CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Are women taking feminism too far?
This debate will be about if feminism is helping to be counterproductive in the efforts to try and eliminate things like discrimination or are women taking charge and being proud in general?
When ever an oppressed people begin to regain (or simply gain) their rights, the =y almost NEVER stop at equality.
Christians were oppressed, then were accepted and treated as equals. However, they then oppressed all non-Christians for centuries.
After slavery was abolished and civil rights movement successful, African Americans didn't stop at equality. They had to sign Affirmative Action, essentially Inequality against whites.
Now I think woman want to be treated the same as men, but they want all the societal benefits of being a woman.
EX. A woman hits a man. No big deal. A man hits a woman. Holy shit.
The guy has to ask the girl out, pay for the meals on dates, propose, etc.
Sexual harassment claims, divorce settlements, etc. The man is supposed to open the door for the woman.
I'm not saying this should change, but there are rational limits to equality.
How can you say a group that has not yet achieved equality is pushing too far? Even in countries where women are treated the best, feminism is still fighting to secure basic things like equal pay and reproductive rights.
Everything you listed as being a 'societal benefit' to women is a result of sexism. They all perpetuate old stereotypes of weakness and traditions of chivalry. While these customs offer superficial benefits to women, they still leave men the job of making the big decisions. If both genders were given equal responsibility when it came to taking initiative and making important decisions, what do you think would happen to dating? If women were not automatically considered better parents, what would happen in custody cases?
The exception is maybe when it comes to violence. Men are just as deserving of freedom from violence, but a man hitting a woman usually stands to cause more damage to her.
There may be limits to equality but we haven't reached them yet.
How can you say a group that has not yet achieved equality is pushing too far?
Feminism is an American movement that is present somewhat in Europe. What rights do men have in the United States that woman don't? The only one I can think of is perhaps serving in combat roles in the military. All other forms of "inequality" are woman trying to overcome social barriers, which, as I said, would mean removing all these social benefits they receive as well. You can't pick and choose what equality is.
Everything you listed as being a 'societal benefit' to women is a result of sexism.
Yes...towards men.
They all perpetuate old stereotypes of weakness and traditions of chivalry.
If you want to open the door for us and pay for meals and propose, play video games and watch football etc., fine. But don't call it inequality.
While these customs offer superficial benefits to women, they still leave men the job of making the big decisions.
Such as? I don't see how holding the door for someone makes them more powerful than someone else.
but a man hitting a woman usually stands to cause more damage to her.
Why? I don't see why men aren't affected by domestic violence. Are you implying that woman are weaker? Because that would make them NOT EQUAL to men. If you want them to be equal, the punishment should be the same.
All other forms of "inequality" are woman trying to overcome social barriers,
I didn't say they weren't. They are. At least in America.
Yes...towards men.
Which is the other side of the same coin.
If you want to open the door for us and pay for meals and propose, play video games and watch football etc., fine. But don't call it inequality.
You might want to phrase this more clearly. Don't call what inequality?
Such as? I don't see how holding the door for someone makes them more powerful than someone else.
Read your own post, you listed a couple of them yourself.
Why?
Because men are generally larger and stronger than women. This should have zero effect on social equality.
I don't see why men aren't affected by domestic violence.
I never implied they weren't.
Are you implying that woman are weaker?
On average, yes, they physically are. Again, this does not preclude women and men from being social equals. Do you really think I am trying to argue about physical equality?
If you want them to be equal, the punishment should be the same.
And an example of where feminism doesn't stop at equality.
You might want to phrase this more clearly. Don't call what inequality?
Why isn't feminism fighting against all the social benefits woman get? You can't pick and choose what equality is and isn't. If you want equality, go 100% equality.
Read your own post, you listed a couple of them yourself.
What? How does holding the door for someone lead to them abusing woman?
Because men are generally larger and stronger than women. This should have zero effect on social equality.
Irrelevant. Domestic abuse goes both ways. Not just on the woman's side.
On average, yes, they physically are. Again, this does not preclude women and men from being social equals. Do you really think I am trying to argue about physical equality?
Again. Why should the punishments and social acceptance be different for men and woman in domestic abuse if they are, as you say, equals? I'm not saying you believe it shouldn't, I am silly pointing out that it is not something feminism sternly believes in.
And an example of where feminism doesn't stop at equality.
No it isn't. Feminism recognizes that sexism has a negative impact on men, too. Gender roles hurt everybody.
Why isn't feminism fighting against all the social benefits woman get?
What makes you think they aren't? Anyone who thinks women deserve social benefits for no reason other than they are women is not a feminist, even if they think they are. Supporting one gender over another is incompatible with the definition of feminism, no matter which gender is favored. That's the definition of sexism, not feminism.
What? How does holding the door for someone lead to them abusing woman?
This does not even make sense. I never said holding a door open = abuse, and you know this. I would appreciate it if you took more time to form coherent and intellectually honest arguments.
I told you to read your own post - did you even do that? You mentioned it being the responsibility of the man to ask a woman out, and to propose to her. These are two important milestones in a relationship and it is traditionally the responsibility of the man to decide when they happen. It's not fair to a man to automatically put all the pressure on him, and it's not fair to the woman to automatically remove any decision-making power from her.
Irrelevant. Domestic abuse goes both ways. Not just on the woman's side.
Can you point to the thing I'm saying that's making you think this is something I don't realize?
Again. Why should the punishments and social acceptance be different for men and woman in domestic abuse if they are, as you say, equals?
When have I ever said anything remotely supportive of the idea that a woman who abuses a man is less deserving of punishment? I am telling you it's less likely for a woman to subject a man to violence, and for her to be able to severely injure him when she tries. But if she does do one or both of the above, she deserves no lesser punishment than a man who did the exact same damage to a woman.
And do you think feminism is the way to solve those age old traditions? It takes time for people to come to power, those looking at equality currently won't be in a position of power for about 30 years, when you will be able to see power. And unfortunately, in those sorts of jobs, men can't take a year off to have a baby, which many women do. That's where the main loss for women is, in terms of getting to a position of power, I'd guess. And yes they are, but that's feminism, not equality, and I consider it incorrect.
If a man punches another man, and breaks his nose, it's not that surprising, and he doesn't have to be a bad guy. But if a guy hits a girl and breaks her nose, causing the same amount of damage, is it just as bad? Is it better? Worse? It's always worse, an example of feminist ideas.
Feminism is equality. Misandry and female supremacism are not feminism. Would you call me a racial equalist if I thought one race was better than another?
And yes, I think feminism is the way to fight sexist traditions. How else?
It takes time for people to come to power, those looking at equality currently won't be in a position of power for about 30 years, when you will be able to see power.
I'm not sure what the relevance of this is. Do you mean that the gender split in high-level corporate positions will be more equal in thirty years? If so, I don't doubt this, but why do you think this is? Magic? Or people working against discrimination and sexism?
And unfortunately, in those sorts of jobs, men can't take a year off to have a baby, which many women do.
When men start getting pregnant, they'll be entitled to exactly the same amount of leave as women. The criteria for pregnancy leave is not being a woman, it's being pregnant. People who aren't pregnant, men and women alike, are identically restricted from taking maternity leave. Equality doesn't mean identical treatment in every situation regardless of capability or circumstance. It means when a woman and a man do the same thing, they should not be treated differently.
After the baby is born, men and women deserve the same amount of time off work.
If a man punches another man, and breaks his nose, it's not that surprising, and he doesn't have to be a bad guy. But if a guy hits a girl and breaks her nose, causing the same amount of damage, is it just as bad? Is it better? Worse? It's always worse, an example of feminist ideas.
The idea that is always worse to hit a woman is not a feminist idea, it's a sexist one. It places women on a pedestal, implying they are innocent of causing real harm or not deserving of force when it's the only way to stop them. This prejudice stigmatizes men who are victims of domestic abuse at the hands of women. It makes it taboo for them to defend themselves and makes it difficult for others (and maybe even the men themselves) to recognize that they are being abused. This is exactly the opposite of a feminist goal.
Picture a 250 pound man beating up a 90 pound woman. Now picture a 90 pound woman beating up a 15 pound toddler. That's all the context you have. Why are they both uncomfortable images? Because the victims are both vastly outmatched and probably incapable of inflicting real harm on their attacker. You can flip the genders and it should still seem wrong. When people think of a man hitting a woman, they probably think of someone hitting a person smaller than them and that's not usually admirable. If you added context to make the woman the attacker, or gave her a weapon, or made her significantly larger than the man so that he would have difficulty hurting her, the perception should change. If it doesn't, then the previous paragraph applies.
I do think they are taking it too far. They have stigmatized men in general which is largely unfair and highly biased as they promote women's rights above all else (i.e. woman > men). Men are in positions of power for a reason.
By that statement I mean that there isn't some kind of 'man conspiracy' going on and everybody is out to put down woman. Often you'll find that men deal better with positions of power (though not always) as they are able to dominate a situation more effectively. I am not pro-man though, I feel that both genders are of equal importance but feminists have to realize that recognizing that different genders do different things better is not sexism, it is realistic.
Not usually a conscious conspiracy, no. But that doesn't mean there are no factors at work that unfairly oppress women, just because people aren't doing it completely on purpose. The hardest sexist ideas to fight are the ones people don't even realize they have.
Domination (whatever you mean by it- the instillation of fear, perhaps?) is not the only way to gain, hold or effectively use power. It's not even necessarily the best way. And even if it was, we have no idea how many more women would be equally dominating if they were not sent the message they should be accommodating, demure, and agreeable instead of assertive and authoritative. In America, a dominating man is admirable, but a dominating woman is a bitch and that's tame; in other places, a dominating woman is deserving of death.
Plenty of feminists realize not all men and women are identically capable of exactly the same things. That doesn't change the fact that women are not always treated the same for doing the same things as a male peer.
The world is starting to face a problem where men are taking a back seat. Women are out graduating men and subsequently out earning them. Men in return are surrendering (the ever rising Peter Pan syndrome) or in some cases fighting back in a physical way (dare I say in lower income areas). Lower income areas funnily enough, generally have stronger women (emotionally and socially) while men are more troublesome - this I base on my personal research in South Africa).
To an extent I feel we're making the mistake of thinking that men and women are the same. We're equal in worth but not in many other ways. For example, it is better if a guy breaks another guy's nose instead of a woman's. Guys are better suited to fighting. We take punches better and pound for pound we are stronger. We're less flexible but stronger. That's why we shop with girls, we're better at carrying bags (joke...ish).
Girls are quicker to pick up language and boys math. It doesn't mean that boys should be engineers and girls language teachers, remember, this was true before we had formal language and math. It indicates that there are fundamental differences between that male and the female of the human animal. One might argue that it's the hunter gatherer thing but personally I like to think that we were different even before we hunted and gathered.
The old crime is inequality in human worth. The new crime is assuming equality in all aspects of life. We are different and alike like a nut and a bolt, two completely different pieces that serve the same, equally important purpose. Men and women should err on the side of tolerance and respect and try to figure out how our differences can be leveraged in a modern era to create a better, more useful society.
The world is starting to face a problem where men are taking a back seat. Women are out graduating men and subsequently out earning them. Men in return are surrendering (the ever rising Peter Pan syndrome) or in some cases fighting back in a physical way (dare I say in lower income areas). Lower income areas funnily enough, generally have stronger women (emotionally and socially) while men are more troublesome - this I base on my personal research in South Africa).
You phrase this as if childishness or violence is the natural and expected reaction to educated, high-earning women. You also make it seem as if educated, high-earning women are the problem, not the response to them. I hope that's a mistake. There may be an awkward adjustment period in store, but I completely believe men are capable of maturely dealing with women as equals in power and intelligence. To excuse or settle for anything less from them is insulting.
I see no evidence of men 'taking a back seat.' Pretty sure they are still sitting comfortably in the driver's chair, even in places where things have gotten much better for women.
For example, it is better if a guy breaks another guy's nose instead of a woman's.
Is it? Why? This is making the exact same mistake you mentioned below - assigning inequality in human worth. The only difference in this scenario is that, for some reason, it's the man who is worth less, because it's 'better' for him to be subjected to physical harm.
Girls are quicker to pick up language and boys math...
Nobody thinks all humans are identical in ability in circumstance. These differences in average test scores mean little to an individual and have no bearing on the necessity of feminism.
We are different and alike like a nut and a bolt, two completely different pieces that serve the same, equally important purpose.
This kind of language creates a huge chasm between men and women, as if we are separate species. We are all humans and our differences are dwarfed by our similarities. Try not to look at people through such a dichotomous lens.
It's not at all a natural situation, but to be brutally natural one would have to discard technology and language and resort to a world of physical domination. The 'nature' ship has sailed. That is if you don't subscribe to the idea that whatever happens on earth is natural.
Educated, high earning women is not a problem at all. It's after all what we were hoping for for such a long time. The subsequent social fallout is a problem. We need to readjust our view and accept that men need not always be the providers. Once that social issue is sorted out, things should be fine.
I've seen groups of people battling with social values that are weeks old. The idea of a 'male provider' is much older and one needs to keep in mind that this adjustment phase might cost society male role models. That should be prevented at all costs.
On the guy breaking another guy's nose:
Having your nose broken does not take from your human worth. The males in many animal species fight for both pleasure and dominance. In a very primal and natural way one can say 'it's a guy thing'. Men fight and they are happy to. If you like social projects, put all your prejudice aside and interview men at a fighting academy. Men deal with fighting better, they recover faster and they handle trauma better. They are, naturally, better fighters and more inclined to do so.
On girls and language:
It has bearing on the direction of feminism. It's a tip of an iceberg. It indicates that there are fundamental differences in the way information is perceived and processed. Possibly to the same end, but different in every other way. The fact that I used academic subjects in the example is irrelevant.
And on dichotomy:
We are two different species. The divide between men and women is massive and it's laughable to think we're going to squeeze both of us into the same mold. Men make for strange women and women are strange men. If we are the same, if there is no difference, why do we have feminism. Did the savage mind create inequality or did culture create it? And even so, where was the starting point. Was it because one looked down to see a protrusion and the other a cavity and so it started?
In the animal kingdom some females eat males, in the aviated species they look different - so much so that you can mistake them for two different species. How many nature documentaries open a new scene with 'in the male of the species' or 'in the female of the species'? Why are we so special to think we're exactly the same, bar for reproduction? It's absurd.
But equally absurd is to say we have different human worth. I state this explicitly in my previous argument and you conveniently forget to highlight and mention that. Don't cherry pick from arguments. Equal human worth is of paramount importance. It is the lack of equal human worth that brings the very legitimate rise of feminism.
If we are then the same, can you explain the point of homo and heterosexual relationships. I've spoken to many gay men and they are in gay relationships for more than just the male physique and genitals. The male human is different. The same goes for lesbian relationships and heterosexual relationships.
I meant natural as in probable, not as in 'occurs within nature.'
Having your nose broken does not take from your human worth.
The idea that it's better for a man to have his nose broken does take from his human worth. This is not about fighting academies or fighting for fun or whatever you're trying to add in hindsight: the only context you gave was that, if someone has their nose broken, it's better for it to be a man. No other information, just gender, and by virtue of gender alone he is more deserving of injury.
It has bearing on the direction of feminism.
The idea of gender equality applies with little or no change no matter who is, on average, better at what.
The results do not indicate that the differences are fundamental, just that they are currently here. The only way you would be able to show they are inherent is in a society completely lacking in sexism, and none exist. This doesn't meant I don't think there is no inherent difference in the way men and women tend to think, just that there is no way to tell how much of the difference is environmental and how much is genetic.
We are two different species.
It's kind of sad to see how deeply you're willing to divide people. It's like you think there is a strict set of inherently male traits, a strict set of inherently female traits, and everyone fits nicely into the trait set dictated by their gender. People are not so easily pigeon-holed.
I've met men who make pretty good women, and vice versa. They're called transsexuals. Even when the overlap in traits is not taken to that level, I can't name a single person who fits perfectly into the long and expansive set of traits prescribed by their gender. Imagine how much more overlap there would be if people were not forced into gender roles at birth, to varying degrees of rigidity depending on culture.
If we are the same, if there is no difference, why do we have feminism.
Show me where I said there is no difference, that everyone is identical. And I'll show you (again) where I said exactly the opposite of that:
"Nobody thinks all humans are identical in ability in circumstance."
"Our differences are dwarfed by our similarities."
"These differences in average test scores..."
I hope that's enough. I have bypassed the points you make based on the assumption that I think everyone is exactly the same.
I state this explicitly in my previous argument and you conveniently forget to highlight and mention that.
Even if you actually mean this, I still take issue with your idea that men and women are so vastly and irreconcilably different.
If by natural you mean probable I'd agree. It was not very probable but it is happening which is why we are struggling with it.
If I cannot define my point in hindsight there is no point to debate. Then it really is submitting a fact and then have someone rubber stamp it. The idea behind debate is to flesh out concepts and arguments as you go along in order to create understanding and forge new ideas. By blocking any new facts and clinging to ‘but you said’ is counterproductive. If this is your view then I’ll stop with this post.
In all my years of social research I’ve never worked with pigeon holes. I believe in archetypes that is very seldom reflects any individual. I think that’s a Platonic idea – it’s nothing new and nothing I thought up. Male and female are such archetypes and we gravitate towards them – much like the moon around the earth. We’re closer and further away and we vary in our intensity throughout our lifetime. I build arguments from the archetype out and in terms of archetypes, men and women really differ this much.
You seem extremely intolerant in that you see difference and hostility as the same thing. Your response for ‘we are different’ is the same as ‘one is better than the other’. I was a fan of Simone de Beauvoir’s feminist position that held a different but equal ideal. I believe she didn’t feel that we were more or less, but she definitely felt we were different in extreme ways. She was, in my understanding, verbal about the existing inequalities between men and women. We can be sensitive to the inequalities while still holding a view that we are fundamentally different.
I don’t divide people deeply. That’s ridiculous. I’m saying that women bring something different and equally important to the table. A man cannot replace a woman in society and a woman can’t replace a man. I find it strange that you think we can be that. In the modern economy the difference is irrelevant. Men and women are all the same in terms of the job market and economic function. But the modern free market is in its infancy if you compare it to the human race.
Are you focusing on the last 100 years when you have this discussion or do you keep in mind that humans too are animals?
And on fighting: There are a few assumptions between a broken nose and self worth. It’s a rather modern phenomenon to say fighting is bad. The connection between degrading human worth and scars of fighting is a modern social construct. There are many tribes (and even social groups today) in which physical challenges and the resulting scars are seen as adding human worth. But this mostly to men.
My reference to you saying there is no difference: You acknowledge difference but you hold that these are general differences and not particular to gender. There are gender based differences.
Transsexuals are also not the rule. Rules are very seldom ultimate and you cannot deny that transsexuals are anomalies. If they indeed claim they are women trapped in a man’s body that in itself acknowledges the difference between and women. If they are women in a man’s body they acknowledge that the woman inside makes for a strange man even with a fully functional male body.
If I cannot define my point in hindsight there is no point to debate.
If you didn't mean it's better for men to get injured when you said it was better for men to get injured, then say so. You're adding context about men in fighting academies, or men who start altercations with someone else- and yes, that does alter the answer, if the hypothetical choice is between injury to a man who started a fight with someone else, and a woman who ostensibly didn't. But your original situation included none of those things and as far as I can see you are trying to justify it instead of redact or rephrase it. Are you trying to add context to the original hypothetical, or explain why it is better for men to get injured? If the latter, you are not giving an adequate explanation.
In all my years of social research I’ve never worked with pigeon holes. I believe in archetypes that is very seldom reflects any individual.
Do you mean you believe in certain archetypes that are seldom embodied by individuals? Or do you mean you believe individuals seldom obey their supposed archetypes? Your phrasing is confusing.
What is an archetype but a model of behaviors and traits? How is it even useful to look at individuals as archetypes?
Male and female are such archetypes and we gravitate towards them
Why do we gravitate towards them? Because it's comforting to be able to apply a template of traits to a stranger? Why is this good or even excusable, just because it's a tendency people have?
I build arguments from the archetype out and in terms of archetypes, men and women really differ this much.
People differ vastly, even people of the same gender. You are fooling yourself if you think being able to put someone in an archetype is going to give you any real information about them.
You seem extremely intolerant in that you see difference and hostility as the same thing. Your response for ‘we are different’ is the same as ‘one is better than the other’.
Difference and hostility are not even interchangeable in this discussion. I recognize men and women do have some differences, which is nonsensical if you substitute 'hostility' for 'differences.' If that's not what you meant, you will probably have to rephrase this.
We can be sensitive to the inequalities while still holding a view that we are fundamentally different.
I am not denying men and women have fundamental differences. I have already said this and I would appreciate it if you would stop making points to argue an assumption I don't have.
I don’t divide people deeply.
You referred to men and women as separate species. That is a pretty deep difference, even figuratively.
A man cannot replace a woman in society and a woman can’t replace a man. I find it strange that you think we can be that.
A person can replace another person if they have the same qualities. Barring reproductive roles, there is no single quality particular to either gender. Of course there are some uncommon to one and common to the other, but I think an enormous reason for that is not genetic, it is environmental. People raised without gender roles would be more similar than they are now.
Are you focusing on the last 100 years when you have this discussion or do you keep in mind that humans too are animals?
Of course not. If our closest ape relatives displayed personality dimorphism anywhere near as extreme as the one you're positing in humans, then I would be more inclined to think such a thing had a more deeply-rooted foundation in our species as well.
And on fighting...
This history of fighting is nice and all but again, it's a belated attempt to add context. I'm fine with that as long as you're admitting it is not correct to say men are more deserving of physical by default. You gave no context about a fight or whether or not this hypothetical man thinks scars and broken bones are cool while the hypothetical woman doesn't.
You acknowledge difference but you hold that these are general differences and not particular to gender. There are gender based differences.
Never said that.
I think the variation between two people of the same gender is far more profound than the difference in average test scores. I think it would be even more so if there wasn't an attempt to push genders into adopting a specified set of traits.
Transsexuals are also not the rule.
I didn't try to somehow present transsexuality as a rule, but as a refutation of your blanket statement that men make poor women and women make poor men. And it was not the only refutation I offered. Every person in the world is a refutation of their own way, as I doubt there is anyone who adheres to the prescribed traits of their gender 100% of the time.
I'm assuming this is a discussion that is aimed at understanding and not accusing. Like the difference between a law and philosophy class. Could you explain what the context was that the original statement could stand on. I thought it was implicit that there was some social context to the injury of male or female. Pure injury, caused by no external social or physical world is equal. Yes, you'd be right, but the argument would be useless as no such situation exists. And if we are going to create a hypothetical situation or position to make a point, please state why we'd create it. (Like John Rawls' original position which was aimed, funnily enough, at tackling this sort of issue). Otherwise, if unspecified, we assume the real world (the default) which is necessarily a response to social and physical input. Anything else is arm chair discussions which I find to be a waste of time, unfocused and very ad hoc (which Rawls was but it was to argue a point and he had things narrowed down).
Archetypes
"certain archetypes that are seldom embodied by individuals" - I'll go with that. It's never useful to look at an individual as an archetype. But it useful to make sense of society at the hand of archetypes. If you're going to argue feminism at the hand of individuals you are wasting time. Feminism deals with society and that eventually impacts the individual. That is why I would discard exceptions to the rule
(or small groups) as social science does not deal with absolutes or 'complete' statistics (as in it requires 100% before we can say yes. 60% is yes, 70% is more yes).
Why do we gravitate towards them?
Billions of years of evolution made men and women what they need to be. Combine that with supercharged evolution since we made the first symbol that could carry meaning and you're left with a situation where gender evolution happened in a very uneven way (hence all the arguments around all these things). But the reality is that we don't know. It's there, been there for millions of years and is obviously not a construct of 'evil media' and 'evil big business'.
You are fooling yourself if you think being able to put someone in an archetype is going to give you any real information about them.
You're right. An archetype reveals very little about the individual. But in the broadest strokes it can predict values and norms. Like they say: 'no one is unpredictable'. By that I don't mean to say you can predict the individual's next step but you can predict what societal values and 'truths' would be within the next 10 years. That in no way deals with the individual. But I have had many an argument where 'the individual' is used as irrational and emotional leverage to challenge the 'archetype models'. It's silly, the argument is bogged down and it goes on forever because the same logic does not count. (Look even at the difference between micro and macro economics - completely different rules at the aggregate but it all makes sense).
difference and hostility are not even interchangeable in this discussion.
Linguistically no, you're right. But in principle yes. So let's then rephrase: 'you assume a direct positive correlation between difference and hostility. The one implies the other'. Hostility is very often caused by difference, but difference doesn't cause hostility as often. It's like saying my car is green, therefore all things green is my car.
Also, there are two ways of seeing difference. One assumes that difference marks hierarchy and the other assumes only that difference assumes difference. You seem to be of the former.
I am not denying men and women have fundamental differences.
Which differences do you believe we have?
You referred to men and women as separate species. That is a pretty deep difference, even figuratively.
While I believe all animals vary this deeply between male and female, I cannot claim to know much about that. I'm no biologist and we don't really understand the social dynamics of animals to the depth that we understand our own. In this (and this is from a human perspective) I am aware of enough difference between men and women so as to constitute the same difference that I am aware of between the lion the tiger.
My apologies for any poetic liberties taken. Although, I'm sure you'll jump on this to say "don't hide the faults in your weak statement under poetic liberties, if you didn't mean we are two species then don't say it" or some such bickering response.
A person can replace another person if they have the same qualities. Barring reproductive roles, there is no single quality particular to either gender. Of course there are some uncommon to one and common to the other, but I think an enormous reason for that is not genetic, it is environmental. People raised without gender roles would be more similar than they are now.
Inside the modern economy yes. We are equal and capable in the same ways. But why would humans (after evolving along the same line as all the other species) be genetically equal while every single other species (bar for hermaphroditic species like snails and such) are different. Do you honestly believe that outside the native island of Super Woman (and like you said, excusing reproductive function), a society will flourish with only men or women?
This statement of yours also flirts with the argument as to where the lines between nature and nurture really is. There was an interesting article in Philosophy Now an 'The soup and the scaffolding' which you may or may not have seen. While the actual article might not be so relevant the thinking helps with this sort of dilemma. (I haven't taken a look but I'm sure back issues are free on the web).
(As a side note, there's a laughable school of feminism that aimed at caging men and merely holding them for reproductive purposes. It was sort of grounded in this sort of thinking of absolute equality. Also, at the time of finding this, I knew a lot of guys who liked the idea. This is a comic side note so don't have a fit please, it's not part of the argument).
If our closest ape relatives displayed personality dimorphism anywhere near as extreme as the one you're positing in humans, then I would be more inclined to think such a thing had a more deeply-rooted foundation in our species as well.
As I mentioned earlier, I'm no biologists but I'm pretty sure they're quite different. I don't speak ape so I can't really engage at that level. Also refer to my previous statement.
I think the variation between two people of the same gender is far more profound than the difference in average test scores. I think it would be even more so if there wasn't an attempt to push genders into adopting a specified set of traits.
You believe far too much in the unique nature of the individual. On a global scale for today alone, individuals cluster very accurately around archetypes that make their behaviour, beliefs and values quite predictable. If you add the dynamic of time (meaning you not only compare Turks to Italians but Turks from 2001 to Italians from 2004) we all become little carbon copies of the other people that circle that same archetype. But what does it mean when women from Turkey in 1965 shared a same gender differences to women from Sierra Leone in 2005? If gender difference are taught (like you're supposing) then how did the teachings so accurately pass between all these societies while many of these societies are still not connected to the internet. More so, the least connected societies are the greatest perpetrators of gender inequality. Note that this is not to argue that gender inequality is right or wrong, it merely goes to show that it might be natural (in the broadest terms of the word).
I feel I have to point these details out as you look to block the discussion by nit picking instead of moving it ahead. Very annoying and it slows the discussion down.
Now feminism is a societal concept so forget about the beauty of the individual. The individual is irrelevant here. We can build archetypes or typologies based in infinite variables and perceptions. To say that male A and male B can in certain respects vary more than male A and female A is true. But that is irrelevant as we are not discussing those respects. It's a stupid statement. This is a discussion on gender and feminism on a societal level. So get all other ideas of 'other respects' between 'two individuals' out the way. They don't matter here.
I didn't try to somehow present transsexuality as a rule, but as a refutation of your blanket statement that men make poor women and women make poor men. And it was not the only refutation I offered. Every person in the world is a refutation of their own way, as I doubt there is anyone who adheres to the prescribed traits of their gender 100% of the time.
And then this is your individual nonsense again.
Now please, if you are here to bicker and jump between contexts to suit your argument, state that up front and I won't bother.
Also, do not make the mistake to assume your culture for the world and judge women accordingly. I've spoken to many women who love their position in societies that we might deem sexist.
Having said that, societies where women (or anyone for that matter) are burnt alive for having an opinion is never ok.
the .77 for a dollar and .66 for a dollar myths have been proven wrong so many times. You can't bring up an argument with no backing and pass it off as fact, something feminists do a lot. The fact is women are doing better in school than men are because the education system has been tweaked so far (in an attempt to help females) that it began to favor them. There are multiple studies citing how men and women learn different and how the current school systems wholly favors women, and while they're doing better they decide to go into subjects such that simply don't pay as much as the subjects men choose. There's no "invisible wall" stopping females from going into these subjects because they are already doing better than men in school. Taking a broad brush and taking into account EVERY job and EVERY profession choice to make up a number is not statistically relevant. In fact women between the ages of 20-about 35 make more then men in the SAME profession. So where's the outrage there?