Are men and women really 'equal'?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Are men and women really equal? this topic is tied in with a number of other topics and is pretty vast, but lets for now focus on the idea that men and women are equal and what does equality mean? as there are a number of viewpoints on this I don't need to list them, and I think it better if people go into this subject less prepared and hopefully we'll see some more interesting debate than the standard points. I will however post with this topic this provocative piece by Peter Hitchens who argues against the notion of equality and against the concept of men and women being 'equal' -

Should Men Hold Doors open for Women?

Once again, it is the topic I gave least space to that seems to have attracted most intense interest here and elsewhere – the custom of men opening doors for, and giving up their seats to women.

I am told : ‘When you give up a seat for a woman, then what you are saying to her is that she is a flake who needs coddling. Do not pretend that you are doing anything else than demeaning her, because you are not. It is an insult. If you can't see that, you are stupid.’

Well, I may be stupid. Others can judge that. But here is why I think this opinion is mistaken. Chivalry, or gentlemanliness, has been the unintended victim of the militant feminist revolution. The sexual revolutionaries thought that, if they destroyed what they thought were the rules of ‘patriarchy, and the ‘stifling’ moral codes of Christianity, they would begin a Brave New World in which the sexes were entirely equal and dealt with each other on equal terms.

But it was not so. My fellow York graduate Linda Grant (with whom I shall be discussing the issue in Bristol on May 19th) writes in the Guardian today of how, in the early years of this great enlightenment, she was variously mauled, molested and date-raped (her term) during the 1970s.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...e-of-the-1970s

Well, this is disgusting to me. But I happen to think that the older morality was a far better protection against it than anything we now have. The truth is that the demolition of the old relationship could only be replaced by elaborate codes (such as the Antioch College one I discussed here (http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....pe-of-rea.html)

in one of my doomed attempts to hold a rational debate about the issue of rape, which I no longer discuss because nobody listens to a word you say).

It can also only be replaced by the criminal law, which, where you have a presumption of innocence, is incredibly hard to employ when there are only two witnesses to an event, and they conflict.

Neither arrangement is perfect. The old system of lifelong marriage, and sexual activity outside marriage much frowned on, unquestionably has its drawbacks. Who could deny it? But I am not a utopian. I think women have paid a very high price for their supposed ‘liberation’ from marriage . This seems to me to have been an enslavement to commerce, toil and the state, not to mention to plastic surgery and the cosmetics industry.

As for opening doors, giving up seats and all the other things which I try to do as a matter of course , and curse myself when I fail to do so, these are much more about what I regard as the principles of chivalry , which are:

Give way to, and be generous to those who you have the power to hurt, shove aside or belittle. In any contest of equals, in a doorway, in a narrow corridor, on a road, or for any other thing, be the one who gives way, as an acknowledgement that your neighbour is at least as valuable as you.

Stand up to those who have the power or ability to hurt you. This is the corollary of the above, and part of it. The one who holds open the door is, I suspect, more likely to be the person who comes to the aid of the threatened victim. This is not because he (or she) is a better person, but because he or she has trained himself or herself to be concerned with the lives of others.

The giving up of seats the opening of doors, the friendly greeting to strangers, are all constant reminders to yourself that we are all fellow-passengers on the journey to the grave, none superior to the other. Anyone can reject these offers if he or she wishes.

The main gist of the Hitchens argument (and in other pieces I have read and watched) is that men and women actually are different and therefore the idea that they are 'equal' is ridiculous - hence why we don't have unisex toilets, why certain jobs appeal more to certain sexes and so on. Divisive stuff, so debate away! I will provide more of his writings (and more precise ones) on this subject if anybody requests, but I cannot find any at the moment.

There are plenty of nifty prizes to be won within this forum. Positive contributions towards official debates will sometimes be rewarded with a month's VIP subscription in a colour of your choice as part of the Top Contributor award. As well as this, reputation will be awarded throughout the debate to those who make valid and constructive posts. Those who make the best contributions within a month win the Debater of the Month award and wins themselves a month's worth of forum VIP and 10 reputation points. Finally, those who create debate topics that generate a lot of buzz and engaging discussion will receive 20 reputation points.

The debate is open to you.

[Kardan]

I suppose I will post a more in-depth answer later, but for now I reckon its safe to say that men and women are not equal, and even though things have been changing for the better recently, they will never be equal. Whether we need that or not, who knows? Will reply more later...

[Aiden]

I don't really think so, I only skimmed through the text but for the actual question no... I think both have different rights which are both good and both. For example:

If a women and man argue and fight, the women would have a lower sentence if it went to court due to her gender even if both had the same amount of pain and injuries... (This is what I would guess anyways)

Plus, if a man and women went to court for care of a child... the chances are the Mother would get the child even if both partners could offer the same life! :/

But, in business... a man would get taken more seriously due to his gender which isn't fair. None of the above are fair in anyway, and none are equal. I'm sure there's many more examples of how men and women aren't equal. :/

[FlyingJesus]

Politically, no.
Legally, no.
Societally, no.
Economically, no.

But then the same can also be said of just about any two individuals you could pick out of the world. Total equality can only exist if the entire human population is made of clones who've been conditioned in the same way and have the exact same memories and experiences.

[mrwoooooooo]

Yes they are, anyone who thinks they aren't is stupid.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

[sexpot]

^ you're stupid for not knowing what goes on in society..

[mrwoooooooo]

^ you're stupid for not knowing what goes on in society..

Please enlighten me as to what goes on in society, as I am obviously oblivious to them in my sheltered life :rolleyes:

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

[Adam]

Women are now more equal than men.

[GommeInc]

They're not, and there is perfectly good reason too. If men and women were treated as equals, there is no doubt going to be inequality leaking through the seams as no human being in the grand scheme of things is ever the same as another.

A small example: Biologically men and women are different, football and rugby are not mixed, and men and women do not compete in boxing against each other. The only time you get mixed sports are when you meet a quota of x amount of women against x amount of men.

You get the wider debate of all men are different and all women are different, creating greater diversity beyond the "men and women" equality debate. FlyingJesus pretty much answered this, and that is simply that in order for equality to exist between women and men you'd have to remove gender and we would all have to be clones that are genetically the same. What makes people human are their differences, and for total equality to exist you're snipping away at any change and just creating greater inequality than what you had originally been faced with.

The legal side is quite interesting, particularly maternal and paternal leave, as this seems to be forcing leave again based on a criteria of x amount of weeks for men and x amount for women. Some men make for better carers than their mothers, and the mothers may want to jump straight back into work which some companies may allow, but many do not despite the woman, the mother, wanting to go straight back to work because the father is more than capable. This works vice versa, with men not allow to have more than a certain amount than the woman. It in a way discriminates both the mother and the father with this idea of "ordinary" children care, where you must bring up children in what is seen as ordinary, but not necessarily useful for the circumstances the family are in. I believe the law is trying to make it so there is no such thing as maternal or paternal leave, but a set amount of time either parent can have off, and the parents need only decide between themselves who has x amount of weeks off. It is a bit hazy, but a work in progress which may be beneficial as it cuts out the gender boundaries.

An interesting debate none the less.

Please enlighten me as to what goes on in society, as I am obviously oblivious to them in my sheltered life :rolleyes:

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

One example I think of which is culture related is when a man cheats on his girlfriend he isn't particularly treated as evil (not verbally at least) yet when a woman does there is a long list of words you can use to describe her. Men do not seem to have as many derogatory words as women. An odd observation, but something at least.

I can see why you may think they are equal, it's very difficult to see where women and men are treated differently in such a way that it's unfair.

[mrwoooooooo]

They're not, and there is perfectly good reason too. If men and women were treated as equals, there is no doubt going to be inequality leaking through the seams as no human being in the grand scheme of things is ever the same as another.

A small example: Biologically men and women are different, football and rugby are not mixed, and men and women do not compete in boxing against each other. The only time you get mixed sports are when you meet a quota of x amount of women against x amount of men.

You get the wider debate of all men are different and all women are different, creating greater diversity beyond the "men and women" equality debate. FlyingJesus pretty much answered this, and that is simply that in order for equality to exist between women and men you'd have to remove gender and we would all have to be clones that are genetically the same. What makes people human are their differences, and for total equality to exist you're snipping away at any change and just creating greater inequality than what you had originally been faced with.

The legal side is quite interesting, particularly maternal and paternal leave, as this seems to be forcing leave again based on a criteria of x amount of weeks for men and x amount for women. Some men make for better carers than their mothers, and the mothers may want to jump straight back into work which some companies may allow, but many do not despite the woman, the mother, wanting to go straight back to work because the father is more than capable. This works vice versa, with men not allow to have more than a certain amount than the woman. It in a way discriminates both the mother and the father with this idea of "ordinary" children care, where you must bring up children in what is seen as ordinary, but not necessarily useful for the circumstances the family are in. I believe the law is trying to make it so there is no such thing as maternal or paternal leave, but a set amount of time either parent can have off, and the parents need only decide between themselves who has x amount of weeks off. It is a bit hazy, but a work in progress which may be beneficial as it cuts out the gender boundaries.

An interesting debate none the less.


One example I think of which is culture related is when a man cheats on his girlfriend he isn't particularly treated as evil (not verbally at least) yet when a woman does there is a long list of words you can use to describe her. Men do not seem to have as many derogatory words as women. An odd observation, but something at least.

I can see why you may think they are equal, it's very difficult to see where women and men are treated differently in such a way that it's unfair.

You gave one example for why each gender gets unequal treatment, making them equal imo :p

And I could come up with plenty of derogatory words for a woman who cheats on their partner.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2