Course you/I could change ourselves to some extent to match one another but we'd never be exactly the same in every way as to be completely equal.
I'm not talking about who's better/worse I'm just saying no one is completely equal and it's a waste to think that or try make it so.
Me and you would have been created by a mum and dad - same? - but down to the wire we are not the same because we contain different genetic makeups.
Only way for every person on this Earth to be equal is to have us all brainwashed and reduced to...I don't even know too things that can be equal...cardboard boxes?

I consider people drunk, when they start acting out of character, and doing things they wouldnt do when sober.

That changes nothing, someone in a drunken state cant give consent, it dosent matter if they are alone, or didnt know their limit, it dosent make taking advantage when they are in tthat state any less wrong.

Well in that case it isn't like they don't know what's going on.

Here's how I see it: if you want to make your own decisions and to remain in control of yourself, don't get drunk. If you do get drunk and make decisions you normally wouldn't, you only have yourself to blame. Learn from your mistakes and don't do it again.

On the other hand is a drunk guy going to be "she's drunk, perhaps I shouldn't make advances" or is he going to be "hurr, durr, derp, *hic* me like pretty girl". People are stupid when they are drunk, male or female, but that's another discussion so in the end I don't think any discussions about gender equality are going to get anywhere if booze is part of the equation.

Whatever happens to people at bars, male or female, is their own fault for getting themselves in that environment that practically begs for trouble.

Gender equality can not happen until people start to talk about the right of people, not the rights of men or women. Not be mindful when I write this I am speaking of in countries such as our own but not in 3rd world countries that need a lot more change than just a change in gender equality. Males also have their own inequalities in current society for example in most cases on child custody the female will win often despite the male being the better caretaker in some of those cases. But really as long as we have people who are unable to judge people without any bias to gender no rules of society can make things truly equal. Only by bringing the current generations of youth to have no gender biases can equality truly be reached. And even then as it is things are pretty much equal, very little has to change really.

But again that is speaking of the nations that are more advanced, if you want to truly make a difference in gender equality people should aim to do that in places where the problems are more clear cut.

I actually find that statement to be slightly worrying: there seems to be something slightly sinister about the potential for disempowering. Although I agree that it's immoral to get someone who's drunk to agree to something that they wouldn't normally agree to and that there should be some means of redress, some of the "no responsibility"/"can't give consent" rhetoric feels a little disturbing to me.

Walks into thread
Sees that it has even more pointless [censored]ery than the Aunt Jemimah thread.
Fault in the case of sixual assualt, regardless of gender, is NOT the victim's fault. It is the fault of the aggressor, plain and simple.
Exits, because debating in it isn't worth the time.

Well at least you fairly apply that. The people who want to criminalize drunk six certainly don't, all they ever talk about is men taking advantage of women by getting them drunk, which of course completely ignores the fact that:

1) Women "take advantage" of drunk guys all the time.

2) The people getting drunk are doing so of their own bleeping volition.

I don't find intoxication to qualify as rendering anyone legally unable to give consent, that absolves them of too much personal responsibility. You're sober before you're drunk, and therefore can foresee the potential consequences of your actions then, and when no one is forcing you to get wasted, you have no ground to stand on when arguing that anyone took advantage of you.

As for it being simply unethical to pursue six with a drunk person, I don't see any validity to that either, because again, people have the ability and the responsibility to exercise restraint when consuming alcohol. If I know that a bunch of ugly chicks are going to try their luck with me after my judgement is compromised, because they know their odds of success increase while I'm drunk, I am the one who has to behave accordingly, not them. People can yell at me all they want to about how my mentality infringes on people's right to get drunk without being "harassed", because people really never should have been allowed to feel like they can just get hammered and not be responsible for what they do. If my attitude were to inspire people to drink less, I would look at that as a good thing. I'm tired of the rampant, reckless drunkenness all around me. I'm tired of people thinking they have every right in the world to lose control and be kept safe by social policy and the legal system. When you're drunk, the world does not need to cater to you.


sixual assault isn't what's being discussed here. Drunk six is.

Could you please give us some citations of these "studies"?

Although it varies by country, in the US, men and women are entitled to the same amount of family leave (FMLA) -- so women don't get more 'post-pregnancy' leave than men. Although if they did, it would kind of make sense in that they actually have a physical/medical need to recuperate, whereas men do not. But since 1993, both men and women have been entitled to 12 weeks of leave after the birth of a child. As far as your other claims, I've not seen a single study that shows support for a female advantage.

Although purely anecdotal, in my English exams I had to identify what was appealing about a make-up advert. Now, being male and all, do you not think that that question was biased towards women? You know, the demographic the advert was aimed at...

I think that's a really odd question to have on an English exam, regardless of gender.....

I [censored] LOVE YOU! This, this and this x100!!! I am so sick and tired of gender, racial and sixual equality for the sake of it. If the asian lisbian in the weel chair is not as good at her job as a normal bloke, then don't bloody hire her! England has gone to crap because of attitudes like this.

Stupid day!

We had to identify not only the language but visual cues used to appeal to whoever it was. My point is that it's biased towards females because generally men find nothing at all appealing about makeup and therefore can't easily identify the appealing factors.

What about divorce cases? Let's say a woman has been married for 6 months, contributes 20% of the income, and does no housework. Does she then deserve 50% of ALL her partner's material assets?

I take it you were supposed to correctly identify what was appealing about the advert? Meaning, the answer was presumed by the test to be one thing, and therefore any answer you gave that didn't match was going to qualify as wrong? If so, then that's pretty biased, because adverts are indeed designed to target a specific audience, and anyone not in that audience is unlikely to identify the intended source of appeal. For example, a woman can hardly be expected to know what's most appealing in a commercial for condems, as the target audience is men, so the male way of thinking is being tapped into there.

What if she actually is better for the job though?

There's nothing wrong with "racial and sixual equality for the sake of it", there IS something wrong with affirmative action. Please learn the difference.

And you're a complete moron. I'm sorry if I offend you with that statement, but nothing else can be said about such a ridiculous idea.

In my opinion, she doesn't deserve anything. Divorce isn't the damn lottery. We need to stop treating it that way.

Yup, I said on my paper the question was subjective and therefore unanswerable, unless they were judging how I express myself. That was not so, so I cited particular parts of the question. I made up for the lost marks on other parts of the test, although it irks me to no end that I got a B instead of the A I feel I deserve.

Erm, my point was that the job should go the person who is the best qualified and most suitable. that shows true equality, because the employer is ignoring all other factors, bar the ones that matter for the job they are employing for.

If that's the lisbian, so be it. I have no prejudices against anyone due to sixuality, colour or creed. What annoys me is this modern day ideal that men are pigs.

For divorce cases, assuming there isn't a prenup, the spouse with the lower income typically receives alimony that (when added to his/her own income contribution) is equal to 50% of what the couple's income was as a whole. This isn't based on gender...if the woman was the higher earner, then her soon-to-be ex-husband would be the one getting the alimony.

Affirmative action is meant to address systemic inequality. Insofar as there are barriers to equality, and these barriers are systemic, affirmative action may (may) be an appropriate corrective measure.
People that are against affirmative action assume that the world treats everyone the same, and judges them solely on merit, when rarely is that the case.

Well then, I'm in complete agreement. Equality is fine, equality legislation generally isn't.


Here's what's wrong with affirmative action:

• You might end up with someone who is not as good at their job than someone who is not a member of any minority.
  
• The minority hired might actually be good, but their merit is undermined by the perception of being hired for race etc.
  
• Morale is lowered as subordinates may challenge the hired's competence.
  
• There's a larger social effect of minorities being blamed for unemployment, which has even lead to murders and violent assaults on minorities

I think these are all valid points and need to be addressed.

Personally, as a member of a minority, I want to be hired on merit, and nothing else.

Right. So how does it make sense for an employer to discriminate on race or six?

They want the best money/work ratio. It therefore makes sense that they'd hire the most competent, qualified person for the job purely out of financial self preservation.

I'll give an example here. My Uncle owns an aviation company, he's a self made man, very fair and very kind. He hired a female, minority pilot, due to pressure from his board. He wanted to look "PC"

Anyway. It turns out that this woman just isn't very good at her job, she just svcks. So my uncle sacks her, she then kicks up a huge fuss, hires a lawyer and accuses the company of unfair dismissal on the grounds of her gender and race. My uncle was advised to pay her a settlement before it went to court, purely because she was a woman and the judge would more than likely rule in her favour.

This is what's wrong with the modern day work place.

He has now said that he'll never hire another female pilot, just because he can't afford to, nor does he want to go through the same hassle again. I know it's only a minority of women who do that, but they put off male employers.

Of course that isn't right. But you mustn't then assume that simply because someone is in a minority that they're sue happy and workshy either.

I'm a big supporter of a meritocratic system.

I agree, but the problem for these people is, they know they can get away with it. Like pulling the race, or gender card. They've been allowed to get away with it by the system that is in place. Because the people in charge of the system are so terrified over not appearing politically correct, that certain individuals abuse it and that then puts off employers from hiring people from that demographic. Those select few, hurt the chances of all the honest hard working people who might have done their job 10x better.

Same goes for sixual harassment and [censored] cases. There have been so many pathetic [censored] cases, where a woman gets hammered, goes home with a bloke and then wakes up the next day, regrets it and calls the police! This overshadows the women who are actually getting [censored]. It's like a great big political "The boy who cried wolf."