''The war on men''

Surely that's an oxymoron as, if there was an equality, nothing would be different.

 

You have the typically strong male and a more emotional female.

Can strong males do nursing and caring roles as well as women? They don't seem to want to do nursing roles in large numbers.

Many primary school teachers are female, what is the most important aspect of teaching, a person with a memory like a computer or a person that can empathise and connect with children.

Equality of opportunity of course means that the outliers amongst the averages that exist for personality and temperament are not told "no you can't be a primary school teacher because you're male" or "you can't be an engineer, girls aren't good at maths", or any other such damaging nonsense.

---------- Post added 19-03-2018 at 07:32 ----------

I accept that being brawny, aggressive and pro-active is a human trait usually more prevalent in the male of the species. Reports of its demise are greatly exaggerated. When did we stop selecting (electing) taller, more dominant more attractive individuals?

Selecting in the genetic sense is absolutely nothing to do with electing. Unless being elected means you are more successful at passing on your genes.

What we're selecting for now, under the environmental pressures we've largely created for ourselves I'm not entirely sure. It's certainly not aggression though, going out and fighting is unlikely to improve your chances of procreation, it's difficult to have a family whilst in jail for assault or attempted murder and so on.

You have the typically strong male and a more emotional female.

 

Can strong males do nursing and caring roles as well as women? They don't seem to want to do nursing roles in large numbers.

Many primary school teachers are female, what is the most important aspect of teaching, a person with a memory like a computer or a person that can empathise and connect with children.

I'd say that some men can be as caring and as suitable in nursing and care-giving roles as women. And i reckon women can be just as good in the boardroom, as proven by people like Karen Brady.

However, when it comes to the physical roles, there are places where men and women just simply cannot be 'equal'.

How many people support an Australian politician saying that women rugby players should be allowed to compete in the men's game? Her reasoning is that women may not be as physically strong, but they have better leadership qualities... is that going to be enough to compete against 18 stone brick outhouses?

Also, what about the potential for sexual harassment claims if a male rugby player's hands end up somewhere inappropriate whilst on the field? Would they need to amend the rules anf level the playing field to accommodate female players?

I heard an article on 5 live this morning - the speaker/guest was female who was discussing the issues for men in society who perhaps had an absent father.

She then mentioned that 84% of homeless people were men and that if this was women then it would be plastered everywhere and being debated everywhere, but because it's men no one is bothered.

I heard an article on 5 live this morning - the speaker/guest was female who was discussing the issues for men in society who perhaps had an absent father.

She then mentioned that 84% of homeless people were men and that if this was women then it would be plastered everywhere and being debated everywhere, but because it's men no one is bothered.

The problem with citing things like this will become apparent when you are accused of 'whataboutery'.

Because women apparently have it so much harder in many parts of society, the rights of men are allowed to be ignored. It's a hierarchical structure of oppression and hardship with men, particularly white ones, are right down at the bottom in the current climate.

So, if someone is suffering, the amount of help they should receive will depend on their gender/sex, race, social standing... according to many of the forummers on here (in my most humble of opinions).

Explain to me the term 'equal but different'...

 

Surely that's an oxymoron as, if there was an equality, nothing would be different.

 

Or am i missing something?

 

And it's nothing to do with being macho, i just call it common sense. Do you believe that women would be able to compete against men at a game of rugby or football?

Equal but different:

A kilogram of ice and a kilogram of water

Equal but different:

A kilogram of ice and a kilogram of water

But surely it depends on how you measure the equality?

Dolphins are mammals, humans are mammals...

Explain to me the term 'equal but different'...

 

Surely that's an oxymoron as, if there was an equality, nothing would be different.

 

Or am i missing something?

 

And it's nothing to do with being macho, i just call it common sense. Do you believe that women would be able to compete against men at a game of rugby or football?

It refers to equality of opportunity and equality of treatment, not everyone being identical.

---------- Post added 19-03-2018 at 19:20 ----------

So, if someone is suffering, the amount of help they should receive will depend on their gender/sex, race, social standing... according to many of the forummers on here.

I'm sure you'll be able to quote something to back up that ridiculous claim?

It refers to equality of opportunity and equality of treatment, not everyone being identical.

 

---------- Post added 19-03-2018 at 19:20 ----------

 

 

I'm sure you'll be able to quote something to back up that ridiculous claim?

Everyone should be treated appropriately based on their personal circumstances, not equally. 'Equality' is a bad word for a good idea. Treating every one 'equally' removes the need for competition and to be the best.

And, apologies - I should have said 'in my humble opinion' to the last bit. I shall edit it now...

Everyone should be treated appropriately based on their personal circumstances, not equally. 'Equality' is a bad word for a good idea. Treating every one 'equally' removes the need for competition and to be the best.

 

And, apologies - I should have said 'in my humble opinion' to the last bit. I shall edit it now...

I think a good example in this regard is to think about disability. People should have equality of opportunity and the ability to achieve their potential.

Not everyone because of disability has the same ability to achieve their potential, and may need additional assistance to access services to achieve their potential, whatever it is.

Equality can be a misleading term.

I disagree with the idea that treating people equally removing the need for competition. If you think about education - at the moment, people don't start off from similar positions - there are vast differences in wealth and income; meaning that in terms of competition, comparing the academic achievements of a child who goes to a 'sink school' with a child who goes to Eton is futile. To me, competition (or equality of opportunity in this context) means starting off from similar places.

 

How many people support an Australian politician saying that women rugby players should be allowed to compete in the men's game? Her reasoning is that women may not be as physically strong, but they have better leadership qualities... is that going to be enough to compete against 18 stone brick outhouses?

 

Its getting so ridiculous that male and female tennis players are being compared and they think that they should be paid the same.

Its getting so ridiculous that male and female tennis players are being compared and they think that they should be paid the same.

Can you offer a remotely plausible reason why they shouldn't be the paid the same?

---------- Post added 20-03-2018 at 18:30 ----------

Treating every one 'equally' removes the need for competition and to be the best.

No, it doesn't. It provides a level playing field and allows people to compete on equal terms so that those with talent and application shine through.