NO SUCH THING AS GENDER SUPERIORITY.

Post Reply New Topic

On average...
Men have higher IQ.
But.
Women have higher EQ.

Yeah but the EQ is being phased out of evolution, because social cues are too complex for humanity's goals. Not saying that emotions are unimportant, compassion is very important. It's just that in the proccess of evolution, we do not need such a complex system to confuse emotions. This is nature's way of telling us to be more honest and say what we mean.
I do agree that the men and the women compliment each other in this cycle of humanity. The female form represents compassion, where the male form repressents logic. Logic is nothing without compassion, and compassion is nothing without logic.

I think that each gender has qualities that compliment each other.

Acknowledging differences in the sexes is not sexist.
ASSUMING differences in the sexes is.

What I mean is, there are fundamental differences in the way men and women work due to varying levels of hormones, BUT to assume that someone is not good at something/can't be something/is something BECAUSE they are one gender or another is complete sexism.

I'm a female filmmaker. I get skipped over for lighting and grip work all the time because the film industry is FILLED with sexist attitude. Even though I have no problem lugging equipment and rigging things, I'm usually looked at for makeup and food services on set. THAT is sexism.

Truth is, both genders work together to balance out and make up for each other's weaknesses and strengths.

"I'm so sick of hearing misogynists say things like "Women would never make good world leaders" and feminists say things like "If we ruled the world we wouldn't have all these problems." Why can't we all realize that the genders are equal in terms of potential. "

That's exactly what feminism wants! *laughs* the whole point of feminism is to establish both men and women as equals! Don't compare misogynists to feminists, that's like comparing racism to political correctness., misogynists make the gap between genders wider while feminsts aim to close that gap. saying that also shows you don't know what feminism is. We don't want to "rule the world" for goodness sake , we're not men haters and we don't blame men for everything because we want both women and men to accept THEIR resbonsiblities and actions. Also there are MALE feminsts as well so your assumption on what real feminists aim for really doesn't make any sense ^_^.

And yet you can't even come to admit that you can find a man easier than one of us guys can find a girl. I'll admit to the faults of the male social structure. I think it's stupid that if a man gets alot of action he's treated as an icon, but if a woman gets alot of action she's treated as a "slut".
There, do you see how that works? Even though I'm a man, I can still admit to some criticisms against men. I don't try to project men as an angelicized gender.

If you want to be a leader you just need to want to be a leader. If you want to be a GOOD leader instead you will have to learn many, many wise things, and while you are learning these things people who just wanted to be a leader will become a leader in your place. This is why I think female leaders and male leaders won't be that different. They are there more because they desired the office than because they were fit.

I thought is was more like admitting being a woman sucks and there is nothing cooler than a man Feminism doesn't seem to export any "female value" at all, it only wants things men choose long time ago.

YES!

The more feminists in academia, government, and the media constantly raise the complain about a woman cannot be a leader the more the complains will go on. The media isn't helping with it's constant polling that points out there is X% of men and women (it's actually more women then men) that will not vote for a women for U.S. President.

There will be a woman U.S. President just like there was a Catholic presidents (assuming there is not, God help us, a nuclear war or something). The polls at the time said because of the percentage of people who would not vote for Kennedy he would never be elected President. Well, guess what, he was elected anyone. The polls don't matter because in the end it will be a two person race and people will be forced to choice based on more then "is this person a woman."

Right now the main block for a female President (it is the same bloke for a Black president) is the lack of viable candidates. The candidate that is closest to winning right now is Hillary Clinton. Behind her their is a whole lot of nothing that is obviously apparent. This is not because of sexism (definitely not because of Hillary, if she wasn't a Clinton she wouldn't be there), it's just none of the possible possible female names have done enough to move into the leadership positions or key governorships of either parties. This could very well change over the next eight years.

The GOP had two Black nominees for governorships, and one for the senate defeated in the last election. None of these candidates really went into the campaign thinking it was a definite last and had any of them won and turned in successful terms as governor they could have been Presidential material. The Democrats did elect in Massachusetts Devel Patrick, who was the first Black to win statewide office in that state Republican Senator Edward Brook, who served from 1967 to 1979.

Bobby Jindal, whose parents are from India, currently has a large lead in polls for Governor of Louisiana on the GOP ticket.

If feminism doesn't hold any female values then what the hell does? Please enlighten me.

Look, this is how it's running. Not all feminists are bad, there is a difference between a feminist and a feminazi. There is a radical group amoung feminists who took over a faction and are running it for their own hate-filled agenda. Much like the radical christians did amoung the Christians. Just like Bush rallied fanatical christians, I do not doubt hillary clinton will rally radical feminists. Them and political correctness idiots are going to be her main voting blocks.
There is more going on than what you see. There is a network of international bankers, aristocrats, wall street ticoons, and fanatical religious leaders who run the world behind a curtain. There are those who will deny this, who are in fact in the droves, but, they were programmed through television and media to see any "conspiracy theory" as a pure sci-fi phenomenon. Given humanity's tribal dominance issues though, it shouldn't be too hard to see.... Hell if you read alittle bit about it you can see all the red flags on the local news.
Like I said, there are good feminists who are sincerely for equality, but they'll loose power to the feminazi's because the New World Order funds them feminazi's, just like they funded the domionist "christians". And what happened there? The casual christians were labled by the radicals as traitors for not following their nazi-esque propaganda.It'll be much the same way with the feminists. The feminazi's will take over the feminist movement if the good feminists don't do something serious to take away their power.

I may have different ideas then some others on this forum, including those who are critical of feminism. However, one of my personal issues is that feminism does claim to speak for all women. "Feminism" is after all, merely a word (just like, say, neo-conservatism). However, it turned it became self-identified with an ideological movement first in the late 19th century (primary with the attempt to gain equal suffrage, but also with other things), and then with the more "radical" 1960s and 1970s era feminist movement that has survived to this day.

Feminism, of the type that you see in university women's studies department's, claims certain things are automatically identified of being a women, and certain things are oppressive of them. Now, there is some debate on these issues but there seems to be little debate in certain key areas.

For example, polls show in the United States a majority of the population are supportive of restrictions on abortion that would not be permitted are the regime of Roe v. Wade. However, those commonly associated with feminism typically strongly back abortion rights as one of the cornerstones of equality. Are the majority of women simply wrong? With the family, feminism has come to attack the "tradition" role of mothers who stay at home (sometimes labeling them quite rudely). Yet polls show that a majority of women would like the opportunity to spend at least some time at home with their child. Again, are they wrong?

It is as if I adopted the stole the title "Humanist" and started a group, and then the media and popular culture began paying attention to my claims that my group really represented all humans. Would this claim be worth taking seriously? Of course not. Neither is the claims of women at groups like "N.O.W." that they represent all women. They are an interest group, nothing more.

the problem is that feminists generally see society as being oppresive to women, a point with which i would tend to agree. given that most people are brought up in and conditioned by said society, the argument of feminists is that perhaps this conditioning blinkers most people to the oppresive nature of said society. which would explain the quandary that you bring up in your last post, jimservo. feminists would argue that they act in the best interests of women as a whole. clearly many may see this as a somewhat arrogant and self important viewpoint, but then again...

I certainly do not object to them thinking they are right (are it is hard to find any two people that think exactly a like in these kind of issues; there does seem to be a certain broad "accepted" wisdom that pervades "mainstream" feminist thought). I tend to think I am right . What I find somewhat perplexing is the failure to really admit at all by feminists that they represent (to varying degrees) merely a segment of female opinion. Then again I understand this from a strategic statement even if it is blatantly dishonest.

N.O.W. (and similar groups) are not like the National Rifle Association or the Brady Campaign to End Firearms Violence. They are more like the National Association to Advance Colored People (N.A.A.C.P), or the far more extremist Council on Islamic America (C.A.I.R.). They claim to represent entire segment of the segment of the population and they are largely taken seriously by the mainstream media. Every year annually you will hear of the "pay gap" and it's apparent causes, but rarely will you hear of well-founded critic's arguing that the statistic is based on misleading information and the pay gap does not actually exist.

Before someone points me out for being hypocritical, there are groups on the right that are somewhat comparable to this although they don't get nearly the respect in the media. An example would be a group I honestly don't have much respect for: Concerned Women for America. Although again this group doesn't claim to represent all women. Another group is "Young Americans for Freedom" which was originally a conservative splinter group within the GOP.

AFAIK feminism initially was, and still mostly is, about LEGAL EQUALITY. Obviously, equality it is a rightful stand, but in itself is not an exclusive (intrinsic) FEMALE value: many other minorities (in a truer sense of word) have also striven for equality. Rosa Parks for istance is not to be considered a "feminist", she was "black".

It is famous women have a bigger corpus callosum than men. It is less famous a second experiment proved the OPPOSITE ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract ). Still, it is easier to believe women have to have something that makes them worthy. What if men were really more intelligent than women? Wouldn't that destroy all female claims to be best suitable to leadership for innate qualities?

Ultimately, this is not even about power, it is about what else should be in lieu of power. This is feminists' main flaw: they haven't, and maybe won't, find an alternative to a male power structure. The best they can do is trying to replicate it by substuting men with women. I read an article, now I don't know where to find it anymore, that said women (I can't remember how general this was supposed to be in the article), when become bosses, simply behave like male bosses do. If indeed women's behaviour is dued to environment factors, changing the environment may lead to changes in the behaviour. The sad fact is that men already do is what works; women may add details, but aren't likely to touch the basics.

This only to tap a complex argument of "gendered" leadership. In a sense, leadership is not only about ruling, there may be leadership in arts, in sciences, in sports, etc. A woman breaking a male dominion is praised as a real achievement. Men beating other men instead are simply a group of men doing men's things, despite how exceptional they may be at what they do. Still, a woman is praised like that only because we find out she can behave like a man. Is there anything a woman does well that can be praised if done by a man? Actually, in our culture female behaviour in males is still looked down upon. These kind of people are called "sissies" or "fags". On the other hand Hawksian women are more favorably represented in movies.

I see men having more value than women simply because they enjoy so much what they do that others want to do it too, even if it is a harmful activity like smoking (AFAIK women start to smoke because A MAN decided to advertise cigarettes by giving them to the member of a feminist marathon.). On contrary, women have nothing others are particularly keen to imitate, so for the moment they have inferior value.

Reading a female magazine I got the impression there is something really feminine (it was proposed as the most feminine value in the article). You know what? Bear a child. Which is something a non-woman doesn't exactly envy. If this is the best value women can offer they surely won't change the world.