Hyerdahl,

You are right. I am a ***ist. So are you.

My ***ism is better than your ***ism.

I see women capable of wonderful qualities of which men are not
capable. You see the only good qualities as ones belonging to men.

My ***ism is better for women and better for the world.

patrickdharrington

I think the problem is two-fold. ***ism coupled with gender-based
ego. For example, men are generally physically stronger than women on
average, so it has usually been the remit of men to handle fighting in
wars. But, because women are better at multi-tasking, it would make
better sense to take advantage of that and employ women as military
strategists and tacticians and free the men to use their superior
physical strength and ability to focus on a task to execute those
strategies and tactics. Obviously, this needs to be metered by the
fact that there will always be individuals of one *** that are better
at tasks normally associated with the opposite. And men and women
would have to learn to manage their egos when any particular task is,
perhaps unexpectedly, handled better by a member of the opposite ***.
The ***es are NOT equal or there would be no means of
differentiation. They both have distinct advantages and weaknesses and
these should be exploited for the betterment of the species.
Individuals, though, should be equally respected, whatever their *** or
***uality.

mcp

But, because women are better at multi-tasking

No Proof Offered! claim fails.

susan cohen

Not that I've seen.


I think what you mean is "not the same"
"Equal" is a qualitative or even legal term.

or there would be no means of

Right - equal :-) Susan

susan cohen

Why no "no proof offered, claim fails" HERE?


Except that I've heard studies which say this as well. Susan

susan cohen

Thank you! :-) Susan

patrickdharrington

Yes, they are not equal, they are not the same, they are not
equivalent, they are not even congruent. It is fairness that is important, not equality.

Not quite. When the Declaration mentioned "all men are created
equal" it's not correct. There are no two people who are equal--not
even clones can be equal, as they will have different experiences. All
people are created equally individual, though, and their individuality
should be equally respected. You can't even really fairly say that all
people should be 'treated equally'. I wouldn't want that because I'm
allergic to Penicillin, so I don't want to be treated equally as
someone who is not allergic to Penicillin. Everyone should be treated
fairly, but that is not equally. It may seem to be splitting hairs,
but we all know what happened after the "all men are created equal"
statement: we found out that women weren't men and slaves were animals,
so they didn't need to be considered equal. Thus, I prefer the phrase
'equally individual'. I would have written the phrase as 'all are
created equally individual'. That way, even if we discover new
intelligent species to whom we wish to extend rights, we can based on
the wording of the phrase 'all are created equally individual'.

susan cohen

You are mistaking their intent as well as mine - it's equal BEFORE THE LAW.

Susan

patrickdharrington

I assume you are a male as you seem pretty focused on this point. I
did also say that there are individuals who will be exceptions. Please
remember that none of these forums are platforms for scientific
dissertations on the mental capacities between the ***es. My opinion
is what I put forward and proof is not required for the public
placement of my opinion. However, if you look at some of the work done
by Dr. Christina Williams at Duke University, you may find some
revealing studies.

patrickdharrington

No, I do understand that; but when people talk of the equality of
the ***es (or races or ***ualities or X), law isn't usually what's on
their mind. It's usually a matter of fairness that may have nothing to
do with the law per se but with other people in day-to-day
cir***stances. My point is that first, people should adopt an attitude
of fairness with respect to individuals and, then, after that, the law
should demand that that general philosophy or approach to the treatment
of individuals under any cir***stances be enforced. I DO admit to
being an idealist in this regard. ;-)