can be aware that there are exceptions to every rule, which is why everyone who mentioned physical strength occupations agreed that there are exceptions to their generalizations. In more subtle situations, being aware prevents subconscious discrimination based on gender - employers making decisions without realizing they are basing part of it on the gender of the applicant and any percieved beliefs about him/her. (Same could be said about subconscious racism or other types of discrimination)

How much do you think sexism is still an issue in the modern workplace? I personally have not witnessed it, though as an employer I cannot deny that hiring a woman who could potentially request maternity leave has implications and puts strain on a small business.

You answered your own question, but it goes deeper. There is a real concern among career oriented women that they are being held back from tough demanding positions because of the belief that if they got pregnant, they would jeopardize the company by leaving the responsibilities of those roles - either for maternity leave or quitting to become a housewife (which a lot of women do). It is not fair to women who are honest about following a career, but statistics are on the side of the business. When a company is hiring, they don't have to tell you why you weren't hired, and if its a very important, demanding job, the fact that the applicant is a woman would likely be a factor (but not the only one). It cost and risk analysis on part of the employer: we might not like it but it happens, and it'd be foolish to think it didn't.

There is other, more extreme, sexism at the workplace, but mostly confined to jobs normally considered male-dominated. Think of the Wallstreet brokerage firms who still have meetings out in strip clubs. But that doesn't mean all brokerage firms are sexist, nor that all male employees at a sexist firm are in fact sexist. It's a chance women take, but its sad that women actually have to be concerned about it when they enter certain fields. So yes, sexism is still an issue in the modern workplace - just not at all workplaces.

Well, when it comes to intellectual activities, women certainly must be awarded equality. In fact women quite often plain surpass their male counterparts (when I've seen The Apprentice on TV, which isn't often [I disapprove of the values that that programme promotes], it's usually been the women who are doing best)

Nitpick, I guess, but that is actually sociologically discussable. It is not that women are smarter than men, but that either through nature or nurture, woman have an advantage in those scenarios. Women in shows like the Apprentice are given jobs that require interpersonal skills and certain organizational skills. Despite it being highly competitive, they still have to work in teams (either with each other or with others). Women tend to have an advantage there (which is why you see a lot of women in business leading team-oriented projects, or why women lead the field of event-planning).

[Fatigue]

My apologies for the absence, I've been dealing with half a ton of uni work since its near the end of the semester.

This is the strange thing, if there is to be total equality then that would negate the women first rule wouldn't it. You can't have it both ways, if we are all equal then lives are equal as well.

Yeah there was nothing I could say to counter that. As I said, I put it down to instinct etc.

I can't imagine Fatigue's girlfriend was talking about war and blood sport, or construction jobs.

Oh ya, she was. However she had the wisdom to realise that a job in construction would be a dead end for her, which is why we argued so much over the frontline military roles for reasons highlighted by Zenith. I remember she spoke of period and birth pain as examples of women being able to take punishment, endure it, and maybe even being superior to men in that way, but I fail to see how that can make you as 'good' a soldier as man. It’s not as if we don't have to deal with times of medium to extreme physical discomfort during our lives as well. Just because they know its coming and may have dealt with it before doesn't make it any less painful. For example, if you break your arm one month and again the next it’s gonna hurt a lot either way; experience doesn't dull pain. The only thing you can do is conquer it mentally when it happens, and that varies from person to person, not gender. Nonetheless, it is still tricky ground to justify men over women in combat roles without coming off as sexist - since those sorts of reasons don't really cut it anymore.

As for blood sport, how do you think people'd react to watching women beat the **** out of each other with the blokes on the footy field? Not too well I'd assume, for the majority at least. Speaking of such, I wouldn't put fistfights out of reach of women these days; a lot of younger girls seem to be getting much more violent; using it to 'solve' their problems. Acting like guys to be accepted by them perhaps? The feminists would have a hissy fit if that were the case...

Just because now, in our society, we no longer need biologically-tied roles doesn't mean the instincts and mental wiring will disappear overnight.

That's basically what my conclusion was as well; perhaps some things run a little deeper than the conscious mind in this case. She's in the situation, however, where she's dealing with a generally biased society, and so she wants it to change now. I simply said that it’s not gonna happen immediately, and it was a hard pill for her to swallow. I certainly know that if something sucks and you can't change it, it just ****es you off more.

[Denny Crane!]

My apologies for the absence, I've been dealing with half a ton of uni work since its near the end of the semester.

Thats ok its allowed but only for uni so long as you weren't slacking in general

Yeah there was nothing I could say to counter that. As I said, I put it down to instinct etc.

Or more like indoctrination on a basic level. Chivalry is not an instinct, self preservation is. Therefore the idea that women should go first is a belief you, or people in general not specifically you, have been convinced of to the point where it is reactionary not instinctual.

Interesting idea though the thought that it could be nature over nurture, does sexism exist on an inherited behaviour level or not?

One thing I have not done is examined the eastern cultures. I have observed personally a particularly demeaning attitude still towards women amongst the sikh and muslim communities (I am not sure if it is true for hindu - no experience or knowledge). It can be put down to a lack of education as the more westernised the less this is apparent. So is this another base instinct, a reversion to our baser alpha male instincts in the same way that racism is a reversion to our tribal instincts. On the note of other cultures, does chivalry (women and children first) exist there as well. By this I mean would the person that makes his wife walk behind him in public consider his life above hers or vice versa. I suppose this question is relative to the person and the relationship to a high extent.

Oh ya, she was. However she had the wisdom to realise that a job in construction would be a dead end for her, which is why we argued so much over the frontline military roles for reasons highlighted by Zenith. I remember she spoke of period and birth pain as examples of women being able to take punishment, endure it, and maybe even being superior to men in that way, but I fail to see how that can make you as 'good' a soldier as man. It’s not as if we don't have to deal with times of medium to extreme physical discomfort during our lives as well. Just because they know its coming and may have dealt with it before doesn't make it any less painful. For example, if you break your arm one month and again the next it’s gonna hurt a lot either way; experience doesn't dull pain. The only thing you can do is conquer it mentally when it happens, and that varies from person to person, not gender. Nonetheless, it is still tricky ground to justify men over women in combat roles without coming off as sexist - since those sorts of reasons don't really cut it anymore.

Science helps, men are more aggressive and more physically suited to these roles. We are more spatially aware etc. Women have different brain chemistry and physiology making them more suitable for other things. A womens brain is more suited to multitasking, this means they are going to be better genetically at any job that requires multiple focus and prioritisation.

If you need to justify google the science behind it. These are true facts we are built differently in wierd but wonderful ways.

As for blood sport, how do you think people'd react to watching women beat the **** out of each other with the blokes on the footy field? Not too well I'd assume, for the majority at least. Speaking of such, I wouldn't put fistfights out of reach of women these days; a lot of younger girls seem to be getting much more violent; using it to 'solve' their problems. Acting like guys to be accepted by them perhaps? The feminists would have a hissy fit if that were the case...

Well there is a woman in the wallsend area who has taken on some big hard people and put them to shame, these are big experienced men as well (at least one bouncer I know of).

The women who can handle themselves are exceptions to the rule, again the physiological aspect can't be ignored. I am quite knowledgable about fighting and the one thing that is certain in a fight is the first advantage goes to the heaviest tallest person. Chin structure makes a big difference (I should know with my glass jaw) and brain chemistry, all males will know the adrenaline rush: lack of pain and mindless agression that can carry you through an encounter regardless of skill. Other things of course like muscle have an influence, although I tie that in with size. I don't think the structure of the fist can be ignored either. The knuckle bones are going to make a difference.

In conclusion women are not built for certain things but are built for others. Equality can only go so far where there are physiological differences, they must be accepted and understood.

That's basically what my conclusion was as well; perhaps some things run a little deeper than the conscious mind in this case. She's in the situation, however, where she's dealing with a generally biased society, and so she wants it to change now. I simply said that it’s not gonna happen immediately, and it was a hard pill for her to swallow. I certainly know that if something sucks and you can't change it, it just ****es you off more.

Good point, you can't forcibly educate people and there are a lot of dumb people in the world.

Peter

[Fatigue]

Thats ok its allowed but only for uni so long as you weren't slacking in general

Ok I admit, it wasn't all uni work...but who cares about that.

Chivalry is not an instinct, self preservation is. Therefore the idea that women should go first is a belief you, or people in general not specifically you, have been convinced of to the point where it is reactionary not instinctual.

Yeep, my parents were very rigorous in trying to make their rambunctious young man into a good chivalrous gentleman. They seemed to have succeeded in part at least.

we are built differently in wierd but wonderful ways.

So true I'll have to look up that science stuff sometime so she can snort at it.

women are not built for certain things but are built for others. Equality can only go so far where there are physiological differences, they must be accepted and understood.

Agreed, but only time will tell.

Edit: How many women do we have on these boards anyway? And if any are reading this a comment would be interesting.

[Justinian]

Gender equality, men should be able to work at Hooters.

[Søren]

Gender equality, men should be able to work at Hooters.

There are always the cooks.