We love to watch women suffer. Being women, they do it so beautifully...

[Dowland]

But it could mean that even in a perfectly equal cultural climate, we might have to live with one gender dominating a particular field, because of neurological predispositions. None of this ought to be relevant in a political discussion at this time, though, since there are other huge issues which are problems.

Perhaps, but I can assure you the lack of female neurosurgeons is not at all due to a real or supposed belief that women are potentially less capable neurosurgeons than men.

Raggit has told that genders are different...

Raggit has argued that the physiological difference between men and women is a sufficient basis to say that men and women are "entirely different from each other with no standard in between to be judged equal by."

I disagree that the physiological component is enough to state "entire" difference. Certainly it is a difference, but it is relevant to a limited field of issues.

Fisically, Raggit is totally right. The world's fastest girl won' t even win the world fastest man in 100 m, although the fastest girl in Earth will probably crush 99.9% of the guys in a race. Additionaly, she should receive as much as credit and respect as the male champion.

Be careful: the arguments you are using are potentially dangerous. How often do we get a non-black 100 m runner? And is that a basis to treat black men with a different set of rules than white men?

[LimpingFish]

"Male dominance" in certain fields is the result of a unbroken cycle of social and psychological falsehoods inherent in, and perpetuated by, a complacent society.

Even in certain socities, where Women are treated as a lower sub-species of Man, the will to adapt and comply is still evident.

To fight for the "rights of women" is to fight an enemy that needs to expend no energy or resources in it's defence; the battlefield is empty.

As a man, I neither condone nor apologize for the society in which I am a benign participant.

The ideology involved in the "Battle of the Sexes", on both sides, is far too rigid and sectarian to interest me; beyond the fact that people blindly insist the battle is ongoing.

[Nacho]

In my mind, I didn' t see that picture you saw when your read that... If you think that those sentences meant, I am with you. 

But maybe you should ask Raggit before...

[Raggit]

It's weird, Becky, because before I even posted I was rooting for you in this arugment and agreeing with what you were saying. 

Oh well. 

-EDIT-

And for reiteration, I'm not opposed to civil liberties for women.  You've misinterpreted my words to mean that women's rights are crap, when what I'm saying is that FAVORITISM is crap.  Because, at least in America, what is being called "affirmative action" and "women's lib" is actually just favoritism, which is not real equality. 

[Dowland]

Raggit, I am not in anyway implying that you are sexist. But in your haste to point out physiological difference--and I think, in your desire to express frustration at people that rigidly profess everybody is on equal footing--, you overdid it and said something you probably did not mean.

But that is not what (I feel) this is about (physiological differences). It's about why everybody laughed when that lady said about Hillary Clinton, "So, how *do* we beat the bitch?"; the belief that somehow, because she is a woman aspiring to a traditionally male job, she is worthy of a contempt? You can argue that this is Republicans talking about Democrats, but I've never heard a Republican supporter asking "How do we beat that asshole?" when referring to a male candidate ...

[Dowland]

"Male dominance" in certain fields is the result of a unbroken cycle of social and psychological falsehoods inherent in, and perpetuated by, a complacent society.

Even in certain socities, where Women are treated as a lower sub-species of Man, the will to adapt and comply is still evident.

To fight for the "rights of women" is to fight an enemy that needs to expend no energy or resources in it's defence; the battlefield is empty.

As a man, I neither condone nor apologize for the society in which I am a benign participant.

The ideology involved in the "Battle of the Sexes", on both sides, is far too rigid and sectarian to interest me; beyond the fact that people blindly insist the battle is ongoing.

As long as you are *aware* of this, I don't think it matters so much whether you try to actively change it or not. Lack of awareness is what the "Battle" is about; lack of awareness is not benign.

[Becky]

Ah.  Raggit I apologise for reading too much into your words.  But as Dowland said, the way you were so adamant to point out that there are physical differences made it seem like equal rights was a load of bollocks   Sorry that I misinterpreted that!

[Raggit]

No worries Becky, I tend to get very loud and vocal on these things and end up making people mad.

I should be more careful about my wording of things.

[Nacho]

Be careful: the arguments you are using are potentially dangerous. How often do we get a non-black 100 m runner? And is that a basis to treat black men with a different set of rules than white men?

I don' t know if you don' t know to read, or you are missreading on purpose to go on with the discussion.

I wrote: Man and women are fisically different. I am not sure if that differences are also in psicology. One gender is not better than the other, and the same rules must be applied to both.

Clear?

Now... Black and white man are fisically different.

(Ok, ok... I know that we are "the same human race" and, there' s no way to talk about one and unique "white" race, because we have the caucasians, skandinavians, etc... Same with black, who have hutus, tutsis, Ibos, Pigmeos, Abissinians, and blah, blah...)

But the "race" we common know as black has more density in they bones... They are better preppaired for boxing, 100 m. running and everything involving power, even in stamina sports with lots of impacts, which require a strong bone and muscles like marathon... They will never be the best in sports involving a light bone, like swimming or cyclism. Their enviroment made them this way, same as made their hair curlier. The enviroment decides how our external aspect is. The differences provoqued by the enviroment can also be seen in the shape of the eyes or colour of the melanine... are you going to tell me that the colour of the melanine of Ted Danson is the same than Michael Jordan' s? Are you going to say such thing in honour to political correction?

An artic rabbit is different from an african one, no?

African: Bigger, less flury, brown, bigger ears.
Artical: Smaller, flury hair, whit, small ears to avoid lose of internal heat.

Is one rabbit fisically superior to another? No... each one is (fisically) preppaired for the place it lives.

Same with humans.

Where is the danger in this FACTS?

Now... Telling that searching grass in an arctic plain or in a desert will also change your brain is a dangerous and complete stupidity. Same with human. Saying that going to work to an office is more complicated that looking for food in the Kalahary, and that those differences are going to provoque a change in your brain transmitted via DNA is a complete stupidity. I never wrote, or thought that.

Hope it' s clear now ^_^.

[EldKatt]

This implies that women and men are two separate species and that we'll never be comparable to one another, which is complete bull as men and women differ amongst each other as much as they differ against one another.  I don't see anywhere in Raggit's post where that says "oh, and by the way this observation has no bearing on civil equality".  Particularly when calling equality "crap". 

It's true that there's as much variety within the groups as there is between the groups, but this does not mean that there is no statistical difference. A little thought experiment:

Let's imagine a perfect society where there is no unequality due to social reasons. It can be observed (this is fact, not part of my little conjecture here) that Broca's and Wernicke's areas (parts of the brain involved in language processing) are, on avarage, proportionally larger in women than in men. This could mean (and it does seem to be so, AFAIK) that women are more likely than men to have above-avarage language skills. It's not inconceivable that in our hypothetical perfect society, there would be a significant numerical bias towards women in fields like translation and interpreting, where pure language skill is of primary importance. Would this be something worth lobbying against? Now, I'm not saying that this effect is likely to be of any significance in a real discussion about these issues, and (particularly given the general public's unfortunate lack of understanding of statistics) it might even risk to divert attention from the more important problems. But that's no reason to deny the possibility.

In fact, I think we are facing serious risk if our arguments for civil equality rely too heavily on the scientific notion of biological equality between the sexes. If research were to further indicate the kind of thing I talk about above--which it could--it would severely compromise such arguments. We must be able to argue for and justify civil equality on an ethical basis, one independent of biology, so that the ideology can hold its ground no matter what the scientific reality turns out to be.

[Becky]

Yes, I have pointed out that the fact that both men and women are human beings should be the standard for political and civil equality.

[Radiant]

In fact, I think we are facing serious risk if our arguments for civil equality rely too heavily on the scientific notion of biological equality between the sexes.

I believe there are two hazards here.

First, I'm not at all convinced that the debate of "sexist language" is actually worth the time some people put into it, because it distracts people from the actual underlying issues: it's treating symptoms rather than causes. The reason I'm saying this is because it seems to be more about political correctness than about solving anything. As an example, I used to work at a convention where chairmen were referred to as "chairs" (which sounds like furniture but I guess it's okay) but the people who were welcoming others were known as "hostesses", despite the fact that half of these hostesses were male. In other words, the organization of this convention, by unthinkingly using non-sexist language, achieved little else other than make itself look silly.

Second, it is possible, but a bad idea, to deny people opportunities for the sake of equality. This goes for both sides, obviously. The reason I'm saying this is the following: the Netherlands used to have several levels of high school, depending basically on the intelligence or scholastic aptitude of the students (which has nothing to do with gender, but the example is relevant anyway). Because the new government insisted on treating every student equally, they now have one level of high school, which proceeds too rapidly for the less able students, and is denying opportunities to the smarter students. Needless to say that doesn't work all that well.

In other words, equality is about granting opportunities to those who were held back in the past - not about denying opportunities to those who were put ahead in the past.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the consequence of seeking easy answers is to be consistently wrong.

[Dowland]

First, I'm not at all convinced that the debate of "sexist language" is actually worth the time some people put into it, because it distracts people from the actual underlying issues: it's treating symptoms rather than causes.

I agree that political correctness is treating symptoms rather than causes, and that trying to change language because it is supposedly sexist is completely vain and useless. But that is not what I am trying to do. The conversation led to the fact that masculine takes all as a gender, and I was mentionning that this is, historically speaking, not mild. While it is not worth changing the English (or French, or Spanish, etc.) language, I truly believe it is important to be aware of that.

My point was not with really with the language though ... although "men" is oftentimes used to mean mankind, my point was that in the founding documents, while the founding fathers might have meant "mankind" (I was not there so I cannot tell), the documents were subsequently used and interpreted as though they had said "men" as in "males". This is not merely linguistics; this is what has shaped America for the next few centuries.

And talking about history, why are famous artists always male? Can you name from memory any Classical era composer that is a woman? Chopin? Schumann? Schubert? Beethoven? Liszt? While these are more or less commonly known names, none of them are female. Is that to say that women are biologically capable of composing music?

I apologize for my, perhaps, vehement tone. As stated before, indifference, and complacency are two of the main adversaries in this debate.

Women are not victimized because everybody is actively seeking to undercut them, but because society has evolved on sexist roots, that is has never really shed---because they are not always acknowledged. (And again, women are not the only group on the receiving end of intolerance ...)

Anyway, I *am* turning in circles, so I guess I'll quit this topic and let others express themselves. Sorry for having more or less monopolized the convo, and thanks for answering me.

[Nacho]

As said, Dowland, male and female brains have some differences, but our knowleadge of the human psyque is too little to tell what those differences mean.

Your example about classical composers is not 100% correct, IMO, because women didn't compose more for social reasons that for psicological ones. It might be a real mental reason, since nowadays they have the same opportunities as men and seems that the number of composers is still bigger than women, but who knows? The social reason is an explanation that unfortunatelly we can't despise.

But I am sure that you' ve heard the sentence: "There won' t be wars if world was ruled by women" I am quite convinced that world would probably go better. That implies that our way of thinking and acting is different (Equal in a high percentage, but still there are little differences), but in this case, (human relationships) women win the race by three bodies. You should be happy for that. You shouldn' t jump into someone' s jugular if he/she tells you that something is "different". Beethoven, Picasso, Kennedy were waaaaaay different than the rest of the mortals. You should jump into someone' s jugular if he/she tells you that something is "worse". And I' ll be there to jump with you! 

Edit: I am going to try to explain how this goes with a little example. Enviroment, or the tasks we do determines how we are. An skimal is way different than a pigmeus, but both are perfect for the enviroment they life. Different human races haven' t been doing different "mental" taskes for so long time that their minds had to evolve in different directions, and they won' t, since globalization has equalized this. Maybe if we isolate a human race in the jungle for some million years they will develope a different psyque than the rest, but not now. There has been no time, a genetical change in the neural system takes too long, it' s the most complicate system to change in genetics.

Maybe million of different taks between male and female has made their psyche different... But evolution wouldn' t allow to make a "worse" gender than the other. Maybe we are a bit better into space location (for hunting and stuff...) and you are better in other things, like human relations... But this differences are tiny, in my opinion, since it was very likely that women had to make the male tasks and viceversa.

[lo_res_man]

In my opinion society is gonna go nowhere if it keeps insisting on basing equality on a lack of difference. There is physical and in all likelihood mental differences between men and woman. There is physical , if cosmetic, differences between a man whose ancestors more or less originally  come from Africa and one who comes from Scandinavia. . There are cultural differences between a Buddhist man from japan and a Catholic in south America. But none of these things make racism or sexism or religious wars or discrimination, right.

Some keep saying, well we are all the same on the inside. True enough for the most part. But the differences we do have define us as human beings, make us individuals., we shouldn't just ignore them. But that is what I am seen today. The great melting pot is trying to dissolve away the differences, creating a new monoculture instead of rejoicing in the differences. We need to make a soup, with a common broth, absorbing from others, yet maintaining our cultural identities, and our heritages.  We need to say. this man is not my brother, but he is something more , my friend. We need to be friends with our neighbours, not brothers and sisters. We must have diversity, not inbreeding.
We need to strike a balance between  extreme ironic multiculturalism, were no ones culture is considered important, and a stand cannot be taken, and the evil of integration, which all it does is create a new we and a new other, without learning to live with other. We need that, to learn how to live with the other.

Because though some people might say those differences are unimportant, that is tantamount untrue. Not to mention insulting to the people who hold those beliefs, who have those differences. They find them very important indeed. We need to live with the differences of others and be willing to learn from them, but not become them. We need to learn to happily coexist, not merely tolerate them. We cannot keep saying the differences aren't real, because even the cultural ones, are real to the people who have them.

Lets make soup, not mush and not war.

[RickJ]

   
   
Re: We love to watch women suffer. Being women, they do it so beautifully...
« Reply #32 on: Yesterday at 09:32:38am »    Reply with quote
Quote from: RickJ on November 21, 2007, 07:50:05 PM
Quote
Agreed, about your linguistic point: it similar in other languages where masculin takes all. But this is not a gender neutral language. You have to ask yourself, at one point, why the "neutral" in a language coincides with the male--why are you assuming this rule is purely academic?
I am not assuming anything just stating facts which you also acknowledge.    The writings in question conform to standard usage of the language at the time of the writing.   I'm not an expert on the origins of English grammar but as you say other languages, in addition to English, use masculine pronouns to refer to all.

You are assuming: you are stating a fact without thinking about its basis, or questionning its meaning. My question is double:
* did the founders really mean all mankind when they said "men" (and if so, you have not answered my questions as to why women were only given right to vote in 1920--i.e.: centuries after); ...

Of course they meant the entire human race, they could not have meant anything else.  The word "man" when used in this context means the entire human race.  In fact that's all it meant in any context until about a 1000 years ago when "adult males" was included as an alternative definition (see the Online Etymological Dictionary).   

It is plain for any educated person who reads The Declaration of Independence with an open mind what the writers' purpose and meaning was.  It's basically a letter to the king of England telling him to piss-off.  What purpose would be served making a distinction between men and women as you suggest they did.   Do you really believe that the people who wrote the declaration were willing to let the King continue to rule over their wives and children?   Clearly their purpose was to communicate to the King that all of the people (i.e. men, women, children, etc) of the colonies wanted their independence from the King's rule.  Any other interpretation is just plain silly.   

Just take a look at the first two sentences from  the Declaration of Independence.  The first sentence mentions "the course of human events",  "one people dissolving political bands which have connected them to another", "the Law's of Nature", "Nature's God", and "mankind".   Here is the entire sentence:

"When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Where is the distinction between male and female members of the human race? It seems to be talking about everyone doesn't it?
This sets the context for at least the next sentence doesn't it?   The very next sentence is where the offending word "men" occurs twice.  The first instance occurs in the phrase "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."    If you are saying that the writers meant men="adult males" then are you also that they believed that God created and gave rights, such as life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,  only to adult males.   The context does not support this nor is there any evidence that any of the authors or signers of the Declaration held any such beliefs.   You can look here to read Jefferson's account of the events leading up to the writing and signing of the declaration.   There is no mention anywhere of this issue.  It simply was not part of the discussion.   

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. â€" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, â€" That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

The second occurrence admittedly catches one's modern eye when it says "... Governments are instituted among Men ...".   But just because governments of the time consisted primarily of adult males doesn't mean that this phrase is referring to  only adult males.   It is used in the context of everyone  and indeed this is reaffirmed in the same sentence when "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" and the "Right of the People"  are mentioned. 

Again, this was the document sent to King George telling him that the American colonies would no longer accept his rule and  the reasons why.   There was no reason for, or purpose to be served by, making a distinction between adult males and everybody else.  They did not intend that King George continue to rule their wives and children and it is absolutely absurd to think otherwise.   

* did the founders really mean all mankind when they said "men" (and if so, you have not answered my questions as to why women were only given right to vote in 1920--i.e.: centuries after); ...

Why didn't women vote until 1920, Hmm let'seee now.  First of all it's not correct to say that women had no voting rights in the US before 1920.  According to the Women's History Website progress on women's voting rights began in 1776 the same year the Declaration of Independence was signed.  The first progress in Britian who did not subscribe to the US's founding documents seems to have been in 1869, almost a hundred years later.   In all fairness, it should be noted this website seems to have more details about the US than other countries and so it is possible there are other British events pre-dating 1869 that are not listed.  The list below is taken from the Women's History Website at these URLs.

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/suffrage/a/intl_timeline_1.htm
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/suffrage/a/intl_timeline_2.htm
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/suffrage/a/intl_timeline_3.htm
http://womenshistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa031600a.htm

1776: US Declaration of Independence
1776: New Jersey gives the vote to women owning more than $250.
1781: US Constitution Ratified
1837: Kentucky gives some women suffrage in school elections. (source)
1861: Kansas enters the Union; the new state gives its women the right to vote in local school elections.
1869: Britain grants unmarried women who are householders the right to vote in local elections
1869: Wyoming territory constitution grants women the right to vote and to hold public office.  (more more)
1870: Utah territory gives full suffrage to women. (more)
1881: Some Scottish women get the right to vote in local elections.
1893: The male electorate in Colorado votes "yes" on woman suffrage. (more more)
1894: Some cities in Kentucky and Ohio give women the vote in school board elections. (more)
1894: The United Kingdom expands women's voting rights to married women in local but not national elections.
1895: Utah amends its constitution to grant women suffrage.  (more)
1896: Idaho adopts a constitutional amendment granting suffrage to women.  (more more)
1902: Kentucky repeals limited school board election voting rights for women. (more)
1910: Washington state votes for woman suffrage.  (more more)
1911: California gives women the vote.  (more more)
1912: Male electorates in Michigan, Kansas, Oregon and Arizona approve state constitutional amendments for woman suffrage.
1912: Kentucky restores limited voting rights for women in school board elections. (more)
1918: The United Kingdom gives a full vote to women of age 30 and older and men age 21 and older.
1920: On August 26, a constitutional amendment is adopted when Tennessee ratifies it, granting full woman suffrage in all states
1928: The United Kingdom grants equal voting rights to women.

Take a look at the URL's above, they have a world wide time line with all countries included.   If what you suggest were true then you would expect that the US progress would be retarded in comparison to other countries who were not hampered by the language in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution.  However this does not seem to be the case at all.   In fact, if anything the US was the leader of the progress.   Wiki-pedia confirms this notion in it's Women's Suffrage Article which says that "the term women's suffrage refers to the economic and political reform movement aimed at extending suffrage â€" the right to vote â€" to women. The movement's origins are usually traced to the United States in the 1820s. In the following century it spread throughout the European and European-colonised ..."

Instead of asking why it took so long in the US, perhaps it would be better to ask why it took so long in other places, especially the ones where the idea that "all men are created equal",  (i.e. "men"="human Beings") is not a widely accepted truth.  Here is the rest of the time line picking up again in the 1960s.   Why did it take these countries soooo long?  And what about places like Saudia Arabia and other Islamic countries who don't even allow women to go out of the house unless they put a bag over their head?   Why are all women's rights groups so silent about this?  The silence is deafening isn't it?   

1962: Australia adopts full woman suffrage (a few restrictions remain)
1963: Women in Morocco, Congo, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Kenya gain suffrage. (more)
1964: Sudan adopts woman suffrage. (more)
1964: The Bahamas adopts full suffrage with restrictions. (more)
1965: Women gain full suffrage in Afghanistan, Botswana and Lesotho. (more)
1967: Ecuador adopts full suffrage with a few restrictions. (more)
1968: Full woman suffrage adopted in Swaziland. (more)
1970: Yemen adopts full suffrage. (more)
1970: Andorra permits women to vote. (more)
1971: Switzerland adopts woman suffrage, and the United States lowers the voting age for both men and women to eighteen. (more)
1972: Bangladesh grants woman suffrage. (more)
1973: Full suffrage granted to women in Bahrain. (more)
1973: Women permitted to stand for election in Andover and San Marino. (more)
1974: Jordan and the Solomon Islands extend suffrage to women. (more)
1975: Angola, Cape Verde and Mozambique give suffrage to women. (more)
1976: Portugal adopts full woman suffrage with a few restrictions. (more)
1978: The Republic of Moldova adopts full suffrage with a few restrictions. (more)
1978: Women in Zimbabwe are able to stand for election. (more
1980: Iran gives women the vote. (more)
1984: Full suffrage granted to women of Liechtenstein. (more)
1986: Central African Republic adopts woman suffrage. (more)
1990: Samoan women gain full suffrage. (more)
1994: Kazakhstan grants women full suffrage. (more)
2005: Kuwaiti Parliament grants women of Kuwait full suffrage.

My point was not with really with the language though ... although "men" is often times used to mean mankind, my point was that in the founding documents, while the founding fathers might have meant "mankind" (I was not there so I cannot tell), the documents were subsequently used and interpreted as though they had said "men" as in "males". This is not merely linguistics; this is what has shaped America for the next few centuries

I'm glad you concede my point regarding the language of the Declaration of independence.   Now you assert that the Declaration of Independence  was used and interpreted as thought it had said "men" as in "adult males" but you don't mention used by whom and how they used them to shape the US for the first few centuries?   With regard to women's voting rights this is clearly not the case.    The status quo when the US was founded was that women did not vote anywhere in the world.   The wiki-pedia says that that notion started here in the US a few decades after the US Constitution was ratified.   

Your assertion is also very curious because the word "men" or any other reference or distinction between male and female individuals only occurs twice in the Declaration of Independence and nowhere in the US Constitution, except the 19th amendment which states that "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.".  The US constitution begins with the phrase "We the people" and uses the word "person" or "persons" when referring to individuals.  You keep referring to "the founding documents" so I wonder what documents other than the declaration are you referring to???     

With regard to the idea of people interpreting things to fit their own agenda and to achieve their own ends... The world is full of gullible people and scoundrels who will take advantage of them by twisting language and facts.       

* if they did, and if "men" is, as you say, used to refer to "men and women" (why not say "men and women"?), why is "men" the take all; why is it not "women" ... that is a choice that was made with intent (rather than randomly), as the fact that this rule also extends to many languages suggests.

You are confusing gender and sex  .   Sex is the distinction between male and female members of a given species.   Gender refers to the way a given language classifies and uses nouns.  The number of genders in different languages varies from 2 to more than 20.   Although there is some correlation between gender and sex in some languages they are not the same thing.   

In the case of the word "man" one only need to consult an authority on  etymology to find the answer.  The origin of the word "man" comes from Old English and meant "human beings".   In Late Old English, c1000, wer and wif were used to distinguish between the sexes.  So you would have had man, werman, and wifman (I believe).  "Wer" began to disappear late 13c. and was replaced by "man".   Wifman morphed into wimman and the into woman.   The plural, women, is still pronounced as "wimmen" in some places.   See here and here.

It doesn't make much sense to me to whine about a language's rules of grammar,  if you don't like it choose another language and get on with your life.   It's silly to pretend that there is/was some kind of political motivation behind the origin of a language's grammar, as these rules came into practice many centuries before our current political issues came into being or were even contemplated.   IMHO, invaders, conquerors, foreign trade, popular culture, and human quirky-ness are the genesis of languages and their rules.  To attribute the origin of languages to any kind of systematic and well thought out process, quite frankly, gives humanity far more credit than it deserves.

[edit]fix link & spelling

[Babar]

1963: Women in Morocco, Congo, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Kenya gain suffrage. (more)
1964: The Bahamas adopts full suffrage with restrictions. (more)
1965: Women gain full suffrage in Afghanistan, Botswana and Lesotho. (more)
1968: Full woman suffrage adopted in Swaziland. (more)
1972: Bangladesh grants woman suffrage. (more)
1974: Jordan and the Solomon Islands extend suffrage to women. (more)
1975: Angola, Cape Verde and Mozambique give suffrage to women. (more)
1976: Portugal adopts full woman suffrage with a few restrictions. (more)
1978: The Republic of Moldova adopts full suffrage with a few restrictions. (more)
1978: Women in Zimbabwe are able to stand for election. (more

Hey RickJ!
This whole topic seems a bit weird to me, but I just wanted to point out something I noticed in your post. The dates you give for Kenya, The Bahamas, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Bangladesh, The Solomon Islands, Angola, Cape Verde and Mozambique, are actually the dates that those countries obtained independence, so the data is a little misleading. Even for the other countries, most of the dates are either very close to the dates they obtained independence, or the date they overthrew some dictatorship, or had some revolution against the king, or communism was removed. I'm not arguing against or for what you are saying, just wishing to point out something.

And now for the other weirdness: About men being whacked on the bollocks, way back on the 1st page- I find it overdone the way some people scream and moan for hours afterwards, like they're trying to prove something. The few times I've been hit, I don't lie on the floor writhing in pain and moaning for the next hour. I punch back, and if it is excessively painful, sit down for a few seconds, after which the pain subsides.

About loving to watch women suffer, the whole thing seems absurd to me. Unless you are into some sort of S&M thing, I don't see how the idea is valid. I admit, I enjoy watching conflict, and maybe that makes me evil, but can't really say I have a preference for female suffering. As for liking strong women, I can definitely say I dislike 'weak' women, who seem to feel the need to act all 'girly' and wish to be 'protected' by men and pretend that they can't do anything. Thankfully, I've met very few of these kind of people.

[lo_res_man]

Besides, we love seen all OTHER people suffer, not just woman. Some mentioned [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude]
Schadenfreude[/url] And we all have done this as kids, at the very least. I  would maintain that a significant part of the feeling of accomplishment is  at least INDIRECTLY Schadenfreude. Disagree? then what if someone came up to you and said "You WIN!" and gave you a 100 dollars, or local currency equivalent. After you got over the initial suspicion  you would be pretty happy, right? But what if you saw him go to everybody in he met ,and did the same thing. You wouldn't feel as happy, huh. And you would be downright sad, if he went up to someone else and gave them $1000.
Lesson: despite all the urgings Age of Aquarius junkies, plus many religious texts, to win, really win, someone else has to lose! ERGO, a significant part of happieness, (and I mean that in the way the diet pill ads WANT you to think,) comes from watching other people suffer, and not just woman.

[EldKatt]

You are confusing gender and sex  .   Sex is the distinction between male and female members of a given species.   Gender refers to the way a given language classifies and uses nouns.  The number of genders in different languages varies from 2 to more than 20.   Although there is some correlation between gender and sex in some languages they are not the same thing.

You are confusing linguistics with everything else. In the context of discussions like this, "gender" is nowadays often used to mean the distinction between male and females, although focusing more on the psychological and social aspects (as in "gender identity", "gender roles", etc.), where "sex" is more of a biological and physiological term, as you say. Then there's grammatical gender, which is a completely different thing, yeah. But characterizing the non-linguistic usage of the word "gender" as somehow incorrect is pretty misleading. The other, separate meaning (above) is well-established and standard in the relevant fields. More to the point, the English language lost its grammatical gender system AFAIK almost a millennium ago (Old English has a German-like gender system, whereas Middle English does not), so I can assure you that whatever anyone here is talking about it's probably not grammatical gender.

As for the gender-related ("gender" in the non-linguistic sense) constructs that do exist in English, I agree that they're somewhat irrelevant to this issue, for all practical purposes: they're probably not in any way a cause of or contributor to any bad things happening. However, I do believe that they are likely to be a symptom, or a consequence, of the real state of things. Saying that they've got nothing to do with social factors is BS. Saying that they caused the social factors in the first place is fallacious, but you don't have to go that far.

[RickJ]

This whole topic seems a bit weird to me, but I just wanted to point out something I noticed in your post. The dates you give for Kenya, The Bahamas, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Bangladesh, The Solomon Islands, Angola, Cape Verde and Mozambique, are actually the dates that those countries obtained independence, so the data is a little misleading. Even for the other countries, most of the dates are either very close to the dates they obtained independence, or the date they overthrew some dictatorship, or had some revolution against the king, or communism was removed. I'm not arguing against or for what you are saying, just wishing to point out something.

Interesting point Babar, I wasn't aware of the other events around those dates.  The information is from the Women's History page at About.com.    It's not surprising, however,  that people, including women  , gain rights and freedoms shortly after overthrowing a repressive government.   Also, as I have mentioned in my previous post, there seems to be more details about the US than other countries.  I would suppose this is because the author(s) are from the US and know more about their home country than they do about others.   Perhaps in cases where the actual date is not known but it was known that the change took place under the new government, they took the liberty of using the independence date. 

You are confusing linguistics with everything else.

When Dowland asks "Why does masculine take all?" he is referring to the English Language rules of grammar, and possibly others, that prescribe the use masculine gender forms of pronouns when the sex of the individual(s) to which the pronoun refers is not known.    For example, I don't if Dowland is male or female so the correct way of referring to him in English is to use the masculine gender pronouns he, him, his.   He is upset because he incorrectly equates the default usage of masculine gender pronouns with favoritism or preference for indivduals of the male sex.   It appears the he does not understand that gender and sex are two different things nor does he appear to know which one to use in a given situation. 

Now you assert that this confusion is over linguistcis rather than gender.   Linguistics is the study of the entire language, it's origins, constructs, grammar, etc, so this would obviously include gender.  However, the discussion, Dowland and I are having is only concerned with the English Language's rules regarding the use of gender and whether or not this usage  favors one sex over the other.   The definition of both terms is shown below; anyone can see that "gender" is what the discussion is specifically about and is therefore the more precise and therefore preferable term. 

lin·guis·tics       (lĭng-gwĭs'tĭks)  Pronunciation Key
n.   (used with a sing. verb)
The study of the nature, structure, and variation of language, including phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics.

gen·der       (jěn'dər)  Pronunciation Key
n. 
A grammatical category used in the classification of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and, in some languages, verbs that may be arbitrary or based on characteristics such as sex or animacy and that determines agreement with or selection of modifiers, referents, or grammatical forms.

In the context of discussions like this, "gender" is nowadays often used to mean the distinction between male and females, although focusing more on the psychological and social aspects (as in "gender identity", "gender roles", etc.), ...

While it may be true that "gender" is often used in this way that doesn't make it the correct way.  Why is this important you may ask?   It's an old and common tactic for groups who want to gain power and privilege to redefine the language to gain advantage.  Orwell and Huxley make mention of this in their novel "1984" and "Brave new World"; one of them even coined a term for it "somethingspeak", can't remember what "something" was.   

So in your examples what you are really talking about are "sexual identity" and "sexual roles".    You are correct that these are psychological issues;  they have a word for people who believe they are somebody who they are not.   And if you look at the issues in the light of clear language there isn't much chance groups representing such people to acquire political power or privilege.    Before anyone starts up about how we need to be kind, compassionate,  and  caring about people with problems, let me just say that I don't think exploiting peoples problems to gain political power and privilege is neither kind nor compassionate.

But characterizing the non-linguistic usage of the word "gender" as somehow incorrect is pretty misleading.

Actually just the opposite is true.  It's misleading and cynical to use imprecise terms or to use terms incorrectly so as to obfuscate the facts to persuade the masses to one's point of view.

The other, separate meaning (above) is well-established and standard in the relevant fields. More to the point, the English language lost its grammatical gender system AFAIK almost a millennium ago (Old English has a German-like gender system, whereas Middle English does not), so I can assure you that whatever anyone here is talking about it's probably not grammatical gender.

From my first post ...

The English language is gender neutral except for a hand full of pronouns such as he, she, etc.  It is correct English to use a masculine pronoun when referring to mixed groups or in a gender neutral context.   Feminine pronouns are used when specifically referring to individual(s) who are female while male pronouns are used otherwise.   So when the Declaration of Independence states that "... all men are create equal ..." the term "men" refers to everyone.   This nothing more than the correct usage of the English language.