DescentBB

roid wrote:

I want to say, though, I think people aren't biting because there's very little validity to your point. This isn't about what my religious book says about women; this isn't about what Christianity has said about the role of women; it's about who men and women really are and whether they should be viewed as "the same".

The article stated that "As the West’s most secular country, where changes in family structure and gender roles are most “advanced,” Sweden is the center of world feminism.". Sweden is secular, Sweden has crazy feminists, hint hint America get out your wooden crosses to protect your nation from the feminist onslaught.

So because the article happened to make that point, you've become unable to discuss the issue with those of us who *haven't* made that point? Because the article made that point, you're unable to substantially discuss anything else from the article?

That's what I don't get. Yeah, the article definitely had a religious+social conservative bent, which came out in perhaps 2 or 3 sentences total. But why focus on that when nobody else seems to think it's particularly important? I don't think the religious aspect matters *one bit* in this discussion. Nobody else seems to either -- none of us are interested in defending the original article's religious bent, I think because none of us thinks the religious direction is either valid or important.

I'm much more interested in defending, enhancing, and modifying my position than in defending the article's position.

I think what radical feminism is trying for here is, as you say, shoot for a 50/50 gender split in various fields.... Is it not plausible that perhaps our ecconomic society still is patriarchal? What i'm suggesting is that if women are not a part of something, perhaps that something has still not changed sufficiently for it to appeal to women.

Should whatever it is change to appeal to women? Is there good reason why we should change commerce, math, or whatever so that women find it more appealing? Or should we just accept the fact that women don't find it appealing, and let women do whatever it is women find appealing?

IMO, it's much more respectful to women to accept the fact that they have different interests than men than to try to twist the whole world in order to cover that fact.

we want to bring women into the picture. What we need to do is get women to redesign our commerse system so that selling fluffy animal toys make up 50% of the workforce requirements.

Why do we need to "bring women into the picture"? Why not just let women do what women want to do, without trying to hold it up to absurd measurements like "50% of spending is for fluffy animal toys so we're equal!"?

how badly do we want gender equality?

I want "gender equality" in the sense that people of both genders should have opportunity to do things that appeal to them, to spend money on things that appeal to them, etc. I want "gender equality" in the sense that men and women are both protected by law.

I don't want "gender equality" in the sense that men and women are treated as identical in every way. I don't want "gender equality" in the sense that all job fields must be tweaked in order to make them appeal equally to both genders. I don't want "gender equality" in the sense that men and women are both forced into some androgynous blob where nobody is free to act either as a man or as a woman. I don't want "gender equality" in the sense that, if I make a product and I find 70% of my sales are to men and only 30% to women, I have to tweak my product or face scorn because I didn't create a sufficiently "equal" product.

When you say you want gender equality, what do you mean?

Both of my parents are feminists, and while I haven't said it in this thread, I am too -- I want gender equality as I outlined above, I want women to be respected for who they are, and I want women to have fair opportunities to do the things they want to do. But I try not to use the label "feminist" for myself because it's so easily misunderstood to mean "person who wants women and men to be identical" or "person who thinks women are superior to men" or "person who believes half of all engineers should be women or else we're doing things wrong".

I'm with Lothar here. Interesting though, if this is a "united conservative front", then the "vast right-wing conspiracy" seems awfully feminist friendly to me.

Trust me, I know people who feel that women must remain submisive and subordinate to men. I've heard none of that here (so far).

roid wrote:I think what radical feminism is trying for here is, as you say, shoot for a 50/50 gender split in various fields. This is a pretty far fetched idea - but they are probabaly going for it, and i can think of some strong reasons to justify the move

It sounds like you are looking for equality of results instead of equal opportunity. For instance, I take the somewhat radical view that women should be free to take any job in the military they want. Including direct combat positions.

BUT, I am OPPOSED to lowering the requirements for military positions so that women can join. If being a marine means you must be able to lug a backpack weighing X pounds, Y miles, in Z hours, then any women who can MEET those requirements should be allowed to join, those who can't, should go on to something else. Now, due to the bell curve, yes, we would have fewer women in the marine corps. I don't see a major problem with that, the job requires a certain amount of muscle, and on average, men have more muscle mass. But a bell curve means there will also be women who CAN meet those requirements. And if they can, don't let a double X cromosome stand in their way.

I've been told that women have an easier time meeting the requirments for a fighter pilot then men do. I'm not certain if its true, but if so, so be it, perhaps we will end up with more women flying jets than guys. That's ok too.

Equal oportunities does NOT mean equal results.

Kilarin wrote:I've been told that women have an easier time meeting the requirments for a fighter pilot then men do.

True. In large part, because there are height restrictions on fighter pilots.

Women also make better pilots than men. I don't know why, but they do.

Lothar wrote:

Kilarin wrote:I've been told that women have an easier time meeting the requirments for a fighter pilot then men do.

True. In large part, because there are height restrictions on fighter pilots.

Women also make better pilots than men. I don't know why, but they do.

Probably because of the same reason that so many people here break a new joystick every three months or so. The phrase "a woman's touch" comes to mind.