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

[Dowland]

My posts are not very interesting to this conversation, actually ... I let myself get overeager with my "feminist" agenda. I think it might be as interesting to wonder why male suffering is becoming something close to a taboo?

[RickJ]

It is not normal, that important founding documents throughout the world state laws in terms of men (the declaration of independence says "all men are created equal", etc., etc.)

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.   

Also, it is on this basis, i.e. that the founding documents refer to everyone, that "progress has been made".   

[Dowland]

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.

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?

Beside, on the choice of words, why choose men, instead of people?

I am not a feminist who's advocating we rebaptised History, "Herstory" or "Theirstory"!! Far from me to meddle with Shakespeare's tongue ... but simply, while the gender rules make sense now, because we are used to them, they have no logical raison d'être. Or rather, I would say: they come from a choice to prioritize masculine over feminine--and it is, I feel, important, to (while not necessarily repugnating that choice), understand that.

Also, it is on this basis, i.e. that the founding documents refer to everyone, that "progress has been made". 

When the founding documents were written, it was quite apparent, that when the founding fathers said "all men are created equal", what they meant was "all males are created equal" (and even then, they did not really think about slaves), they literally "forgot" about women---as evidenced, in short list, by the war it was for women to obtain the right to vote, and still evidenced by the failure to ratify ERA.

[lo_res_man]

Woman are equal to men, but aren't the SAME as men. Now research needs to be done so we can find the difference between the cultural differences and the more fundamental, shall we say, genetic differences. Woman think about things differently then Men, my theory why is that, among other things, our theoretical optimal reproductive strategies differ so much. Now by optimal I don't mean what is best for a society, or for the individual, just what will bring about the most number of genetics one spreads around. For a man, It is the most different woman, for woman it is the most willing to commit man to help raise the best mans genes. Its a question of quality over quantity basically, maybe a bit too basically.

[RickJ]

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.

Beside, on the choice of words, why choose men, instead of people?

man1      /mæn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[man] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural men, verb, manned, man·ning, interjection
-noun
1.   an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.
2.   a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex: prehistoric man.
3.   the human individual as representing the species, without reference to sex; the human race; humankind: Man hopes for peace, but prepares for war.
4.   a human being; person: to give a man a chance; When the audience smelled the smoke, it was every man for himself.

peo·ple      /ˈpipəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pee-puhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -ples for 4, verb, -pled, -pling.
â€"noun
1.   persons indefinitely or collectively; persons in general: to find it easy to talk to people; What will people think?
2.   persons, whether men, women, or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group: Twenty people volunteered to help.
3.   human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings.
4.   the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like: the people of Australia; the Jewish people.

It would either usage would be correct, and so the author would be free to choose.    However if you read the definitions of both words above you will see that "people" is commonly used to refer to subsets of the human race whereas  "man or men"  cannot be used to refer to a subset of the human race (except of course when used to refer to one or more adult males).    Had the word "people" been used then one could ask "Which people?"  After all at the time women didn't vote and blacks were enslaved, so clearly they would not have been the people referred to in the document?    When they said "men", if they had meant only white adult males then they could have easily said "all white adult males are created equal".  Since women and slaves didn't vote or have any political power at the time and if what you say was true then there would have been no opposition.

In the context of "all men are created equal",  which implies a creator and which is explicitly acknowledged in the subsequent phrase "endowed by their creator ...", IMHO, "God created man" is a more appropriate choice than "God created all the people".   For those who don't know the significance of  The Declaration of Independence, this was the document sent to the King of England stating that the American colonies would no longer accept his rule.  They justified their actions by invoking a higher authority, God.  In short "God created us and gave us certain rights and nobody, not even a king can take them away".   

I'm trying to think of an example where "God" and "man" are used together to refer to adult males but curiously I can't think of any.   

[lo_res_man]

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
here is an example from an old book, where man is used to refer to all of mankind, humanity, people, not just members of the male gender. Not all translations use Man some us Humans some probably even use People. but it is still a good example of how Man can mean everybody of the Homo Sapiens species in the English language. Going rather off topic, this is why I refer to God as He, even though I belive He isn't just He. I believe God is some sort of person, and we only refer to non-people as 'it'.

[Stupot]

All women are equal to men.  It's just that men are more equal than women.

[Radiant]

I think it might be as interesting to wonder why male suffering is becoming something close to a taboo?

What makes you think it is - in this century where you can see videos of war, police brutality, and prisoner abuse over the internet?

[Raggit]

I've come to the conclusion that people love to see other people suffer in all forms.  It doesn't matter how much pain they are in, who they are, or how old they are.  America's Funniest Home Videos has made its fortune by showing males of all ages (including young children) being bludgened in the testicles in all imaginable ways.  EVERY time, the audience laughes right along with the people in the video (including parents of the children.)

The internet is widely populated with videos showing the same thing, plus loads more of things that could NEVER be shown on TV.  People being killed, even.  Read the comments on these videos.  The majority are commentse egging it on, with the viewers basking in the violence, and only a handful of people who leave "that's fucked up," and "what's wrong with people," style posts.  I guess I finally decided that I had seen enough of this stuff for one life, so I quit browsing the funny video sites for good.

I've seen this phenomenon my entire life, and some of my earliest memories are of wondering why people are laughing at the person on the ground in agony.

The real point here is that I simply don't care anymore.  People are far more basic than we give ourselves credit for, and I venture to say that the majority of us are sick in one way or another.

And before I end my little rant here, I have just one thing to say about the whole men/women/battle-of-the-sexes/equality crap:  Men and women are NOT equal and never will be.  They are entirely different from each other with no standard in between to be judged equal by. 

[Miez]

* second the queens did not gain their position through success--they have generally not earned it through hard work, etc., it is a charge that they carry through blood, and hence they are not threatening, because it is not a position that could've been "gained" any other way.

Well, as far as I can tell most male leaders these days (prime ministers and presidents) haven't really earned their position through hard work either.

[Becky]

And before I end my little rant here, I have just one thing to say about the whole men/women/battle-of-the-sexes/equality crap:  Men and women are NOT equal and never will be.  They are entirely different from each other with no standard in between to be judged equal by.

Men and women are both human beings, shouldn't that be the standard of equality?

[Raggit]

And before I end my little rant here, I have just one thing to say about the whole men/women/battle-of-the-sexes/equality crap:  Men and women are NOT equal and never will be.  They are entirely different from each other with no standard in between to be judged equal by.

Men and women are both human beings, shouldn't that be the standard of equality?

Ideally, yes.  But it's not.  People are always dividing up into their own little cliques.  People aren't content with saying "we're all brothers and sisters," they like to be "minorities," or victims, with their own watchdog organizations to make sure nobody says anything about them that might be offensive to them, and to make sure that there are "affirmative action" laws in their favor, so they will receive special treatment and consideration.

In an equal world, a woman who wants to be a firefighter should have to pass the same mental and physical training that a man must, instead of just lowering the standard so she can pass so that everybody can PRETEND we're all equal. 

[Dowland]

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);
* 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.

In an equal world, a woman who wants to be a firefighter should have to pass the same mental and physical training that a man must, instead of just lowering the standard so she can pass so that everybody can PRETEND we're all equal.

First of all, this is assuming that all men are buffs, and all women are frail things.

Now, physiological/biological considerations aside, how is a woman any less competent to vote than a man; how is she any less competent to have a position of authority as a man; how is she any less competent to make her own choices, and why do men think they can take upon themselves to decide what women can and can't do?

When you say women and men are entirely different, it seems like you are heavily biased by the physical aspect of the question. Does everything in our society pertain to this aspect? Do you need to be heavy weight lifter to be a neurosurgeon? And yet, neurosurgery is a very male-dominated domain ...

[Becky]

So yeah why do women have the ability to vote anyway?  How dare they pretend that they have any political rights! 

[Nacho]

Raggit has told that genders are different... Not that one is better than the another, or should have more rights.

Let's be serious.

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.

But still, she will allways be slower.

(Change the example with rythmical gym, if you want, where the woman will allways win by her flexibility and coordination. The example still works...) Our bodies are different, no one is better, males win in some things, women in others.

As for psicology (sp?), I think that brain/mind is still too unexplored to tell if those fisical differences are present also in the psicology... I think they are in some aspects, but, as happens with the body, nothing in the female brain makes me think they are inferior or worse by any mean.

[Becky]

Of course men and women are different, and one man is different from another man, a woman is different from another woman.  We're all individuals.  That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be considered equal to one another.  So a strong, healthy, well exercised man might be stronger than a strong, healthy, well exercised woman.  So...so what?  We're all human beings.

[EldKatt]

When you say women and men are entirely different, it seems like you are heavily biased by the physical aspect of the question. Does everything in our society pertain to this aspect? Do you need to be heavy weight lifter to be a neurosurgeon? And yet, neurosurgery is a very male-dominated domain ...

I disagree regarding the bias. There are neurological differences correlated with gender. What conclusions you could draw from this is uncertain considering the vast amount of stuff that we don't understand about neurology. However, I wouldn't be too surprised if it turns out that part of the statistical gender bias in certain vocations, for instance, is due to neurological factors. This does not mean that people should, in such a case, start believing that any given woman is bound to be a worse neurosurgeon/whatever than any given man, nor does it mean that we should ascribe all of the statistical bias to this cause and stop doing things about it. 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.

[Raggit]

I wasn't speaking in regards to whether or not women should have rights to vote or govern.  Of course they should have those rights.  I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was opposed to civil rights for women from.

When I said that men and women aren't equal to each other and never will be, I was speaking biologically.  Don't think for a moment that I'm opposed to CIVIL rights for men and women.  I'm just sick of hearing "I can do anything as well as a man and better," at the same time that there are special provisions being made here.  That, in my view, is NOT civil EQUALITY.

[Nacho]

Of course men and women are different, and one man is different from another man, a woman is different from another woman.  We're all individuals.  That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be considered equal to one another.  So a strong, healthy, well exercised man might be stronger than a strong, healthy, well exercised woman.  So...so what?  We're all human beings.

That, that we are all human beings, was something that COULD have been implied into Raggit' s post. What he said was not contradictory with what. That' s why I deffended him.

What was not implied in Raggit' s post was that women is worse or has to have less rights, so, I don' t really know the reason why he deserved those replies he got... 

[Becky]

Sorry, when I see words like:

"men/women/battle-of-the-sexes/equality crap"

"They are entirely different from each other with no standard in between to be judged equal by." 

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".