Dating Macedonian Women

[Gocka]

Its disgusting to drag kids into this mess. When you turn 18, do what ever the hell you want, gay bi trans, animals, I dont give a shit, but to ruin some poor child's life because you want to conduct social experiments is criminal. Wtf does a child know or understand about sexual orientation at 4. I here nonsense about letting the child chose their gender??? A child would chose to be a hypo or a dinosaur if it was being offered.

I can be fairly liberal when it comes to certain things, but this shit is down right insanity.

Децата ќе ги запустат пред да пораснат. Disgraceful. Just like the below, where the 'trans' parent projects their own personal issues on the baby:

[Soldier of Macedon]

I watched a documentary a couple months ago about a family, with a little boy about 4 who was apparently trans-gendered. Apparently when the kid was a toddler he grabbed a doll or two to play with, and that was a sign that he felt like he was a girl. So his parents started buying him dresses and the like and now he goes to school and gets bullied. They originally name him Michael but now he wants people to call him Michelle.

Децата ќе ги запустат пред да пораснат. Disgraceful. Just like the below, where the 'trans' parent projects their own personal issues on the baby:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/04/he...ion/index.html

Canadian baby given health card without sex designation

July 5, 2017 - A Canadian baby has been issued a health document that doesn't specify male or female, in what campaigners are claiming is a possible "world first." Searyl Atli Doty was born in British Columbia, "outside the medical system," and did not undergo a genital inspection after birth, campaign group Gender Free I.D. Coalition said in a statement....Parent Kori Doty wants to avoid assigning gender to the child. Doty identifies as non-binary trans.......Despite difficulties in obtaining a birth certificate, a health card for the baby with the sex listed as "U" has been issued, with the coalition saying it arrived one day "without explanation." An image of the card shared by the parent includes the "U" designation and the child's name; it says the child was born in November and the card was issued in April.......The desire to omit a designated gender on the card was partly motivated through Doty's personal experiences.

[Pelagonija]

This topic pisses me off hard. That 4 year old boy is the product of a godless morally bankrupt society, capatilism = greed, democracy = void of reality.

In Australia they implemented the safe schools program under the guise of promoting anti-bullying. It turned out to be a promotion of homosexuality, gender concepts and even gender reverse role playing. Luckily it hasn't been rolled out to all schools yet though they keep trying to sneak it in. It will only be a matter of time before they make it compulsory for all schools, they are getting them young now..

FFS In Australia some are hailing same sex marriage as one of Australia's greatest historical achievements. We are constantly bombarded with feminist, gay and gender topics in the media which is brainwashing the people. It's one thing taking someones money, but now they want to take our souls.. this is bloody scary..

[Gocka]

Wow this thing went into hyper drive real fast.

Happy New years everyone.

This gender fluidity crap is starting to be a thing in the US as well.

I watched a documentary a couple months ago about a family, with a little boy about 4 who was apparently trans-gendered. Apparently when the kid was a toddler he grabbed a doll or two to play with, and that was a sign that he felt like he was a girl. So his parents started buying him dresses and the like and now he goes to school and gets bullied. They originally name him Michael but now he wants people to call him Michelle.

The whole thing is a crock full of fallacies like Vangeloski said. If everything around us is just gender biased on not gender defining then why did the parents think playing with dolls was an indication that the boy wanted to be a girl? The kid wasn't old enough to understand gender roles, so if playing with dolls is not just for girls (fluid) then why did they automatically assume he wants to be a girl? If boys can wear dresses too then why did they change his name to a female name? Why did they start calling him a she? So instead of just telling the kid, dolls are for girls, they told him hes a girl, bought him girls clothes, and changed his name? WTF? Now the poor kid is confused as ever, he is going to get tormented his entire adolescent life, all because the yuppy parents believed in "Fluid" but technically not fluid gender identities. On top of that why is it overwhelmingly boys who are the center of this mess? This touches on what RTG is getting at, that there is a systematic attack on men, now young boys are the targets because children are easier to manipulate.

Comparing separate but equal genders to racial segregation is absurd.

Also Starling you never answer my post which addressed many of the topics that you got into with other members afterwards.

I touched on hiring and pay of women, the home situation, and a few points on biology and psychology.

Finally, capitalism is a flawed system, so is democracy, but the alternatives are many times worse. Together they are by far the best systems that have been implemented in society to date. They need vigilance and upkeep to stay strong but I certainly wouldn't give them up for? Communism? All the shit holes left in the world are either still communist, or were previously.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Our hallowed Goce Delcev stated: "I understand the world solely as a field for cultural competition among the peoples."

I think about this quote everyday, it is as relevant today as it was back then.

Capitalism is a cruel and unsustainable system that's going to need to change or be replaced......

With what?

Not that long ago a disappointingly large amount of american women voted for a known pedophile because heaven forbid a liberal take his place.

That so-called "liberal" laughed at how her rapist client was able to pass a polygraph test. Do you think such examples could've swayed the opinion of these women you're now degrading? Her performance was also recorded. Does the same compelling evidence exist to support your assertion that Trump is a pedophile?

Also you shouldn't be legally capable of offering consent when intoxicated due to your altered mental state....

How intoxicated? At what blood alcohol level? How will it be enforced? A breathalyzer at the front door of everybody's house? Be specific.

.....impersonating someone else or otherwise withholding relevant information about the whole thing can also make it rape.

Withholding information like having some disease which can be transmitted then having unprotected sex with another individual should be criminalised. That is not the same as a man pretending to be a lawyer or a woman pretending to be a model for the purpose of appearing more attractive before having sex. There are nuances in what you're referring to above, which is why you need to be specific. You seem to generalise way too much.

Pink used to be a manly colour and then got shunned as girly because it became associated with women. High heels used to be perfectly normal for men until women started wearing them.

Lol, and these are pressing issues which need to be addressed? Please....

Then there's inequality in pay for the same work....

Can you give some specific examples of this? If the PM of Canada was a woman would she be getting paid less than the current clown in office? Does the girl cashier at McDonald's get paid less than the boy cashier? Does a female taxi driver get paid less than her male counterpart? Are you factoring in years worked and experience? If women can do the same jobs for less money, why aren't all workplaces full of women? Do you really think sexism is more important to employers than increasing their profit margins?

Mansplaining: It's a thing.

If it is, then so is womansplaining. Some people, both men and women, speak in a condescending nature. They do it to both their own and the opposite sex.

Who decided that dresses couldn't be worn by boys anymore?

Why is it so important to you that boys wear dresses? Why is it so important for you to blur the distinction between boys and girls?

[Risto the Great]

The men are dumb stereotype is specifically about being clueless about stuff like cooking and other things women are expected to do around the house. In contrast, cooking as a profession is full of men and women have a harder time getting into the profession because the stereotype was never about cooking to begin with. It's an attempt at justifying the expectation that women tend to the household first and foremost.

Nope. As finely tuned as you are to women's issues, you have missed what is happening with men's issues. It's not about cooking in commercials. It's about men being happy with simple uncomplicated things like being rewarded with a new little toy if they follow their (female) partner's wise demands. Quite common and a recurring theme.

Well that's not what women are asking for. They just want to be treated like equals. As equals neither of you would be forcing the other to comply. I've seen a lot of unhealthy relationships where the husband would pretty much demand his way and everyone else just had to deal with it. He'd then claim it was a mutually agreed decision when he didn't really let them go against it. A lot of women have to deal with stuff like that and yet still manage to be spirited.

I have seen a lot of unhealthy relationships where women are forcing husbands to comply with their demands no matter how demeaning to the man in the eyes of other men and women. A lot of men are being painted into a corner and I doubt the future on HUMANkind will be healthier as a result.

You mentioned men with vaginas and women with penises in a kind of scientologist kind of mind-meld. You were assuming we must accept this as fact and therefore must accept the logic that ensued. We are not talking about statistical abnormalities or freaks here. We are talking about the 99.9999999999999999999% that are men with penises and women with vaginas. You have completely avoided the notion of natural dispositions relating to genetics. If your "man with a vagina" begins to take testosterone, the chemicals that begin to run around "his" brain will absolutely and without fail affect "his" mental processes and decision making conclusions. If you doubt these hormones are part of the chemical reaction that affect decisions in a person's brain, then it is safe to assume you are ignoring a very important part of what defines men and women.

You can still have a garage and stuff but you also have to consider how much time you're spending on that and whether or not it comes at the expense of other things. While some people are fine with long spans of time apart, others will be exasperated if you always go off and do whatever without a word and never really do anything with them. There has to be moderation to it. Communication and mutual consideration is part of a healthy relationship.

You also have to consider how much space your stuff takes up in relation to how much is available and whether your spouse has a space like that too. If the garage is filled with your stuff and there's no space for what your spouse might want that needs to go there too, then that's a potential problem you'd have to discuss.

If you feel the constant need to be away from your spouse then it probably isn't a healthy relationship.

A woman's perspective on the matter, no doubt. Me and my 34 guitars and 19 amplifiers are utterly offended.

In fact, increased longevity across many cultures sees men getting together socially very regularly and just having blokey chats and drinks. I fear you won't accept this fact.

You don't have to. The whole notion of dominance and submissiveness are complete bullshit. In terms of sex, just figure out whatever it is you find mutually pleasurable and it doesn't really matter what position or methods are involved so long as you have a good time. There's never going to be a consistent expectation of anything in particular in that regard as people have a wide variety of different tastes.

If you're going to live together, the ability to do so is a bigger priority than sex. You're going to be managing finances, property and mutual possessions together for quite some time on top of being able to deal with each other in the same house and making important decisions together. To an extent being each other's close friend is part of a romantic relationship. You have to be able to spend time together, rely on each other and be there for support when your spouse needs it.

With all respect due. There is an aspect of dominance associated with having a penis. It tends to get poked about in places and its mere use is aggressive/dominant in nature. I am sure you can bring up dildos or whatever.

Without sex, I guess we may as well live with our mothers.

Chinese women had to develop their own secret writing system passed down from mother to daughter.

Well, it's 1970 still in China. That nation has a lot of progress to make for women's rights. But, curiously enough, I would expect an instant decline in it's path to being the world's number 1 superpower if this was the case.

The whole separate but equal thing doesn't work and is basically segregation. Those gender roles may have started out that way but they cause far more harm than good now. Better to just be fluid about societal roles and expect everyone to be capable of the basic stuff as a matter of self-sufficiency.

You still assume there are no fundamental differences between men and women and therefore suggest being fluid. I am less than sure about that but won't go out of my way to offend anyone if that is your hope.

Happy new year.

[Vangelovski]

How patronizing of you.

I get that way when the person I'm conversing with goes into stupidity hyper-drive.

Or do I have to crack open a book on fallacies for you?

You should, you need to brush up on logical fallacies. Have you heard of the Strawman fallacy? Or the special pleading fallacy? Black or white? Red herrings? Any of those ring a bell? Are they in your 'how do deal with misogynists' textbook?

Explain to me how exactly women have to be house wives or how men have to be the primary source of income.

I'll respond to that when you can show me where I said that.

As for the rest of your nonsense, one step at a time. But I don't think this discussion will make it to that.

[Starling]

Starling, you've just demonstrated why some people (men or women) will never be taken seriously. I think we're all pretty well aware of the latest gender studies theories - they're floating around like a bad smell, but thanks for the run down anyway. I also note that you threw in the usual "that wasn't real communism" spiel too. Perhaps you should refresh yourself with Marx.

Just because you don't like it or think it's ridiculous doesn't mean it isn't true. That's not really a valid argument against it.

For the record, there are several forms of communism and none of them are any more "real" than the other. I was specifically talking about what the Russian revolutionaries actually wanted vs what Stalin put in place. The thing is, the basic philosophy when you strip it down to the core values is the redistribution of wealth to the people, as opposed to Capitalism's distribution of wealth to corporations. That's why it was called communism.

Given you can't (or won't) differentiate between complementary roles and separate roles, there's really nothing further to discuss with you. This conversation requires much more nuance and sophistication than you are capable of (or willing) mustering. Maybe when you move onto the next gender studies textbook you'll have something new to discuss, but I foresee much disillusionment for you with this current fad. 'Fluid on'

How patronizing of you. Again, you haven't actually provided a valid argument against what I said. Or do I have to crack open a book on fallacies for you? Explain to me how exactly women have to be house wives or how men have to be the primary source of income. How about how same sex relationships function within your narrow view of societal roles or why entire fields of work should be restricted to men or women. How about where people who don't fit into the notion of "man" and "woman" fall into this? Both men and women can be stay at home parents, the main cook, work jobs typically associated with eachother and so on. Your gender doesn't determine which of those things you can or can't do. You use complementary roles the same way as separate ones as you specifically ascribe a specific gender to them. You don't have to be different genders to complement each other in that manner, as evidenced with same sex relationships.

[Karposh]

Who decided that dresses couldn't be worn by boys anymore? Who decided eye liner was girly? Who decided that men should be discouraged from wearing pink?

Answer: GOD.

I had a feeling this discussion would eventually steer into this topic. It's no secret, this is not my favourite topic in the world, especially knowing what many people's views on Christianity are on this forum, as indeed in the world today. But as one of the few around who is still not ashamed to identify as a Christians, a quick Google search reveals God's view on the matter:

Deuteronomy 22:5 deals with the issue of cross-dressing / transvestism (men dressing in women’s clothing and vice versa). In this passage God commands that a woman is not to wear that which pertains to a man and a man is not to wear that which pertains to a woman, for all that do so are an “abomination.” The Hebrew word translated “abomination” means "a disgusting thing, abominable, in the ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages), in the ethical sense of wickedness." Therefore, this is not simply God addressing the fact that a woman might put on a man’s garment or vice versa. Also, this is not a command that a woman should not wear pants/slacks as some use this passage to teach. The meaning here is that this “cross-dressing” and transvestism is done in order to deceive, or to present oneself as something that he/she is not. In other words, this speaks to a woman changing her dress and appearance so as to appear to be a man and a man changing his dress and appearance so as to appear to be a woman. This is the definition of cross-dressing or a transvestism.

We can also reason that the dynamic behind this is the leaving of what is natural and taking on that which is in God’s Word called unnatural Romans 1:24-27.

Romans 1:24-27:
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonouring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

And this from the same web site. A really eloquently put few paragraphs discussing today's LGBTQI agenda and gay marriage in general:

So, if the Bible, history, psychology, and nature all argue for marriage being between a man and a woman—why is there such a controversy today? Why are those who are opposed to gay marriage/same-sex marriage labelled as hateful, intolerant bigots, no matter how respectfully the opposition is presented? Why is the gay rights movement so aggressively pushing for gay marriage/same-sex marriage when most people, religious and non-religious, are supportive of—or at least far less opposed to—gay couples having all the same legal rights as married couples with some form of civil union?

The answer, according to the Bible, is that everyone inherently knows that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and the only way to suppress this inherent knowledge is by normalising homosexuality and attacking any and all opposition to it. The best way to normalise homosexuality is by placing gay marriage/same-sex marriage on an equal plane with traditional opposite-gender marriage. Romans 1:18-32 illustrates this. The truth is known because God has made it plain. The truth is rejected and replaced with a lie. The lie is then promoted and the truth suppressed and attacked. The vehemence and anger expressed by many in the gay rights movement to any who oppose them is, in fact, an indication that they know their position is indefensible. Trying to overcome a weak position by raising your voice is the oldest trick in the debating book. There is perhaps no more accurate description of the modern gay rights agenda than Romans 1:31, “they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”

To give sanction to gay marriage/same-sex marriage would be to give approval to the homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful. Christians should stand firmly against the idea of gay marriage/same-sex marriage. Further, there are strong and logical arguments against gay marriage/same-sex marriage from contexts completely separated from the Bible. One does not have to be an evangelical Christian to recognise that marriage is between a man and a woman.

[Vangelovski]

Starling, you've just demonstrated why some people (men or women) will never be taken seriously. I think we're all pretty well aware of the latest gender studies theories - they're floating around like a bad smell, but thanks for the run down anyway. I also note that you threw in the usual "that wasn't real communism" spiel too. Perhaps you should refresh yourself with Marx.

Given you can't (or won't) differentiate between complementary roles and separate roles, there's really nothing further to discuss with you. This conversation requires much more nuance and sophistication than you are capable of (or willing) mustering. Maybe when you move onto the next gender studies textbook you'll have something new to discuss, but I foresee much disillusionment for you with this current fad. 'Fluid on'

[Starling]

Who said anything about human rights or that men and women should not be equal in their rights? How did you possibly infer that from what I posted, particularly when I was specifically referring to roles and not rights? And where have you seen segregation like the example you provided between men and women in the west?

I'm still waiting to see how 'complementary' means 'segregation'. Complementary, by definition, requires joint effort of two or more units in completing different but equally essential functions. Segregation requires separation and a breakdown of joint effort. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. Maybe the confusion was self-created when you replaced the word 'complementary' (which I used) with the word 'separate'.

What you said was basically how they defined 'separate but equal', so the issues with that are entirely relevant. The allegedly 'complementary' roles are basically castes you get forced into from birth. Given the varying philosophies about such things, deciding that men and women have to do specific things is pretty arbitrary. Who decided that dresses couldn't be worn by boys anymore? Who decided eye liner was girly? Who decided that men should be discouraged from wearing pink? Who decided that men had to suppress their emotions and 'act tough'?

Women have had less rights than chairs at times. There's plenty of discrimination and depending on what country you're talking about, there are still some with truly abysmal conditions. Just because it's not as bad in other countries doesn't mean some of those double standard don't involve unequal application of rights.

In any case, the whole notion of roles in society contributes to that kind of problem. There was a time when women weren't allowed to vote, couldn't be athletes, couldn't have jobs and were barred from certain places they aren't anymore simply because it wasn't part of their "role". Really, the gender of the person who does whatever complements the other person doesn't actually matter. It's just something to have done because you genuinely want to rather than because you happen to have been born in a group expected to do it. That's why we did away with caste systems too.

I don't think you should allow your views on gender to colour your understanding of the English language and basic concepts. It forces you to make far too many assumptions about what was actually posted and take great leaps in reinterpreting the well-established meaning of words and ideas. Or maybe it was purposeful distraction - setting up a little straw man to knock down?

Seems like you're making a number of assumptions yourself. "separate but equal", "different but equally important roles", the general implication is that the different roles are separate but equal. If they're truly separate based on gender, then the expectation is that one can't do the other's "role". If they did then there would be no point in claiming men and women have different roles to begin with. It doesn't really matter whether or not you consider the separation complementary when my response is about how that separation should exist to begin with. The actual gender of the people doing those things doesn't matter.

Gender does determine what people can do with their lives (for example, only women can give birth and only men can provide half of the necessary material to create life). Whether gender should or should not determine what one can do with their lives is probably a separate and more nuanced question, but I'd err on the side of supporting the idea that it should, particularly given the undeniable force of human nature and the basic biological fact of genetics.

I was talking about day to day life. Given the options of adoption, sperm donors and surrogates, there are other ways to have children if you want any to begin with.

Are you familiar with intersex people? Even if you leave out trans and nonbinary people it's not a clear cut matter. You have men with vaginas capable of giving birth, women with penises who can impregnate people with compatible anatomy, you have people with just about everything in between and then there's how sometimes people with y chromosomes never actually express the genes attached to it.

Then comes the issue of infertility and what that's supposed to mean if your role in society is based on your ability to have children and how. Gender and sex aren't the same thing and neither should have weight in what you do in everyday life.

While each generation likes to think that they are some sort of pioneers in changing the world, there really is nothing new on this earth. A while back, the Soviet Union decided it would change society and human nature itself by creating a 'new Soviet man' (and woman - it was implied). They were mean't to look something like this:



They ended up looking more like this:



They were also mean't to have a whole list of social, intellectual and emotional characteristics. That also went the opposite way (I'm sure anyone even remotely familiar with post-communist societies can attest to that). I'm pretty confident that will be the end result of most progressive attempts to reshape human nature and create a new "progressive" man (and woman - its implied).

The main reason what communism was supposed to be and what it became are so different is because Stalin killed the guy who came up with it, kept the name and twisted it into something different as a tool for oppression. That image was nothing more than propaganda afterwards. It wasn't an accidental failure so much as deliberate sabotage. The original philosophies are entirely capable of functioning as intended and quite frankly comparing addressing discrimination with what Stalin did is both fallacious and downright insulting. Animal Farm's a good book that sums up what happened through animal metaphors.

Different cultures and societies have different philosophies on life and how to live it. It doesn't actually change human nature and one society isn't inherently more correct on what that even means than the other. In some cultures, women with facial hair and unibrows and men with no facial hair and soft features is attractive. In others it's large bodies with a decent amount of fat. In some places women cover up so as not to make their appearance something that belongs solely to them and deny others the ability to judge them for it. In others showing skin is a way to take pride in their appearance. In some places breasts aren't sexualized and women are entirely capable of walking around topless.

There are plenty of different ways of living life that aren't inherently better than eachother. As long as mutual respect and rights are present, pretty much everything else can vary.

[Vangelovski]

'Separate but equal' isn't really equality. We're all human beings who should have equal access to human rights. In that sense, we're the same.

Separate but equal was what they said when implementing racial segregation in the US, which was not in fact equal:

Who said anything about human rights or that men and women should not be equal in their rights? How did you possibly infer that from what I posted, particularly when I was specifically referring to roles and not rights? And where have you seen segregation like the example you provided between men and women in the west?

I'm still waiting to see how 'complementary' means 'segregation'. Complementary, by definition, requires joint effort of two or more units in completing different but equally essential functions. Segregation requires separation and a breakdown of joint effort. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. Maybe the confusion was self-created when you replaced the word 'complementary' (which I used) with the word 'separate'.

I don't think you should allow your views on gender to colour your understanding of the English language and basic concepts. It forces you to make far too many assumptions about what was actually posted and take great leaps in reinterpreting the well-established meaning of words and ideas. Or maybe it was purposeful distraction - setting up a little straw man to knock down?

My school didn't have gender studies. The notion that gender shouldn't determine who can do what with their life and such is just common sense. People aren't meant to be shoved in such narrow boxes and then ridiculed or ostracized if they don't fit.

Gender does determine what people can do with their lives (for example, only women can give birth and only men can provide half of the necessary material to create life). Whether gender should or should not determine what one can do with their lives is probably a separate and more nuanced question, but I'd err on the side of supporting the idea that it should, particularly given the undeniable force of human nature and the basic biological fact of genetics.

While each generation likes to think that they are some sort of pioneers in changing the world, there really is nothing new on this earth. A while back, the Soviet Union decided it would change society and human nature itself by creating a 'new Soviet man' (and woman - it was implied). They were mean't to look something like this:



They ended up looking more like this:



They were also mean't to have a whole list of social, intellectual and emotional characteristics. That also went the opposite way (I'm sure anyone even remotely familiar with post-communist societies can attest to that). I'm pretty confident that will be the end result of most progressive attempts to reshape human nature and create a new "progressive" man (and woman - its implied).

[Starling]

Being complementary now equals segregation? I have yet to see that work in theory or practice.

But there are areas in which I do support gender segregation - such as bathrooms.

'Separate but equal' isn't really equality. We're all human beings who should have equal access to human rights. In that sense, we're the same. Gendered bathrooms are more because of issues with sexual harassment. You can't have urinals in a public bathroom both men and women use and the bathroom is an easily accessible form of shelter from people who can't follow you in. They're more comparable to accommodations and services like how you have parking spaces for pregnant women and people with disabilities, accommodations for children and so on.

Separate but equal was what they said when implementing racial segregation in the US, which was not in fact equal:

Sounds like the latest gender studies theory from a liberal college...oh, it is.

My school didn't have gender studies. The notion that gender shouldn't determine who can do what with their life and such is just common sense. People aren't meant to be shoved in such narrow boxes and then ridiculed or ostracized if they don't fit.

[Vangelovski]

The whole separate but equal thing doesn't work and is basically segregation.

Being complementary now equals segregation? I have yet to see that work in theory or practice.

But there are areas in which I do support gender segregation - such as bathrooms.

T Better to just be fluid about societal roles and expect everyone to be capable of the basic stuff as a matter of self-sufficiency.

Sounds like the latest gender studies theory from a liberal college...oh, it is.

[Gocka]

Starling,

If I may jump in here.

The word equality gets thrown around a lot, and I feel like it starts to lose its value. I am curious, can you highlight for me, in your opinion, what real world issues does the feminism movement view as most important. What are maybe the top 3 or 5 problems that feminism wants to fix and how?

I sometimes struggle to understand the feminism movement in today's context. Historically there were blatant inequalities. Women couldn't own land, couldn't vote, couldn't work, couldn't go to court. Slowly but surely women gained all these rights. From my perspective it seems the last frontier seems to be pay equality, and possibly some issues around pregnancy and the workplace? More than that, I can't say that I see any other systemic or social inequality towards women.

Sometimes you hear arguments made with statistics, arguing that women are disproportionately represented in government, positions of power in business and academia, and many other fields. Yes these are statistical facts that women despite being 51% of the population make up much less than that in many aspects of life, but is that because men, or society dont want them to be, or are there other factors at play. Every inequality, doesn't necessarily mean that an injustice is being perpetrated.

As Vangeloski touched on, Men and Women, are that, at the most basic level we are different. This not to say that when it comes to most things in life that we cant be treated the same, but we can't run away from the fact that we can never be 100% the same. For example, Serena Williams is a phenomenal athlete who dominates her sport, but could she realistically beat the best of the men in the same sport? Yes its just a sport, but I am just trying to make the point that as hard as women can try at least at certain things, nature still made them at least slightly different than men. At least form a physical perspective, there can never be equality. Given the same circumstances, men are on average bigger, faster and stronger. Okay so maybe that's meaningless in most aspects of modern life, but not necessarily in the workplace.

For example, I own a construction company, and I hire exactly 0 female workers. I honestly don't care if my workers are men or women, as a business owner, I have jobs that need to be done, and all I care about is that they are done correctly and efficiently. If a woman can do the work physically at the same pace and skill level, then I will gladly hire them and pay them just as much as their male counterparts. If women could do those jobs better and faster than men, then why wouldn't I hire women exclusively or pay them more than men? It would be in my interests, I gain nothing by discriminating. Okay so women might be at a physical disadvantage so again this example just lays the groundwork.

Lets take the same logic though, to the corporate setting. A business, at its core exists to make money. I've also worked in the corporate setting, and from what I witnessed personally, women never seemed to be ignored or looked over because they were women. Pretty much every corporation I worked in, would gladly hire men, women, or baboons, if it meant productivity and profits went up. Its not in a capitalist DNA to make irrational decisions that would compromise profitability. Just as in my construction company, I have no doubt that if Apple thought it could design or build better more profitable products by hiring women exclusively, that they would do that. In the accounting field, especially auditing, there were more female than male auditors, both as field employees and management. Why? For what ever reason they are better at it, Why? Because women tend to have better attention to detail, which helps you excel in auditing. It comes back full circle that God/Nature did make slight differences both physical and psychological between men and women. Like everything else in the world since men and women or two sides of the same coin they inherently balance each other out. We tend to have traits that help us as pairs, function and excel.

This idea that somehow we can eliminate difference in any and every aspect, is just down right unrealistic, and even dare I say unhealthy in some ways.

Men and women should be equal in the sense that, we should all have access to the same opportunities. If one sex or the other can do something better, then their gender should not prohibit them from doing it.Once you start getting into statistics and quotas though; I honestly dont think you are helping either gender.

One thing I find fascinating was, studies conducted on the male and female brains. Its always been said anecdotally that men are logical and women emotional but recent studies have really dove into more intricate details about the brain and its function. Here are some highlights of various large scale studies.

Men on average have larger brains by mass. The various portions of the brain especially those for cognitive function, and memory. Cognitive function is probably after physical size, the most important trait for an athlete. This would explain why even in sports where size and strength are not a real factor, men still seem to have an edge on women. Memory is very important in logical studies like math.

Women used more parts of their brains when solving a problem. Also the cortices that link different parts of the brain are thicker in women than in men. So women seem to have a better ability to think more creatively than men.

Men had a much larger variation in brain and cortices size than women. Suggesting that intelligence in men varies more widely than in women.

When approached with the same problem, men used not only fewer parts of their brains to solve them, they also used different parts of the brain. This lends itself to the old logical vs emotional argument.

One funny finding that goes against a common generalization; the portion of the brain that controls emotion is larger in men than women, but a caveat, women use this portion more often than men. So you could say, men feel emotions more deeply but less often than women.

On sheer intelligence. they are pretty much the same, just that the variation in intelligence is higher in men.

Instead of looking at all that as a competition, in my opinion its a beautiful thing. If men and women were exactly the same, life would be so boring, love, probably wouldn't be what it is. There is this inherent balance between the sexes that, at least it seems, society wants to destroy, to what end I still don't understand.

Don't get me wrong. There are many areas in need of improvement. Sexual harassment is a real problem. More encouragement for girls to get into science and math is needed. Certain stereotypes are unfair.

Maybe I will never understand because, I've only ever had the male perspective. Is still have to ask once more, what are the key issues of feminism, what are the solutions, and is society better off for it?

I hope this doesn't come off as sexist, but here I go anyway.

Having kids is obviously essential to the survival of our species. Women obviously give birth so there is no dodging that one. After that though, what do we do with our children? Are our children, and our future, really better off with all our kids in daycare? I'm not even suggesting that women have to be the ones to fulfill that role, but shouldn't at least one parent fulfill that role? This is a huge thing for me, I feel like so many societal problems can be linked straight back to kids growing up with out parents essentially. I bring this up, only because it ties in with the theme of, to what end? We seem so fixated on solving certain "problems" that we don't see the glaring other problems that we are creating. So much of the battle has been focused on workplace equality that, child rearing has fallen to the wayside as both sexes are competing for who can get the better career.

Just as men and women solve problems in different ways, I find it hard to believe that men and women can raise a child, independently, in exactly the same way, and achieve the same result. Studies have already found that kids who grow up with one parent of either sex, tend to turn out quite differently. Is either sex better equipped to take on the day to day responsibilities of child care? I have no idea. I think its safe to say that a balance of both parents is needed. If though, we subscribe to the idea that at least one parent should be actively present in the upbringing of a child, which one should it be? In infancy, obviously because of breast feeding, its only logical to say it should be women. After that stage though, we would only be relying on an ingrained prejudice, that tells us it should be women who take care of the kids.

It is something to think about and consider, and in my opinion much more important of a problem to solve, than who gets a bigger pay raise.