-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are There Any Differences Between Men and Women that Justify Inequality?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
*grabs popcorn*
Share?!?
I kinda had a hunch you might like this.
Unfortunately, there is a discrimination against pregnant females concerning new job hires and project planning.
Indeed. And very well documented.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I understand your point, but that we may have different needs and requirements is not the same as inequality.
Always.
I think this is opening up a bigger can of worms. Its saying that any group can define a set of "different needs and requirements" to debunk the inequality label.
Nothing justifies systemic inequality for inheritable traits. If we as citizens are entitled to liberty and justice, it does not mean that some are entitled to more liberty and justice than others because of DNA.
Now, how about expanding gender differences beyond the whole pregnancy thing? Some of us females are moving toward the Holy Land of Natural Infertility. So, we don't quite fit the comparison, and especially when at our age we have wisdom, experience, and a whole lot of energy still left to burn.
Males. Higher testosterone levels. Higher risk for catastrophic auto accidents and riskier recreational activity overall, at least according to insurance risk assessments.
Still no justification for me as an employer to deny employment based on a higher risk of losing an employee to catastrophic injury. Or a government to justify discriminating against males due to higher risk of bodily harm from naturally occurring high testosterone.
.
.
.
What? All y'all men don't like being on the hot seat for something that you uniquely possess biologically? I thought it was time to take the attention away for a bit from the default topic focus of pregnancy. If we should be expected to discuss that objectively, so can you.
All in good fun, fellas.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
No, you misunderstood. I am physically stronger than the average woman, but we remain equals.
That we are different does not make us unequal.
Women can breastfeed, I can not - but that does not make women superior. It just makes them different.
Independent of our differences, we are equals.
Nothing justifies systemic inequality for inheritable traits. If we as citizens are entitled to liberty and justice, it does not mean that some are entitled to more liberty and justice than others because of DNA.
Now, how about expanding gender differences beyond the whole pregnancy thing? Some of us females are moving toward the Holy Land of Natural Infertility. So, we don't quite fit the comparison, and especially when at our age we have wisdom, experience, and a whole lot of energy still left to burn.
Males. Higher testosterone levels. Higher risk for catastrophic auto accidents and riskier recreational activity overall, at least according to insurance risk assessments.
Still no justification for me as an employer to deny employment based on a higher risk of losing an employee to catastrophic injury. Or a government to justify discriminating against males due to higher risk of bodily harm from naturally occurring high testosterone.
.
.
.
What? All y'all men don't like being on the hot seat for something that you uniquely possess biologically? I thought it was time to take the attention away for a bit from the default topic focus of pregnancy. If we should be expected to discuss that objectively, so can you.
All in good fun, fellas.
But...but...testosterone...that's not the same thing!
"Why isn't it the same thing?"
Because it isn't!
"But why isn't it?"
Because it just isn't!
Hmm. I'll confess I'm trying to figure out how a STR of 16 and STR of 18, in spite of being clearly different numbers, are somehow equal. I mean, one gives you a +3 to hit and damage, while the other gives you +4 to hit and damage...
I think you meant equal in value there, bud. But even then... is that fighter with a STR of 16 really equal in value to that fighter of STR 18 when you've got a minotaur bearing down on your party? All else being actually equal, if you're the party healer, are you going to heal the hit points of the guy with STR 18 first or STR 16? Come on now... be honest. Every single one of us has had times where we've missed that monster's armor class by a point... or hit them and they had a single hit point left. It's damned annoying.
(of course, everyone knows if you're a proper party healer, you heal the guy who at the most risk of dying first so you don't **** off your friends by leaving them to die just because they rolled crappier for their stats)
I think you meant equal in value there, bud. But even then... is that fighter with a STR of 16 really equal in value to that fighter of STR 18 when you've got a minotaur bearing down on your party? All else being actually equal, if you're the party healer, are you going to heal the hit points of the guy with STR 18 first or STR 16? Come on now... be honest. Every single one of us has had times where we've missed that monster's armor class by a point... or hit them and they had a single hit point left. It's damned annoying.
(of course, everyone knows if you're a proper party healer, you heal the guy who at the most risk of dying first so you don't **** off your friends by leaving them to die just because they rolled crappier for their stats)
JerryL
Well-Known Member
This seems to fall under the same cover as disabilities. That is to say: sometimes yes (quadriplegics cannot sign up for Navy seals); sometimes no (we require ramps to allow wheel-chair access).
Which is unequal? Everyone to a single set of rules which some groups will meet more evenly than others; or different rules for different people? Both have issues. For example...
So should insurance companies be legally barred from charging men higher insurance rates than women?
And again, which one is equal? Do we need to have a single "per person" rate regardless of everything, or can we vary based on things... like your personal record, the car you drive, your age, your gender?
I agree. We should, and do, proscribe by law gender as a factor in employment... at least directly.
Indirectly: I want the fireman coming in to rescue me to be strong enough to work their equipment... strong enough to carry me from a burning building. I don't care what their gender is; but I realize that this requirement might weed out a greater percentage of women than men... much like the SEALS cannot take a quadriplegic.
I'm good with it. How about I take it a step farther...What? All y'all men don't like being on the hot seat for something that you uniquely possess biologically? I thought it was time to take the attention away for a bit from the default topic focus of pregnancy. If we should be expected to discuss that objectively, so can you.
OTHER PEOPLE respond differently to men and women. Women are, generally, seen as less threatening, more nurturing, and there's a greater desire to work with rather than against a women. In short: women are better teachers, psychologists, hostage negotiators, councilers, customer-service personnel, etc... not necessarily because of themselves (though there's a case to be made there); but because of how society views them.
The first rule of equality is, to me, that all people have equal value as people. They need to be given equal opportunity, and equal treatment under the law. When reasonable, accommodation needs to be made to *create* equality where nature has not provided it... such as hiring men despite their higher propensity to go on a workplace shooting rampage; though where that is unreasonable it cannot be done.
It's a balance between equal rules (hey: the law that prevents sleeping on the sidewalk is applied equally to millionaires and homeless people), and equal outcomes. Like most things: Either extreme is a failure.
Baladas
An Págánach
Hmm. I'll confess I'm trying to figure out how a STR of 16 and STR of 18, in spite of being clearly different numbers, are somehow equal. I mean, one gives you a +3 to hit and damage, while the other gives you +4 to hit and damage...
I think you meant equal in value there, bud. But even then... is that fighter with a STR of 16 really equal in value to that fighter of STR 18 when you've got a minotaur bearing down on your party? All else being actually equal, if you're the party healer, are you going to heal the hit points of the guy with STR 18 first or STR 16? Come on now... be honest. Every single one of us has had times where we've missed that monster's armor class by a point... or hit them and they had a single hit point left. It's damned annoying.
(of course, everyone knows if you're a proper party healer, you heal the guy who at the most risk of dying first so you don't **** off your friends by leaving them to die just because they rolled crappier for their stats)
I think your post wins.
Near as I can tell, men are a little more predisposed to feats of strength & endurance, while women are a little more predisposed to analysis & agility.
However all of those things can be done equally well by both with a little bit of effort or simply through certain genes.