Phemanderac wrote on May 30^th, 2015 at 12:52am:


What?
Now you are really getting slippery PhD. That is no proper reply.

Kindly answer the questions I posed to you. 
You have plenty to say, and I am asking you where you actually  'root' yourself.

Emma wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 10:54pm:




Emma wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 10:54pm:



Spare us your obfuscation and answer, in the spirit of open communication.... else we will be forced to come to our own conclusions.
Surely you want to be understood.?   
Just like the rest of us.?
I know how much fun  being enigmatic can be .  It really just comes naturally, doesn't it.?

Emma wrote on May 30^th, 2015 at 1:15am:


I am sorry. It was an answer and an answer that was direct to the actual question asked.

After all, it was just the "FIRST" sentence you took exception to, however, that first sentence, in context was also, already explained, at least I thought so.

Men and Women have some "naturally" occurring differences generally.

I also did go on to point out that in our modern world we (that's both men and women) have developed, lived by and built upon "social constructs" which have exacerbated inequity. I think the social constructs might have originally been a ham-fisted and misguided attempt to mirror what we thought our roles were in "nature" - we got it wrong.

That is the point to mentioning "in nature".

By the way, for my part, I do not think it at all helpful to attempt this debate without;

a) Acknowledging the rock banging nature dwelling beasties that we sprung up from - there are most likely still some significant genetic drivers we are not paying attention to.

b) That men and women are not the same and (MOST IMPORTANTLY) in a sensible and well functioning society this does NOT mean one is superior to the other.... We (Men and Women) have simply worked together to make it that way presently.

Yep, many people do live in Cities and large communal groups. Ironically, there were survival issues that drove this idea originally, back when we lived "in nature"....

I think we got lazy, now we are reaping the fruits of that error.

So, I don't agree that my argument is spurious because that one sentence was part of something bigger (Context) and, as such, that ONE sentence is not, in point of fact, my whole argument.

I am sorry if I have not been clear about this, but it seems to me that this is all just steps on a road (the irony of that analogy is not lost on me, after all, apparently us blokes aren't good at asking for directions   ).

Emma wrote on May 30^th, 2015 at 1:35am:



I think that I have been clear to be honest. Further, I am not "obfuscating" at all.

Once again, I am sorry if I have not been clear to you.

However, to be fair (to me) you took one sentence that you did not agree with. I have already pointed out why that sentence was firstly relevant but, also, that it was not an a description of "my position" in its entirety.

So, that ONE sentence is not my core belief and, since we are being frank - it appears somewhat disingenuous to even suggest it, given the overall context.

You are never forced to come to any conclusion by the way, your conclusions are always totally your choice regardless of information at hand, facts available, context, rationality or further explanation. I am sure we all like to be "understood" but at the end of the day, it is not a pre-requisite to getting on with life.

I would love us to reach some understanding, hence, I have written more in with that end in mind, however, when your words already indicate a clear conclusion please spare me the  inherent threat of being "forced" to come to a conclusion.

Phemanderac wrote on May 30^th, 2015 at 9:32am:



Thanks for your considered reply PhD. 
From all that you have said,  I still don't see where you have acknowledged that our differences don't equal inequality on the basis of the physical being. ( your words suggest the opposite)
I will, however, accept in good faith, that you do NOT consider women inferior due to physical or mental attributes.

I will conclude that you see our respective weaknesses as compatible, and equal. In Nature and Now.

Have I put your position correctly, and succinctly.?

Sad that you can't just come out and say so. Please advise if I have reached the wrong conclusion.

Emma wrote on May 30^th, 2015 at 11:10pm:


Because, our natural differences do not make us unequal.

" I will, however, accept in good faith, that you do NOT consider women inferior due to physical or mental attributes."

More is the pity that you cannot see that is exactly how it is. I have not at any point inferred that I consider women inferior. As I see it, and very simply put, we are two different genders of the same species. Some things blokes are "more equal" (if you like) and some things women are "more equal" at, at least right until we run into social constructs that, for the main fail to recognize and acknowledge the strengths of one gender...

I think it is our respective strengths that are compatible, I suspect the equality bit should flow back and forth to some degree...

But that isn't what you are saying is it.?
No.
You are saying given the 'nature' of the differences, social constructs have arisen over the millenia to further those differences. You are saying that in reality, women are inferior to males, in the context of the modern world. IE  Patriarchy.

Furthermore you imply that a patriarchy is somehow preferable to a matriarchy, which hasn't been proposed by anyone other than you by the way.

Mothra wants to be rid of the patriarchy, as do I. 
I mean look at the WORLD..  Brought to you by Male RULE.

It is really is time to leave our animal selves behind and look to the greater good. !

me either