Men and women By Der Voron As you know, women are sometimes given advantages before men when it comes to such things as employment, some benefits, divorce accompanied by sharing the consorts' real estate, assets and whatever they have, though abilities of the man candidate or his real contribution to the consorts' wealth are usually higher than those of the woman. For example, if someone wants to replace, in an industry, men with women, then he or she will find that women can replace in most cases only the low-qualified workforce. In other words, women -- and this happens more often than it should -- sometimes get more than they merit, just because they are women, in order to "compensate" the fact that women were discriminated in the past when it came to education, employment etc. With this, almost everyone forgets the fact that these were different women, i.e. some women living today get compensations for the sufferings of absolutely different women, who lived and died long time ago, or who suffer in some other countries because of women discrimination unhappily widespread there. But why cannot men have similar advantages, for the fact that it was, for at least %99, men who were and are mobilized for wars, who died and die in battles? (If you are in doubts about this number, then just read or re-read 'Stratagems' by Sextus Julius Frontinus, an ancient handbook on strategy for officers, actual nowadays, in some aspects. There is only 1 stratagem used by a woman general (Scythian Queen Thamyris against Persian King Cyrus), among about 150 stratagems by men generals). For example (data about battles with the most terrible losses): The battle of Chalons, or the Battle of Peoples, 451 A.D. (Romans and their allies, Franks, Sarmatians, Armoricians, Burgundians, Westgoths, Liticians, Saxons, Riparians, and Olibriones, against the union of Huns (contemporary Hungarians) and other tribes): about 200 thousand killed. The Civil War in the United States, 1861-1865: about 650 thousand killed (more than all American losses in the battles of 20th century); The battle of Werden, World War I: about 500 thousand killed; The civil war in the former Russian Empire, 1918-1921: about 5 million killed; The Winter War (Soviet Union against Finland), 1939-1940: about 250 thousand killed; The battle of Stalingrad, World War II: about 600 thousand killed; The Operation Citadel, World War II: about 320 thousand killed. (I certainly could provide more information about terrible battles and losses; but I think those provided are enough. Sapienti sat. And, for example, when one people kills another during genocide, mostly men are killed, not women.) You will respond: how can men get "advantages" and "compensations" for the sufferings of absolutely different men, who lived long time ago and who already died, or even for the sufferings of men living now? How are these and those men connected? OK, men don't have these "advantages and compensations". But why do women? *Note: the author of this article is not a "machist". He just wants this problem, which exists and exerts influence on the social relationships, to be discussed.
Well, It is because they spoke out against it, and won. Maybe this makes them feel they can take liberties? Who knows! But I would assume that most women don't take liberties, and are just as good, maybe even better than men at certain tasks, the same for others.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
you are comparing 2 different issues.. women as a whole discriminated in the past and they've had to climb the ladder to gain a sense of equality. You are talking about social and corporate discrimination that occurred in the past (still exists to a certain degree). when it comes to men you are sayin that men today should have better compensation because men in past died in wars.. there is absolute no correlation btw the two scenarios u mentioned.. therefore, there is no way to argue that men deserve more compensation based on the data you are providing. in order for your comparison to work, show that men were social inequals compared to women in the past or more women were killed in past wars compared to men...
Hi sycoindian, I don't say that men should get compensations for the past; I say that women shouldn't.
Funny enough, my WIFE has a question for you...she would like to know how many women have started wars. Women didn't create the situation of being oppressed...it is men more so than women who initiate war. I myself am staying out of it as I haven't had my supper made yet. HaHa.
You and your wife generalized your opinion by asking how many "women started the wars". I.e. , you think that "since *some crazy men* started too many wars, ALL men are responsible for this. That means they should pay women" (irrational enough reasoning, as all men are made responsible for some men, and for what? For paying women? Where is the connection?). But the opponent also can say that "you forget that some (and not very few) women are in good enough physical condition to be called up. Instead, some men, weaker and less able to fight, were and are called up instead of such women. Do women protest against this? Also, how often do women protest against wars, which, as your wife says, are started by men?" I.e,. "as almost ALL women don't protest against this [this is indeed so], women shouldn't get compensations they get now." Compare: just *some men* started the wars and some men (generals, leaders) call up some weaker men rather than some women. Also, more than many men feel angry (irate) when women are called up, though they (the women) would be able enough to fight. But *almost all* women don't mind if called up are men weaker and less able to fight than some women (who could be called up instead), especially don;t mind these very women who are more able to fight than those less able men, although this would have improved the situation in general (society of equality!), as well as army's capabilities.
The whole concept of fighting gender roles, is, to me stupidity incarnate. Society will only accept the evolutionary values that are necessary for survival. We'll never truly 'accept' women into the working/whatever force until they become a necessary piece. Until then it's all a sham. The fact remains. Men are assholes and women are bitches. I rarely find any that I like.
Elbaz, if this would be a debate in parliament, I would respond: no, if say men weak and unable to fight are called up in the army and there are no men (reservists) whom those men can be replaced with, then they should be replaced by some able reservists women (for example). Or, do you think, if some kind of labor or army service presents danger to health or life, then women are more precious than men (because of their physiology?), and thus we sometimes can spend men "like matches"? Remember Vietnam war? Truly, some men called up in those times, were much less able to serve in the army than some women of their age.
I think modern warfare is indifferent to gender because we no longer fight wars the way we used to. These days, everybody is the target in the eyes of the terrorist instigators. Wars will no longer be fought in trechnes but in control rooms and conferences. The occoasional nuke won't care if I'm a man or woman. I believe that anybody with the capacity and willingness to fight should be allowed to do so. What I'm against is fighting something designed to help us. >>i.e. Gender roles. I think this topic is more about Gender roles and less about war. No matter, you've posted it in the wrong forum.
Yes, the modern warfare. But why women often enough (more often that it should) get compensations as described in the article in the beginning of this thread, and why don't men get compensations for the wars in the same way of reasoning, as also described there (I hope modern warfare doesn't have any connection with this)? Men don't get compensations, and this is right. Nobody minds. Why do women? Why do society, judges and some other intermediates often take women's part in a discussion of who should do what, what belongs to whom, etc, in divorce lawsuits, finally -- just because they are women? Since when did we get so crazy?
There are worse forms of discrimination. You want to talk about injustices in the name of reverse discrimination? How about DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE SANE? If a guy goes out and massacres an entire family because he heard the voice of God telling him to do so, all he needs is for an expensive lawyer to put a psychiatrist on the witness stand vouching for the fact that at the moment of the crime, the defendant was insane. He might go into a mental hospital and play "find your foot" for a few years until the doctors certify that he is sane enough to handle a gun safely again. Or he might not be incarcerated at all because the insanity was only "temporary." Just long enough to commit the crime and then he was back to normal. Or he might actually be mentally handicapped and they will send him to a rehab facility and teach him how to perform useful tasks and give him personal psychiatric care for the rest of his life that our health insurance wouldn't even begin to cover. But if YOU, with your 140 IQ, gun down the bastard who ran over your wife after drinking half a bottle of vodka and got away with it because the good ole boys in the bar all swore he was with them at the time of the "accident", YOU will be put in prison for a long time, very likely the rest of your life. YOU might even be executed. SANE person gets punished, perhaps killed. INSANE person gets forgiven, perhaps free psychotherapy forever. Is that discrimination or what? They can teach mentally handicapped people to deliver inter-office mail, and to make change for a twenty dollar bill. But they can't teach them that it's just a little teeny bit wrong to KILL PEOPLE???
"........fails to read and understand the other posts" 95% of the poeple that die in war are men, yet there is a bigger population ratio of woman than men in the world.... thats all i gotta say ...when are we going to see woman fighting our wars! i wouldnt mind watching a mud wrestling match of girls, between 2 countrys Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Der Voron sorry..i completely forgot about this thread... i still fail to see what exactly you are trynna argue... if u still have the patience, can u explain again?
