I plain don't believe in gender equality - The sexes are not equal and forcing equality lowers everyone's quality of life

[Izdaja Slika]

In this rant, I will use 'sex' and 'gender' interchangeably, but 'gender' below always means sex.

The political philosophy justifying equality of the sexes and the political actions taken to attempt to equalise them are incoherent, hypocritical, based on ideology and not facts, and damage everybody's quality of life.

My central thesis is stated in the thread title. Males and female humans are sexually dimorphic, and this must have downstream effects. The most obvious effect (or at least had been most obvious until trans madness gripped much of the world) was that men's and women's bodies evolved to do different things. Men are taller, physically stronger, require more calories to power, and developed a phenotype patterned after producing small motile gametes. Women are shorter, physically weaker but more flexible and developed a phenotype that produces large sessile gametes and have bodies that give birth. All of the above should be uncontroversial.

Yet, everywhere, everywhere, everywhere, for decades and decades and decades, there has been a push for women and men, as groups, to have the exact same numbers in every facet of life, even in cases where woman could obviously not contribute as much, and therefore are less valuable in that regard, than men. In gender-parity land, it is unfair that only five per cent of firefighters are women. But to achieve gender parity in firefighting (if it were ever possible), multiple interventions would need to be made. These include:

i) Lowering the physical strength and fitness requirements so that more women can make it through the initial stages (this has already happened in jurisdictions in Australia)
ii) Discriminate against men more qualified than women (by the very tests emergency services assesses qualifications) and recruit and promote lesser-qualified women over more-qualified men (this has already happened in Australia and is allowed under anti-discrimination law)
iii) Conduct public campaigns, and spend public money, encouraging women specifically into firefighting.

All of these actions cost public money and lower the quality of firefighting (as it must). To utter any of these objections in public life is to invite permanent ostracism.

The elites at the World Economic Forum publish a gender equality report for countries each year. The WEF is not interested in gender equality, and it nakedly tells you so in its own report. In Construction of the index, it writes:

Spoiler: WEF hypocrisy

Step 2. Data truncation at parity benchmark: The ratios obtained above are truncated at the “equality benchmark”. For all indicators, except the two health indicators, this equality benchmark is considered to be 1, meaning equal numbers of women and men. In the case of sex ratio at birth, the equality benchmark is set at 0.944,6 and in the case of healthy life expectancy the equality benchmark is set at 1.06 to capture that fact that women tend to naturally live longer than men. As such, parity is considered as achieved if, on average, women live five years longer than men.

Truncating the data at the equality benchmarks for each assigns the same score to a country that has reached parity between women and men and one where women have surpassed men. (emphasis mine)

A country where women were 'higher' than parity in all measures would get a perfect gender equality score. It would not be penalised for any inequality between women and men that 'favours' women.

But then, astonishingly, the benchmark for life expectancy is set at 1.06, because, apparently, women live 'naturally' longer than men. How did the WEF decide this? It is entirely within the realm of possibility that women live 'naturally' longer than men; it is also in the realm of possibility that women live longer than men because society has pushed men into more dangerous and stressful lives overall. Why has the WEF decided that women living longer than men is not an inequality to be concerned about? Note how screamingly perverse this particular measure is. If a public health campaign in a country successfully lowers problem drinking in men, and therefore slightly increases men's longevity while leaving women's longevity the same, the country would be penalised on the gender equality ranking (even though men would still not be living as long as women overall).

For those that do believe in the pursuit of gender equality, why do you believe in it?

 

[Tablet County]

For those that do believe in the pursuit of gender equality, why do you believe in it?

I believe in merit. If a woman can pull her own weight or even excel in a masculine profession in spite of her biology there's little reason she shouldn't be allowed to and vice versa. But these individuals are outliers by definition and while it might feel unfair to the exception to be bogged down by the rule, you can't base vast, sweeping societal changes based on the exceptional people in it.
The issue with many of these uberwealthy progressive types is that they assume they can magically will things into being with statistics and studies. So they just say the exception is the rule, and reality will eventually reconfigure itself to match the statistics and studies.

Spoiler: Mild Tangent

I just think it'd be nice to live in a world where there wasn't a gigantic social divide between men and women. And social justice did not create this gulf, it's merely exacerbated it. I'd argue a world where the sexes can share in each other's interests without completely ruining them is better than the one we've lived in since the dawn of time. It might not be a realistic vision for the future, but neither is the Kingdom Come and people still long for it.
It certainly doesn't help that a sizable group of men and women seem to think that "true gender equality doesn't exist" means either "you should treat women like dogs, yaaaaawww" or "men are all grugbrained gigarapists who want to enslave you through your womb".
It's all so tiresome.

 

[Storytime]

If a public health campaign in a country successfully lowers problem drinking in men, and therefore slightly increases men's longevity while leaving women's longevity the same, the country would be penalised on the gender equality ranking (even though men would still not be living as long as women overall).

women naturally live longer than men so it should never be male dominated?

 

[peachlover669]

I think regarding what the WEF puts out as anything other than jewish nonsense is part of the reason why women live longer lives, their not right to be happy with the way the world is but they're happy and they don't concern themselves with this hebrew kvetching. You lost the game when you looked at their "studies" for more then five seconds.

You are however right to believe gender equality doesn't exist since it simply doesn't and never will due to the incongruence between sexes. In terms of general equality (atleast the closest we can get) it very much is the case that a higher standard for women than men is to be expected as if you truly want the sexes to be equal you must make up for the inequality that inherently exists between men and woman. I think alot of men have been so jaded by modern equality attempts that they think woman should not be helped at all, lest they try and bid for the jobs of men once more but I think its important to remember that in gender roles it is one of the responsibility's of men to protect women. I think women should be afforded a slightly higher standard to make up for the fact that women just cant survive on their own but this should not be done by giving women preference over men in many things like how its done today.

Traditionally speaking this was usually achieved through marriage where a woman could have a man bound to her and protect her so that she can focus on raising the next generation thus creating a contract between men and women that benefits society. Nowadays in modern society I dont even know what the mechanism is since the current one is most certainly broken, I don't even know if women are able to raise children anymore with both parents having to work jobs. Returning to traditional gender roles without the old ways of trying to enforce those roles would be the best for society so long as we as a society are actually in a place where that can be facilitated.

I dont think you will find many people who believe in gender equality here.

 

[Izdaja Slika]

women naturally live longer than men so it should never be male dominated?

I already offered the possibility that women 'naturally' live longer than men (whatever the WEF means by 'naturally'). But equally it is possible that if society treated men and women 'the same', there would be no 'natural' women's lifespan being longer.

The entire point is that WEF decided, based on no particular evidence, that the longevity gap that favours women was and is 'natural', and the other gaps that 'favour' men are not acceptable but should be at parity.

If women naturally live longer than men, what on earth makes the WEF believe that women naturally don't have different interests to men?

 

[Storytime]

If women naturally live longer than men

they literally do this fact is not debatable

 

[Izdaja Slika]

I believe in merit. If a woman can pull her own weight or even excel in a masculine profession in spite of her biology there's little reason she shouldn't and vice versa.

But I believe in merit also. I just don't believe that merit considerations would result in parity in all the areas where gender parity is measured and expected and socially engineered. So parity as a measure of fairness is deeply flawed.

But these individuals are outliers by definition and while it might feel unfair to the exception to be bogged down by the rule, you can't base vast, sweeping changes based on the exceptional people in it.
The issue with many of these uberwealthy progressive types is that they assume they can magically will things into being with statistics and studies. So they just say the exception is the rule, and reality will eventually reconfigure itself to match the statistics and studies.

I think they recognise that reality won't reconfigure itself. That's why we see regressive programs and public policies that attempt to force reality to their will.

 

[Izdaja Slika]

they literally do this fact is not debatable

Oy gevalt. I can see you are not seriously engaging.

EDIT: Women literally do live longer than men. Whether this is 'natural' or not is the point of contention. And the fact that WEF called this gender-gap natural (and therefore implicitly by their metric denied that improvement in men's longevity was desirable to closing the gap, even though improvements would indeed close the gap, is what I am pointing out).

 

[Izdaja Slika]

I think regarding what the WEF puts out as anything other than jewish nonsense is part of the reason why women live longer lives, their not right to be happy with the way the world is but they're happy and they don't concern themselves with this hebrew kvetching. You lost the game when you looked at their "studies" for more then five seconds.

It doesn't matter how long I personally look at them. It matters that the WEF consists of elites with high economic and soft political power. These ideas shape our lives.

You are however right to believe gender equality doesn't exist since it simply doesn't and never will due to the incongruence between sexes. In terms of general equality (atleast the closest we can get) it very much is the case that a higher standard for women than men is to be expected as if you truly want the sexes to be equal you must make up for the inequality that inherently exists between men and woman. I think alot of men have been so jaded by modern equality attempts that they think woman should not be helped at all, lest they try and bid for the jobs of men once more but I think its important to remember that in gender roles it is one of the responsibility's of men to protect women. I think women should be afforded a slightly higher standard to make up for the fact that women just cant survive on their own but this should not be done by giving women preference over men in many things like how its done today.

Traditionally speaking this was usually achieved through marriage where a woman could have a man bound to her and protect her so that she can focus on raising the next generation thus creating a contract between men and women that benefits society. Nowadays in modern society I dont even know what the mechanism is since the current one is most certainly broken, I don't even know if women are able to raise children anymore with both parents having to work jobs. Returning to traditional gender roles without the old ways of trying to enforce those roles would be the best for society so long as we as a society are actually in a place where that can be facilitated.

I dont think you will find many people who believe in gender equality here.

But I don't believe that society should try and enforce any 'gender roles' either. Currently, about ninety percent of veterinary graduates are women. I don't care. If women want to be animal doctors more than men do, good luck to them. But just because they want to be animal doctors more than men does not mean we should fall all over ourselves asking why young men don't want to be vets. They just don't want to and that's okay.

 

[Storytime]

But I don't believe that society should try and enforce any 'gender roles' either. Currently, about ninety percent of veterinary graduates are women. I don't care. If women want to be animal doctors more than men do, good luck to them. But just because they want to be animal doctors more than men does not mean we should fall all over ourselves asking why young men don't want to be vets. They just don't want to and that's okay.

a lot of right wing guys think that gender equality should be enforced for some things like kindergarten teachers because they don't want their sons being taught by exclusively women, what do you think about that

 

[Otis Mallebrok]

I like women the most. They are just beautiful and they are generally wonderful to be around

 

[Izdaja Slika]

a lot of right wing guys think that gender equality should be enforced for some things like kindergarten teachers because they don't want their sons being taught by exclusively women, what do you think about that

I am libertarian-minded (though not a libertarian), so what I would say is: there should be evidence that boys are being disproportionately harmed by a heavily female-dominated primary school sector, and therefore programs and public policies (and even up to discriminatory hiring policies against women) would be justified if the harm against boys' development outweighed the harm that sex discrimination in employment would do to the women aspiring to be or in the primary school teaching sector.

But I will point out that the elites simply do not care if a profession is female-dominated and that this might have deleterious effects on men and boys. Indeed, even if we restrict it to academia and the teaching professions, there are anti-male (women only) positions advertised at the university level, and concern that there are more male than female secondary school teachers.

The fact that there are more female than male early childhood and primary school teachers has never raised an eyebrow from someone in an elite circle. And yet--if we are to believe the feminists--early childhood is when sex stereotypes are most salient in our lifetimes. So the exact reverse of the current situation would be justified: there should be men only advertisements in primary school, not women-only advertisements at university.

 

[rosecig]

I believe in female superiority

 

[666NASTYFUCKINGFREAK666]

we should grab every woman on earth and bring them into a house; in which we will tie them up in a three-way bungee cord system between the bedroom, the kitchen and the laundry room. upon improvement of skills they will gain access to the living room to watch sex and the city/desperate housewives or whatever the fuck they like

 

[regalterry]

To be perfectly blunt, the only reason gender "equality" exists is that men allow it to.

If men decided to treat women differently, there's nothing they could do to resist it.

I don't mean this as a jab at women, just an objective constatation of facts.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Is there anyone that does? It's just groups pivoting to equality whenever the needs arise. Women have no problem with inequality when it is biased in their favour.

 

[Not A Bunny]

Is there anyone that does? It's just groups pivoting to equality whenever the needs arise. Women have no problem with inequality when it is biased in their favour.

Most people don't know what they're talking about when they talk about "equality". The problem with the concept is that people who talk about it, talk in such simplistic terms, as if you can legislate morality into people. It's why it never occurs to them that when they say we "need" DEI, that maybe people might be treating you equally in the first place, it's just that you don't particularly like what equality actually means (that for any given job, you may be just as likely to NOT get it as you are to getting it).

They want all the goodies of "equality", but they never understand how any group rose to this arbitrary standard of superiority in the first place.

Feminists will tell you that being male is the default. Well, congratulations, you played yourself, because what that statement indicates is that there is nothing whatsoever that women can do to achieve equality because they will always have to lament the problems of being not-men. Until women create their own spaces under their own power, there will always be that insecurity, and the need for men to willingly hand over the keys to the things they've built.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Only idiots do.

 

[Soggy paper straw]

For those that do believe in the pursuit of gender equality, why do you believe in it?

You are going for the low hanging fruit of physical capability. I doubt anyone would disagree with it (on the farms).

I also agree that the way representation of women and men is disingenuous and harms relations between the sexes, to no benefit beside a cheap "girl power".

I don't believe that the sexes are physically equal, they are obviously not. The more important question is what does that mean for society?
I think there are more people on this website that would agree that women should not have the right to vote than people who would disagree with the statement "the sexes are not physically the same".

I don't think we should push women to pursue careers in STEM as much as society is doing. However, I also believe that there are challenges for women in male-dominated areas. Similarly, there are issues for men in women dominated careers (although they look different, and generally these careers do not pay as well as the male dominated ones).
As an example: I think it is bullshit that it is "sexism" that male nurses who do a lot more heavy lifting (literally) are paid more. They are doing more dangerous things in the job, so it is fine to pay them more.
Another example: if you are a black woman in a programming team, people will automatically assume you are the token hire. If you are actually competent, it is an uphill battle to prove your worth. As an individual, it will sting that people will assume you are bad at your job and dumb just because of who you are.

Should only men be CEOs and politicians? I don't think so. I don't think that women think the same way that men do (ON AVERAGE). However, I don't think either is inferior or superior overall. It is more about the individual.

Spoiler: Very very short sperg on IQ

Yes, there are IQ differences but

• IQ average doesn't say anything about a specific individuals (it is just the probability of that individual having a certain score, but then the individual either has that score or not).
• IQ over a certain threshold does not give you additional advantage.
• Women tend to be more around the average and men have a flatter curve, so more representation at both of the extremes

There are two threads on this website already to discuss this. I really don't think we should start a third.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Most people don't know what they're talking about when they talk about "equality". The problem with the concept is that people who talk about it, talk in such simplistic terms, as if you can legislate morality into people. It's why it never occurs to them that when they say we "need" DEI, that maybe people might be treating you equally in the first place, it's just that you don't particularly like what equality actually means (that for any given job, you may be just as likely to NOT get it as you are to getting it).

They want all the goodies of "equality", but they never understand how any group rose to this arbitrary standard of superiority in the first place.

Feminists will tell you that being male is the default. Well, congratulations, you played yourself, because what that statement indicates is that there is nothing whatsoever that women can do to achieve equality because they will always have to lament the problems of being not-men. Until women create their own spaces under their own power, there will always be that insecurity, and the need for men to willingly hand over the keys to the things they've built.

Once women got the right to vote, feminism should have died since any topic big enough to matter could be voted away. Instead it just tries to find issues in multiple fields (while conveniently forgetting cases where women have an advantage over men) and it's "success" has created a society where no one is happy.