|
|
|
Heroic Knight
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, March 30, 2007 10:27 PM
Posts: 115,
Visits: 143
|
|
Pwned
_________________________________________________________________The nature of man is the same as the nature of a wolf and the same as the nature of an ox?
|
|
|
|
|
and Minimeister
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Sunday, April 06, 2008 8:31 AM
Posts: 960,
Visits: 1,402
|
|
The numbers are mine, all mine!
Parker (3/30/2007)
[snip] 1)One thing i want to ask is are we talking about equal rights or equal treatment? Men and women are different (in most cases) due to evolution. 2) Thanks to sexual reproduction we have gender defined roles. [snip] 3) There is a problem when a woman who is a better worker is looked over for a postion which is then given to a less suitable man. Isn't there? 4) Surely a woman is (theoretical generalisation) more likely to have time off due to "womens problems", having children and be more prone to losing focus due to various bodily changes throughout her life and the burden of a family. Now i'm not saying that this is the case but generalisations of this type are made without us even thinking it. 5) [snip]are women different? Yes. Should they have different rights? No. [snip]
I don't want to steal someone else's style so, I'll take this by the numbers:
1) Little bit of column A, little bit of column B. Like good eggs we're free range.
2) I agree that we have gender defined roles in sexual reproduction. I'm not sure I'd agree outside of that.
3) By definition yes. You've defined the man as less suitable.
4) The most interesting point. I heard on the radio that apparently the figures for unemployment or low status unemployement go: Bangladeshi Women 30%, Disabled people 30%, women with children 45%. I'm far too lazy to go look it up, but it's what Radio 4 said, so that'll do me. I can see that there would be arguments against employing women with children and arguments for. It's a hard thing to say, on the one hand, there's an obvious case that having to worry about your children would make you worse at a job than someone not worrying about your children, but then it's also true that "If you want something done, give it to a busy person."
5) Fair enough. I'll agree.
Also, I can see why posts get broken up line by line, it's really hard to read, but it actually, you know, works.
There is only overconfidence and terror.
|
|
|
|
|
Initiate
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 8:32 PM
Posts: 9,
Visits: 27
|
|
| Thanks for the forum-quette (?) coff, i'm new at this so i'll try to organise my thoughts better. Just want it to be known that i'm of the live-and-let-live and do-as-you-would-be-done-by school of thought. I think that all people should be treated equally unless showing a particularly strong reason why they shouldn't (breaking into my house and stealing all my stuff for example). All i meant by gender defined roles was that women can have babies. Therefore in our history women have traditionally had the job of looking after said babies. Now as civilised as we claim to be this prehistoric idea will always be in our conciousness. This then evolves into things such as homemaking and not sending them out to do potentially dangerous things such as hunting. This would give society reasons to treat women differently and has become our cultural gender differences. I'm not saying that this is "a good thing" but it won't be easy to change the way people think after the recorded history of the human race.
P.D: *Dirty Dick* Offend-A-Gram extrodinaire, Shantyman of the Midnight Rose and most sexually diseased living human in the New World...and probably the Old World too.
|
|
|
|
|
and Minimeister
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Sunday, April 06, 2008 8:31 AM
Posts: 960,
Visits: 1,402
|
|
Parker (4/2/2007)
Thanks for the forum-quette (?) coff, i'm new at this so i'll try to organise my thoughts better.
*embarrassed* Sorry, I wasn't reprimanding you or any such, I was trying to work out a better way to answer posts in detail without the quote function, as it's a pig and I find it hard to read. The numbering was to help _me_ organise _my_ thoughts better, so I hope no offence has been caused.
Parker (4/2/2007)
All i meant by gender defined roles was that women can have babies. Therefore in our history women have traditionally had the job of looking after said babies. Now as civilised as we claim to be this prehistoric idea will always be in our conciousness. This then evolves into things such as homemaking and not sending them out to do potentially dangerous things such as hunting.This would give society reasons to treat women differently and has become our cultural gender differences. I'm not saying that this is "a good thing" but it won't be easy to change the way people think after the recorded history of the human race.
Well, I guess that begs the question: if it won't be easy, is it worth doing? Which I guess, is yes probably. Also, with the rise of agriculture, somehow women seemed to end up being the "beasts of burden" apparently. This, according to Jared Diamond in "the Third Chimpanzee" (although I note with interest this contradicts earlier arguments in this thread about women not being chosen to carry stuff as they're less capable). Certainly, water and kids are heavy, and certainly it's traditionally seen as a woman's role to carry them... What's with that?
There is only overconfidence and terror.
|
|
|
|
|
Initiate
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 8:32 PM
Posts: 9,
Visits: 27
|
|
No offence taken mr coff. Always a pleasure to be informed of juicy goodness. Wouldn't want to apear a numpty now would i?
P.D: *Dirty Dick* Offend-A-Gram extrodinaire, Shantyman of the Midnight Rose and most sexually diseased living human in the New World...and probably the Old World too.
|
|
|
|
|
Champion
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, November 14, 2008 7:33 PM
Posts: 319,
Visits: 1,371
|
|
Parker (4/2/2007)
All i meant by gender defined roles was that women can have babies. Therefore in our history women have traditionally had the job of looking after said babies. Now as civilised as we claim to be this prehistoric idea will always be in our conciousness. This then evolves into things such as homemaking and not sending them out to do potentially dangerous things such as hunting.Hm. Women looking after babies is well documented, and as such, the idea is entirely historical. I`m not sure how much evidence we have of women looking after babies in prehistorical times. More to the point, I don`t see how this idea would be úncivilised. I guess it depends on how you define civilisation, but taking babies away from their mothers, or forcing women to give up their babies are usually regarded as barbaric practices in this day and age. Men can look after children well enough, but they don`t breast-feed, just to mention one little detail, so babies are better left to their mothers.
Apart from that, keeping women in the house had more to do with keeping them within walls (as in: away from other men), than with keeping them from work/with the children, while the 'sending them out to do potentially dangerous things such as hunting' would interfere with fertility, and as such comes into play before childbirth rather than after.
________________________________________________________ - IRL: Edwin Hofstra
- - mostly crewing at the moment
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Monday, November 17, 2008 5:18 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,520
|
|
Lavlin (4/4/2007)
I`m not sure how much evidence we have of women looking after babies in prehistorical times.
Lavlin (4/4/2007)
Men can look after children well enough, but they don`t breast-feed, just to mention one little detail, so babies are better left to their mothers.
I'd say the inability to feed children before the domestication of lactating animals is pretty good evidence that women looked after babies in prehistorical times (and historical times in non-pastoral/agricultural groups).
Lavlin (4/4/2007)
Apart from that, keeping women in the house had more to do with keeping them within walls (as in: away from other men), than with keeping them from work/with the children, while the 'sending them out to do potentially dangerous things such as hunting' would interfere with fertility, and as such comes into play before childbirth rather than after.
Are you talking about Athens circa 600 BC, all the human cultures in the world ever or somewhere between the two?
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Champion
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, November 14, 2008 7:33 PM
Posts: 319,
Visits: 1,371
|
|
Marios (4/4/2007)
[quote]I'd say the inability to feed children before the domestication of lactating animals is pretty good evidence that women looked after babies in prehistorical times (and historical times in non-pastoral/agricultural groups).Tempting, but given that script was based on a system of accounting how many lactating animals who owed to whom, that was already centuries old (if not millennia, I`d have to look that up) at the time, that`s a bit meager. Marios (4/4/2007)
[quote]Are you talking about Athens circa 600 BC, all the human cultures in the world ever or somewhere between the two?Early urbanisation, like 5,000 years ago (or was that 5,000 BC, I keep confusing the two). From an article no longer in my possession about the shift in participation in the communal economy from women (agriculture) to men (craft). May have had some feminist bias, but what hasn`t these days. The other bit was based on the weekly science pages of a daily newspaper. Something about marathon walking and not having a menstruation cycle until one quit the habit. The article focussed on bones, though.
________________________________________________________ - IRL: Edwin Hofstra
- - mostly crewing at the moment
|
|
|
| | |