I was going to say the same thing -- their wives wouldn't let them. — Moses

And even if have a society that where women are in a more "traditional" role, as is said, by no means does it mean that they wouldn't have an important role and say in the family.

I have not. Based on your comment I guess I would not last long apparently anyway. (joke) — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Let's think about a relationship, which quite similar at least in some parts to slavery. Owning a pet. You can buy the animals, they are your property. If you kill it, you are not going to jail. As animals they are inferior to you and they usually cannot put up with you. They are totally dependent on you, few would even survive for long if they would be abandoned. Yet in animal world, pets of humans are having a spectacularly easy privileged life and their owners do take into account their health, but also their needs and wishes. And pet owners usually think of the pets as family members and are sad when the animal dies, just as they would be if it would be a human relative or friend. And people usually aren't cruel to animals and don't like those that are, especially to their pets.

Hence if we can have an emotional bond with other species, we surely can have that emotional bond to our own, which we have been programmed to have. Add then that women bring up our children and that families are created by marriage are very important in any human society there is. The point here I'm making is that even if in some societies women are more subjugated than in our society (especially in earlier times), one shouldn't think of them not having a say.

Enslavement is something that where we really have to the social norms for this to put aside our natural empathy. The easiest way is to define a person as a prisoner, either a convicted criminal or let's say a prisoner of war. And earlier you had to have those norms in society for enslavement.

And finally, anyone who thinks men can enslave women should start this enslavement from their own mothers. I think the vast majority of men don't have any intension or desire of enslaving their own mothers, if they are alive.

Btw here it is Mother's Day, so greetings to all mothers!

And finally, anyone who thinks men can enslave women should start this enslavement from their own mothers. I think the vast majority of men don't have any intension or desire of enslaving their own mothers, if they are alive. — ssu

Nobody wants to enslave their own mothers (I guess sisters neither) but those mothers are already "enslaved" by their husbands, thus, the fathers of these men. So this is the main paradox of the issue which creates a vicious circle: husband enslaves their wife and have a boy. This boy would never want to enslave their mother but he will end up marrying with a woman who would want to enslave and so on...

Btw here it is Mother's Day, so greetings to all mothers! — ssu

Greetings to your mummy! Here the Mother's day is on the first Sunday of may.

Equal and just societies do not need to favor specific members.
The problem with our societies is that they are organized by pseudo philosophical systems based on the only type of discriminatory and racist idea that still officially acceptable by almost everyone.
Classism.
So in order to make up for the problems systemic class discrimination creates....we use more gender discrimination to "make things right"....great!

Now in a group of an species with 7 billion+ members, your argument on biological importance(procreation) is just silly at best.
Bill Burr comedy routine on wage inequality has far more sound foundations than that premise....
First of all your claim alone assumes that women can only bear one child at a time. Have you ever heard about twins triplets etc etc?
What about those women who decide not to have children? Do we need to discriminate those women differently?....I mean you argument has too many holes to be philosophical...not to mention ethical.

"enslaved" by their husbands — javi2541997

Men love the idea of "enslaving" women. That never happens.

Now in a group of an species with 7 billion+ members, your argument on biological importance(procreation) is just silly at best.
Bill Burr comedy routine on wage inequality has far more sound foundations than that premise....
First of all your claim alone assumes that women can only bear one child at a time. Have you ever heard about twins triplets etc etc?
What about those women who decide not to have children? Do we need to discriminate those women differently?....I mean you argument has too many holes to be philosophical...not to mention ethical. — Nickolasgaspar

This is the last time I will repeat this.

The fact that women are evolutionary more important than men is a documented issue. I will not discuss that in this thread, especially with anyone who has not researched it.

The fact that women are evolutionary more important than men is a documented issue. I will not discuss that in this thread, especially with anyone who has not researched it. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

-Evolutionary more important?????
Importance is a value we as agents project on things that WE personally VALUE. SO its an observer dependent term...not necessarily an intrinsic feature of the process!

Every characteristic that allowed us to evolved and thrived is very important...this is why successful traits are all still here!!!
I am not sure you understand what evolution is or how natural processes work.
Do you care to elaborate those "documented issues"?

Maybe you mean something differnet that isn't understood by those terms. I give you the benefit of the doubt and I won't assume that you are trying to escape a tight corner by avoiding to converse with facts.
Let me help you with an example
The evolution of a physically stronger gender that has the luxury to waste energy(protect, carry resources) without putting in danger the metabolic demands and needs of his offspring in a scare and dangerous environment is important for the survival of the species.

Mutations in the color of moths in England was important for their survival during the industrial revolution. So something that small can be evolutionary important...HOW ON EARTH do you make this evaluation among thousands of traits sir?

Do you want to change the premise? Maybe "evolutionary important" is not a good way to go.

btw...why are you saying "evolutionary important". Maybe at some stage of the human evolution , women were more important than other genders. Does that mean that we should reflect a million year old importance in how we discriminate people in our modern human societies.
How about monkeys....their ancestors did play a role in our evolution...should we grand them special rights?
Your excuse sounds nonsensical but I would like to look at the criteria you use to define importance and of course on how you make the jump past importance this to the act of "justified discrimination".

Can you give an example demonstrating where woman have more rights than men? I think that would help your OP. Currently you're stating an opinion, which may or may not be accurate.

But to broadly answer your question in the abstract, it depends on what you mean by "More rights". Since men and women have biological differences, there may be rights specific to anatomy that could be more numerous than men, and vice versa. So in the sense of pure quantity, there would not be a problem. If you mean women should have rights that explicitly deny men their rights, then no, that should not happen.

Anyone, including women ‘deserve’ the same right to survival as anyone else in society.

Can you elaborate on in what way women have more rights (legally) in Spain?

Whilst in western society you could argue that women have increased their rights, in many parts of the world, and throughout history, men can, have and still do ‘overpower’ women, from outright enslavement, in domestic and professional environments, and reproductive control (cf. current news in US).

And I have no idea why you think there hasn’t been ‘real opposition’ to women gaining equal, or ‘more’ rights.

Can you give an example demonstrating where woman have more rights than men? — Philosophim

Can you elaborate on in what way women have more rights (legally) in Spain? — MmeGazelle

There is a web page that mentions many of the legal differences in Spain (that favor women), which is the country where I currently live in.
I don't know if any of you speak Spanish, but I translated some of them using Google Translate and it is understandable.

https://diferenciaslegaleshombremujerenespana.law.blog/

And I have no idea why you think there hasn’t been ‘real opposition’ to women gaining equal, or ‘more’ rights. — MmeGazelle

I think there has not been real opposition because it has not been obliterated yet.

Anyone, including women ‘deserve’ the same right to survival as anyone else in society. — MmeGazelle

Can you elaborate it a little more?

Countess Elizabeth Báthory de Ecsed (The Blood Countess). If her story is true, she's the most prolific serial killer the world has ever known, 650 victims).

Yay! Woman for president! :joke:

Haha.

If we move to the field of personal opinions... women have always seemed to me the most frivolous beings that have been born on earth.

Women are more necessary in biological terms than men. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Isn't this an arbitrary statement? It is not backed up with reasoning or any evidence. Normally, one would think that none of the two is more necessary than the other, since both are needed to reproduce a new life.

But the subject is not so simple as it looks ...

Since the analogy of men to women can be generally considered as one to one, the answer to the question of who is more valuable/necessary than the other would have to depend on other factors. For example, the percentage of men who are reproductive and the percentage of women who are fertile. Right? (Of course, some men are more reproductive than others and some women are more fertile than others, but we cannot take these factors because I don't think there are statistics about these things.)
So, I looked in the Web about Are there more reproductive men than fertile women? and got the following reference first:

"Across the world, is men’s fertility different from that of women?"
(https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_POPSOC_548_0001--across-the-world-is-men-s-fertility.htm)
(Note: The term "fertility" is used for both men and women. Well, what can I say? These are supposed to be experts! :smile:)
The following finding is reported: "While the mean number of children per woman ranges between 1 and 8, depending on the country, the differences in male fertility are much greater."
So, if we rely on the above finding, we can say that, from a fertility aspect, women are more valuable/necessary than men and they deserve more rights than men in terms of survival.

Now, there are many more factors involved in the equation than fertility, e.g. mortality. (Some would also include "intelligence", but I don't consider there's a difference between the two sexes in that aspect.)

So, you may ask, if women are more vulnerable/valuable/necessary than men, and thus they should have more rights than men as a means of protection, how comes that men have generally more rights or prevail in key posts in most areas in society, in general? Right?

Well, let's look at mortality, which will show us if women are in more danger than men and so they need more protection.
I found the following answer/report on "Do men or women have a higher mortality rate?" (https://www.prb.org/resources/the-gender-gap-in-u-s-mortality/)
"Today, women have lower mortality rates at every age.

So, based on all that, I can conclude that women do not need more protection than men.
And that there's no paradox actually! :smile:

Good point.
Especially considering fertility and mortality.

However,

since both are needed to reproduce a new life. — Alkis Piskas

It's a more statistical matter than that.
Let me illustrate it:

Are full-time employees or employers more important in the economy?

Well, both are necessary but they don't share the same importance.

Due to the fact that two or more employees can be hired by one single employer, however one single full-time employee cannot be hired by two employees, there is a greater probability of survival for the economy the more there are employees.

So, employees are more important. Both are necessary, but employees are more important because of that. (Because the more of them there are, the better, i.e., the more probability of survival for the economy)

I also think that "importance" is not the exact word to describe it. However I don't know any other that gets closer than it to what I am trying to say.

Haha.

If we move to the field of personal opinions... women have always seemed to me the most frivolous beings that have been born on earth. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

:smile:

Anyone, including women ‘deserve’ the same right to survival as anyone else in society.
— MmeGazelle

Can you elaborate it a little more?

Your conflation of’ survival’ and ‘rights’ is a little problematic. There is no real (external, other than self inflicted) survival pressure on humans as a species as a whole, and certainly not one that discriminates between male and female humans at a group level. In terms of rights, In the eyes of Western democracy every life, at the population level (I.e. not individual level) has equal value and every individual is entitled to the same rights as a citizen, in principle at least; we are still a long way from the realisation of these ideals.

There is a web page that mentions many of the legal differences in Spain (that favor women), which is the country where I currently live in.
I don't know if any of you speak Spanish, but I translated some of them using Google Translate and it is understandable.

https://diferenciaslegaleshombremujerenespana.law.blog/

Again, we need to set aside your evolution/survival argument here. Legal rights in society relate to the power structures and freedoms enjoyed by individuals and groups. Perhaps women enjoy more power and freedoms than men in certain areas nowadays, however this imbalance, if it exists, is nowhere near the historical power and freedom deficit of women compared to men over the preceding millennia. We are much closer to equality now, a woman’s ‘advantage’ (again, insofar as it exists) in terms of rights over a man today is not as pronounced as mens’ over women 100 or even 50,10, … years ago.

And I have no idea why you think there hasn’t been ‘real opposition’ to women gaining equal, or ‘more’ rights.
— MmeGazelle

I think there has not been real opposition because it has not been obliterated yet.

Is the only evidence of ‘real’ opposition the obliteration of its target?
Not name calling but your arguments remind me of those of the ‘incel’ movement.

Perhaps women enjoy more power and freedoms — MmeGazelle

We are much closer to equality now — MmeGazelle

Perhaps women enjoy more power and freedoms, then we are much closer to equality... I get it.

Not name calling but your arguments remind me of those of the ‘incel’ movement. — MmeGazelle

And what is the "'incel' movement"?

Something just as supremacist as what you just said? Because if that is the case then I am not.

Edit: I have looked it up. What I understood, is that "Incel" is the derogatory way of calling those who doesn't agree with feminism.

First you say such a supremacist thing

Perhaps women enjoy more power and freedoms — MmeGazelle

We are much closer to equality now — MmeGazelle

Then you try to ridicule my arguments calling them whatever derogatory way you happen to remember in your ideological arsenal

Not name calling but your arguments remind me of those of the ‘incel’ movement. — MmeGazelle

This is the scum of modern societies.
Ideologies of the day based on political make up.

your arguments remind me of those of the ‘incel’ movement. — MmeGazelle

By the way, I participate in free thought, not in movements that bring me nothing.
Something that seems to be missing from you. Not name calling. :)

Perhaps women enjoy more power and freedoms
— MmeGazelle

We are much closer to equality now
— MmeGazelle

Perhaps women enjoy more power and freedoms, then we are much closer to equality... I get it.

To explain: If you consider a hypothetical pendulum representing the balance of rights, swinging between male advantage and female advantage at its extreme positions. While there may be inequalities on specific rights, the pendulum represents the aggregate of the position across all powers/freedoms. The pendulum has moved away from the male side towards the centre as women have gained more rights, and is therefore now closer to the centre, closer to equality. The position between male dominated and female dominated is closer to the centre than it's ever been and what overall displacement exists, if it is even in favour of women (imo, not), is still significantly less than the swing towards male rights that has existed in the preceding centuries.

your arguments remind me of those of the ‘incel’ movement.
— MmeGazelle

By the way, I participate in free thought, not in movements that bring me nothing.
Something that seems to be missing from you. Not name calling. :)

If we move to the field of personal opinions... women have always seemed to me the most frivolous beings that have been born on earth. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

I wonder how free your thought can be if this is your underlying position

Edit: I have looked it up. What I understood, is that "Incel" is the derogatory way of calling those who doesn't agree with feminism. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

'Incel' is not those who don't agree with feminism, it relates to ideas that women are inferior to men and should be subservient to their needs. However I see that bringing to up has been unhelpful to this discussion, would you agree to park it?

it is even in favour of women (imo, not) — MmeGazelle

The thing is, I just gave you a whole list of differences that favor women

https://diferenciaslegaleshombremujerenespana.law.blog/ — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

And, in your opinion, it is still not in favor of women.

It seems to me that you are not seeking truth, you are looking to justify the discourse of your ideology.

I will not help you. I will not reply again to you in particular about this subject.

By the way, I think your analogy of the pendulum is reasonable. But if you are looking for it to stay still (be even, be fair) you should not try to compensate the momentum it had in the opposite direction, because gravity will take it back again, you just have to derogate the position it is in. If feminism means equity, then modern feminism is anti-feminist.

Thank you for your answers.

I wonder how free your thought can be if this is your underlying position — MmeGazelle

It's not my underlying position, why do you call it "Underlying position"?

That is something that I personally believe. Would you want to discuss it?

it is even in favour of women (imo, not)
— MmeGazelle

The thing is, I just gave you a whole list of differences that favor women

https://diferenciaslegaleshombremujerenespana.law.blog/
— ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

And, in your opinion, it is still not in favor of women. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

I am not suggesting that there is equality, or that women are not favoured in any/some specific cases. I am saying that when you compare rights overall, as a whole, then we are closer to equality than at any time in history. And to get to this position has required a shift away from the historically dominant position favouring male rights.

For example in the specific examples you gave, the inequalities are not as extreme as, say, the having the right to vote, or access to abortion, to give two examples off the top of my head. They certainly don't speak to your original invocation of 'survival'.

It seems to me that you are not seeking truth, you are looking to justify the discourse of your ideology. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

This is not helpful or particularly meaningful statement, I have merely responded to your arguments with observations of my own. Perhaps the same mistake as my 'incel' comment inferring an ideology rather than taking statements at face value.

By the way, I think your analogy of the pendulum is reasonable. But if you are looking for it to stay still (be even, be fair) you should not try to compensate the momentum it had in the opposite direction, because gravity will take it back again, you just have to derogate the position it is in. If feminism means equity, then modern feminism is anti-feminist. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Thank you. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "the momentum it had in the opposite direction" and I don't understand the word "derogate" in this context. Perhaps where the analogy fails is that there is no 'natural force' (akin to gravity) that will return the pendulum to the central position, there are always conflicts and power struggles moving it.

I wonder how free your thought can be if this is your underlying position
— MmeGazelle

It's not my underlying position, why do you call it "Underlying position"?

That is something that I personally believe. Would you want to discuss it? — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Are 'underlying position' and 'belief' not synonymous? If you have a negative opinion of women won't you seek evidence to support this belief?

Thank you. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "the momentum it had in the opposite direction" and I don't understand the word "derogate" in this context. — MmeGazelle

A more precise word would be "cancel."

Lets suppose you have that pendulum swinging and it is currently in the left position. For it to stop, you need to cancel its angular momentum (you need to slow its movement). There is a difference between using the brakes and accelerating backwards. If you use the brakes, the car stops. If you accelerate backwards, the car also stops, but it will start going backwards. Applied to the pendulum which does keep its angular momentum (its "Circular movement energy"), it will swing back. Just as injustice.

Maybe what you mean is that although there is still injustice, the total momentum of the pendulum have decreased, and it will continue to decrease, so that is good. If that is what you mean, then we agree. However, if you believe that the pendulum is not currently on the women side, we do not agree with that.

I will take this particular debate as finished because the following is determined by personal opinion. So what I will state will no longer be based on anything but my personal experience and thoughts.

Are 'underlying position' and 'belief' not synonymous? — MmeGazelle

What I understand by "underlying position" is the information you are based on to say whatever you are saying. And I was not basing my arguments about men and women rights on what I personally believe about "Women nature."

Elaborating:

What I mean by women nature is the average way in which a woman thinks. I am taking beforehand that women and men think differently (this does not mean that we should be taken differently in the eyes of law).

If you have a negative opinion of women won't you seek evidence to support this belief? — MmeGazelle

Yes.

I have a "negative" (in quotes because I don't think it's necessarily negative) opinion on women because the most common behavior I have seen on women is manipulation. More specifically, emotional manipulation.

Then I have researched looking for other opinions, mostly on Internet. The arguments that state that women usually have evil tendencies seem to me as very logical although very ethically frustrating.

Here are some of these opinions:

https://www.quora.com/Are-women-more-wicked-than-men

(Just to make it clear, I do not think all of them are reasonable, as some of them seem to me ridicule. However the fact that a ridicule person says something reasonable and bases it on something ridicule, does not mean that anyone else cannot say that same reasonable thing and base it on something also reasonable.)

I have based this opinion mostly on other opinions... I have not find anything thoroughly discerned about the subject. I think people do not want to research about it because they fear the impact the outcome may have on society.

The fact that women are evolutionary more important than men is a documented issue. I will not discuss that in this thread, especially with anyone who has not researched it. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Have you ever watched a hostage situation on TV? Some crazy dude or a group of terrorists take some hostages and barricade themselves in a house. The police negotiator comes along and after some time, the elderly, women and children are freed, usually in exchange for supplies and a guarantee of safe passage with the rest of the hostages (men 18 - 40 years old) but that's not the point.

There may be a good moral argument for this behavior but does it make any evolutionary sense? Ok, the elderly and the women can jointly raise the kids, the kids themselves are the future generation, but who'll do the hunting with all the able-bodied men pushing up daisies? Who's going to put food on the table? This particular way of thinking is a formula for extinction; yet, I feel there's a rationale to it that isn't obvious.

Spain has laws aiming to protect women from domestic violence and sex-trafficking. I read a blog about it. Who knew?

I read a blog about it. — Cuthbert

Read more. :lol:

Read more. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

https://diferenciaslegaleshombremujerenespana.law.blog/