Men V Woman? Are We Now Finally Equal?

[Rupert_Baehr]

We'll be equal once she

(a) works out what causes and

(b) learns how to make

 

The lawnmower

The vacuum cleaner

The washing machine

make

 

those noises.

[Michael_W]

Yes we've evolved over a great length of time but we haven't changed much up until a few hundred years ago. As a timeline man flatlined for hundreds of thousands of years with the odd blip here and there. Its only within maybe 20 generations that man has excelled out of all recognition to the past.

 

It's only those recent generations where mans achievement was recordable in media we understand today, we can not accurately account for what went before, it's the way man communicates that has excelled, that is natural evolution.

 

I think you're wrong to say men and womens instincts won't change especially when you define those instincts based on past roles...hunter gatherer etc.

 

I never said that instincts won't change !

 

We don't have to send men out any longer..we go to Tesco. Women don't have to stay at the sink..those chores can be shared because the hunter gatherer now has more time, he tamed a leg of lamb in the frozen food section..and it only took him 20 mins.. There's only one distinct difference between male and female which will never change.. unless we start really messing genetically is the difference in physique.

 

We are where we are because our natural roles have changed, not because society said we need to be equal.

 

If we remove women from the equation as in right now, and they weren't needed re reproduction, man would survive..not only would he survive but that survival would become part of his evolution and part of his genetic make-up over time. If he's capable of doing that then man and woman can also evolve genetically without the need for anything other than connecting an egg and a sperm. Basically we don't need to define our differences..we know them. When we define the gender differences as good/bad, equal/unequal, superior/inferior I think it's more to do with how much we don't think rather than how much were ready to contemplate who and what we are. It's just a lot easier to say..yes I love you, now get to the fridge and crack me a can.

 

 

Equality will always be debateable, the general argument we hear is that women have had a raw deal .... is there any female on here who can explain how difficult life has been for them, because of inequality ?

[Anna B]

I'm interested to see Anna's response.

 

This was something I saw Hilary Devey discussing, on a documentary I was watching.

 

It's an interesting question. In a population that's roughly 50% men and 50%women, and which has equal rights and opportunities, the make up at the top of any organisation ought to be roughly 50 / 50 too, so you have to ask yourself why it's not.

 

Of course the best person for the job should get it, BUT, in this country at least, at the top of the tree (judges, cabinet posts, etc) the old boy network and croneyism are still very much in evidence, meaning women often don't even have a footthold to get elected. (And if the one's we've got are the best we've got - God help us...)

 

Therefore, I say (with regret that it's necessary,) that where men are doing the choosing, women only short lists might be the only way to get women into power.

 

Other countries don't seem to have this problem. Sweden for example (or is it Denmark?) has a government that's 40% female. But we are so hidebound by 'tradition' that we never seem to move forward. A lot of our institutions are positively archaeic.

[*_ash_*]

It's an interesting question. In a population that's roughly 50% men and 50%women, and which has equal rights and opportunities, the make up at the top of any organisation ought to be roughly 50 / 50 too, so you have to ask yourself why it's not.

 

Of course the best person for the job should get it, BUT, in this country at least, at the top of the tree (judges, cabinet posts, etc) the old boy network and croneyism are still very much in evidence, meaning women often don't even have a footthold to get elected. (And if the one's we've got are the best we've got - God help us...)

 

Therefore, I say (with regret that it's necessary,) that where men are doing the choosing, women only short lists might be the only way to get women into power.

 

Other countries don't seem to have this problem. Sweden for example (or is it Denmark?) has a government that's 40% female. But we are so hidebound by 'tradition' that we never seem to move forward. A lot of our institutions are positively archaeic.

 

So it's pretty much just at the top that you are addressing then? And you think that it should be forced.

 

Fair comment.

[Clown Shoes]

I really think we are. Ladies have top jobs and boss blokes around like never before. We even have female security at football matches. And ladies have big flash cars better than some blokes now.

 

Opines?

 

Men can pee on campfires!

[El Cid]

It said on the radio today, that more women than men go to uni

[Michael_W]

It's an interesting question. In a population that's roughly 50% men and 50%women, and which has equal rights and opportunities, the make up at the top of any organisation ought to be roughly 50 / 50 too, so you have to ask yourself why it's not.

 

Of course the best person for the job should get it, BUT, in this country at least, at the top of the tree (judges, cabinet posts, etc) the old boy network and croneyism are still very much in evidence, meaning women often don't even have a footthold to get elected. (And if the one's we've got are the best we've got - God help us...)

 

Therefore, I say (with regret that it's necessary,) that where men are doing the choosing, women only short lists might be the only way to get women into power.

 

Other countries don't seem to have this problem. Sweden for example (or is it Denmark?) has a government that's 40% female. But we are so hidebound by 'tradition' that we never seem to move forward. A lot of our institutions are positively archaeic.

 

Let's look at men and women for a minute, the big difference between them is women can and do get pregnant and take maternity leave, that in itself will keep some out of the 'top jobs' in many organisations, that's just how it is !

Look at employment opportunities generally, because your theory suggests that women should hold 50% of all jobs, they can't after all just expect to have 50% of the 'top jobs', what about 50% of the worst jobs, or 50% of the most dangerous jobs

Should there be a 50/50 male/female split at all levels, in all employment sectors and trades ?

What about .... the armed forces .... the building trade ..... Nursing .... Hair & beauty etc, etc ... do I need to go on ?

It's not just about the top Anna, there are plenty of men get overlooked at that level too, you seriously cannot expect any organisation to just let women have 'top' roles because of their gender ?

[cuttsie]

Get real, I did not say women could not reach the top level of anything did I ?

I just stated why you won't get a 50/ 50 split ... learn to read !

As it stands certain jobs are dominated by certain genders, there are historical reasons for that nowt to do with dinosaurs, now prove me wrong sunshine, don't just give the odd individual case ..... most armed forces personnel are male, as are most builders ..... I just gave a few random examples you naive fool

Only the strongest of men can carry out some of the tasks that arise in the building trade.

Sorry lasses but it is a fact I have seen many a bloke think he was Jack the Lad only to go home with his ego deflated at the end of the first day.

[mort]

If you cannot remain civil i will issue bans.

[Anna B]

Biology has to be a consideration. You can't get away from it, but the main areas are strength and physical endurance, (usually, but not exclusively, a male attribute,) and childbirth, (a female characteristic which takes them out of the workplace temporarily.)

 

However outside these two extremes we should have parity. But do we?

 

It's interesting when it comes to childcare; are women predisposed to deliver it, or is that more of a cultural thing? I don't know, but I do know excellent care givers of both sexes.

 

Nevertheless, would I be right in saying that childcare is still seen mainly as a female responsibility and they are the chief organiser of that and family life? I've heard high powered women say that what they need is a 'wife' ie. someone who can do all the organising, setting up the timetables and routines to make sure that everything runs smoothly and someone is available to take X to the dentist, and pick up the shopping etc. I'm not saying that men don't do their share - far from it, but they do seem mentally able to commit fully to work because they don't have these things to think about.

 

Not all women can afford nannies.

(See what I mean...? Put 'men' in the above sentence and see how odd it sounds...)

 

How can you change that? Well so far you can't, which is why some women chose not to have children and concentrate on a carreer. But is this equality?

 

Should we make allowances for family life? Time off, creches etc. And if so why do we think in terms of it being for the 'woman's' benefit rather than the 'family's'?

 

What do men think about this?