STOP treating men and women the same!

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

I read an article in the newspaper today about genderblindness in healthcare.
It was a Dutch newspaper but I have found a good English source.

Gender-Blindness
Gender-blindness refers to a failure to identify or acknowledge difference on the basis of gender where it is significant. Gender-blindness occurs at all levels of medical practice and education and is often perpetuated by the convention of the usage of gender neutral language. Linguistically the 'patient' or 'doctor' are neutral whereas the physical person who is the patient or doctor is gendered. The use of neutral language and concepts may in fact obscure the importance of a person's sex or gender in the health and professional development of individuals and in the environmental and structural sense, impedes the achievement of balance and equity.

The pervasiveness of gender-blindness in medical practice and institutions is so extensive that most researchers, educators, practitioners and policy makers are not aware of its existence until the meaning is fully explained and even then, it can be the source of a great deal of confusion and denial. Nobody likes to believe that they have been blinded to the genuine status and needs of patients, students, colleagues and communities by linguistic and social convention and yet many have, and will continue to complete their entire career unaware that it is even occurring. In this sense gender-blindness is much the same as systematic or institutionalised racism; you don't notice it unless it affects you. The systemic pervasiveness of gender-blindness allows it to be perpetuated.

Medical Evidence

Gender-blindness in medical evidence refers to the lack of research, analysis and publication of sex disaggregated data, so no differences between men and women are mentioned. This form of gender-blindness has rested on the assumption that there is no difference between men and women. This perspective is being challenged by emerging evidence. It also refers to the lack of gender-competent problem identification and research design. Important health issues and the experience of them differ between women and men and this is, as yet, rarely integrated into health research.
http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/blindness.html

This is the reason why I oppose 'affirmative action'-policies. Example;

The European Parliament is calling for EU-wide legislation which would require the boards of listed companies to consist of at least 40% female members by 2020.
http://christinebrown-quinn.com/the-female-capitalist/2011/07/08/women-on-boards-eu-calls-for-40-quota/

I support equal treatment of men and women - by the government. Both men and women should have the right to vote, the right to work, the right to erect a company, etcetera. Laws shouldn't force sexes in patriarchal roles. But...
I think that in a society where men and women are free to do what they want, unrestricted by laws or oppressive social conservatism, males and females still won't be equally represented in all fields.

So, a couple of points.
-Men and women are different. Acknowledge it.
-The government should treat men and women equal, unless a very good reason is given. (For example, parental leave should be longer for women than for men. Guess why?)
-Extreme examples of affirmative action like a 40% quota for boards are wrong.

Do you agree?

Men and women are unquestionably different, there is simply no way around that. However men and women are deserving of equal rights and equal protections under the law.

I'm trying to find where in that the problems were mentioned.

The use of neutral language and concepts may in fact obscure the importance of a person's sex or gender in the health and professional development of individuals and in the environmental and structural sense, impedes the achievement of balance and equity.

What is the importance of sex or gender in these instances?

Nobody likes to believe that they have been blinded to the genuine status and needs of patients, students, colleagues and communities by linguistic and social convention and yet many have, and will continue to complete their entire career unaware that it is even occurring.

What are those needs?

And to the last paragraph: What are those important health issues that gender/sex blindness is affecting?

Because the article doesn't seem to provide any example of a negative result of gender blindness. Now, I would agree that those -do- exist, but the article you've brought us doesn't seem half as interested in that as it is in the notion that we should have separate titles for male and female doctors. :/

As for your words Danyal, I don't really disagree but on one point:

The government should treat men and women equal, unless a very good reason is given. (For example, parental leave should be longer for women than for men. Guess why?)

I've read that it can often be the case where the mother is the primary 'bread winner' in a typical heterosexual couple, but however is left with no choice but to either take time off work in order to care for the child, or, hire someone to do so, despite it making far more sense for the father to do so. However, many businesses do -not- take into account paternal leave, because of the antiquated idea that it is -always- the father who brings in the most money and always the mother who must take time off.

GothmogII:

And to the last paragraph: What are those important health issues that gender/sex blindness is affecting?

Have you read the entire article?

Medical Illustrations

Medical texts commonly contain diagrams that show the 'human abdomen' with a testicular artery, if not male genitalia. This is gender neutral language but it is a gendered representation of the human abdomen. Clearly the correct label would be male abdomen or human, with the female difference described.

Honorific Titles and College Memberships

The gendered nature of the language surrounding medicine is exemplified in the debate regarding honorific titles. Historically when a doctor became a surgeon he would revert to the honorific title of Mr and senior doctors within in hospitals referred to as 'Mr' were very rarely mistaken for anything but a surgeon. However the convention for female surgeons is less obvious; do they become Miss, Mrs of Ms or retain the title of Dr? And with these titles they are commonly mistaken for many things, but rarely a surgeon. A similar issue of title was difficult for male nurses for whom the traditional title of 'Sister' was problematic, the nomenclature changed rapidly to accommodate male nurses.

No such change has been made to accommodate the admission of women members to the Learned Colleges (medical professional associations). In Australia , as in much of the rest of the world, members maintain the masculine title of 'Fellow'.

Another problem mentioned in the newspaper is research. Research is often done on male mouses and males. It is assumed that the effects of a certain cure or surgery will be the same on females, while often enough this isn't the case.

Danyal:
Research is often done on male mouses and males. It is assumed that the effects of a certain cure or surgery will be the same on females, while often enough this isn't the case.

Thats an oversight and bad science. But what has that to do with gender politics? Who the hell cares what gender the lab rat is?

GM.Casper:
Who the hell cares what gender the lab rat is?

Well, apparently nobody, because we've been told over and over again that men and women are exactly the same and pointing out differences is evil sexism. But it is important, because diseases, cures and medicine have different results on men and women.

Danyal:
snip

Can you please stop talking, or at the very least go back to one of the many other posts where I have successfully countered your bizarre logic and actually post something.

Gender blindness means conducting research on the premise that the human experience is universal. it says absolutely nothing about why those differences exist. I don't know why you keep grasping at the faintest straw to try and suggest that there's this vast, irreconcilable physical gulf which means that women could never succeed at important jobs as much as men so we shouldn't try to build a more equal society, but like most of your bizarre dictatorial statements it's getting fucking tiresome.

The funniest thing here, beyond how irritating its becoming, is that the concept of gender blindness was invented by gender-critical feminists. I know you've only just discovered it, but I've known about it since sociology A-level.

evilthecat:

Can you please stop talking, or at the very least go back to one of the many other posts where I have successfully countered your bizarre logic and actually post something.

Maybe you should quote these posts because I can't remember any of your 'succesfull counters' of my 'bizarre logic'.

I don't know why you keep grasping at the faintest straw to try and suggest that there's this vast, irreconcilable physical gulf which means that women could never succeed at important jobs as much as men so we shouldn't try to build a more equal society, but like most of your bizarre dictatorial statements it's getting fucking tiresome.

There is a difference between treating everyone equal, and forcing everyone to submit to your delusional ideals.

If there is a huge amount of intelligent, well-educated superb businesswomen, they will create their own companies an be succesfull. Free market economics, you know?

Danyal:
Maybe you should quote this posts because I can't remember any of your 'succesfull counters' of my 'bizarre logic'.

Just a couple of days ago I wrote a full side of A4 explaining exactly what sex is. Can you please not ignore that, it's quite important to understand if you're going to talk about essential sex differences.

Danyal:
There is a difference between treating everyone equal, and forcing everyone to submit to your delusional ideals.

Exactly, please take that on board..

Danyal:
If there is a huge amount of intelligent, well-educated superb businesswomen, they will create their own companies an be succesfull. Free market economics, you know?

See what I mean about delusional ideals.

"If there are a huge amount of intelligent, well educated black people, they will create their own companies and be successful. Therefore, the fact that ghettos still exist demonstrate that black people are thick."

Wherein humans create an idea of 'difference', society makes those differences real and inscribes them on real people. Call it ideology, call it discursive regulation, call it socialization, call it interpolation, call it identity formation. This is basic stuff which comes up in just about every social discipline.

"Free market economics" doesn't correct for these things, certainly not instantly. Free market economics is perfectly capable of reinforcing systemic inequality wherein it serves an economic goal. We do not live in this perfect meritocracy which you seem to think we do, and even if we did there is no telling that people would not still labour under an imagined sense of difference.

After all.. you believe, contrary to all available evidence, that all men and all women are of fundamentally different ability. You believe that women should stay home and raise babies for you, so why shouldn't they believe that to? They've been subject to the exact same rhetoric of Mars and Venus that you have. For that matter, why shouldn't the people you're expecting to hire these intelligent women believe it too, and if they believe it why would they not act on it?

It's only by countering that rhetoric, by replacing it with a more nuanced idea of human difference, that we can ever hope for an equal society. We can only countenance affirmative action because some people, within the much more exciting economy of human ideas as opposed to the "free market", believe it to be a useful tool towards that end.

evilthecat:

Can you please stop talking, or at the very least go back to one of the many other posts where I have successfully countered your bizarre logic and actually post something.

One might smirk at someone who quotes an article from medical research with illustrations of how gender blindness is disadvantageous to women whilst carrying an underlying argument that gender blindness is unfairly disadvantageous to men.

evilthecat:

Just a couple of days ago I wrote a full side of A4 explaining exactly what sex is. Can you please not ignore that, it's quite important to understand if you're going to talk about essential sex differences.

You wrote it, you want me to read it, you should quote it or link to it.

"If there are a huge amount of intelligent, well educated black people, they will create their own companies and be successful. Therefore, the fact that ghettos still exist demonstrate that black people are thick."

Is it a strawman? Is it even relevant?
I also oppose black-people-quota's by the way.

Wherein humans create an idea of 'difference', society makes those differences real and inscribes them on real people. Call it ideology, call it discursive regulation, call it socialization, call it interpolation, call it identity formation. This is basic stuff which comes up in just about every social discipline.

And that's a validation for racism and sexism? 'positive' sexism and racism, but still sexism and racism?

"Free market economics" doesn't correct for these things, certainly not instantly. Free market economics is perfectly capable of reinforcing systemic inequality wherein it serves an economic goal.

If a certain resource is just as good as a more expensive resource, smart businessmen or businesswomen will use this cheaper resources to make their companies more expensive.

After all.. you believe, contrary to all available evidence, that all men and all women are of fundamentally different ability.

Uhm, yes? Males can't give birth to babies for instance.

You believe that women should stay home and raise babies for you, so why shouldn't they believe that to? They've been subject to the exact same rhetoric of Mars and Venus that you have.

Strawman? Where did I say that? I would like to get specific criticism on my OP, and my ideas, not the standard male-bashing feminist rhetoric, thank you.

I'm reading some of these posts and I am confused, are people actually trying to say there is no difference between men and women?

Agema:
One might smirk at someone who quotes an article from medical research with illustrations of how gender blindness is disadvantageous to women whilst carrying an underlying argument that gender blindness is unfairly disadvantageous to men.

Yeah..

Although if you're doing research and taking "maleness" as default it's also likely you're taking whiteness, heterosexuality and an imagined "normative" type of masculinity as default as well, not to mention a particular type of physical body which not everyone will have. I think you can hurt men as well as women by essentializing male experience, it's just easier to see how it affects women.

Agema:

evilthecat:

Can you please stop talking, or at the very least go back to one of the many other posts where I have successfully countered your bizarre logic and actually post something.

One might smirk at someone who quotes an article from medical research with illustrations of how gender blindness is disadvantageous to women whilst carrying an underlying argument that gender blindness is unfairly disadvantageous to men.

Deviating from the truth and basing policies on delusional ideas is disadvantageous for everyone.

evilthecat:

Agema:
One might smirk at someone who quotes an article from medical research with illustrations of how gender blindness is disadvantageous to women whilst carrying an underlying argument that gender blindness is unfairly disadvantageous to men.

Yeah..

Although if you're doing research and taking "maleness" as default it's also likely you're taking whiteness, heterosexuality and an imagined "normative" type of masculinity as default as well, not to mention a particular type of physical body which not everyone will have. I think you can hurt men as well as women by essentializing male experience, it's just easier to see how it affects women.

Oh men and women are different but thats a separate issue from the traditional roles and characteristics that our society has assigned to the two sexes. The actual differences are more biological and also have to do with how men and women think about things and approach certain stimuli in different ways.

Danyal:

GM.Casper:
Who the hell cares what gender the lab rat is?

Well, apparently nobody, because we've been told over and over again that men and women are exactly the same and pointing out differences is evil sexism. But it is important, because diseases, cures and medicine have different results on men and women.

Yes, that's what good science requires. But what has that to do with 'affirmative action'? I see no connection there.
You are making strawmen here. Hiring quotas exist because there is still plenty of racist and sexist people.

I think in some cases we should be "gender-blind" i.e- assuming that in a given situation, male and female differences are not significant. This may apply for when it comes to job applications or when in court. There are many cases where it should be assumed there are no differences between men and women- and i imagine this would apply in many areas (certainly not all) in medical care.

Alternatively, there are many cases where being gender-blind is counter-productive. In neuropsychology it helps to be aware of the physiological differences between male and female brains. In education boys and girl learn differently- girls mature faster and that should be accounted for in education policy making. In advertising it would be foolish to ignore perceived gender differences because you pander to peoples identities.

As for the 40% of board members being women thing...I remember reading an article in the Economist about changing work-place patterns after the economic crisis, and it was saying that, for women who choose to stay on and work full-time the rewards will be great due to the 40% rule and that they can expect quick promotion. I can't help be a bit disgruntled by it though, simply because it will mean perfectly qualified males being overlooked in favour of less qualified women. Of course in many instances there will be more qualified women, and they should therefore be made board members. Ideally that would happen, and boards would be made up on a gender blind basis- if that means that most of the board members being male or female so be it, so long as they were the best candidates. Bosses should be gender blind, but enforcing quotas is the wrong way to go about it.

GM.Casper:

Yes, that's what good science requires. But what has that to do with 'affirmative action'? I see no connection there.
You are making strawmen here. Hiring quotas exist because there is still plenty of racist and sexist people.

It's very simple. Do women and black people get paid less for the exact same work? While they are exactly as efficient?

If not, f*ck affirmative action.
If the answer is yes...

You've got two companies, company X and company Y. They all need resource A and resource B. Resource A is just as good as resource B, and it's cheaper.

What company is going to make the largest profits, grow the most and be the most succesfull
-Company X, who doesn't want to use resource A due to stupid prejudices?
-Or company Y, who always chooses the best ratio price-quality without stupid prejudices?

Nickolai77:
but enforcing quotas is the wrong way to go about it.

Hurray!

Danyal:
You wrote it, you want me to read it, you should quote it or link to it.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.340127-The-spectacular-failure-of-contemporary-liberalism-rant-alert#13764708

Danyal:
Is it a strawman? Is it even relevant?
I also oppose black-people-quota's by the way.

Of course you do. Black people are fundamentally different (and stupid), otherwise the free market would have lifted them all out of poverty already. There's nothing holding them back at all except how stupid they are, so the fact that differences in wealth and influence exist must show that black people have defective brains, not that there are systemic social inequalities.

This is sarcasm.

Danyal:
And that's a validation for racism and sexism? 'positive' sexism and racism, but still sexism and racism?

Racism and sexism refer to the assumption of inherent differences of ability based on race or sex. Assuming that a black person is too dumb to work in the finance sector is racism. Assuming that a man lacks the nurturing instinct to be a full time parent is sexism.

Affirmative action is actually based on the opposite assumption, not that black people or women are inherently better at certain jobs, but that there are no inherent differences preventing them from doing those jobs at equal ability, at least not due to their race or sex. Therefore, any imbalances in the system can be ascribed to circumstantial factors such as institutional racism or systemic disadvantage, not to the innate ability of men vs. women or blacks vs. whites.

It is only "discriminatory" if you assume that employers will always hire people completely meritocratically, without reference to their race or sex, or to the advantages which being of a certain race or sex more readily affords. We know enough to know that that is often wrong.

Call affirmative action what you want (I personally don't particularly like it although I don't think it's the abomination the right wing paints it as) but it's not racist or sexist. It's deeply anti-racist and anti-sexist.

Danyal:
If a certain resource is just as good as a more expensive resource, smart businessmen or businesswomen will use this cheaper resources to make their companies more expensive.

And if a certain resource can be kept cheap through the presumption of difference and the creation of circumstances conducive to exploitation, smart businessmen (because in the cases where AA is considered there really aren't many businesswomen) will do nothing to change that.

Businesspeople are not a brave new class of human standing ahead of the rest of us and regarding our presumptions of difference with a cold, scientific gaze. They're people, generally men, generally white, generally of a particular cultural background. Why do you have this idea that this would not influence them?

Danyal:
Uhm, yes? Males can't give birth to babies for instance.

Some can.

Danyal:
Where did I say that? I would like to get specific criticism on my OP, and my ideas, not the standard male-bashing feminist rhetoric, thank you.

Danyal:
(For example, parental leave should be longer for women than for men. Guess why?)

Because you've never heard of a bottle?

evilthecat:

Danyal:
Uhm, yes? Males can't give birth to babies for instance.

Some can.

No...no they cannot.

evilthecat:

Danyal:
You wrote it, you want me to read it, you should quote it or link to it.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.340127-The-spectacular-failure-of-contemporary-liberalism-rant-alert#13764708

evilthecat:

Chromosomal Sex
Relates to the presence of a Y chromosome.

Gonadal Sex
Relates to the SRY region of the Y chromosome, which determines whether the gonads develop into testes.

Phenotypic Sex
Relates to general trends in the pre-natal production of androgens (the hormones responsible for male physiology). Bear in mind that androgen production varies naturally within the same sex, and since we're talking about multiple interacting hormones it's not even a simple spectrum.

Morphological Sex
The 'end product', the physical configuration of the genitals which causes someone to be assigned male or female (or intersexed) by observation upon birth. This is what goes on your birth certificate.

Gender
Arguably the most important of the lot. Gender is the way in which human sex is socially performed and picked up on through factors like the type of clothes people are expected to wear, the kind of hairstyle they should get, the ways they should behave etc. It is gender that takes the relatively complex and diverse scope of human sexual difference and renders it socially intelligible at a glance, while also homogenizing many of its individual variations.

But most people, at least 80%, do have the same chromosomal, gonodal, phenotypic sex and gender?

Therefore, any imbalances in the system can be ascribed to circumstantial factors such as institutional racism or systemic disadvantage, not to the innate ability of men vs. women or blacks vs. whites.

And there is exactly where you are wrong. You think all differences between the genders are due to stupid stereotypes and the evil patriarchy.

Now look over here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon#World_all-time_top_ten_lists
Only Africans/black people in the Top Ten.
And look at the time difference between males and females. Male #10 is faster than female #1.

Do you think I'm crazy if I argue for affirmative action, and demand 40% females and 40% whites in the top 10?

Oh good Lord not the attempt to separate gender from sex again by changing what gender means. Why are all these debates based on grammar?

Seekster:
No...no they cannot.

Yes they can.

Danyal:
But most people, at least 80%, do have the same chromosomal, gonodal, phenotypic sex and gender?

You've missed the main point.

All these things are based on immensely complicated processes. Unless you are genetically identical to someone, you will not display exactly the same sexual characteristics. It's based on the interaction of a huge number of genetic factors, varying levels of production of many different hormones, varying levels of receptivity to all those hormones and most important what your doctor thinks when you pop out and how you're raised to think of yourself.

There is no point at which you can say "anyone male is X and anyone female is Y" or "anyone with an Y chromosome is X and anyone without is Y". There is an unimaginable degree variation, even before you factor in the fact that altering human sexual characteristics (surgically or hormonally) is routine.

Danyal:
And look at the time difference between males and females. Male #10 is faster than female #1.

I'm going to steadfastly ignore the racial point there, because I hope you God you don't mean it. Just sit and think for a while without making gross generalizations, I'm sure you'll work it out, most people have done.

But really.. so what? Do you think I could run as fast as female #1, even with the same level of training? After all, I'm a man, if there are essential differences then given the same of level of training I must be faster than her, right?

Since we know that many androgens are steroidal and related to muscle production, it makes sense that those with a higher level of androgens can run faster. Heck, if we took the female athletes and injected them with synthetic androgens they'd run faster as well as developing male characteristics like body hair. Unless all men have the same level of and receptivity to androgens, however (and they certainly don't) it doesn't really make a difference. Professional athletes will always be limited to those with an exceptional physical qualities, varying levels of achievement between them doesn't say anything about essential difference.

Danyal:
Do you think I'm crazy if I argue for affirmative action, and demand 40% females and 40% whites in the top 10?

Well, no. It's not really prejudicial, unless you count the fact that women's sport often attracts fewer viewers.

In boxing we categorize people of the same sex based on body weight. It doesn't affect their pay or opportunities (heck, the most famous active boxer in Britain today is light welterweight and a former lightweight).

You've also missed certain key statistics.

* Levels of sporting achievement for both sexes in sport have been constantly increasing for about a hundred years. Did you notice that all of those figures you posted are from the last decade?
* Levels of achievement for women have been increasing faster.

Is that because modern people are inherently better, or is it because sport itself has become better at getting more out of people? What is to say this won't continue?

evilthecat:

Seekster:
No...no they cannot.

Yes they can.

I repeat, no a man cannot get pregnant. Of course a woman who would rather live in society as if she were a man obviously can because she is still biologically a woman. Society can decide whether a person is going to be treated as a man or a woman but biology is what it is and doesnt really care what society thinks.

Seekster:
I repeat, no a man cannot get pregnant. Of course a woman who would rather live in society as if she were a man obviously can because she is still biologically a woman. Society can decide whether a person is going to be treated as a man or a woman but biology is what it is and doesnt really care what society thinks.

You didn't read, did you.

What do you think makes someone "biologically a woman"?

Seekster:
I'm reading some of these posts and I am confused, are people actually trying to say there is no difference between men and women?

No, but there are many areas where the differences are so negligible that distinguishing between the genders serves no purpose.

For example, let's talk about a broken arm. There is no difference in how you treat the two sexes in regards to a broken arm. You still set the arm, immobilize the arm via a cast, and wait. There may be some minor differences, such as a higher chance of anemia in females increasing the healing period, but individual circumstances, male or female, are more likely to modify the procedure than others. Many muscular and cardiovascular diseases also fall into this category, as there's fundamentally very little that makes the difference between the genders notable.

And Danyal, please, for the sake of R&P, take a break from thread creation for about a month. You'll be surprised how much time you suddenly have on your hands.

evilthecat:

Seekster:
No...no they cannot.

Yes they can.

Sigh. Is that guy even male? Also, I am missing the main point? Should the law make no difference between the genders because some very rare men can give birth to babies?

*Women should have a longer parental leave than men, because women give birth to babies and men just watch*
>WELL THIS MAN CAN GIVE BIRTH TO BABIES! F*CK THE LAW!

*Handicapped people should have a special parking place closer to the spot where they have to go, because they have problems moving around.*
>WELL NO THIS MAN IS ACTUALLY FASTER THAN NORMAL PEOPLE AND HE HE'S IN A WHEELCHAIR SO F*CK SPECIAL PARKING PLACES FOR HANDICAPPED PEOPLE!

image

You've missed the main point.

All these things are based on immensely complicated processes. Unless you are genetically identical to someone, you will not display exactly the same sexual characteristics. It's based on the interaction of a huge number of genetic factors, varying levels of production of many different hormones, varying levels of receptivity to all those hormones and most important what your doctor thinks when you pop out and how you're raised to think of yourself.

It's very complicated and we do not fully understand the process and it's influences.
*Gender* is a flawed concept.

And yet you are arguing for affirmative action to fix a problem we don't even understand yet!?

There is no point at which you can say "anyone male is X and anyone female is Y" or "anyone with an Y chromosome is X and anyone without is Y". There is an unimaginable degree variation, even before you factor in the fact that altering human sexual characteristics (surgically or hormonally) is routine.

And there is an unimaginable degree variation between white people and black people. That's why racism doesn't exist.

?!?!

But really.. so what? Do you think I could run as fast as female #1, even with the same level of training? After all, I'm a man, if there are essential differences then given the same of level of training I must be faster than her, right?

Maybe you should sit and think for a while about the differences between 'the individual' and 'a group'. I'm sure you'll work it out, most people have done.

Professional athletes will always be limited to those with an exceptional physical qualities, that doesn't say anything about essential difference.

So the fact that men perform better than women in nearly every physical discipline doesn't say anything about essential differences? It's just a coincident? Just random chance?

Danyal:
Do you think I'm crazy if I argue for affirmative action, and demand 40% females and 40% whites in the top 10?

Well, no. It's not really prejudicial, unless you count the fact that women's sport often attracts fewer viewers.

WHAT?!
WHAT!!!?!
Sigh.
image

That was a list of the people who have finished the marathon in the shortest times.
Due to genetic causes, Africans/black people from a certain region are better than all other races in the marathon. That's why the Top Ten is filled with Africans/black people.
I demanded that BY LAW, 4 white people and 4 women should be in this top ten.
And you don't think that demand is crazy?!

evilthecat:

Seekster:
I repeat, no a man cannot get pregnant. Of course a woman who would rather live in society as if she were a man obviously can because she is still biologically a woman. Society can decide whether a person is going to be treated as a man or a woman but biology is what it is and doesnt really care what society thinks.

You didn't read, did you.

What do you think makes someone "biologically a woman"?

Biology.

What do you think makes parts of society consider a woman a man?

The Gentleman:

Seekster:
I'm reading some of these posts and I am confused, are people actually trying to say there is no difference between men and women?

No, but there are many areas where the differences are so negligible that distinguishing between the genders serves no purpose.

For example, let's talk about a broken arm. There is no difference in how you treat the two sexes in regards to a broken arm. You still set the arm, immobilize the arm via a cast, and wait. There may be some minor differences, such as a higher chance of anemia in females increasing the healing period, but individual circumstances, male or female, are more likely to modify the procedure than others. Many muscular and cardiovascular diseases also fall into this category, as there's fundamentally very little that makes the difference between the genders notable.

And Danyal, please, for the sake of R&P, take a break from thread creation for about a month. You'll be surprised how much time you suddenly have on your hands.

"No, but there are many areas where the differences are so negligible that distinguishing between the genders serves no purpose. "

Agreed but its worth pointing out that the two sexes are different, especially when society tries to delude itself into thinking that men and women are interchangeable and identical in all areas. The two sexes deserve equal rights and equal treatment in nearly all things so yes the differences don't come up much, but they are there.

If we are talking about medicine, I just heard a news report on the radio a few minutes ago about a new study that found its safe to prescribe a certain kind of medication to both men and women. Usually care is taken because the male body and human body can react differently to certain types of medication. Don't ask me about the details of why this is because I don't understand all the little details.

Danyal:

evilthecat:

Seekster:
No...no they cannot.

Yes they can.

Sigh. Is that guy even male? Also, I am missing the main point? Should the law make no difference between the genders because some very rare men can give birth to babies?

*Women should have a longer parental leave than men, because women give birth to babies and men just watch*
>WELL THIS MAN CAN GIVE BIRTH TO BABIES! F*CK THE LAW!

Thomas Bertie, the woman in that picture, is indeed a transgendered woman...er man. Whatever he/she/it calls themselves (not trying to be disrespectful, I am honestly not, I just genuinely do not know what the prefered terminology is). In any case no biological man in history has ever or will ever give birth naturally from a womb. So no there are no exceptions for men who can give birth because there is no such thing as a man who can give birth. A picture of a transgendered woman who looks like a man giving birth is an oddity and a curiosity to be sure but it doesnt change anything.

The problem comes where one assumes that certain traits are not only inherent to a gender, but required and exclusive to that gender. men can be sensitive. Woman can be tough. We all laugh, we all cry, and no one should be treated badly because of it.

Vivace-Vivian:
The problem comes where one assumes that certain traits are not only inherent to a gender, but required and exclusive to that gender. men can be sensitive. Woman can be tough. We all laugh, we all cry, and no one should be treated badly because of it.

Exactly.

Men may tease men for exhibiting traditionally feminine qualities and women may tease other women (I assume) for exhibiting traditionally masculine qualities but you who you are.

And to clarify and earlier post, I understand that gender is no longer a synonym for sex and is now used as a way to refer to masculine and feminine social norms, its just mildly annoying to me that it is used in this way.

Treating someone the same doesn't necessarily mean that you're treating them equally. For instance, if stairs were the only way to get into a public building, then someone with a physical handicap would be treated the same as someone without any handicaps. Is this equal treatment of the two people? No.

And regarding medical/scientific research the majority of it actually does take sex into account, and has recognised this for a long time...otherwise we would see equal public awareness campaigns asking women to check their prostate and balls, and men to check their breasts.

evilthecat:
I don't know why you keep grasping at the faintest straw to try and suggest that there's this vast, irreconcilable physical gulf which means that women could never succeed at important jobs as much as men so we shouldn't try to build a more equal society, but like most of your bizarre dictatorial statements it's getting fucking tiresome.

I don't know why you got the idea that he was implying this from his post.

Danyal:

Deviating from the truth and basing policies on delusional ideas is disadvantageous for everyone.

I'd give a shit about that grandiose garbage if you had a full grasp of the truth. You do not.

This has come up before in several threads, and you refuse to compute what people are suggesting to you.

You just do not comprehend the subtleties that go on in society. People carry around preconceptions, prejudices, and are heavily influenced by society. Everyone does. Some of like to pretend we are oh-so objective and rational, but that is another delusion.

So, for instance, when you say "50% 80% Dutch of Moroccan descent are criminals", what it does is influence people to treat any and all random Dutch Moroccans they meet as criminals. That then goes on to influence how Dutch Moroccans behave in turn. When you say "Fewer women have high intelligence than men" it can be interpreted by many in different ways, such as "This woman job candidate is probably more stupid than the man". Or "Women are more stupid than men" generally. Or "Women should not be in positions of power and authority." Thus people may be inclined lower their expectations of women; they dissuade women from their aspirations; individual women find their ambitions more daunting; women lack role models to inspire them; and so on.

Or take Evilthecat's comment on what you're saying means about blacks. Surely what you're saying does imply they are inherently inferior if they have an average lower wage and greater social problems despite their equality and freedom. Or, perhaps, is something else going on? For instance: studies were carried out in the USA where they sent identical resumes to firms but with stereotypically white or black names. The stereotypically black names had a considerably higher rejection rate than the white.

So we (i.e. humanity) know this sort of shit goes down as an undercurrent in society. That's why many of these policies - some better, some worse - have come into existence. And you sit there in blissful ignorance saying it all doesn't matter because actually women are less capable at the higher end, so clearly there can't actually be a problem and nothing need be done.

As it happens, I don't personally agree with 'affirmative action' quotas such as mentioned. But your argument against them illustrates no understanding whatsoever of why they were thought up. It's not about whether X are or are not intrinsically capable of certain roles, but whether society acts to inhibit those of group X who are capable of those roles from doing them. Because you do not recognise any such problems exist, you have no answers to prevent them in society. Your TRUTH is incomplete and irrelevant.

Seekster:
Biology.

Which biology?

Danyal:
Sigh. Is that guy even male? Also, I am missing the main point? Should the law make no difference between the genders because some very rare men can give birth to babies?

And you have the balls to claim you're not narrow minded or homophobic?

Seriously, fuck off.

Danyal:
It's very complicated and we do not fully understand the process and it's influences.
*Gender* is a flawed concept.

I get that you don't understand the difference between sex and gender, but:

1) What is understood about human sex, and that's actually quite a lot, doesn't agree with you. We don't need to necessarily understand the precise genetic variables which influence hormone production to understand that there are multiple variables operating.
2) Gender is actually pretty well understood, we can observe it in action.

Go out in a dress and a wig if you don't believe me.

Danyal:
And yet you are arguing for affirmative action to fix a problem we don't even understand yet!?

Well.. not really, I just don't think it's the worst thing in the world and a abomination of natural law in the same way you seem to.

That and I'd rather like you to consider the implactions of your arguments extremely fucking carefully.

Danyal:
And there is an unimaginable degree variation between white people and black people. That's why racism doesn't exist.

Don't you mean "between different black people". That was the point.

Yes, there is. There's more genetic diversity among black Africans than between Sami people in Norway and Maoris in New Zealand. Anyone who suggests that black people have essential characteristics is an idiot.

Danyal:
Maybe you should sit and think for a while about the differences between 'the individual' and 'a group'. I'm sure you'll work it out, most people have done.

Maybe you should sit and think for a while about the differences between "generalizations" and "essential rules". I'm sure you'll work it out.

Danyal:
So the fact that men perform better than women in nearly every physical discipline doesn't say anything about essential differences?

No, because you're talking about a tiny number of men. There are perhaps 300 or 400 men in the entire male population of 3.5 billion who can run a marathon faster than Paula Radcliffe. If every man could do it it, then you'd have a case for it being an essential rule, but they can't.

If you're saying that better physical performance is an essential component of being a man, then where does that leave those of us who can't run a marathon that fast? Should we not be considered men at all because we lack the correct hormonal background to build a physique capable of running 24 miles in 2 hours and 15 minutes? Are we going to be considered to be of a different sex to those who can do that? Or are we going to accept that levels of physical ability vary within the same sex according to, on top of numerous other facts, differing levels of androgen production and receptivity.

There's a case for saying that as a broad generalization physical ability will be slightly different between "average" representatives of the sexes, just as androgen production will be different between "average" representatives of the sexes. This says absolutely nothing about essential ability differences between men and women, there are many women who could beat the average man in a race.

What you're saying is that there are essential differences and they deserve to be acknowledged. That's bollocks.

Danyal:
Due to genetic causes, Africans/black people from a certain region are better than all other races in the marathon. That's why the Top Ten is filled with Africans/black people.

Allow me to restate:

There's more genetic diversity among black Africans than between Sami people in Norway and Maoris in New Zealand. Anyone who suggests that black people have essential characteristics is an idiot.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked