[Bjuukia]

Though I agree with you that women should take initiative a lot more than they do, I disagree with you that it's because they fear rejection that they currently don't. I'm pretty sure nearly every guy would say "yes" to meeting up, even if she's not the hottest or most awesome woman. Since women rarely reply to messages and even more rarely take the first step, I can see men meeting women who DO message them.

About equality: equalty doesn't mean "all things being the same for both genders". Equality needs be based on each gender's needs. Just like you wouldn't require the same from as a child as you do from an adult (because they are different and have other needs and abilities), there are some things that differ between men and women. Equality should respect that. Equality means being respected by who you are, not by being "the same as a man". Equality doesn't mean "being the same as a man", it means being respected for being a woman.

Take this example: breasts are for feeding children; men don't have breasts; so having "equal rights" in that case doesn't make sense. Rights must be based on each gender's needs, just like disability rights must be based on their needs and abilities, not on "being the same as a able person".

Hope this makes sense, having a difficult time explaining it properly.

[bradleyjg]

That's a neoclassical conception of feminism. The second wave of feminism was all about achieving literal equality - changing society so that women could take on the exact same roles and challenges as men.

I wouldn't say such a conception is inherently problematic, but it certainly raises difficult questions. How can we frame an equality that is based on each gender's needs without importing all the old baggage of gender stereotyping? Who defines each gender's needs -- do we care only about those that are purely biologically, or also those that are deeply embedded in the culture? How do we account for those who don't fit -- either physically or culturally -- into the dominant gender categories? And so on.

[Bjuukia]

Make laws for people. All people. You're making this more complicated than it needs to be :) Take parental leave for example, why must a woman get more time off than a man? They might prefer if the father got the parental leave, or they might want to split the time, or they might both want to do part time. And if a single man has a child? Why shouldn't he get parental leave? There you are, make a law that applies to people, not to genders, but regardless, the law is there for women, who just for being female (generally) are the ones who need this law. And that's what matters. The law is there for them, yet also extends to other people.

But not having parental leave at all would be harmful mostly to the female gender. So because people (excuse me, men) don't need it, a country might not see the need for this law at all, making the situation difficult (primarily) for women.

Frankly, a lot of people see laws as "I don't need it", or "my group doesn't need it", so "I don't want this law to pass". They don't think past that so they don't realize other people might have certain needs.

[bradleyjg]

This seems a bit different than what you posted before. The grandparent post talked about equality meaning different things for different groups based on their needs, now you are saying that the rules should be the same thing for everyone.

Which is it?

[Bjuukia]

No, it's not different.

The issue primarily affects a certain group: women. It became a major issue because women joined the workforce without having their different needs met. Having daddy go to work and having both mommy and daddy go to work are two completely different things.

If women were solely homemakers like the old days, I doubt the issue would ever come up at all. Perhaps if women were still homemakers, but single dads and gay couples became a huge chunk of the workforce.

It doesn't mean that particular law can't benefit other groups too, but it's practically only a issue because women stopped being "just homemakers" (or if you're from my country, "domestic women").

So the group we are talking about here doesn't necessarily have to be women, but historically, that's who it was.

[Bjuukia]

Why must it be "feminism"? Why can't it just be "I'm a person too, so I have rights just like other people do"

I wasn't speaking from a feminist prespective at all, just like advocating for disability laws wouldn't make you a "disabitaist". It would just make you a person who realizes people have different needs.

[jiggy2011]

Equal rights usually means equality under law. For example there not being any laws (such as you might find in strongly muslim countries) which apply to women but not to men.

[Bjuukia]

You're saying that we shouldn't have different laws based on gender so that there is no oppression or disadvantage to one group. But what if by being the same for both genders (or ability, age, etc), the law, or lack of law, is opressive or disadvanteous to some group?

[jiggy2011]

I'm not explicitly saying that, but yes that sounds reasonable.

I can't really think of an example of where it might be oppressive to give both genders the same rights under law.

[Bjuukia]

For some reason "retirement" comes to mind as having a disadvantage when it comes to women who chose to start a family (compared to men who chose to start a family) but I'm young and planning a offbeat retirement plan for myself, so I don't know much on common retirement to elaborate on it.

[Mz]

I can think of an example: Currently, abusive husbands who finally beat their long suffering wife to death do less time on average than abused wives who defend themselves with lethal force. Part of why: He probably killed her in a fit of rage with his bare hands. She typically has to use a weapon and premeditated plan to save her life.

[jiggy2011]

Assuming you have a (equal) right to reasonable self defense under law, you would expect a judge to take into account circumstances which would include things like relative strength of those involved.

For example it would not be seen as reasonable for me to use a brick in self defense against a small unarmed child but it might be if I was attacked by a heavyweight boxer.

It's not something that is limited to gender either, as you could in theory have a weaker man fighting a stronger woman.

[Mz]

The statistics strongly indicate that the outcome is biased in favor of men, against women. The laws and judicial process don't currently do a good job of accounting for very real differences between the sexes here.

[colmvp]

Women have the flexibility of being shy or proactive. Do men? Not really. Men are the ones pressured to be self-confident, extroverted, and to take risks. Thus, it doesn't seem equal because men have far less choice.

[hvs]

Men have far less choice? Why, because women can do whatever they want and only men are pressured to be a certain way? I think you have a bit of an odd view of the world.

[olivier1664]

Can you explain a little more why this "odd view of the world" is false?