Men and women being “equal”

There has been so much talk in the media about how women and men should be treated equal. ( which I do not agree with).
Men playing in girls sports and visa versa.. equal pay...men being allowed in women’s bathrooms and locker rooms etc.
So with all the equality being put out there.... when will women be able to go topless just like a man can??
I can’t work in my yard... drive a car... go to a public pool without a top on. A women’s breast are there for the purpose of nutrition for her child... not a sex symbol.. that’s what society has created. So if we’re going to be “equal”... let’s go all in.

 

WomenPower

Not sure what you mean?

What is your definition of equality - to me it’s about in law and pay and treatment?

In what way do you think men and women should be treated unequally?

Again you would need to expand on this – I think men and women should get the same rates of pay for playing the same sports for example why are you opposed to that?

A lot of that is due to the problem of some types of males harassment – I’ve worked in French where many women on and around the beaches go topless it has become normalised as not to raise comment or second glances. I’ve also worked in a nudist holiday town where everyone went naked on the streets, in the bars and even in the supermarket.

 

I agree. Some people want their cake and eat it too. They want women to get special preference yet call it equal. Can't be both! This, in a society where women are already at great advantage. Divorce settlements still favor the 'helpless' woman. A man is already presumed guilty in any harassment type of accusation from a woman. Women as a group posses more wealth than men. And on top of that, they posess 100% of all the pussy. There's the statement "behind every great man is a great woman" - they are the motivators, the directors. Men are held accountable by women. It's long been the premise of much dramatic and comedic entertainment. The man is obligated to keep his woman happy. The feminist movement tried to convince women they'd be happier climbing the corporate ladders but that led to misery when they neglected or even failed to have their families.

Yes, equal would mean freedom to dress alike without penalty, legal or social.

The equal pay for professional sports idea is a total farce. Players are like artists, musicians, actors... No two are compensated equally. They are compensated commensurate with demand. That should be obvious, but we have a lot of half-thinkers embarrassing themselves who weren't properly trained in economics. It's different if it's two people creating the same number of identical widgets - then there's a perfect argument for equal pay. But sports players aren't directly adding value to the economy, they are providing entertainment for morale. Their value is measured by how much their audience is willing to pay to be entertained by them. Any controversy with this is purely contrived.

 

Spoken like a true misogynist.

 

Interpreted like a true ignoramus.

 

Spoken like a true hatemongering Republican

 

Every man and woman are special as individuals but should be regarded equally by the law. Republican men and women are a facet in our American society which has demonstrate over and again the inability to understand our constitutional concept of equality under the law. Consequently, I do not feel that Republicans are equal to the rest of us ... in the intellectual sense.

 

Typical conservative response. Lacking the mental prowess for a legitimate response, ninety nine percent of the time the response is an ad hominem.

 

Here in the UK, this is happening increasingly, with a common wash room area and only the toilet cubicles private. In larger facilities, a men's urinal area is hidden by a partition, but their are no doors.

I worked on the design of one of the facilities for Reading University.

 

He might think you are talking about southern food?

 

I do like me some hominy.

 

So your ad hominem was fine but mine was due to lack of mental prowess? SMH

Could you come up with something a little more hypocritical? Or is that as hypocritical as it gets?

 

I proposed this solution a couple years ago when the topic first started heating up.
I don't get why we need separate facilities anyway.
If we must, then follow the rules. If the rules are too hard to follow, eliminate them altogether.

 

Since you are such a mental giant, can you explain why you attack liberal Democrats on a Hippy site when you are a Trump supporting right wing extremist who is opposed to everything we stand for? The basic premise of this thread is that Women are not entitled to equality and you quickly jumped in to support the new poster. Didn't miss a thing, Hombre.

 

Some of the rioters must have been allowed to bond out, huh? Wonder if we'll see that Baconator who predicted the event? Maybe that Green woman?

 

We??? Who the hell is "we"? Good God man, I've been a hippy all my life. Like every other group, some have more sense than others.

 

My ad hominem? You mean describing you as a misogynist? That’s a characteristic that you embraced.

 

I assume you are talking about me being the new poster. My basic for the post was if men and women are going to be equal now... let’s go all in. If I want to go out without a top like a man can.. I should be allowed.
When I grew up having boys play in women’s sports and visa versa was never allowed. Just like girls were required to wear dresses or skirts in school. NO pants or jeans... if we are going to change with the times.., let’s go all in.

 

Trudge

Do you know anything about women’s sports during the war? (there was a film I think called A League of Their Own) thing is that there was often a concerted effort to keep women out of sport or on lower pay.

After the war, the continued success of women’s football became a threat to the men’s game. Equivalent league matches between men’s teams drew nowhere near as many crowds or headlines. Though the fundraising effort had been welcome during the war (Dick, Kerr Ladies alone raised the equivalent of millions of pounds), the popular view was that it was time for women to leave the pitches. There was even a suggestion that women’s teams were inappropriately allocating money raised from charities and paying players to appear. It was altogether one thing to have women playing football – but to pay them and essentially professionalise the sport was totally unacceptable to many.

So, in December 1921 the FA banned women from playing and using league pitches and facilities. The ban was justified by the claims of financial scandal, but it is telling that the committee could not resist also expressing their distaste at the women’s game, generally. Part of the resolution read:

Complaints having been made as to football being played by women, Council feel impelled to express their strong opinion that the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and should not be encouraged.[8]

This perceived unsuitability of football for women’s bodies persisted in contemporary press coverage. For example, a doctor interviewed in the Birmingham Daily Gazette considered kicking to be ‘too jerky a movement for women’, concluding that '… just as the frame of a woman is more rounded than a man’s, her movements should be more rounded and less angular'.[9]

The ban had a devastating effect. League football clubs barred female players from their pitches, and registered referees were banned from officiating at women’s matches. Unsurprisingly, the lack of adequate facilities made the sport unsustainable, effectively destroying the credibility the women’s game had built up. There were attempts to rally and continue as before, but the death blow had been struck. British Library .

*

I remember in my school that girls were discouraged from sports because it might effect their ability to have children and that was only in the 1970’s.

 

Trudge

Sorry but your post lacks historical or economic context and seems fuelled by male centric grievance

In many societies up until quite recently women were quite literally the property of men. They had little independence and on marriage anything they owned become the property of the husband as did any children. This began to change legally at the beginning of the 20th century but societally the distrust and even fear of female independence lingered especially in conservative groups, who are the ones that often bemoan that it has ‘gone too far’

Can you give documentary evidence for this? If you study legal cases of harassment, assault and rape the problem I’m sorry to say is that the perpetrators are normally male, are you saying that is untrue?

Again can you give your evidence for this?

I mean according to Oxfam international – “Worldwide men own 50% more wealth than women,”

According to a Harvard study - The median wealth for single women between the ages of 18 and 64 is $15,210, only 49% of the median wealth of their single male counterparts. Divorced women under age 65 have 64% of the wealth of

their male counterparts.

It might be a great slogan but is not backed up by historical fact – if anything when put forward it is a derogatory statement to attack a ‘weak’ man been controlled by an inherently weak woman. Historically women have very little control to the detriment of themselves and children.

But not actually back up by reality

HIS WOMAN?

OBLIGATED?

If this is about marriage (which I take from ‘his woman’) then isn’t it a partnership where both wish the best for each other, where both want happiness.

I mean what about in a male gay marriage do they just not care about trying to make their partner happy because neither is a woman?

So women are not going to be happy if they want to have a career BUT MEN are?

So its ok for men to neglect their families (and are happy to do so)?

Why can’t people have both?

Why not try for a work life balance were anyone male or female can have a career and a happy family life.

*

Sorry but this diatribe seems more motivated by personal prejudices than any real world argument

I mean this just paints a picture of your view of women and colours it in.