Later

Lisa Jones wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:47pm:

  I was lucky not one stretch mark- I have great skin, with no excessive man like hair in sight, very good genes

Emma wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:53pm:


Ok. Thanks again 

Agnes wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:55pm:



nothing like a good pair of jeans to hide the hair and stretch marks ....it's worked a treat for you (by the way, you should work on your spelling)

I am sure that some "feminists" argue for equality across the board, despite that being impossible in nature....

Some.

However, for the main part "equality" that the feminist movement strives for is about opportunity. I know that then becomes a messy idea for those who would argue in favour of the present inequitable situation though, because it is a fair, logical and irrefutable position to hold.

Physically, emotionally and developmentally we are (in a general sense) different. Does different though automatically become a default position of inequality?

It seems to me that taking a strengths based viewpoint then, once again the "equality" argument becomes a bit fraut.

CW is right, we are not all equal and, this is not just on the basis of gender, however, it would be disingenuous
to suggest that this somehow refutes any/all arguments about equality on the basis of opportunity.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:17pm:


That was a fairly stupid and inaccurate position to take the first time around, it is no smarter now.

More often than not, those in power are their because of nothing more than their personal desire and their predatory instinct. That said, the wealth one is pertinent, being wealthy can happen to any idiot, it is certainly no bench mark for "power" or superiority (well except in the minds of the already wealthy or those who superficially strive for great wealth at the expense of basic humanity).

In fact, those in power often demonstrate the problems with inequality with regard to opportunity.

Then we get to freedom and equality being inexorably linked. They are.

Like I say, this debate is mostly (in my humble opinion) about freedom to be honest.

I would also, in a small part, agree with CW that equality is neither a natural state or one that can be achieved, at the end of the day. True to some degree, however, this further supports my position that the argument is about freedom.

Freedom to earn the same money as the person one works beside, regardless of race, gender, religion or even 457 visa status.

Freedom to apply and attain jobs, based on genuine capacity.

Freedom to negotiate fairly about house care, child raring, being the bread winner.

Freedom to choose who to (or not to sleep with) without being unfairly judged or discriminated against.

Freedom to come and go as one pleases.

Hell, even freedom to be a dag if one so chooses.

The inequities that Mother Nature provided us were, presumably for us to fullfill certain roles within a natural environment. The social constructs that create inequity though, are changeable, false and harmful and, while ever we argue for them, maintain them and support them then freedom is a delusional ideal we will never ascertain.

And that is at a time where, at least in some areas, we have probably the most freedom en masse that we have ever experienced. Yet, that is not experienced unilaterally.

Finally, to those who gave it, thank you for the positive feedback, that is most appreciated.   

Phemanderac wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 9:48am:



I once got into a rather heated debate with a feminist a generation older than myself about what equality should and can mean. She was from the older, more Marxist inspired branch of feminism than myself and argued passionately that equality required equal expectations and opportunities without exception.

I am more inclined to view feminism as being less about women and men per se, rather about the masculine and the feminine. This embraces the continuum a little better i believe an rep-resents more people. There are some men who are ostracised for having feminine qualities and women who are ostracised because of masculine qualities, although the intent behind the criticism is starkly different.In society, feminine qualities are considered to be of lesser worth than masculine qualities; and as such the feminine is under-represented and under-resourced. Men and women can both suffer from this and not presented with equal opportunity despite having the skills and innate qualities.

For example, men working in caring and nurturing professions are often viewed with suspicion despite that man being caring and nurturing by nature. It explains why women fare better in the family courts. Women are overlooked for physical jobs, despite the fact that many women are quite strong and resilient enough to accomplish them. It explains why women rarely get into positions of power.

The effects of this dynamic are more sinister when applied to society en masse of course. The masculine is seen as powerful and elite. Certain types of men, therefore, hold the balance of power.

It's not all men. It's very rarely a woman.

This is the patriarchy. It keeps both men and women down.

The inequities that Mother Nature provided us were, presumably for us to fullfill certain roles within a natural environment.

The social constructs that create inequity though, are changeable, false and harmful and, while ever we argue for them, maintain them and support them then freedom is a delusional ideal we will never ascertain....... PhD says.

Well, phd? I can't go with your first sentence at all. See the bold .above.   
This view that women are naturally unequal to men is ridiculous and facetious.    Titillating, as they say.
Obviously I don't see what you see.

Of concern to me ,though, is that you might actually have this as your paradigm. . Is this your core belief.? 
Maybe you believe you really are superior to a female, just because you are a male.  I 've heard that one before, believe me.!
. Are you joking or what.??
How fraught human communication is with misunderstanding.!

I actually agree with most of what you say in your second sentence . Sadly at the moment that is the way our culture operates, and  there are certainly tides of public opinion becoming more visible, or recognised, perhaps.?
Further I 'd like to say that it is never a delusional ideal, to seek freedom.! Don't be downhearted.
Everything has to start somewhere.

Please  bear with me.

But maybe you actually mean ....

Rather,   you are trying to say we both, female AND male, are provided with 'different' but equal, inequalities.? HMmm?


OR perhaps I should accept you at your word, and realise that you aren't talking about inequality AT ALL ....  BUT about INEQUITY. ?