Does Equality for Women Reduce the Obligations of Husbands?

[imjeybi1208]

The rest is a social construct. There are still matriarchal societies where women are more valuable than men (yes, that surprised me too), which is proof that this question of human value by sex is as relevant as the difference between value between a two-finger lazy and a three-finger lazy. Two different things can have the same value. It is even the basis of any economy. Once everyone gets it right, women may finally be treated and respected as well as men.

What are your thoughts?

[Cnut237]

Equality is achieved when the distinction is not noticed.

If for example a company employs positive discrimination to improve the gender balance of its workforce, then we have not achieved equality. If a company hits its target of 50% male and 50% female employees, and then implements a system to ensure that the balance remains at 50%, then we have not achieved equality. If on the other hand a company has 70% men and 30% women, or vice versa, and no-one even takes gender into consideration when interviewing applicants, that is when equality is achieved.
A lot of countries are on the right path; we have women running multinationals, women running countries, we (generally) have much improved racial and religious tolerance and multi-cultural acceptance, but it's a long road and we are still some way from the end.

Regarding the thread title "Does Equality for Women Reduce the Obligations of Husbands?" - I would say that equality for women means that there are no specific obligations for husbands, because all obligations will be dissociated from gender.

Regarding the point about matriarchal societies - I have often thought that matrilineal succession would have reduced strife in historic societies, as it removes the problem of contested paternity. Much easier (before DNA testing) to prove who is the mother of a child than who is the father!

[iamsheikhadil]

Well there's this difference between equity and equality and in many terms I would be bold to say, men are superior. A girl just can't claim to get paid as much as men if her contributions are proportionally low due to weakness such as army or wrestling. A person should be paid and given importance as much as they give output irrespective of their gender. And marriage itself is like something which is biased in many ways.

[coolcoinz]

I'll approach this froma  different perspective.
Do we even need equality? Why do some people have this drive to make everyone and everything equal? Equality isn't natural, unless you want to start with phisics like equal currents and magnetic fields. In nature there's always a superior being.
Some animals are faster and some animals are stronger. Some are biger and some are smaller. It's the same with people: some are smart, some are dumb, some are good at sports, others are not. Women are weaker than men, but are also more emotional and caring. This struggle for equality and emancipation only leads to stupid situations like women trying to fight men and getting beaten, then running to the cops crying that they were attacked and abused.

[klava1983]

Equality means no place for discrimination. The roots of gender discrimination are stereotypes. Let's guess where stereotypes come from. They are based on gender roles. (A sex role, is a social role encompassing a range of behaviors and attitudes that are generally considered acceptable, appropriate, or desirable for people based on their biological or perceived sex).
I mean now gender equality is far away from being achieved.

[BADecker]

Women don't want to be equal... in most cases.

Women want peace and security. They want to be subject to their husbands in their peace and security so they can do the one GREAT major job that they are designed for... having and raising kids.

There will always be a few women who will want to strive against other people rather than having kids. And their will always be women who have been hurt by men and/or happenstance so that they will be women libbers. And there will always be that small percent who are simply "wild."

Men are designed to make things happen. Outside of a few great women thinkers, women are designed to make kids happen.

[btc_love]

Equality is equality. If someone wants this for himself, then let him be ready to share his responsibilities equally with someone. Whether it be family affairs or extraction of ore in the mine. Otherwise, this is just empty talk.

[canaris1985]

We should really define our terminology before we dive into this discussion. What do you mean by equality? Equality of outcome (equity), which is an appaling doctrine imo, or equality of opportunity?

We def should strive towards equal opportunities for everyone not based on gender/race etc, but we can't just ignore deep biological mechanisms that make males and females slightly different. In fact, when you let women and men make their own choice of any career (this happened in Scandinavian countries), differences in jobs being taken on by women and men differ dramatically. You don't see many female bricklayers as well as male nurses for obvious reasons.

[akram143]

The rest is a social construct. There are still matriarchal societies where women are more valuable than men (yes, that surprised me too), which is proof that this question of human value by sex is as relevant as the difference between value between a two-finger lazy and a three-finger lazy. Two different things can have the same value. It is even the basis of any economy. Once everyone gets it right, women may finally be treated and respected as well as men.

What are your thoughts?

Men and women can't be same but they anyone can have same kind of respect irrespective of their gender.

But do women really want equality? If they want then why they still looking for a man who is financially better,why they can't do these things on their own.Things changed,more women starts to become entrepreneur in 21st century but not all of them yet.

[franky1]

alot of stupid fools actually stupidly think that the womens place in the world is in the kitchen and always has been for centuries and its only changed in the last 30 years.

yet the reality is completely different
women have had work and jobs for centuries. heck there is even proof of it for a few millenia if you truly trust thinks like historic verses of the bible and greek writings.

what people do not realise is that when men went to war. women filled the roles of men. yep in the 1940's women worked the shops and factories. what then happened was after WW2 men felt dis-infranchised and useless when they got back home so propaganda BEGAN to make it sound like a womans place was in the home and it further propaganda that a stereotype of men being the breadwinner began.

take things like american propaganda of both black and females thinking in modern times that both being black and female meant no chance of work 100 years ago..
then real history shows rosa parks who had a job. yea a black female working.. who'da thought.
then there is marie curie who was a doctor 100 years ago

and near 150 years ago, particularly relevant to computing.. ada lovelace was a woman and the first person to do computational math programming. yep computer programming was done by a women.. who'da thought..

alot of people think that women in the army never happened until after say the year 2000.. yet people like florance nightingale was both a nurse and employed by the army 170 years ago

then there is more military female involvement like vera atkins
and this i just 'modern history'
there are many many more females in work then just the popular ones and many many more throughout history
but to think that women didnt go school or become professions or 'dow mens work' untill after the year 2000 is a stupid mindset that people who watch too much TV get brainwashed into thinking

what people keep forgetting is after wars women get displaced out of work because the men come ack home and thats the real history of female struggles to have work.. not.. i repeat not because they never had an oppertunity to work in the first place.

things like the the womens rights to get 'family allowance' benefits from UK government instead of the man.. was done by.. oh yea a female .. yea female MP (yep they existed).. and this was not due to anything male related. but due to world war 1 making it so that men had to work and the women got paid to stay home and raise kids.

[BADecker]

alot of stupid fools actually stupidly think that the womens place in the world is in the kitchen and always has been for centuries and its only changed in the last 30 years.

yet the reality is completely different
women have had work and jobs for centuries. heck there is even proof of it for a few millenia if you truly trust thinks like historic verses of the bible and greek writings.

what people do not realise is that when men went to war. women filled the roles of men. yep in the 1940's women worked the shops and factories. what then happened was after WW2 men felt dis-infranchised and useless when they got back home so propaganda BEGAN to make it sound like a womans place was in the home and it further propaganda that a stereotype of men being the breadwinner began.

take things like american propaganda of both black and females thinking in modern times that both being black and female meant no chance of work 100 years ago..
then real history shows rosa parks who had a job. yea a black female working.. who'da thought.
then there is marie curie who was a doctor 100 years ago

and near 150 years ago, particularly relevant to computing.. ada lovelace was a woman and the first person to do computational math programming. yep computer programming was done by a women.. who'da thought..

alot of people think that women in the army never happened until after say the year 2000.. yet people like florance nightingale was both a nurse and employed by the army 170 years ago

then there is more military female involvement like vera atkins
and this i just 'modern history'
there are many many more females in work then just the popular ones and many many more throughout history
but to think that women didnt go school or become professions or 'dow mens work' untill after the year 2000 is a stupid mindset that people who watch too much TV get brainwashed into thinking

what people keep forgetting is after wars women get displaced out of work because the men come ack home and thats the real history of female struggles to have work.. not.. i repeat not because they never had an oppertunity to work in the first place.

things like the the womens rights to get 'family allowance' benefits from UK government instead of the man.. was done by.. oh yea a female .. yea female MP (yep they existed).. and this was not due to anything male related. but due to world war 1 making it so that men had to work and the women got paid to stay home and raise kids.

Yep. By all these women working, the obligations of their husbands went down the tubes. Of course, women's rights means freedom for men. So, get the women out of the kitchen and into the battle lines, so that they can really take over the jobs of the men. If they want it, let 'em have it.

What in the world do you have against women, eh franky1?