Teachers and Students > Debates
It's still a man's world? Do you agree?
Alpha:
--- Quote from: Engraved on August 24, 2010, 02:07:22 am ---Ouch.....
Well let me being by saying that people's perception of freedom and equality vary from place to place, and often freedom is restricted for very good reasons. I think it is rather the over-protective nature of men that has become a perceived barrier to freedom by women, while not thinking of it like this would bring greater felicity.
However, in every society, there are and forever will be bad aspects. Men will be unkind, even brutal to their wives. Women will be the same, some women being unfaithful and so will men. The truth is, I think it is the generalization, that they can replace men, and command them that, lead them, and not be what they have been for the past few centuries. In simple terms: boredom, and an urge to prove superiority.
Yes, there have been cruelty towards women, I have read more cruelty towards women than towards men. Women have been suppressed, but so have men. In truth, so many writers have joined in trying to become famous by demagogy that often, exaggeration of cruelties have often been overlooked. But, I do not agree to the predominant idea, that women can do anything they please. They are separate beings, and so are men, and their differences respected. But, what has recently been occurring is breaking away from the conformities of society to create something new, but in doing so, the collapse of society is all that we are seeing.
Ambition often leads to personal satisfaction, but I have seen (many) women who are achieved but certainly not happy.
In truth, both man and woman have been blinded by the quest for the ether, to reach higher and higher, in short the lech of rank and respect, that serenity and tranquility is overlooked.
Trying to disprove the very nature of human beings is now the aim. I never believe a woman is confined from anything good for her in a moral society, but what concerns me is the insatiable thirst for changing what cannot be changed.
So is a man (following conformity), a man is also restricted to many things.
Equality was always there in societies that followed their conscience. But to think, the very idea where women refuse to have children at all, where it becomes a novelty that everyone wants to experience, where women will not want to be committed to marriage. I can tell you this, I have no problem with a woman being my boss, my leader or in fact anyone above me. What I do have a problem with is ceasing the very nature of mankind, ceasing to create new lines of kinship.
There are limits, for very good reasons. There are laws, that are meant to be broken. But to break, the most fundamental one, I assure all that, there is going to be chaos, so very soon.
--- End quote ---
Wow... Quite long. Forgive me, I'll be rather short. ::)
There is not and cannot be equality because both of the sexes, if they are to complement each other, cannot be equal-- cannot be substitutes.
If we're not equal, it's not a fatality. It's a reality, a stable one.
Chingoo:
I think I understand what Engraved is trying to say. At least, my perspective on the matter is that women cannot demand the same role in a society as men because they are no befitting for all roles, just as men are not. They are different individuals with distinct needs and capabilities, which differ from men, and they are not designed for a dominant role in a society.
Does that make them inferior or degraded? Not really. A good organization always has one head, which is logical and stable at all times and is ready to take up full responsibility of matters. It doesn't mean that other people who are involved in the infrastructure of the organization are inferior or useless, in fact their existence is the only way the organization is stable. I've give this parable to a family, which is also an organization with rules and a system. I'm not saying that men can do whatever the hell they want and women should only mop the house, I'm saying that someone needs to have a veto vote: someone does.
The reasons for this are simple. We're students and so it should be easy to clarify that it is scientifically proven that a woman's emotional quotient is usually higher than her intelligence quotient, as opposed to men. (Please, no arguments on how it differs for one women in a ten thousand. You know why.) Her monthly menstrual cycle leads to symptoms of premenstrual syndrome, which if you google up would ascribe certain amount of delirium and logical weakness to a woman. For someone who is to be the boss of a new generation, this is obviously not beneficiary in any regard. At the same time, she is perfectly suited for the role of a mother, a teacher and a molder of personality, because her love is beyond logic and reason. She has the power of sacrifice and resilience to pain, which even men do not encompass. These qualities are not, in my opinion, of a leader but of a revolutionary, whose efforts can change a whole generation if she pleases.
Like Alpha said, men and women complement each other. If someone studies Genetics, you will notice that there are only three ways of expression of an allele in presence of a dominant one: AA, meaning both are identical and dominant, so trait A is expressed; Aa, one is dominant and other is recessive, so still trait A is expressed--lastly, AB, where both are nonidentical and dominant so your specimen is torn into two different traits. Do you want your society to be split into two parts, your family to be broken at its hinges and your own mind going against what you're best at? Didn't think so.
I know I will attract huge criticism for my ideas but I guess it's understandable, very few people live by this ideal nowadays. Also, I'm a novelist, SO YES I ramble. ::)
Alpha:
--- Quote from: Chingoo on August 24, 2010, 03:00:33 am ---I think I understand what Engraved is trying to say. At least, my perspective on the matter is that women cannot demand the same role in a society as men because they are no befitting for all roles, just as men are not. They are different individuals with distinct needs and capabilities, which differ from men, and they are not designed for a dominant role in a society.
Does that make them inferior or degraded? Not really. A good organization always has one head, which is logical and stable at all times and is ready to take up full responsibility of matters. It doesn't mean that other people who are involved in the infrastructure of the organization are inferior or useless, in fact their existence is the only way the organization is stable. I've give this parable to a family, which is also an organization with rules and a system. I'm not saying that men can do whatever the hell they want and women should only mop the house, I'm saying that someone needs to have a veto vote: someone does.
The reasons for this are simple. We're students and so it should be easy to clarify that it is scientifically proven that a woman's emotional quotient is usually higher than her intelligence quotient, as opposed to men. (Please, no arguments on how it differs for one women in a ten thousand. You know why.) Her monthly menstrual cycle leads to symptoms of premenstrual syndrome, which if you google up would ascribe certain amount of delirium and logical weakness to a woman. For someone who is to be the boss of a new generation, this is obviously not beneficiary in any regard. At the same time, she is perfectly suited for the role of a mother, a teacher and a molder of personality, because her love is beyond logic and reason. She has the power of sacrifice and resilience to pain, which even men do not encompass. These qualities are not, in my opinion, of a leader but of a revolutionary, whose efforts can change a whole generation if she pleases.
Like Alpha said, men and women complement each other. If someone studies Genetics, you will notice that there are only three ways of expression of an allele in presence of a dominant one: AA, meaning both are identical and dominant, so trait A is expressed; Aa, one is dominant and other is recessive, so still trait A is expressed--lastly, AB, where both are nonidentical and dominant so your specimen is torn into two different traits. Do you want your society to be split into two parts, your family to be broken at its hinges and your own mind going against what you're best at? Didn't think so.
I know I will attract huge criticism for my ideas but I guess it's understandable, very few people live by this ideal nowadays. Also, I'm a novelist, SO YES I ramble. ::)
--- End quote ---
Similar views to Engraved.
And mine. :)
Your rambling was a good piece. ;)
Saladin:
--- Quote from: Chingoo on August 24, 2010, 03:00:33 am ---I think I understand what Engraved is trying to say. At least, my perspective on the matter is that women cannot demand the same role in a society as men because they are no befitting for all roles, just as men are not. They are different individuals with distinct needs and capabilities, which differ from men, and they are not designed for a dominant role in a society.
Does that make them inferior or degraded? Not really. A good organization always has one head, which is logical and stable at all times and is ready to take up full responsibility of matters. It doesn't mean that other people who are involved in the infrastructure of the organization are inferior or useless, in fact their existence is the only way the organization is stable. I've give this parable to a family, which is also an organization with rules and a system. I'm not saying that men can do whatever the hell they want and women should only mop the house, I'm saying that someone needs to have a veto vote: someone does.
The reasons for this are simple. We're students and so it should be easy to clarify that it is scientifically proven that a woman's emotional quotient is usually higher than her intelligence quotient, as opposed to men. (Please, no arguments on how it differs for one women in a ten thousand. You know why.) Her monthly menstrual cycle leads to symptoms of premenstrual syndrome, which if you google up would ascribe certain amount of delirium and logical weakness to a woman. For someone who is to be the boss of a new generation, this is obviously not beneficiary in any regard. At the same time, she is perfectly suited for the role of a mother, a teacher and a molder of personality, because her love is beyond logic and reason. She has the power of sacrifice and resilience to pain, which even men do not encompass. These qualities are not, in my opinion, of a leader but of a revolutionary, whose efforts can change a whole generation if she pleases.
Like Alpha said, men and women complement each other. If someone studies Genetics, you will notice that there are only three ways of expression of an allele in presence of a dominant one: AA, meaning both are identical and dominant, so trait A is expressed; Aa, one is dominant and other is recessive, so still trait A is expressed--lastly, AB, where both are nonidentical and dominant so your specimen is torn into two different traits. Do you want your society to be split into two parts, your family to be broken at its hinges and your own mind going against what you're best at? Didn't think so.
I know I will attract huge criticism for my ideas but I guess it's understandable, very few people live by this ideal nowadays. Also, I'm a novelist, SO YES I ramble. ::)
--- End quote ---
Comprehensive.
Freaked12:
Hilarious Posts.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version