[General Battuta]

 

Except I'd totally call it drastic, given the huge changes for more than half the population.

[Rian]

Can I vote for the "not drastically, but still changed" category?

If they hadn't changed at all, Women still wouldn't be able to vote, blacks would still be segregated and oppressed, and all sorts of other fun stuff because it wasn't "immoral" by the standards of the day to do stuff like that.

....

I had something that didn't quite not matter to say, but now I can't remember.

Looks pretty drastic from this side of the "couldn’t vote a hundred years ago" fence.

[Scotty]

Okay then.  Drastic it is

[Kosh]

Who defines the morals?

It should be me.

[mxlm]

Looks pretty drastic from this side of the "couldn’t vote a hundred years ago" fence.

I couldn't vote a hundred years ago either.

...I'll go away now.

[iamzack]

It's not like women are even equal nowadays, guys. A woman in my state who is married cannot own property in her own name. Her husband's name is ALWAYS on it, even if he didn't put a penny toward it.

[Rian]

No, I would absolutely agree with you there. But to say that popular morality hasn’t fundamentally changed in the last hundred years—hell, even the last decade—is plain ridiculous.

[High Max]

Well they usually have more rights when it comes to child support, even though it takes two to tango, and how this culture views it as ok for a woman to hit a man, but if the places are switched and a man does that, he is seen as bad. In some ways they are treated better than men in this country.

[Kosh]

and how this culture views it as ok for a woman to hit a man, but if the places are switched and a man does that, he is seen as bad.

Welcome to the 21st century.

[High Max]

If a culture wants women and men to be equal, it means that it can't have contradictions like that since that contradicts equality. It also means that people can't hold back on a woman just because she's a woman and she will have to have the same responsibility and hardships that the men had traditionally. With rights come responsibility.

And no, just 21st century in certain countries like here. Actually, it sounds like 1950's USA for it to be ok for women to hit men but not vice versa, and that might be changing too since it seems like the older generation in usa thinks more like that. Both the man or woman could be in the wrong and I hate it when a person blindly defends a woman without even knowing who's in the wrong. You defend someone based on their actions, not their gender. I also don't like how in this country they also tend to call men abusive and rude when they are no different. It's hypocracy. I've witnessed someone saying that about a man when I was working recently.

Maybe I should move to a place where we aren't treated like dirt for being men and a place where I have more in common with a culture when it comes to my preferences in many things. But I'm stuck here probably. But I can probably go there to visit and meet some who have more in common with me.

By the way, why is this discussion now about gender? That tends to be an almost taboo topic on HLP with those who disagree on certain points. Just like the topic on abortion and how that can cause much fighting. Almost a no-no.

[General Battuta]

and how this culture views it as ok for a woman to hit a man, but if the places are switched and a man does that, he is seen as bad.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Okay, haven't you ever heard of a power dynamic, High Max? Or, I dunno, history?

Men beating women is kind of an established mechanism of control. Women beating men is...not a particularly widespread phenomenon.

Thus, one draws more social scorn. Of course, under the law, you're equally liable to be charged for assault no matter your gender, which just goes to show - fair play, huh?

Maybe I should move to a place where we aren't treated like dirt for being men and a place where I have more in common with a culture when it comes to my preferences in many things. But I'm stuck here probably. But I can probably go there to visit and meet some who have more in common with me.

**** you. Women make 74 cents for every dollar you make. Women get ****ed over by implicit associations and stereotypes ('strong manly leader' on one hand, '***** harpy' on the other). We're a long way from equality or a level playing field.

You get the cream of the crop, my friend. You aren't treated like dirt; you have every advantage on earth.

[Nuclear1]

Wow.  Nail on the head GB.

[General Battuta]

Thanks!

If a culture wants women and men to be equal, it means that it can't have contradictions like that since that contradicts equality. It also means that people can't hold back on a woman just because she's a woman and she will have to have the same responsibility and hardships that the men had traditionally. With rights come responsibility.

That would be the ideal world we'll hope to reach some day. But if we just all pretended the world was that way right now, you would see the status quo remain as is with women severely disadvantaged.

The reason is that we are all subconsciously infected with viral cultural elements that influence our behavior towards women. Women themselves carry these elements, just like everybody else.

Give women a math test. Have 50% of them mark their gender with a simple bubble beforehand. They perform significantly worse on the math test. Why? They've all been taught that women can't do math, and subconsciously, that stereotype (activated by that little reminder that they're a woman) impairs them.

In fact, the same thing happens with Black students. Give them 20 GRE questions. Have half of them mark their race beforehand. The number of questions they get right drops by half compared with a control group.

We can't pretend that we live in an equal-opportunity world until those associations are gone.

[Kosh]

Give women a math test. Have 50% of them mark their gender with a simple bubble beforehand. They perform significantly worse on the math test. Why? They've all been taught that women can't do math, and subconsciously, that stereotype (activated by that little reminder that they're a woman) impairs them.

I've always figured that was the case. Have there been any studies about that?

Great pwnage BTW. 

[High Max]

Cool emoticon. I never knew HLP had that.

[Kosh]

It doesn't, I got it from somewhere else.

[Rian]

Give women a math test. Have 50% of them mark their gender with a simple bubble beforehand. They perform significantly worse on the math test. Why? They've all been taught that women can't do math, and subconsciously, that stereotype (activated by that little reminder that they're a woman) impairs them.

I've always figured that was the case. Have there been any studies about that?

Great pwnage BTW. 

It’s Battuta. He wouldn’t be talking about it if there hadn’t been.

[Ghostavo]

I have to agree with part of what High Max said. Perpectuation of the stereotype will exist if people are reminded of it. When people start ignoring the differences between them is when true equality will be achieved.

I'll give you an example I'm familiar with where there's discrimination against both women and men.

In chess, women can have up to twice as many prizes and twice as many titles. Elaborating, for many tournaments there are normally prizes for the first places in the classification tree, various prizes for the various age groups and... prizes for women. However, the underlying cause of giving prizes that are not grouped with the first places in the classification tree is that those players are not be strong enough to compete for the first places and so an incentive is given. Basically, they are giving women chances for more prizes (discriminating against men) while perpetuating the stereotype that women are weaker players (discriminating against women). It's even worse in championships where there are twice the number of prizes for women.

The same happens with the titles. There are twice the number of titles a women can achieve. But those only they can achieve are significantly easier to achieve than the normal titles. The underlying reason would probably be the same.

When they are treated exactly the same as any other player is when discrimination in this area stops.

Double standards suck.

[karajorma]

Women beating men is...not a particularly widespread phenomenon.

You sure of that?

In May, 2007, researchers with the Centers for Disease Control reported on rates of self-reported violence among intimate partners using data from a 2001 study. In the study, almost one-quarter of participants reported some violence in their relationships. Half of these involved one-sided ("non-reciprocal") attacks and half involved both assaults and counter assaults ("reciprocal violence"). Women reported committing one-sided attacks more than twice as often as men (70% versus 29%). In all cases of intimate partner violence, women were more likely to be injured than men, but 25% of men in relationships with two-sided violence reported injury compared to 20% of women reporting injury in relationships with one-sided violence. Women were more likely to be injured in non-reciprocal violence.

Strauss argues that these discrepancies between the two data sets are due to several factors. For example, Strauss notes that crime statistics are compiled and analyzed differently from domestic violence statistics. Additionally, Strauss notes that most studies show that while men inflict the greater portion of injuries, women are at least as likely as men to shove, punch, slap or otherwise physically assault their partner, and that such relatively minor assaults often escalate to more serious assaults. Minor assaults perpetrated by women are also a major problem, even when they do not result in injury, because they put women in danger of much more severe retaliation by men. [...] It will be argued that in order to end 'wife beating,' it is essential for women also to end what many regard as a "harmless" pattern of slapping, kicking, or throwing something at a male partner. Strauss also notes that data confirming that women can be violent have been suppressed because the data contradicts preconceptions that men are responsible for most or all domestic violence.

Basically women are just as likely to be involved in women as men but because men are bigger and stronger on average they tend to be more likely to cause the serious injuries.

Don't ever start making the assumption that violence from women isn't common, degrading, or in many cases lethal based on the fact that they're just women or that you don't hear much about it though.

**** you. Women make 74 cents for every dollar you make.

Interestingly enough I heard a quite convincing argument once that this had bugger all to do with sexism and was simply due to the fact that men pushed things further when deciding their starting salary and in their annual salary review than women did. If the guy always insists on a 10% raise when the woman settles for 8% it doesn't take long for a man to earn significantly more money even if the person deciding on the salary isn't being sexist.

[Janos]

Who defines the morals?

Hmm, well the vast majority of them haven't changed since the beginning of man.

The remainder are added as needed.  But the basics don't change or grow out of date.

If the vast majority cannot change, then how can they... wait...

Alrighty here we go.  Nice and short.

Social Conservatism = The promotion of moral lifestyles and behaviors because these are what makes Men decent and civilized.  The degradation of these is why there is so much chaos in the world today.

Most of you are going to paint that with a ridiculously generalized brush, but you know what, I don't care.  That's what I believe.  Man can be good without a moral foundation, but society cannot.

... degrade? I mean, you talk about moral lifestyles? They are degrading? Obviously these are some things that could be fixed somehow.

You tried to evade the question once again by escaping behind one word of yours. Do. Not. ****ing. Do. It. Anymore. Who defines the morals - as in part of the degradation of moral lifestyles behaviours. Who. The Nebulous Society? Bull**** - depending on the society the norms can vary from incest to homosexuality, and there can be hundreds of these kinds of microsocietys inside even one medium-sized city. "Everyone"?

The point is, you really don't like some things which are happening around here. You mask this with all kinds of strange posting behaviour, but for ****'s sake: you do not like something, what is it? You cannot escape behind "well dawn of man" because in the dawn of men we ran around raping each other and eating rotten tapirs.

You talk about "moral lifestyles and behaviours" and accuse people of painting with a broad brush, but when asked to name just some of those seemingle important moral lifestyles etc. you cannot name a single one.

It's really tiresome to try to "debate" with you, because your posting strategy seems to be spamming bull**** talking points one after another. I wonder how you bother.