Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Just to show balance, this is also extremely important.
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited February 2015
@karasti said:
I was just thinking about this last night. We always talk about how "if women want to compete with men, they have to prove they are equals to men." What if we also included that men needed to work more towards being more like women? How would that go over? You (generally speaking) want us to prove we are as strong, as fast, as tough as you. Maybe men should have to work to be more emotional, more open, more communicative. Maybe instead of insisting women need to meet met at the top of their game, we should be better about meeting in the middle.
I struggle a lot with this as I come from a more traditional culture. I desperately want to be a "real man" but in reality I fall apart regularly. I am blessed to have a wife who doesn't have as high expectations of my "manliness" as I do.
There's so much societal conditioning to see through, in this regard and in others....
What would it take for folks to evolve beyond their adversarial conditioning's enough to find a sense of value unrelated to their comparisons to others.
@karasti said:
I was just thinking about this last night. We always talk about how "if women want to compete with men, they have to prove they are equals to men." What if we also included that men needed to work more towards being more like women? How would that go over? You (generally speaking) want us to prove we are as strong, as fast, as tough as you. Maybe men should have to work to be more emotional, more open, more communicative. Maybe instead of insisting women need to meet men at the top of their game, we should be better about meeting in the middle.
Actually, @Karasti, I don't usually hear that anymore (that women have to prove stuff)...maybe back in the original days of women's lib, but not so much any more.
And I agree with you, men should be more emotional, more open, more communicative. But don't you think if you compared men to today to men in (let's say) the 1950s that you would find that to be somewhat true (at least in general)?
The only gripe I ever had was a woman saying they wanted "equal" competition, but then not playing "equal". For example, when I used to play golf, if I played with women they always wanted to start at the forward tee, and have the men start at the back tee. That's not equal. At school when we would have a school track meet, why did there have to be boy's 100 yard dash and girl's 100 yard dash. Why not just a 100 yard dash?
And it's not because I want to win, because the women I played golf with were better golfers than I. The women I play cards with are better at it than I. The women I used to bowl with were better bowlers than I.
I think that the belief in that, @vinlyn, is that is how you DO make it equal and fair. That by biology alone, men and women have differences that are undeniable (for the vast majority of the populations) and that bringing those differences is what makes it fair. I don't know if I agree with it or not, I don't know enough about it. When you compare the fastest man and the fastest woman in the recorded world, they are almost a full second different (in a race where they time at 9.58 (Usain Bolt) and 10.49 (Florence Griffith-Joyner), that's significant), what else can explain it? The woman is lighter and should be able to run faster, but biological differences alone cause her to be slower. So would a race between the 2 of them truly be equal, knowing the biology isn't equal, if they started at the same place? not really, so in that way I understand that reasoning. I don't think in all cases that seeking equality means identical. It means more a "fair chance."
That's exactly what I am talking about. If a woman wanted to play, say, baseball with the men, and it was possible, she'd be expected to make the same grade as the men. And that would even be understandable. But the men would be expected to do nothing to match her prowess that comes in a different area. If that makes sense. She'd have to prove she was good enough to play with the men, but they'd never have to prove they were good enough to play with her based on HER strengths.
If you think women no longer have to prove themselves in that way, I think you are wrong. The same as 50 years ago, no. But we STILL don't often get equal pay for equal work even in many cases. If you want to attempt to be a female and excel in particular fields, you still have to fight that you deserve a spot as much as a man does. It still happens way more than it should.
The way you explain it, @Karasti, makes sense to me except that the word "equal" does not equal "fair" (as you indicate). And perhaps that's been the focal point of the national argument.
But let's take it a step further. In my schools we always had a shop course and a home economics course (although in today's education they are rarely given those titles). Let's face it, generally speaking boys had more of an aptitude for shop and girls had more of an aptitude (or perhaps I should say experience in) for home economics. So, should we have graded boys in home ec on a curve, and girls in shop on a curve? Blacks tend to dominate some sports. Should we give Whites extra points in, say, basketball games to make up for the difference? You see, what I'm really asking -- by giving some examples that I think are ridiculous -- is: is equality the be all and end all in everything?
**Now, when it comes to equal pay for equal work, I totally agree with you, and I want to see the proposed federal law passed. ** A woman principal ought to earn exactly the same as a male principal (or a teacher, etc.). And, in my district they did.
Up until my time as principal, almost every administrator in my school's history had been a man. I hired about 50/50. Now, the female principal who replaced me upon my retirement has a 100% female administration, a 100% female guidance department, and a 90% female department chair group. Hey...what happened to equality?
Our custodial staff was usually about 50/50 male/female. The female principal (the first) who preceded me would sometimes call for a custodian to dust. She always said, "Call one of the female custodians to dust my office." If a truck came in with supplies (e.g. cases of paper), she would say, "Call one of the male custodians to unload the paper." Hey, what happened to equality. And yes, male and female custodians were paid on the same scale.
It just seems to me that the equality principle is sometimes a matter of convenience.
@vinlyn said:
You know, this is an interesting topic to discuss when high emotions can be left out of it.
Typical man. Where is the fun in that?
. . . well OK you are right . . .
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I think we need to evaluate the term 'equal' and distinguish its validity when speaking on a psychological level, as opposed to a physical level.
There are some women who would, shall we say for arguments sake, love to be a Fireman.
However, physique, stamina and strength may bar her from that opportunity.
It would bar an awful lot of men, as well.
There are some men who might benefit and find real advantage in pursuing a balletic career, but their physique puts this vocation out of the question.
There are many woman who as little girls might have dreamt of being Prima Ballerinas. But, oh dear... not with those hips, darling...
So when it comes to the physical, one has to evaluate many different aspects of practicality.
My husband and I were discussing the 'unfairness' of tennis tournaments, where women have but three sets to play but men must go to 5.
This has been an established format for goodness-knows how long, but many people think the format should be changed. Both Martina Navratilova AND andy Murray find the system to be unfair; the former believes men should be permitted to play 3 sets, and limit the final to 5. The latter believes women can and should play 5 sets, as the men do.
Looking at Serena Williams, I think his is a valid call....
Psychologically, of course, women and men are different. I don't think anyone can deny this.
However, it depends on what levels and in which ways Psychology is interpreted...
It's all a bit of a challenge, isn't it?
And talking of physique, whenever I see videos on YouTube or FB regarding any incidents involving the Police (be they serious or comical) I never cease to be amazed at how out of condition and overweight some Police officers are! Isn't there some fitness standard they have to achieve? I'm not talking provenance here, I am not distinguishing nationalities (although more often than not, I see American and/or British Police involvement) but seriously people - you're police officers - criminals can and do outrun you with no problems!!
2
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@SpinyNorman said:
Well I am working on my feminine side.
How many rows do you have stitched?
3
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
I think we need to evaluate the term 'equal' and distinguish its validity when speaking on a psychological level, as opposed to a physical level.
When I was reading @Vinlyn's and @Karasti's posts I thought of this same thing. Equality being sought for men and women is a specific 'kind' of equality. When it comes to physical and even brain differences, there's comparisons but 'equality' is pretty abstract. Equally . . . what, equally valuable, worthwhile, respect-worthy, useful, pertinent, necessary and so on? That's the specifics, as I see it so far, that the request for equality intends.
Men demanding women to 'do it just like them' is NOT a relevant response to women's request for equality at all. It's a straw man easily demolished with a flexed bicep .
There's so many attitudes that we all harbor deep down that remain unquestioned. If a woman can ONLY be 'equal' if she can run a mile as fast as a man, for instance, that is evidence of an assumption that to be equal, men's athletic ability is a standard or bar. I don't think anyone would agree that this is the case. So we end up using the word 'equality' and meaning slightly different things.
And women have done themselves no favors by harboring the same deeply entrenched attitudes as they accuse men of having, and battling for 'equality' in physical sports. They are only agreeing with the status quo they seek to change and in the effort damage their credibility. What woman wants to play pro football with MEN anyway
Maybe what we can agree on is 'equality' as a description of 'worth'. Someone will come up with a better word than 'worth', I hope.
@federica, lol, I think the same thing about cops. They pass fitness tests (here in the US) when they do their certification...and that's it. They do not have to maintain it like military does, and I think they should. It's shameful that people we depend on to react quickly can barely get out of their cop cars.
I think what it seems to me is that women are still sometimes (and in some areas, often) treated as lesser because we can't do all the same things men do and we are judged as such. But men are rarely called out (except by their wives, lol) for the things they do not do well that we do. There is little value placed on what we can do, only what we cannot. Perhaps a woman fire fighter cannot lift 250 pound person like a man might be able to. But maybe she has skills the man doesn't to get scared children to come out of their hiding places. Maybe a woman doesn't have the physical power to carry a riot shield and wrestle a drug-crazy criminal to the ground to be on the SWAT team, but she'd probably excel at negotiation. Both skills are valuable yet the programs usually only consider the former.
It's quite interesting to look at more tribal cultures where that is not the case, where women are revered simply because we are the only people who can bring forth another human, lol. I think men and women should both be revered for their strengths, whatever they happen to be. But our culture tends to not find value in what women can offer as much as what men can offer. Where does that come from? Why the vast comparison of an entire 50% of the population to determine they are lesser? I've always been curious where it stems from. Religion seems to play a part in it, as so many religious texts specify women to obey their husbands and so on. But is that the only place?
Comments
Well I am working on my feminine side.
EX-Actly.
I struggle a lot with this as I come from a more traditional culture. I desperately want to be a "real man" but in reality I fall apart regularly. I am blessed to have a wife who doesn't have as high expectations of my "manliness" as I do.
There's so much societal conditioning to see through, in this regard and in others....
Anyone watch the show Mad Men? My girlfriend and I stopped watching because the characters were absolutely disgusting.
What would it take for folks to evolve beyond their adversarial conditioning's enough to find a sense of value unrelated to their comparisons to others.
Actually, @Karasti, I don't usually hear that anymore (that women have to prove stuff)...maybe back in the original days of women's lib, but not so much any more.
And I agree with you, men should be more emotional, more open, more communicative. But don't you think if you compared men to today to men in (let's say) the 1950s that you would find that to be somewhat true (at least in general)?
The only gripe I ever had was a woman saying they wanted "equal" competition, but then not playing "equal". For example, when I used to play golf, if I played with women they always wanted to start at the forward tee, and have the men start at the back tee. That's not equal. At school when we would have a school track meet, why did there have to be boy's 100 yard dash and girl's 100 yard dash. Why not just a 100 yard dash?
And it's not because I want to win, because the women I played golf with were better golfers than I. The women I play cards with are better at it than I. The women I used to bowl with were better bowlers than I.
I think that the belief in that, @vinlyn, is that is how you DO make it equal and fair. That by biology alone, men and women have differences that are undeniable (for the vast majority of the populations) and that bringing those differences is what makes it fair. I don't know if I agree with it or not, I don't know enough about it. When you compare the fastest man and the fastest woman in the recorded world, they are almost a full second different (in a race where they time at 9.58 (Usain Bolt) and 10.49 (Florence Griffith-Joyner), that's significant), what else can explain it? The woman is lighter and should be able to run faster, but biological differences alone cause her to be slower. So would a race between the 2 of them truly be equal, knowing the biology isn't equal, if they started at the same place? not really, so in that way I understand that reasoning. I don't think in all cases that seeking equality means identical. It means more a "fair chance."
That's exactly what I am talking about. If a woman wanted to play, say, baseball with the men, and it was possible, she'd be expected to make the same grade as the men. And that would even be understandable. But the men would be expected to do nothing to match her prowess that comes in a different area. If that makes sense. She'd have to prove she was good enough to play with the men, but they'd never have to prove they were good enough to play with her based on HER strengths.
If you think women no longer have to prove themselves in that way, I think you are wrong. The same as 50 years ago, no. But we STILL don't often get equal pay for equal work even in many cases. If you want to attempt to be a female and excel in particular fields, you still have to fight that you deserve a spot as much as a man does. It still happens way more than it should.
The way you explain it, @Karasti, makes sense to me except that the word "equal" does not equal "fair" (as you indicate). And perhaps that's been the focal point of the national argument.
But let's take it a step further. In my schools we always had a shop course and a home economics course (although in today's education they are rarely given those titles). Let's face it, generally speaking boys had more of an aptitude for shop and girls had more of an aptitude (or perhaps I should say experience in) for home economics. So, should we have graded boys in home ec on a curve, and girls in shop on a curve? Blacks tend to dominate some sports. Should we give Whites extra points in, say, basketball games to make up for the difference? You see, what I'm really asking -- by giving some examples that I think are ridiculous -- is: is equality the be all and end all in everything?
**Now, when it comes to equal pay for equal work, I totally agree with you, and I want to see the proposed federal law passed. ** A woman principal ought to earn exactly the same as a male principal (or a teacher, etc.). And, in my district they did.
Up until my time as principal, almost every administrator in my school's history had been a man. I hired about 50/50. Now, the female principal who replaced me upon my retirement has a 100% female administration, a 100% female guidance department, and a 90% female department chair group. Hey...what happened to equality?
Our custodial staff was usually about 50/50 male/female. The female principal (the first) who preceded me would sometimes call for a custodian to dust. She always said, "Call one of the female custodians to dust my office." If a truck came in with supplies (e.g. cases of paper), she would say, "Call one of the male custodians to unload the paper." Hey, what happened to equality. And yes, male and female custodians were paid on the same scale.
It just seems to me that the equality principle is sometimes a matter of convenience.
You know, this is an interesting topic to discuss when high emotions can be left out of it.
Typical man. Where is the fun in that?
. . . well OK you are right . . .
I think we need to evaluate the term 'equal' and distinguish its validity when speaking on a psychological level, as opposed to a physical level.
There are some women who would, shall we say for arguments sake, love to be a Fireman.
However, physique, stamina and strength may bar her from that opportunity.
It would bar an awful lot of men, as well.
There are some men who might benefit and find real advantage in pursuing a balletic career, but their physique puts this vocation out of the question.
There are many woman who as little girls might have dreamt of being Prima Ballerinas. But, oh dear... not with those hips, darling...
So when it comes to the physical, one has to evaluate many different aspects of practicality.
My husband and I were discussing the 'unfairness' of tennis tournaments, where women have but three sets to play but men must go to 5.
This has been an established format for goodness-knows how long, but many people think the format should be changed. Both Martina Navratilova AND andy Murray find the system to be unfair; the former believes men should be permitted to play 3 sets, and limit the final to 5. The latter believes women can and should play 5 sets, as the men do.
Looking at Serena Williams, I think his is a valid call....
Psychologically, of course, women and men are different. I don't think anyone can deny this.
However, it depends on what levels and in which ways Psychology is interpreted...
It's all a bit of a challenge, isn't it?
And talking of physique, whenever I see videos on YouTube or FB regarding any incidents involving the Police (be they serious or comical) I never cease to be amazed at how out of condition and overweight some Police officers are! Isn't there some fitness standard they have to achieve? I'm not talking provenance here, I am not distinguishing nationalities (although more often than not, I see American and/or British Police involvement) but seriously people - you're police officers - criminals can and do outrun you with no problems!!
How many rows do you have stitched?
@Federica said:
When I was reading @Vinlyn's and @Karasti's posts I thought of this same thing. Equality being sought for men and women is a specific 'kind' of equality. When it comes to physical and even brain differences, there's comparisons but 'equality' is pretty abstract. Equally . . . what, equally valuable, worthwhile, respect-worthy, useful, pertinent, necessary and so on? That's the specifics, as I see it so far, that the request for equality intends.
Men demanding women to 'do it just like them' is NOT a relevant response to women's request for equality at all. It's a straw man easily demolished with a flexed bicep
.
There's so many attitudes that we all harbor deep down that remain unquestioned. If a woman can ONLY be 'equal' if she can run a mile as fast as a man, for instance, that is evidence of an assumption that to be equal, men's athletic ability is a standard or bar. I don't think anyone would agree that this is the case. So we end up using the word 'equality' and meaning slightly different things.
And women have done themselves no favors by harboring the same deeply entrenched attitudes as they accuse men of having, and battling for 'equality' in physical sports. They are only agreeing with the status quo they seek to change and in the effort damage their credibility. What woman wants to play pro football with MEN anyway
Maybe what we can agree on is 'equality' as a description of 'worth'. Someone will come up with a better word than 'worth', I hope.
@federica, lol, I think the same thing about cops. They pass fitness tests (here in the US) when they do their certification...and that's it. They do not have to maintain it like military does, and I think they should. It's shameful that people we depend on to react quickly can barely get out of their cop cars.
I think what it seems to me is that women are still sometimes (and in some areas, often) treated as lesser because we can't do all the same things men do and we are judged as such. But men are rarely called out (except by their wives, lol) for the things they do not do well that we do. There is little value placed on what we can do, only what we cannot. Perhaps a woman fire fighter cannot lift 250 pound person like a man might be able to. But maybe she has skills the man doesn't to get scared children to come out of their hiding places. Maybe a woman doesn't have the physical power to carry a riot shield and wrestle a drug-crazy criminal to the ground to be on the SWAT team, but she'd probably excel at negotiation. Both skills are valuable yet the programs usually only consider the former.
It's quite interesting to look at more tribal cultures where that is not the case, where women are revered simply because we are the only people who can bring forth another human, lol. I think men and women should both be revered for their strengths, whatever they happen to be. But our culture tends to not find value in what women can offer as much as what men can offer. Where does that come from? Why the vast comparison of an entire 50% of the population to determine they are lesser? I've always been curious where it stems from. Religion seems to play a part in it, as so many religious texts specify women to obey their husbands and so on. But is that the only place?
I am in a unique position, where many men would consider themselves inferior...
Fortunately, my wife says I'm her equal....