The debate "Women arent equal to men" was started by
August 28, 2016, 10:56 pm.
33 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 63 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
thereal posted 7 arguments, historybuff posted 4 arguments, Vayney333 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
dalton7532 posted 6 arguments, fadi posted 3 arguments, blakelovesjesus posted 11 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 13 arguments to the disagreers part.
Mohit050, Najam1, thereal, Logic, phantrash55, Vayney333, TheDebator9000 and 26 visitors agree.
dalton7532, floridaedgar, NotoriousBishop, TheProudWeirdo, north, Gaurangi, blakelovesjesus, neha_22a, Nemiroff, fadi, Isabel, armygirl44, sabrina, mafiajo, scrumnug, historybuff, grant1998, harshita, Rajat, CheifAnshuman, raghav and 42 visitors disagree.
Women were never equal men. That would also mean that men were also never equal to women. Men have certain qualities that women don't have and vice versa.
I am not talking about faith. I'm talking about history....
what does the treatment of women in medieval times have to do with faith?
what does you injecting "women shouldn't get everything they want" when no one brought up anything in any way even remotely related to that, have to do with faith?
what does any of this have to do with faith? what are you even talking about?
Have you no faith?
what the hell does the treatment of women in the distant past have to do with modern feminists? your accusation is completely senseless. and no one said they should get everything they want....
if you make up random shit you can pretend any side looks stupid but your only making yourself look stupid.
and in what way were women in medieval Europe allowed equal freedoms to men?
First off, if you go back to the medieval era women had freedom, secondly, I said Chriatians aren't sexist now. Jesus didn't approve of it then and doesn't now, and just because women don't get everything they want doesn't make the other person sexist.
That is what's wrong with the feminist movement, it's a complete over exaggeration.
every culture has been sexist. we're women allowed to become priests? were women allowed to work? own land? etc?
name a Christian culture that allowed women any freedom before the modern secular era?
I know Chriatians aren't sexist, is that what your telling me?
what culture wasn't sexist? that is not a Christian phenomena.
historybuff, what montra are you carrying around that makes you so against Jesus
The problem is that Christianity has created and supported the same sexist cultural influences we are fighting to be rid of. How many female Catholic priests are there? Women have traditionally been regarded as lesser in Abrahamic religions. Some denominations have moved away from that to some extent, but it is still visible in the majority.
Christianity will be a part of our culture for as long as there is a large portion of Christians in our society. there is nothing wrong with that.
it is our laws that should remain secular and separate from religion.
yes, they are like w cancerous tumor we are excising. it takes time but we will get Christianity out of our lives.
They have a direct effect on our society
Yea they do.
but since we live in a secular society, religious views have no bearing on our laws or culture.
It's complete my relevant for those who trust in the truth.
that is a nice thought, but ultimately irrelevant for those still living in this world.
What else is there to say? We live in a society that doesn't make us equal, but we all are in God's image.
it's not so much that you are blatantly sexist. you are traditional, and you cite traditional norms, some of which need changing. if you compare the representation of women in liberal states vs more traditional states, you will see that the division is very much social and not something natural.
if it was natural, the rate of women leaders would be universal. the same comparison can be made of foreign nations as well. more progressive nations have far more female representatives, while traditional cultures are almost none.
testosterone has to do with aggression not ambition. and competitiveness is not always ideal. sure the willingness to undercut and step over your fellow coworkers may increase your chances of getting a leadership role, but is the willingness to screw fellow co-workers really better for the company and what we should promote in our leadership? especially when it comes to public office.
maybe if Congress had less competitiveness and more cooperation in it it might actually get some work done. female Congress people have a record of reaching across the aisle more often than their male counterparts.
all you really described is that they are not as aggressive in pursuit of promotion at all costs, but just cause they aren't willing to step on their coworkers backs to get up one step on the ladder does not mean they don't want the job. I would love a billion dollars. I am not willing to kill a friend for that money. and if someone is, I would not want them in charge. more likely they belong in jail.
I was watching Milo when I came to this conclusion. With a quick internet search, a Harvard study relatively confirmed what I have just said.
"Other scholars believe the gender imbalance exists primarily due to innate differences in men’s and women’s perceptions, decisions, and behaviors. For example, research has found that men are more likely than women to engage in dominant or aggressive behaviors, to initiate negotiations, and to self-select into competitive environments — behaviors likely to facilitate professional advancement."
"men and women have different preferences when it comes to achieving high-level positions in the workplace. More specifically, the life goals and outcomes that men and women associate with professional advancement are different.”"
To prove the point that the first scholars made and to discredit the other scholars views. I am going to to quote a science article on testosterone. "Testosterone is a sex hormone, which is more present in males than females, and affects development and behavior both before and after birth....Testosterone can cause typically male behaviors such as aggression, competitiveness, visio-spatial abilities, higher sexual drive etc."
The point I am trying to make is only science. You guys keep accusing me of sexism, and I have no idea why. Women can be leaders too, but there will always be far more men because of our genetic make-up. It is completely natural what I am stating. Do you understand?
so now Hillary is someone who speaks up instead of being a nagging bitch? quite the flip flop dalton.
however, what is it in their nature that makes them not want to be leaders? not want to have prestige or higher pay? is it their lower muscle mass? your argument makes no sense and is based solely on stereotypes drawn into our culture that not long ago wouldn't let women have any meaningful work.
I'm sorry if I come across naggy for disagreeing without your ludicrous misconception that women want to have lesser jobs, but I'm not buying that.
I've always said, if you want to learn about the problem of a group, ask the group, not your own group. and according to this website, what you just declared as an "obvious fact" they dubbed as "myth #1"
Women are biologically different than men and they choose to take different roles in society for the most part. When they have all the choices in the world, they still mostly choose the same role and act the same way as they would if they didn't have rights. I never said a women cannot be a leader. They most certainly can if they want to be, but alot of them won't choose to be unlike men. Is this logic too hard for you to understand? It is in our nature, not culture! Quit stereotyping me. I will say this again so you can understand. Women can be leaders if they want, but the lack of women in politics can be attributed to our nature. There is a difference between a nagging bitch and a person who speaks up. Warren is a nagging bitch while Hillary Clinton is someone who speaks up. I hate them both, but lets be honest. Do you want a male nagging bitch so you won't call me sexist? You!
Everyone is equal, in God's eyes
just because you assume something does not make it true.
when a women speaks up she's considered a nagging bitch, even from young classroom days. that quickly shuts them up and teaches them to be quiet.
that is society, not their choice. just look at the differences in how the right reacts to a yelling Hillary vs a yelling trump.
he is showing leadership, she is being shrilly. it's called the double standard and all you do is prove it's existence.
it already has. equality is the law. it just takes time for troglodytes, such as yourself, to catch up.
i'll never happen
men has autority on the women and it'll never change
dalton you just wonderfully illustrated how sexism is alive and well. you assume women are passive and men are leaders that is sexist. the reason that may have been true historically is that our patriarchal society told women it was true. they were told that women should be seen not heard. that they should always be polite. they shouldn't vote or own land.
that is the culture we come from. and while we have repealed those laws society, as you just showed us, still treats them like that. so the problem isn't that the law discriminates against them anymore, it's that people like you do.
It does not mean it is sexism though or inequality period. Everything does not have to be 50 percent men and 50 percent women. Women dominate things and Men dominate other things. Women and Men are biologically different, and they choose different careers than others. Men tend to want to be leaders and the head of everything as alot of women tend to be more passive. That has alot to do with it.
except for representation in public office and top executives
In this American society, gender equality is a bunch of shit. Sexism does not even exist. Outspoken women make it seem more prevalent than men, but it is a bunch of shit. Fuck gender inequality. It is already there. Women are not disadvantaged in today's society. They are the best treated class of citizens in America.
Why wouldn't they be the same. God created us all to be equal. It says that in the Bible,
yes, the bible says all men were created equal. everybody believes men and women are equal. even i do. but my concept of equality is different to your pathetic feminist one. my definition of equality is that theyre equal in value and importance. but by your pathetic feminist definition, men and women arent equal since they believe men and women are the same. which theyre not.
all men and women were created equal, yes.
What more to say is that the Bible says people were created in God's image, and all men are created equal according to lots of leaders
wasn't political correctness all about not limiting our words? now the right attacks the mere existence of words, the next step up from demanding specific speech.
I guess the right is now the champions of political correctness after successfully perverting it.
So nothing that is statistically average should have a name? That seems like pretty a pretty poor way to try to define things.
so if the term matriarchy exists, why would you not have a term for the opposite. that is just silly.
nemiroff, and you are a retard. matriarchy should exist as a term because, atleast in human societies, it is unnatural. therefore delegating a seperate term for it would be logical. just like the term heterosexual shouldnt exist (as it is normal) but the term homosexual should exist because it is unnatural.
it's an ordinary term. matriarchy also is a term that exists.... it's a simple definition meant to define the way different societies are structured.
you are really ignorant.
"enemies of women"*
patriarchy is imaginary, the term shouldnt even exist. the terms was invented to make men seem like the enemies of men. thats why a bunch of you pricks live with single mothers. the terms shouldnt exist, it should just be called natural order of society or something.
you just said the Bible says men should be in charge and then said that patriarchy is imaginary. do you even understand the words you are using because those two sentences are completely contradictory.
there you go again historybluff, rambling about your imaginary patriarchy and shit.
no you are wrong men and women were created equal in the image of god with each of them having his role but to say that a man is superior over women is against the will of my god
there is a reason the Bible says that. it is because it was written by men in a patriarchal society. they certainly weren't going to make up a religion where women are in charge.
fadi. no. just no. women arent equal to men. dont be stupid. theres a reason in the bible god appointed the man as the head of the family. and its not because the woman would be better at the job than him. smh.
We are all created in God's image, so fact in saying we aren't equal is unrelateable to the fact of God's creation
men and women are equal actually if given the opportunity women become even better than men
define equal thereal
men and women have equal rights but pgysically theyre not equal. they will always be physically weaker.
I do not now if this is reffering to the subject of women's rights or the physical make up of that particular gender. If it is the subject of women's rights, women are not equal in some aspects compared to men, but men have alot of disadvantages and equality issues in society compared to women too. The biggest problem on the men's side is that it is ignored and overshadowed even though the problem in some areas is greater on the male side. On the physical makeup side, men are stronger physically by far and this is fact. Women are not equal to men in that regard and never will be.