As men and women, we have equal rights under the law. However, Nat Wicks has posited that we are still not equal -
Quote: Nat Wicks @ July 9 2012, 7:13 PM BSTLegal rights, for the most part yes. Legal rights and the right to equality are very different things though. We are bridging the gap, it just isn't happening fast enough.
I am unsure of what 'right to equality' means. Can someone please explain this concept to me?
You know what, I was toally up for having a good old, well reasoned debate on gender equality, but then I saw this:
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ July 9 2012, 7:55 PM BSTI'm feeling playful tonight, so I just might do that.
I'm not a f**king dancing monkey and won't throw my feelings out for your amusement. I know you're a clever chap and like to let people talk themselves into knots, but I'm not willing to play along with something I care very deeply about, apart from saying the following:
When it comes to the day when a person is not unfairly judged/treated differently (which obviously does not include being sensitive and tolerant to peoples' natural differences and needs) because of their: gender (or gender identity)/sexual orientation/colour/place or country of origin/phisical health then I will be happy. Until that point, I will continue to bitch and moan and make myself increasingly unpopular.
Though 'right to equality' is a very sloppy way of saying what I was trying to say, and I understand and accept that it's a bit of a nothingy statement.
As a white male in the state of Texas, I am a minority and I demand equality!
I agree with Nat.
Hearing the word "feminism" doesn't fill me with the same optimism that it used too. Unfortunately those who preach man-hate and similar such things also work under the guise of "feminism".
Feminists who just want equality should work under a new, more gender neutral name, the word "feminism" has become corrupted as well as simply not being as relevant today and I believe men would be more inclined to support it with a different name and a objective list that included equality for both genders.
Just because woman "have it worse" doesn't mean men's right to equality should be ignored.
Quote: Nat Wicks @ July 9 2012, 8:21 PM BSTI'm not a f**king dancing monkey and won't throw my feelings out for your amusement.
I was going to keep this debate light hearted. But as you've put such a negative slant on the subject, then let's have at it.
The moment this thread starts to descend into personal attacks, it will be closed.
Quote: Nat Wicks @ July 9 2012, 8:21 PM BSTWhen it comes to the day when a person is not unfairly judged/treated differently (which obviously does not include being sensitive and tolerant to peoples' natural differences and needs) because of their: gender (or gender identity)/sexual orientation/colour/place or country of origin/phisical health then I will be happy.
Then you will never, ever be happy. Even in the most homogenous of communities, there will always be differences between people.
How do you stop people from judging others? It can't be done. You can actively censor it, legislate against it, even change language to reflect this new attitude, but until you can go legally lobotomise people it won't happen.
You are arguing more for a philosophy then for equal rights. But for your philosophy to work, we would have to get rid of any ideas of self or identity, including racial, national and sexual identity. It can be done, but only under the most totalistarian of regimes.
Soon as the Soviet Empire collapsed, old rivalries thought long since dead reared up once again and bloodshed followed.
Men judge women, women judge men, men judge men, women judge women. There is no such thing as a right to equality.
Quote: Lee @ July 9 2012, 8:55 PM BSTThe moment this thread starts to descend into personal attacks, it will be closed.
Lee is a big, smelly poo-poo head!
Quote: DaButt @ July 9 2012, 8:58 PM BSTLee is a big, smelly poo-poo head!
Quote: Lee @ July 9 2012, 8:55 PM BSTThe moment this thread starts to descend into personal attacks, it will be closed.
Bumder.
Quote: Nil Putters @ July 9 2012, 8:59 PM BSTBumder.
Keep up Nil. 
I know.. bloody quick-fingered DaButt.
Do we need Feminism? Equality yes, but feminism? Just seems more divisive.
Though wanting an end to any and all prejudice, whether it be against women, ethnic minorities, the disabled, etc. isn't purely the reserve of feminism.
I suppose as women have gained a stronger societal foothold in the First World, feminism itself has changed to mean different things to different people. In the 1980s, Britain had two female heads of state and you can't get much more girl power then that.
The term Feminist these days is deemed a 'bad' word because they have been portrayed in the media as joyless, bitter, jealous women, who take life too seriously and are constantly on a PC witchhunt. If you want to be a girlie girl and enjoy the advantages that come with adopting that lifestyle, you are in some way a 'traitor' to all women everywhere. Which I think is a bit harsh.
Personally, I'm glad there are differences between men and women and think they should be celebrated rather then abolished in an ideologically led cultural revolution.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ July 9 2012, 9:20 PM BSTPersonally, I'm glad there are differences between men and women
Women have boobs.