People have a tendancy to make arbitrary groups. Wherever groups exist, there exists "ism's." Sexism, racism, and so on. Prejudice based on arbitrary grouping is wrong, no matter which way it goes, no matter which groups it entails. It is wrong that an african-american female has a better chance of getting a job then I do, simply based on the fact that she is a "minority" female and I'm a white male. The atrocities that happened in the past (namely: slavery) are no excuse to allow further injustices to continue. I am not responsible for the choices those in my particular "group" made in the past, and I should not be made to pay for them now. Equal rights means just that, equal!!! Equal opportunity! When will we understand that? It's just too fucking simple for us to get!!!!!
While I'm all for equality between the sexes, I think people should realize that there will still be fundamental differences that will always make them lean towards different roles in society. I mean, forty years of social agenda can't erase a million years of behavioral evolution. I saw a neat show once called "Science of the Sexes" that was about that kind of stuff... One of the things they explained was the classic thought that men are better drivers than women. As an experiment, they had a mixed group of men and women take turns parallel-parking the same car in the same spot. The women took much longer on average to do so than the men did. The basic reason behind all this is that for hundreds of thousands of years, males were the hunters. They were the ones out on the move throwing spears and what not, so over time they aquired better depth perception and spatial reasoning. Funtions that you use today to tell if your car will fit in a certain spot, or the closing speed of an approaching car when you're waiting to turn onto the highway. On the other side of the coin, they did a test where the members from the same group were put in a room with a list of stuff to do, like basic household chores. The women tended to multi-task, and usually finished the list within the time limit, where the men usually did things one at a time, and rarely finished the list.
Instead of focusing on the differences between the two sexes in a negative way...why can't we see how the male and female compliment each other..?.*or whatever gender you are into* I'm a chick...and i don't care if i'm called a chick..as long as it's not derogatory. I'm into caving..and other outdoorsy stuff. I don't care if the door is held for me or not. Who pays on a date, with me, greatly depends on who can get the money to the table first...otherwise, i dont care. I can just as easily take out the trash, mow the lawn, fix my car and things around the house as he can. I don't think women should get higher pay JUST cuz they are women with a family, unless they can do the job just as well or better. I would hope if a Female Persident was ever elected, that it would be based on her self control, intelligence, and calm deliberation in any given situation. Homornes can be a problem..but they are more of a crutch to use when we get pissed. Sorry ladies.but for the most part it's true...with the few exceptions. PMS is NOT an excuse. The feminazis do NOT speak for me. If a woman can prove herself in a typically men oriented physical labor type of job...fine. IF not..then she shouldn't be there, because she could get herself or others hurt. P.C. language is just friggen irritating. I knew what it ment before it all got changed around. It should be about mutual respect for ability. Books like Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus just further the gap between the two. If you can keep your temper and Communicate with each other, it wouldn't be such a mystery. One may not end up agreeing with the other, but at least they would understand.
but thats not equity... the male presidents dont do this! there calm deliberation makes them think that wars are justifiable... furthermore... it is aparantley ethical to factor in a monitary value when deciding to go to war. After vietnam & korea the USA doesnt like wars without any financial incentive. (like iraq) them two conflicts stuck them about 200 billion in debt... much of which still exists today. (il stop banging on now ) ---------------------------------------- The male presidents don't do what? Their calm deliberation makes WHO think wars are justifiable? I just want to make sure i know who you are talking about before replying. If you are talking about Male Presidents who are not trustworthy, intelligent, and have the ability to calmly deliberate.....No it wouldn't be equal. Why? because a woman breaking onto the scene would have to be better. All eyes would be watching her to see if she could handle it. The slightest things would be scrutinized and if she fucks up...how much do you want to bet it would be blamed on her sex? Not by all...but i have a feeling that would be the old standby stereotype to fall back into.
You're right....it was the direct attack on our twin towers that ultimately fuled the fire of our retaliation. It wasn't the only reason...some good, some not so good. However, if we hadn't responded, how long do you think it would have taken them to try again? I mean they probly have sleepers in our country as i type this. I don't like war...it's horrible, but i do support our troops and the decisions made by our president. I don't have to agree with them, but i do have to support them. Why? Because i live in the USA and if I didn't and if all others didn't ...how long would we really last? Divide and conquor ring a bell? I don't think Bush is a hero..i never did. I think he's a narrow minded bigot actually. But he made a decision....for better or worse.
why would a woman president be like that? Because she would have to PROVE herself. God, i feel for the first female prez that sets foot into the position. Her life is gonna be hell.
ahhhhhh yes..we are getting off track..lol I had to go back and read the original thread line.. I'm very intrested to see how She handles herself too. I just don't want to see all the old stereotypes popping up if she screws the pooch. you know..."Pms, Hormones, Emotional stress...etc etc" Okay..how about women in Combat? Are u for it, or against it?
I certainly think there would be problems within the ranks for ground troops. But this all leads back to old ideaologies. Once those are extinguished, i don't think there would be much of a problem. But that's going to take a long time and a lot of trial and error. Ever see the movie Courage Under Fire? In the one scene she starts crying right in the middle of *combat*..one of the male soldiers sez something to the effect of ..great you're crying. She sez..It's just stress asshole. LOL..i love that line. Tears do not mean weakness. Men and women deal with stress differently..again based on old ideaologies learned from parents, teachers, and/or friends. Now the physical thing...there will always be exceptions to a rule, but for the most part, women are weaker than men. *PHYSICALLY* However, if she can prove to handle the physcial stress ..then i don't have a problem with it. What bothers me is that she will most definately get raped. Some women would say that they would know this going into it. But how could you ever really be prepared to handle it unless you are trained for it? It would take a specific mindset to not let it destroy you. And i guess that's where special forces training would come in..but unless the women are getting raped in training...FOR training...i doubt they would really ever be prepared for that sort of thing.
Hooray for positive discrimination! (until the world's professionals are 50% men and 50% woman, or mooglekexin's view that "robots should do everything for us" is fulfilled.)