I have heard that an all woman's work place tends to be terrible, but there are many areas that are all male workplaces such as construction that get along just fine and without any social problems.
Ofcourse, what do I know. I'm just a sexist guy, right? (Aimed at the users that will down vote this simply because I didn't go against reality to suit their beliefs).
I'm going to have to go with ItDuz on this one. Typically, when you put a bunch of men in the room, they usually find something to laugh about or conversate about, and all in all, get along. And even when they do fall out, they don't tend ot stay angry at each other for long.
Women are very grudgy, and one reason why I often find it hard to make friends with other females, is because they do like to gossip and envy one another. Also, alot of girls have this thing (and I'm not saying all girls, ladies, I don't fall underneath this catagory, and I sure a lot of you don't either so don't get mad) where they look at other girls, and in other words, they constantly check each other out, comparing whose prettier or has a bigger chest or whatever. Women can be very complicated which is why I think it's so difficult for them to get along, where as men tend to know what they like and don't sweat the small stuff. Plus, the overactive hormones and mood swings do to the menstrual cylce probably have a lot to play in that as well.
But yeah, all in all, I can definatly understand where the OP is coming from on this. These are just things I've observed. It's not sexist. It makes sense, and it's very true, and I think if a lot of you think about it, you will agree.
You do realize you're just asking to get your comment down voted by saying "Aimed at suers that will down vote simply because I didn't go against reality to suit their beliefs"?
Women in general are more catty and gossipy than men; therefore, it would make sense why an all-male work environment would barely have kind of social problems.
Weren't you the guy who said that "women do noting but leech off a society that men built"?
I won't downvote you for having a differing opinion, I only downvote you when you're trying to make your bullshit claims pass off as facts.
I don't believe that was me, but I do believe it to an extent.
Males literally build civilization with very little help from women. It wasn't until civilization got far that women were able to actually contribute.
You can say that it is because they didn't have any rights to do it, but that is just an irrational point given that present day proves that wrong. The jobs done then are jobs that still need done now, and barely any females help in those areas that help maintain society, such as building buildings, water systems, roads, delivering foods, working to gain the fuels society needs to function.
Civilization is man made, and yes, in a sense the female gender is leeching off of the male gender greatness, but do I think they shouldn't be allowed to? Ofcourse not, males don't mind. Just don't try to take the contributions the male gender is responsible for and pass it off as your own contributions, because then you lose the morality sense of why the female gender should be able to use what man makes.
But let's be honest here, in the most civilizations, women have been regarded as the weaker sex, and them doing anything but getting married and having kids would have been completely impossible. You can't exactly say women are useless because they've barely contributed anything to society when the majority of them throughout history were never given that chance in the first place. I can't think of a single civilization that valued women just as much as men. Does that mean that women are automatically weaker and lesser than men? I don't know. My history isn't really that good, so I don't really know why that seems to be a common theme in so many cultures.
As for working in construction, delivering food, building roads, building water systems; any kind of manual labor you said listed doesn't help your argument. Of COURSE women aren't going to do any of those things because they require PHYSICAL STRENGTH (Yes, driving a truck and delivering food does require strength; they're the ones that take out all those heavy packages). Men are physically stronger than women; that's a fact. Men have more testosterone than women, therefore it's easier for them to gain more muscle to make them strong. Which is why men, not women, work manual labor.
And sorry that you probably won't like this argument, but it's true: women in general have a harder time than men when it comes to getting jobs that would help "maintain society". Sorry, but it's true. The reason that there are barely any women who work in higher positions isn't simply the "men > women" explanation you would probably give. When a woman has a family, she is generally seen as the caregiver. So it's more difficult for her to balance being a caregiver and having a high powered job that would help "maintain society". And how do you explain the fact that women are generally paid less than men? Is that because "men > women"? But what if they do the same amount of work, and the man get paid a dollar more than the female? How do you explain that?
And what woman has taken contributions from the male sex and pass it off as her own? That's a broad statement, do you think you could be more specific? Like what, did women try to say that THEY were the ones responsible for the Constitution existing, or THEY were the ones responsible for the colonization of the Americas? Did some woman claim that SHE invented the cotton gin, or claimed that she discovered that the earth revolved around the sun? Do you think you can give me an example?
FYI, you believing that "being a good mother also involves making sure they have a good father, due to how statistics show that most criminals tend to be raised by single mothers" IS sexist, no matter how you spin it. Being a good mother means raising your child to being a decent human being and not screwing shit up. Being a good PARENT in general, no matter the gender, involves taking care of the child, showing them love, and raising them to be a good person. And just because a person is raised by a single mother doesn't mean that they'll turn out to be criminal. It also comes with the environment. A person raised by a single mother in the ghetto is more likely to turn out to be a criminal than a person raised by a single mother living in a well-kept suburb. And a person raised by a healthy, normal single mother is less likely to be a criminal than the a person raised by the alcoholic father & the drug-induced mother. A person doesn't HAVE to have both parents in order to be a respectable, human being. And if a single mother is working 24/7 to support her child, she doesn't really have time to make sure that they have a "good father".
You've done this before, writing off the involvement of women during pregnancy. Yes, men produce thousands of sperm, but the woman is the one that ultimately takes care of the child when she's pregnant; she's the one that gives it nutrients, make sure she doesn't do anything that would harm the child. You say that "both are involved" but you've always had this tone that women don't do that much when it comes to reproduction, and that it's mostly the men doing the work.
You are trying to justify why women are not contributing to such things as building improvements to civilization by how women 'were' treated.
That was then, this is now. Women are allowed to do these things now, yet still don't.
Women are able to contribute to the construction industry if they want to now, and it is even easier now than it was when they weren't allowed, and yet they still choose not to. Coincidence? I think not.
Women now have the chance to prove they can do what men can to see if it is incorrect that men can do what women can't, yet would rather just adopt the equal brand instead of working towards it.
Women weren't allowed then, but they are allowed now. So what is their excuse for not doing it now? The jobs back then are the same ones needing done now, just far more easier. So if women fought to be able to do what men worked as because they weren't allowed, then are are allowed, yet still are not joining such work forces, you cannot blame it that they weren't allowed, because they are now, yet won't.
Ok, so the reason why women are not doing all these things that 'need' done is because they 'can't' do it...Well does that not suggest men are superior? If women are unable to do these things that we 'need' to keep society/civilization maintained and progressing, does that not show that women are infact less than males, given that what we need to maintain what we have achieved is something women cannot do?
So your argument to suggest the genders are equal is that because women can't do the things that are required to keep civilization maintained, it is unfair, so therefor by default they are equal to those that 'can' do the things needed to maintain civilization?...What?
Let me bring you to a part in your first paragraph: "I can't think of a single civilization that valued women just as much as men. Does that mean that women are automatically weaker and lesser than men?".
Well if women cannot do the things that were required in the workplace, and were incapable of doing many things do to their lack of strength, then yes, that does make them inferior.
So because they are biologically superior and capable of more due to their biology, it is unfair to women because they did not get the same biology, and therefor are seen as equal by default?
I'm sorry, I just find it hard to go in to full depth here. You are unintentionally agreeing with everything I have said.
Ok, you are just completely contradicting yourself that is hard to bare. At first you are saying how men are far better at doing the jobs that society 'needs' done, then complain about women not being able to get those jobs...? Well if men are far superior to women in those lines of work that society needs, then it is justified, is it not? They lack the strength to do it, which is what 'you' stated.
So, hold on. You are blaming why men are in higher positions of society because women make 'choices' like having a family, then have to take responsibility for their choices?
There have been many studies that show that the reason why men get further than women is because males tend to be more professionally driven, where as women are more likely to choose less high pay jobs. Psychology has also studied and claimed this.
So now you are saying that it is her 'caregiver' stgatus that holds her back from help[ maintaining society, when before you blamed it on strength. Which one is it? I have an answer for both.
How do I explain women getting paid less? Again, women's life choices, which again has been stated by psychologists.
Not only that, males are far more likely to risk their health and safety than females are in a job, and so deserve more pay. This is easily noticed when you see how 95% of the workforce deaths are males.
Again, completely justified reasons.
There is no explanation, because that does not happen nearly as much as you think it does. Men risk more and tend to find jobs that pay higher, where as women don't and try to find jobs that are social. Again, this has been shown by psychologists.
Well actually, yes. Many women say that 'without us giving birth, they would not be able to do it, so we do just as much', in an attempt to try get seen as doing just as much.
But in the more natural statements, women will usually say "Women done all this work, they were just never noticed because men wouldn't allow them to be seen as contributers".
Well if that was the case, and nobody was able to find out and didn't find out, then how did 'you' find it out?
In which they tend to be quiet and make excuses not to answer.
Ok, so let me get this straight, it is sexist to state a 'fact'? It is a 'fact' that most criminals were raised by single mothers. That is not blind assumption, that is 'fact'. Simply because you dislike hearing it does not make it any less true or sexist. It is sexist to assume someone else is sexist simply because they state something females don't like hearing.
The next bit is just stupid, yet again.
"Being a good mother means raising your child to being a decent human being and not screwing shit up".
Yes, and making sure that the child has a respectable father figure and mother figure tends to lessen their problems. Are you implying fathers are not needed for a child to be properly raised? Again, stupidity.
"Just because someone is raised by a single mother does not mean they will be a criminal"...Where did I say it would? I said that the majority of criminals are raised by single mothers, not that the majority of children raised by single mothers are criminals. It might be true, but I have not looked in to it, so I will not say it is.
Although, a child is more likely to be a criminal if raised by a single mother. Statistics show that.
Yes, the environment does matter. A child raised with both a mother and father figure environment is more likely to not become a criminal than child raised in a single mother environment.
Again, I never said all children raised by single mothers are criminals, I said that most criminals were raised by single mothers, which implies it is more likely for single mothered children to become criminals.
Once again, psychologists have studied this.
No, she can't do that while working 24/7, so you know what she should of done? Not got pregnant to a guy that would not stick around or be an asshole.
She should have a child 'after' she found a respectable man.
Actually, I disagree. Who do you think is more likely to have a healthy child, a woman in the wilderness, or a woman that has shelter built by men, food delivered by men, water from water systems made by men, and so on.
Men have made it far more easier for women to have children than when we were primitive.
If you want to test that, if you fall pregnant, do so with no touch of male contribution, see how well you do.
A lot of mothers actually do smoke and drink while the child is inside them, so don't act as if all women don't.
Where did I ever say that men do most of the work in reproduction? I never said that. I said both are needed for it, and that men have made it far easier for women to go through pregnancy. I have never said men go through the same as women that are pregnant.
I honestly had trouble replying to this one. You mention one thing in one paragraph, then make the next paragraph that either answers or contradicts your first and second paragraph.
You're forgetting who does the a large part of the work in building our civilization is women because women give birth to the babies and then take care of them and raise them to be members of society. It only takes one man to give a million sperm but it takes a million women to make a million babies. Don't forget how difficult a job being a GOOD mother is.
Ofcourse. Because reproductive work (primal instinct) is as impressive as the world of intelligence (intelligence).
No. Women do not do the large part of society by building simply because they gave birth to those that build. In that case, men would get the credit for women falling pregnant, right?
You are saying here, in short and blunt: "Women do a big part of building because without them, the men couldn't be born to do such things".
Now using 'your' rationality here (no doubt you will say it is wrong, even when it is 'your' rationality)
"Well, you are forgetting that without men ejaculating their sperm in to the woman, she could not fall pregnant, so that means that men do a large part of pregnancy, in which they then do both a large part in pregnancy and building".
Same reasoning.
Simply because someone gives birth to someone does not make them responsible for the human that was born's greatness. Do you now how leech like that sounds? Can't do what your offspring does, so just say you do as much because you gave birth to him?
Again, you are doing what so many women do. You assume women make the babies on their own. No. It take a million sperm in order to make a million babies. Both are needed. And in fact, males can take part in reproducing hundreds a year to making children, where as women can only contribute by helping making one child every year.
Being a good mother also involves making sure they have a good father, due to how statistics show that most criminals tend to be raised by single mothers.
So no, women are not at all responsible for building civilization.
Reproducing and making civilization are two separate things.
Reproduction is needed by both man and woman, and it's goal is to make more children, not to make children to grow up to build.
If you care to explore the world you live in, you will see many great women thinkers, inventors, and constructors. You have internet access therefore you have the opportunity to learn that with a simple web search if you so choose.
There are a multitude of women on Earth with an IQ higher than yours, and with muscles bigger than yours. This is not meant to insult you, but instead a mere fact that there is always someone bigger, and smarter than you, and some of them happen to be female, believe it or not. Failing to realize this shows you don't know as much as you claim to.
The thing between your legs actually means less than you perceive it to. If you understand biology then you will also understand that sex is not just male and female. Sex is also in part the chemical and hormonal make up of the entire mind and body. There are men with female minds and less "masculine" bodies, and vice versa, with everything in between. You may not like it, but that's the truth.
I have never said some women have not been smart, inventors, or never contributed. I will never say that. I have said that compared to the male thinkers, inventors, etc, you will see that the female womens pale in comparison, not that there haven't been any female ones at all.
Yes, there are many women with higher IQs than mine, just like there are plenty of females with higher IQs than Einstein, which his was about 150, I believe. My point being, IQ alone tends to not do so well, or isn't reliable at all as an overall conclusion to how intelligent someone is or can become.
There are many females smarter in intelligence than me, I will never disagree. But, the highest IQs are male, with about two females being on the top ten list, with the first one being about fourth or fifth.
As much as there are smarter women than myself (which I agree there obviously is), there are thousands of men smarter than those women.
As for the strength thing, possibly. I was blessed with a very good natural build, with very good strength. There probably is some females out there that are stronger than some males out there, but in no way are there a big amount that are stronger than a naturally well built male.
It isn't likely, nor impossible.
Again, I have never said there is nobody smarter than me. Making false assumptions on what you believe someone believes shows that you 'do not know what you claim to'.
The testicles are a primary source of testostirome. Without them, it is very unlikely or impossible for a woman to reach the actual mind set of a male's.
I have no done a lot of research on the subject, and there are definetely women more masculine than there fellow women, but that does not say as much as a male, given the testosterome from the testicles the females does not have.
So forgive me for being skeptical, but I do not believe all of what you said is truth, and simply stating it is does not make it so.
Yes, you said that. Go to this story. http://isitnormal.com/poll/i-believe-a-married-man-has-a-crush-on-me-134365/#comment-1257221
This is what you said: "Yes, men built society and civilization, maybe with a "small" ammount of help in some minor areas from women, but in no way did women contribute to the progression of our society or civilization."
I've already had a long discussion with you about why I find this bullshit, so I won't do it again. But I just wanted to make clear that we don't downvote you because we want you to go against reality.
Took me a while to find the comment.
I tend to miss out parts of which I state things, and I can only assumed I missed out the part that was supposed to say progressed at an early stage, given that I clearly mention that women have helped in a small amount, then say after that they haven't helped at all. It would of contradtcited what I said in the first paragraph, so obviously I missed a few words when typing, which is something I do often by mistake.
Believe me, I lack the energy to debate with the majority of people here. I have come to learn that finding females on here that can go on rationality instead of the mentality of "This makes me look like less, this offends me, therfor it must be wrong".
You may have not noticed, but I barely come on here anymore.
If you didn't want to continue this discussion, then I don't see why you replied to me in the first part.
Was this your method of having your say, then not wanting me to have mine, to have them fall of deaf ears? Because I'll be honest with you, I would not be surprised if it was.
No, you can have your opinion on things. But saying that women did little for society isn't an opinion. "I like cats" or "Family Guy is a better show than Glee", those are opinions.
"Women do little for society" is a false statement.
When I say those things, I mean it in comparrison to what males have done in the sense of what is 'needed' for society/civilization to maintain and progress, in which in comparrison to males, they have done very little.
Who builds? Males.
- Buildings
- Water systems
- Bridges
- Technology
- Roads
Who repairs? Males.
Who work for the fuels needed for society/civilization to maintain? Males.
Who has invented the majority of the things we use today? Males
Who delivers your food to the market? Males.
Who cleans society to ensure it does not turn in to a dump (litrally)? Males.
________________________________
Without males, civilization wouldn't maintain, let alone exist.
The female gender do not/ have not done as much or is needed as much for civilization/society as the male gender. That is a true statement.
In our modern world, one person or gender cannot take all the credit for building or creating anything. It takes teams of people to make anything happen.
Before the 1800's, no one even knows how many women invented anything as they were not allowed to, so using any example before women were allowed to patent things isn't fair or accurate. There's no way to tell whether a man or woman invented it. Even after that, women were so oppressed so it's still an iffy area.
It takes financial backing, clerical work, permits, legal work, studies, and so forth. DO you even realize how much work goes into deciding and studying whether or not a stop sign or a traffic light is needed?
Yes, one person may come up with an idea, however it's not patented or sold overnight by magic. Many great men credit their mother or wife most of all for their support. Nikola Tesla, arguably one of the greatest inventor of late, got his inventiveness from his mother.
All that I am, or hope to be, I owe to my angel mother. -Abraham Lincoln
My mother was the most beautiful woman I ever saw. All I am I owe to my mother. I attribute all my success in life to the moral, intellectual and physical education I received from her. -George Washington
The hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.
-W. R. Wallace
Speaking of selling, if you take away the buying power of females, you would have very little or no success.
You speak of building buildings and systems. Yes, mostly men do the physical work, but there's so much other work that gets done in order to do the job. You can't just wake up one day and go build a house or put in a sewer system. Maybe a few hundred years ago you could but not these days. Without one piece of the puzzle, there can be no job done.
Let me explain. I work in a metal shop. I build things. However, I can't build a goddamn thing (to specs) without blueprints, I can't get my materials without going through the supply and purchasing department, and all of this is financed by the company's owners. We have a legal team, we have sales people, accountants and everything else. If one of those jobs wasn't done, no job would get done. I'd have no job if no one bought our products (many of our customers are hospitals and doctors who cater to women's health). I don't fault the fat drafters or the short, weak accountants for doing their jobs just because I'm much bigger and stronger than them. So I'm a buff dude, big deal, that alone doesn't make me greater than anyone else, unless I suppose we're talking about engaging in a street fight.
Women make up about 48% of the US workforce. You can make all the crap you want, but SOMEONE has to buy it, at least about half of those 'someones' are females.
ALL jobs are important. The job doesn't have to be physically demanding, nor does it need to be genius. Most people are not geniuses or physically fit. If everyone was then there'd be no one to do all the little shit jobs behind the scenes that keep everything running.
Actually, yes they can. Not an individual, but a group.
For example, by what you are saying, humanity cannot take credit for speaking English, French, German, etc, basically any forms of communitcation. As a group, humans have done many things, and so take full credit for the things they are responsible for, the expansion of communication such as vocal communication like English being one of them. So yes, groups can be responsible for something completely.
Did I say women have not helped at all? Ofcourse not, nor will I ever say such a thing. I have said men have done more, and continue to do more because they are capable of more, because they are.
So for teams of people, is a construction force not a 'team' of people? And when they are all men, does that not make that 'team' of people male construction workers? Yes, it does.
Women were opressed? Yes. So how do we reach a conclusion? Simply observe today's world. Women still do little needed in maintaining or progressing humanity as much as males do when women now 'have' rights. So implying women may have done just as much in quantity or quality when they had no rights, yet do very much less when they do have the rights to is just irrational.
Women have rights now, yet we still rely more so on males to maintain and progress humanity because they have done it more. So if women still do not do these things to the same standards as men today when they had their rights, saying they may have done equal when it was difficult for them to do less than equal amounts is just irrational.
The jobs we relied on back then are jobs we rely on now. Infact, the jobs that were needed done back then, still neded done now are far easier due to the advancements of technology, yet women are still nowhere to be seen in the construction indstry. So saying that they did not help because they were not allowed to is just wrong, given that they are allowed to now, even when it is far easier to do now.
I completely dislike the idea of "Women 'might' of done it, so therfor saying males done something great should not be held reliable, it might of been a woman." It is completely rodant behavior.
So let me get this straight. Because someone 'supported' someone while the person was achieving greatness, that equals to them being equally as great for supporting them?
Say if I supported a bum more than this person's mother did, giving them a home, food, water, heat. ALl for nothing. I was supporting him in getting his life together from scracth, getting him clean from habits such as drugs. If I supported that person, and he done nothing great, does that make me great? Even if I done more support than this person's mother? But if I done all that, and he happened to do greatness, then I am responsible for it? So I would only be great if this person became great? Do you know how leech like that sounds? You are describing this woman as a parasite.
Greatness does not get given to you, it is worked for. Yes, the woman may have supported him, that does not make her great. Yes, this man may say he would be nowehere without her, that does not mean the greatness came from her.
Yes, some, very few, but some men may have got their motivations from women, but if it was as simple as "She made it possible", then why did 'she' not do it? Because she lacked what it took to achieve greatness.
Your whole mentality here is that an idea equals to the greatness of achieving that idea. In our more early time of humanity, did people think "One day man will fly?"...? Yes. Does that mean that because they thought of the idea of humanity being able to fly, that they are equal to the people that made aircrafts? No.
Is it normal to hate working with all one sex?
← View full post
I have heard that an all woman's work place tends to be terrible, but there are many areas that are all male workplaces such as construction that get along just fine and without any social problems.
Ofcourse, what do I know. I'm just a sexist guy, right? (Aimed at the users that will down vote this simply because I didn't go against reality to suit their beliefs).
--
KeddersPrincess
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
4
4
-
Lynxikat
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
Corleone
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm going to have to go with ItDuz on this one. Typically, when you put a bunch of men in the room, they usually find something to laugh about or conversate about, and all in all, get along. And even when they do fall out, they don't tend ot stay angry at each other for long.
Women are very grudgy, and one reason why I often find it hard to make friends with other females, is because they do like to gossip and envy one another. Also, alot of girls have this thing (and I'm not saying all girls, ladies, I don't fall underneath this catagory, and I sure a lot of you don't either so don't get mad) where they look at other girls, and in other words, they constantly check each other out, comparing whose prettier or has a bigger chest or whatever. Women can be very complicated which is why I think it's so difficult for them to get along, where as men tend to know what they like and don't sweat the small stuff. Plus, the overactive hormones and mood swings do to the menstrual cylce probably have a lot to play in that as well.
But yeah, all in all, I can definatly understand where the OP is coming from on this. These are just things I've observed. It's not sexist. It makes sense, and it's very true, and I think if a lot of you think about it, you will agree.
You do realize you're just asking to get your comment down voted by saying "Aimed at suers that will down vote simply because I didn't go against reality to suit their beliefs"?
Women in general are more catty and gossipy than men; therefore, it would make sense why an all-male work environment would barely have kind of social problems.
--
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
You're kidding, right? Why do you think I mentioned that part? Because even when I don't add that part, it is still down thumbed.
--
iEatZombies_
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
A lot of said users won't thumbs you down in said comment specifically because it'll prove you right- which they seem to unintentionally do often.
Weren't you the guy who said that "women do noting but leech off a society that men built"?
I won't downvote you for having a differing opinion, I only downvote you when you're trying to make your bullshit claims pass off as facts.
--
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
I don't believe that was me, but I do believe it to an extent.
Males literally build civilization with very little help from women. It wasn't until civilization got far that women were able to actually contribute.
You can say that it is because they didn't have any rights to do it, but that is just an irrational point given that present day proves that wrong. The jobs done then are jobs that still need done now, and barely any females help in those areas that help maintain society, such as building buildings, water systems, roads, delivering foods, working to gain the fuels society needs to function.
Civilization is man made, and yes, in a sense the female gender is leeching off of the male gender greatness, but do I think they shouldn't be allowed to? Ofcourse not, males don't mind. Just don't try to take the contributions the male gender is responsible for and pass it off as your own contributions, because then you lose the morality sense of why the female gender should be able to use what man makes.
--
Lynxikat
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Corleone
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
But let's be honest here, in the most civilizations, women have been regarded as the weaker sex, and them doing anything but getting married and having kids would have been completely impossible. You can't exactly say women are useless because they've barely contributed anything to society when the majority of them throughout history were never given that chance in the first place. I can't think of a single civilization that valued women just as much as men. Does that mean that women are automatically weaker and lesser than men? I don't know. My history isn't really that good, so I don't really know why that seems to be a common theme in so many cultures.
As for working in construction, delivering food, building roads, building water systems; any kind of manual labor you said listed doesn't help your argument. Of COURSE women aren't going to do any of those things because they require PHYSICAL STRENGTH (Yes, driving a truck and delivering food does require strength; they're the ones that take out all those heavy packages). Men are physically stronger than women; that's a fact. Men have more testosterone than women, therefore it's easier for them to gain more muscle to make them strong. Which is why men, not women, work manual labor.
And sorry that you probably won't like this argument, but it's true: women in general have a harder time than men when it comes to getting jobs that would help "maintain society". Sorry, but it's true. The reason that there are barely any women who work in higher positions isn't simply the "men > women" explanation you would probably give. When a woman has a family, she is generally seen as the caregiver. So it's more difficult for her to balance being a caregiver and having a high powered job that would help "maintain society". And how do you explain the fact that women are generally paid less than men? Is that because "men > women"? But what if they do the same amount of work, and the man get paid a dollar more than the female? How do you explain that?
And what woman has taken contributions from the male sex and pass it off as her own? That's a broad statement, do you think you could be more specific? Like what, did women try to say that THEY were the ones responsible for the Constitution existing, or THEY were the ones responsible for the colonization of the Americas? Did some woman claim that SHE invented the cotton gin, or claimed that she discovered that the earth revolved around the sun? Do you think you can give me an example?
FYI, you believing that "being a good mother also involves making sure they have a good father, due to how statistics show that most criminals tend to be raised by single mothers" IS sexist, no matter how you spin it. Being a good mother means raising your child to being a decent human being and not screwing shit up. Being a good PARENT in general, no matter the gender, involves taking care of the child, showing them love, and raising them to be a good person. And just because a person is raised by a single mother doesn't mean that they'll turn out to be criminal. It also comes with the environment. A person raised by a single mother in the ghetto is more likely to turn out to be a criminal than a person raised by a single mother living in a well-kept suburb. And a person raised by a healthy, normal single mother is less likely to be a criminal than the a person raised by the alcoholic father & the drug-induced mother. A person doesn't HAVE to have both parents in order to be a respectable, human being. And if a single mother is working 24/7 to support her child, she doesn't really have time to make sure that they have a "good father".
You've done this before, writing off the involvement of women during pregnancy. Yes, men produce thousands of sperm, but the woman is the one that ultimately takes care of the child when she's pregnant; she's the one that gives it nutrients, make sure she doesn't do anything that would harm the child. You say that "both are involved" but you've always had this tone that women don't do that much when it comes to reproduction, and that it's mostly the men doing the work.
--
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You are trying to justify why women are not contributing to such things as building improvements to civilization by how women 'were' treated.
That was then, this is now. Women are allowed to do these things now, yet still don't.
Women are able to contribute to the construction industry if they want to now, and it is even easier now than it was when they weren't allowed, and yet they still choose not to. Coincidence? I think not.
Women now have the chance to prove they can do what men can to see if it is incorrect that men can do what women can't, yet would rather just adopt the equal brand instead of working towards it.
Women weren't allowed then, but they are allowed now. So what is their excuse for not doing it now? The jobs back then are the same ones needing done now, just far more easier. So if women fought to be able to do what men worked as because they weren't allowed, then are are allowed, yet still are not joining such work forces, you cannot blame it that they weren't allowed, because they are now, yet won't.
Ok, so the reason why women are not doing all these things that 'need' done is because they 'can't' do it...Well does that not suggest men are superior? If women are unable to do these things that we 'need' to keep society/civilization maintained and progressing, does that not show that women are infact less than males, given that what we need to maintain what we have achieved is something women cannot do?
So your argument to suggest the genders are equal is that because women can't do the things that are required to keep civilization maintained, it is unfair, so therefor by default they are equal to those that 'can' do the things needed to maintain civilization?...What?
Let me bring you to a part in your first paragraph: "I can't think of a single civilization that valued women just as much as men. Does that mean that women are automatically weaker and lesser than men?".
Well if women cannot do the things that were required in the workplace, and were incapable of doing many things do to their lack of strength, then yes, that does make them inferior.
So because they are biologically superior and capable of more due to their biology, it is unfair to women because they did not get the same biology, and therefor are seen as equal by default?
I'm sorry, I just find it hard to go in to full depth here. You are unintentionally agreeing with everything I have said.
Ok, you are just completely contradicting yourself that is hard to bare. At first you are saying how men are far better at doing the jobs that society 'needs' done, then complain about women not being able to get those jobs...? Well if men are far superior to women in those lines of work that society needs, then it is justified, is it not? They lack the strength to do it, which is what 'you' stated.
So, hold on. You are blaming why men are in higher positions of society because women make 'choices' like having a family, then have to take responsibility for their choices?
There have been many studies that show that the reason why men get further than women is because males tend to be more professionally driven, where as women are more likely to choose less high pay jobs. Psychology has also studied and claimed this.
--
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
So now you are saying that it is her 'caregiver' stgatus that holds her back from help[ maintaining society, when before you blamed it on strength. Which one is it? I have an answer for both.
How do I explain women getting paid less? Again, women's life choices, which again has been stated by psychologists.
Not only that, males are far more likely to risk their health and safety than females are in a job, and so deserve more pay. This is easily noticed when you see how 95% of the workforce deaths are males.
Again, completely justified reasons.
There is no explanation, because that does not happen nearly as much as you think it does. Men risk more and tend to find jobs that pay higher, where as women don't and try to find jobs that are social. Again, this has been shown by psychologists.
Well actually, yes. Many women say that 'without us giving birth, they would not be able to do it, so we do just as much', in an attempt to try get seen as doing just as much.
But in the more natural statements, women will usually say "Women done all this work, they were just never noticed because men wouldn't allow them to be seen as contributers".
Well if that was the case, and nobody was able to find out and didn't find out, then how did 'you' find it out?
In which they tend to be quiet and make excuses not to answer.
Ok, so let me get this straight, it is sexist to state a 'fact'? It is a 'fact' that most criminals were raised by single mothers. That is not blind assumption, that is 'fact'. Simply because you dislike hearing it does not make it any less true or sexist. It is sexist to assume someone else is sexist simply because they state something females don't like hearing.
The next bit is just stupid, yet again.
"Being a good mother means raising your child to being a decent human being and not screwing shit up".
Yes, and making sure that the child has a respectable father figure and mother figure tends to lessen their problems. Are you implying fathers are not needed for a child to be properly raised? Again, stupidity.
"Just because someone is raised by a single mother does not mean they will be a criminal"...Where did I say it would? I said that the majority of criminals are raised by single mothers, not that the majority of children raised by single mothers are criminals. It might be true, but I have not looked in to it, so I will not say it is.
Although, a child is more likely to be a criminal if raised by a single mother. Statistics show that.
Yes, the environment does matter. A child raised with both a mother and father figure environment is more likely to not become a criminal than child raised in a single mother environment.
Again, I never said all children raised by single mothers are criminals, I said that most criminals were raised by single mothers, which implies it is more likely for single mothered children to become criminals.
Once again, psychologists have studied this.
No, she can't do that while working 24/7, so you know what she should of done? Not got pregnant to a guy that would not stick around or be an asshole.
She should have a child 'after' she found a respectable man.
Actually, I disagree. Who do you think is more likely to have a healthy child, a woman in the wilderness, or a woman that has shelter built by men, food delivered by men, water from water systems made by men, and so on.
Men have made it far more easier for women to have children than when we were primitive.
If you want to test that, if you fall pregnant, do so with no touch of male contribution, see how well you do.
A lot of mothers actually do smoke and drink while the child is inside them, so don't act as if all women don't.
Where did I ever say that men do most of the work in reproduction? I never said that. I said both are needed for it, and that men have made it far easier for women to go through pregnancy. I have never said men go through the same as women that are pregnant.
I honestly had trouble replying to this one. You mention one thing in one paragraph, then make the next paragraph that either answers or contradicts your first and second paragraph.
You're forgetting who does the a large part of the work in building our civilization is women because women give birth to the babies and then take care of them and raise them to be members of society. It only takes one man to give a million sperm but it takes a million women to make a million babies. Don't forget how difficult a job being a GOOD mother is.
--
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Ofcourse. Because reproductive work (primal instinct) is as impressive as the world of intelligence (intelligence).
No. Women do not do the large part of society by building simply because they gave birth to those that build. In that case, men would get the credit for women falling pregnant, right?
You are saying here, in short and blunt: "Women do a big part of building because without them, the men couldn't be born to do such things".
Now using 'your' rationality here (no doubt you will say it is wrong, even when it is 'your' rationality)
"Well, you are forgetting that without men ejaculating their sperm in to the woman, she could not fall pregnant, so that means that men do a large part of pregnancy, in which they then do both a large part in pregnancy and building".
Same reasoning.
Simply because someone gives birth to someone does not make them responsible for the human that was born's greatness. Do you now how leech like that sounds? Can't do what your offspring does, so just say you do as much because you gave birth to him?
Again, you are doing what so many women do. You assume women make the babies on their own. No. It take a million sperm in order to make a million babies. Both are needed. And in fact, males can take part in reproducing hundreds a year to making children, where as women can only contribute by helping making one child every year.
Being a good mother also involves making sure they have a good father, due to how statistics show that most criminals tend to be raised by single mothers.
So no, women are not at all responsible for building civilization.
Reproducing and making civilization are two separate things.
Reproduction is needed by both man and woman, and it's goal is to make more children, not to make children to grow up to build.
Construction is needed by men.
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Hello friend,
If you care to explore the world you live in, you will see many great women thinkers, inventors, and constructors. You have internet access therefore you have the opportunity to learn that with a simple web search if you so choose.
There are a multitude of women on Earth with an IQ higher than yours, and with muscles bigger than yours. This is not meant to insult you, but instead a mere fact that there is always someone bigger, and smarter than you, and some of them happen to be female, believe it or not. Failing to realize this shows you don't know as much as you claim to.
The thing between your legs actually means less than you perceive it to. If you understand biology then you will also understand that sex is not just male and female. Sex is also in part the chemical and hormonal make up of the entire mind and body. There are men with female minds and less "masculine" bodies, and vice versa, with everything in between. You may not like it, but that's the truth.
--
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Hello, you?
I have never said some women have not been smart, inventors, or never contributed. I will never say that. I have said that compared to the male thinkers, inventors, etc, you will see that the female womens pale in comparison, not that there haven't been any female ones at all.
Yes, there are many women with higher IQs than mine, just like there are plenty of females with higher IQs than Einstein, which his was about 150, I believe. My point being, IQ alone tends to not do so well, or isn't reliable at all as an overall conclusion to how intelligent someone is or can become.
There are many females smarter in intelligence than me, I will never disagree. But, the highest IQs are male, with about two females being on the top ten list, with the first one being about fourth or fifth.
As much as there are smarter women than myself (which I agree there obviously is), there are thousands of men smarter than those women.
As for the strength thing, possibly. I was blessed with a very good natural build, with very good strength. There probably is some females out there that are stronger than some males out there, but in no way are there a big amount that are stronger than a naturally well built male.
It isn't likely, nor impossible.
Again, I have never said there is nobody smarter than me. Making false assumptions on what you believe someone believes shows that you 'do not know what you claim to'.
The testicles are a primary source of testostirome. Without them, it is very unlikely or impossible for a woman to reach the actual mind set of a male's.
I have no done a lot of research on the subject, and there are definetely women more masculine than there fellow women, but that does not say as much as a male, given the testosterome from the testicles the females does not have.
So forgive me for being skeptical, but I do not believe all of what you said is truth, and simply stating it is does not make it so.
Yes, you said that. Go to this story. http://isitnormal.com/poll/i-believe-a-married-man-has-a-crush-on-me-134365/#comment-1257221
This is what you said: "Yes, men built society and civilization, maybe with a "small" ammount of help in some minor areas from women, but in no way did women contribute to the progression of our society or civilization."
I've already had a long discussion with you about why I find this bullshit, so I won't do it again. But I just wanted to make clear that we don't downvote you because we want you to go against reality.
--
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Took me a while to find the comment.
I tend to miss out parts of which I state things, and I can only assumed I missed out the part that was supposed to say progressed at an early stage, given that I clearly mention that women have helped in a small amount, then say after that they haven't helped at all. It would of contradtcited what I said in the first paragraph, so obviously I missed a few words when typing, which is something I do often by mistake.
Believe me, I lack the energy to debate with the majority of people here. I have come to learn that finding females on here that can go on rationality instead of the mentality of "This makes me look like less, this offends me, therfor it must be wrong".
You may have not noticed, but I barely come on here anymore.
If you didn't want to continue this discussion, then I don't see why you replied to me in the first part.
Was this your method of having your say, then not wanting me to have mine, to have them fall of deaf ears? Because I'll be honest with you, I would not be surprised if it was.
--
Corleone
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
LesserKnownCharacter
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
No, you can have your opinion on things. But saying that women did little for society isn't an opinion. "I like cats" or "Family Guy is a better show than Glee", those are opinions.
"Women do little for society" is a false statement.
--
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
You are misunderstood.
When I say those things, I mean it in comparrison to what males have done in the sense of what is 'needed' for society/civilization to maintain and progress, in which in comparrison to males, they have done very little.
Who builds? Males.
- Buildings
- Water systems
- Bridges
- Technology
- Roads
Who repairs? Males.
Who work for the fuels needed for society/civilization to maintain? Males.
Who has invented the majority of the things we use today? Males
Who delivers your food to the market? Males.
Who cleans society to ensure it does not turn in to a dump (litrally)? Males.
________________________________
Without males, civilization wouldn't maintain, let alone exist.
The female gender do not/ have not done as much or is needed as much for civilization/society as the male gender. That is a true statement.
Interesting conversation, I must say.
In our modern world, one person or gender cannot take all the credit for building or creating anything. It takes teams of people to make anything happen.
Before the 1800's, no one even knows how many women invented anything as they were not allowed to, so using any example before women were allowed to patent things isn't fair or accurate. There's no way to tell whether a man or woman invented it. Even after that, women were so oppressed so it's still an iffy area.
It takes financial backing, clerical work, permits, legal work, studies, and so forth. DO you even realize how much work goes into deciding and studying whether or not a stop sign or a traffic light is needed?
Yes, one person may come up with an idea, however it's not patented or sold overnight by magic. Many great men credit their mother or wife most of all for their support. Nikola Tesla, arguably one of the greatest inventor of late, got his inventiveness from his mother.
All that I am, or hope to be, I owe to my angel mother. -Abraham Lincoln
My mother was the most beautiful woman I ever saw. All I am I owe to my mother. I attribute all my success in life to the moral, intellectual and physical education I received from her. -George Washington
The hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.
-W. R. Wallace
Speaking of selling, if you take away the buying power of females, you would have very little or no success.
You speak of building buildings and systems. Yes, mostly men do the physical work, but there's so much other work that gets done in order to do the job. You can't just wake up one day and go build a house or put in a sewer system. Maybe a few hundred years ago you could but not these days. Without one piece of the puzzle, there can be no job done.
Let me explain. I work in a metal shop. I build things. However, I can't build a goddamn thing (to specs) without blueprints, I can't get my materials without going through the supply and purchasing department, and all of this is financed by the company's owners. We have a legal team, we have sales people, accountants and everything else. If one of those jobs wasn't done, no job would get done. I'd have no job if no one bought our products (many of our customers are hospitals and doctors who cater to women's health). I don't fault the fat drafters or the short, weak accountants for doing their jobs just because I'm much bigger and stronger than them. So I'm a buff dude, big deal, that alone doesn't make me greater than anyone else, unless I suppose we're talking about engaging in a street fight.
Women make up about 48% of the US workforce. You can make all the crap you want, but SOMEONE has to buy it, at least about half of those 'someones' are females.
ALL jobs are important. The job doesn't have to be physically demanding, nor does it need to be genius. Most people are not geniuses or physically fit. If everyone was then there'd be no one to do all the little shit jobs behind the scenes that keep everything running.
--
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Actually, yes they can. Not an individual, but a group.
For example, by what you are saying, humanity cannot take credit for speaking English, French, German, etc, basically any forms of communitcation. As a group, humans have done many things, and so take full credit for the things they are responsible for, the expansion of communication such as vocal communication like English being one of them. So yes, groups can be responsible for something completely.
Did I say women have not helped at all? Ofcourse not, nor will I ever say such a thing. I have said men have done more, and continue to do more because they are capable of more, because they are.
So for teams of people, is a construction force not a 'team' of people? And when they are all men, does that not make that 'team' of people male construction workers? Yes, it does.
Women were opressed? Yes. So how do we reach a conclusion? Simply observe today's world. Women still do little needed in maintaining or progressing humanity as much as males do when women now 'have' rights. So implying women may have done just as much in quantity or quality when they had no rights, yet do very much less when they do have the rights to is just irrational.
Women have rights now, yet we still rely more so on males to maintain and progress humanity because they have done it more. So if women still do not do these things to the same standards as men today when they had their rights, saying they may have done equal when it was difficult for them to do less than equal amounts is just irrational.
The jobs we relied on back then are jobs we rely on now. Infact, the jobs that were needed done back then, still neded done now are far easier due to the advancements of technology, yet women are still nowhere to be seen in the construction indstry. So saying that they did not help because they were not allowed to is just wrong, given that they are allowed to now, even when it is far easier to do now.
I completely dislike the idea of "Women 'might' of done it, so therfor saying males done something great should not be held reliable, it might of been a woman." It is completely rodant behavior.
So let me get this straight. Because someone 'supported' someone while the person was achieving greatness, that equals to them being equally as great for supporting them?
Say if I supported a bum more than this person's mother did, giving them a home, food, water, heat. ALl for nothing. I was supporting him in getting his life together from scracth, getting him clean from habits such as drugs. If I supported that person, and he done nothing great, does that make me great? Even if I done more support than this person's mother? But if I done all that, and he happened to do greatness, then I am responsible for it? So I would only be great if this person became great? Do you know how leech like that sounds? You are describing this woman as a parasite.
Greatness does not get given to you, it is worked for. Yes, the woman may have supported him, that does not make her great. Yes, this man may say he would be nowehere without her, that does not mean the greatness came from her.
Yes, some, very few, but some men may have got their motivations from women, but if it was as simple as "She made it possible", then why did 'she' not do it? Because she lacked what it took to achieve greatness.
Your whole mentality here is that an idea equals to the greatness of achieving that idea. In our more early time of humanity, did people think "One day man will fly?"...? Yes. Does that mean that because they thought of the idea of humanity being able to fly, that they are equal to the people that made aircrafts? No.