Why Is Patriarchy Seen As A Bad Thing?

[Robert]

Execution is a good thing provided it is justified. I am a big supporter of death penalty for violent criminals and those who deserve it.

Western countries pamper their criminals and those criminals create all sorts of problems (gangs, violence, drug dealing etc.). Many criminals don't learn and they are simply repeat offenders. You are unlikely to see these in KSA.

No. We try to make them better. I have met many offenders. Almost without exception they have been failed by parents and education. Put some effort into teaching them, applying tough love and giving them opportunities and most will change. Very few people are genuinely evil.

 

[Sidilicious]

Did I just read Someone comparing Saudi Arabia to Greece.

Let’s see, one is an ancient civilisation, the first country to implement democracy, scientific approach to medicine, geometry, classical literature and drama and on and on. Anyone living in a western country is indebted to the Greeks.

And what have the Saudis contributed to the world? How many nobels, how many inventions?

 

[Robert]

Did I just read Someone comparing Saudi Arabia to Greece.

Let’s see, one is an ancient civilisation, the first country to implement democracy, scientific approach to medicine, geometry, classical literature and drama and on and on. Anyone living in a western country is indebted to the Greeks.

And what have the Saudis contributed to the world? How many nobels, how many inventions?

Not just the West - Ancient Greek learning informed the Golden Age of Islam (800-1200 CE) too.

The House of Saud became hyper-wealthy through oil and have put up impressive buildings - by hiring Western construction firms.

 

[sweep_shot]

1. A woman can’t get a job without the written approval of her male owner in Saudi Arabia.

2. A woman can’t get married without the approval of her male owner.

3. A woman can’t leave the country without the written approval of her male owner.

How could it be any worse?

How is it worse? This is why women in KSA are much safer compared to western women (who often get harmed/violated by bad men).

BTW, #2 is a ruling in Islam. There's no marriage for a woman without the approval of a guardian.

 

[Junaids]

- Radical feminism is a menace to society. It basically tells women that they can do anything they want; including being topless and sleeping around. No gender (whether man or woman) should have unlimited freedom; it is a recipe for disaster.
.

Ibn Saud, the father of Saudi Arabia, had at least 100 children by 25 women.

And still the Saudi Royal Family's men are notorious for sleeping around to a degree that shocks those of us in the west.

Clearly there is a substantial problem with out-of-control promiscuity in Saudi Arabia, which is why Saudi women are at such high risk of dying of sexually transmitted cancers passed on to them by their husbands.

Maybe people should forget about policing female sexual behaviour until Saudi men learn to sleep around less.

As ever, Saudi women need to be protected FROM Saudi men, not BY Saudi men.

 

[Junaids]

How is it worse? This is why women in KSA are much safer compared to western women (who often get harmed/violated by bad men).

BTW, #2 is a ruling in Islam. There's no marriage for a woman without the approval of a guardian.

Women in Saudi Arabia are much less safe than in the west.

Only 5% reach tertiary education, which shows how badly they are exploited.

But comically, they are 100 times more likely than western women to die because of sex, in terms of both sexually transmitted diseases like cervical cancer and death in childbirth.

You make fun of western female sexuality. Yet if you are a Saudi woman, the most likely thing to kill you before the age of 50 is sex!

 

[Junaids]

BTW, #2 is a ruling in Islam. There's no marriage for a woman without the approval of a guardian.

We used to have that sort of archaic thing in Christianity and Judaism too. It might have fitted in primitive societies 1500 years ago, but if you follow it now you BECOME a primitive society that is 1500 years out of date.

You will find a few Born Again Christians and Ultra-Orthodox Jews who adhere to that kind of thing. But most of us in the west have long since passed beyond those kinds of rulings.

 

[Technics 1210]

Asking a liberal what he thinks of ME is like asking McDonalds what they think of cows.

 

[Robert]

How is it worse? This is why women in KSA are much safer compared to western women (who often get harmed/violated by bad men).

I don’t believe that. No spousal rape statute for instance. So no protection from violation by bad husbands. That’s patriarchy for you.

 

[dildilpak]

How is it worse? This is why women in KSA are much safer compared to western women (who often get harmed/violated by bad men).

BTW, #2 is a ruling in Islam. There's no marriage for a woman without the approval of a guardian.

OP, i can only imagine how difficult it must be for you to live in a liberal, immoral country like Canada - surrounded by independent women, homosexuals, white Canadians etc & probably even conversing with them. Especially when your ideal is a country like SA where patriarchy is omnipresent, homosexuality is banned, the price of even normal infractions is public flogging or death. What a torture Canada must be for you!

 

[sweep_shot]

OP, i can only imagine how difficult it must be for you to live in a liberal, immoral country like Canada - surrounded by independent women, homosexuals, white Canadians etc & probably even conversing with them. Especially when your ideal is a country like SA where patriarchy is omnipresent, homosexuality is banned, the price of even normal infractions is public flogging or death. What a torture Canada must be for you!

White Canadians? Why would I have issues with them? Many native Canadians have similar views as mine (conservative ones).

Canada has pros and cons. But, I think Canada was better before the days of radical liberalism and Marxism.

 

[sweep_shot]

You will find a few Born Again Christians and Ultra-Orthodox Jews who adhere to that kind of thing. But most of us in the west have long since passed beyond those kinds of rulings.

No wonder why western societies are seeing rises in martial problems, spousal cheatings, depression, anxiety etc.

Things are becoming unnatural under the guise of "progress".

 

[sweep_shot]

Ibn Saud, the father of Saudi Arabia, had at least 100 children by 25 women.

And still the Saudi Royal Family's men are notorious for sleeping around to a degree that shocks those of us in the west.

Clearly there is a substantial problem with out-of-control promiscuity in Saudi Arabia, which is why Saudi women are at such high risk of dying of sexually transmitted cancers passed on to them by their husbands.

Maybe people should forget about policing female sexual behaviour until Saudi men learn to sleep around less.

As ever, Saudi women need to be protected FROM Saudi men, not BY Saudi men.

Saudi rulers are corrupt. It is no secret.

Also, nothing wrong with 100 children provided those were not illegitimate children.

 

[dildilpak]

White Canadians? Why would I have issues with them? Many native Canadians have similar views as mine (conservative ones).

Canada has pros and cons. But, I think Canada was better before the days of radical liberalism and Marxism.

I dont think your views are conservative, they go beyond that. And i wonder which era you are talking about, because Canada was always the liberal neighbor to the US (and a place of derision for the people in the bible belt)!

 

[sweep_shot]

I dont think your views are conservative, they go beyond that. And i wonder which era you are talking about, because Canada was always the liberal neighbor to the US (and a place of derision for the people in the bible belt)!

I came to Canada in 2005. I lived through conservative Harper's entire tenure. I think he was pretty good and Canada was good under him.

After liberal Justin Trudeau got elected, we have seen an increase in crime (in Toronto at least) and declining economy.

Trudeau is a nice and friendly guy; but, I think he is too soft to be the leader. I can see a conservative government in Canada soon.

Also, I don't think my views are radical. Here are my views:

- I support a benevolent and efficient patriarchy.
- I support women's right to education, right to work, right to vote, and right to drive.
- I support nuclear family and traditional marriage.

These are pretty standard views. Nothing radical.

 

[Robert]

I came to Canada in 2005. I lived through conservative Harper's entire tenure. I think he was pretty good and Canada was good under him.

After liberal Justin Trudeau got elected, we have seen an increase in crime (in Toronto at least) and declining economy.

Trudeau is a nice and friendly guy; but, I think he is too soft to be the leader. I can see a conservative government in Canada soon.

Also, I don't think my views are radical. Here are my views:

- I support a benevolent and efficient patriarchy.
- I support women's right to education, right to work, right to vote, and right to drive.
- I support nuclear family and traditional marriage.

These are pretty standard views. Nothing radical.

This is not radical, this is extremism. You propose giving men power over women back. Frankly you seem to be an incel.

Shall we have a "benevolent racist" society where one race has power over the other? What could we call that..... "colonialism" and "slavery", perhaps?

 

[SpiritOf1903]

I think there needs to be more traditional Islamic context itt and less of the extreme and cultural abominations...

 

[sweep_shot]

You propose giving men power over women back. Frankly you seem to be an incel.

Shall we have a "benevolent racist" society where one race has power over the other? What could we call that..... "colonialism" and "slavery", perhaps?

Why is men having power a bad thing by default?

If women are successful in a patriarchy, what is the issue?

I think we should look at outcome more than process here.

 

[Technics 1210]

Why aren't liberals appealing to nature here? Liberals love to appeal to nature when it comes to homosexuality, but nature is full of examples where the male is dominant - hypocrites to the max.

 

[Technics 1210]

You got to laugh, liberals moaning about the death penalty on Saudi Arabia, but they deliberately refuse to cite their white cousins across the pond, USA, the yardstick of the death penalty.

Liberalism isn't just a joke, but a racist ideology too. If it's white, then it is right.

 

[sweep_shot]

Shall we have a "benevolent racist" society where one race has power over the other? What could we call that..... "colonialism" and "slavery", perhaps?

I don't think it is right to compare racism to patriarchy.

Patriarchy was an accepted norm for thousands of years. As a matter of fact, patriarchy was the norm even 50 years ago. It is only recently it started to get demonized thanks to radical liberals, radical feminists, and Marxists.

 

[Sidilicious]

I don't think it is right to compare racism to patriarchy.

Patriarchy was an accepted norm for thousands of years. As a matter of fact, patriarchy was the norm even 50 years ago. It is only recently it started to get demonized thanks to radical liberals, radical feminists, and Marxists.

Slavery was an accepted norm for thousands of years till the end of the 19th century. I suppose the people who opposed it were radical extremists too?

 

[dildilpak]

I don't think it is right to compare racism to patriarchy.

Patriarchy was an accepted norm for thousands of years. As a matter of fact, patriarchy was the norm even 50 years ago. It is only recently it started to get demonized thanks to radical liberals, radical feminists, and Marxists.

Racism was a norm till pretty recently too.
- Slavery existed for the longest time as we all know. So do all other social evils which are still in existence like casteism, FGM, dowry etc. Something existing for a long time doesnt make it acceptable - we all evolve with time.

As it is, i have an inherent problem with a bunch of men sitting & deciding whether patriarchy is acceptable - it is for women to decide because they suffer the most due to men deciding things for them. Honor killings, rape, FGM, domestic abuse, dowry, forced marriages are all because men assert their power over women, dont you think so?

And isnt it ironic that some people dont hesitate to cry the ‘R’word & want to assert their own in a foreign land, but are dismissive when women want to claim their own equal rights. Think about it.

 

[sweep_shot]

Slavery was an accepted norm for thousands of years till the end of the 19th century. I suppose the people who opposed it were radical extremists too?

Another unfair comparison.

In slavery, a slave is trapped; he is at the mercy of the master.

In a benevolent patriarchy, a woman is not necessarily trapped. She can still achieve success and fulfill her dreams. There are many stories of women being successful despite being in patriarchic environments. They succeeded because they had good attitudes and good work ethics; they didn't blame everything on men like radical feminists do nowadays.

 

[Robert]

Why is men having power a bad thing by default?

If women are successful in a patriarchy, what is the issue?

I think we should look at outcome more than process here.

If women have access to the same education and work opportunities as men, then it’s not a patriarchy.

 

[Robert]

Another unfair comparison.

In slavery, a slave is trapped; he is at the mercy of the master.

In a benevolent patriarchy, a woman is not necessarily trapped. She can still achieve success and fulfill her dreams. There are many successful stories of women being successful despite being in patriarchic environments. They succeeded because they had good attitudes and good work ethics; they didn't just blame everything on men like radical feminists do nowadays.

Will you stop repeating this oxymoron? It’s like “benevolent slaver”.

 

[Abel Reames]

You got to laugh, liberals moaning about the death penalty on Saudi Arabia, but they deliberately refuse to cite their white cousins across the pond, USA, the yardstick of the death penalty.

Liberalism isn't just a joke, but a racist ideology too. If it's white, then it is right.

Saudi executions in 2022 to date 120
USA executions in 2022 to date 9

Some yardstick.

 

[Technics 1210]

Liberals flummoxed. Benevolent patriarchy is not an oxymoron, it's perfect sense, but liberals will not accept the term because Liberals will no longer have an argument.

Only in the delusional mind of liberals is patriarchy, a sense of slavery.

 

[sweep_shot]

As it is, i have an inherent problem with a bunch of men sitting & deciding whether patriarchy is acceptable - it is for women to decide because they suffer the most due to men deciding things for them. Honor killings, rape, FGM, domestic abuse, dowry, forced marriages are all because men assert their power over women, dont you think so?

And isnt it ironic that some people dont hesitate to cry the ‘R’word & want to assert their own in a foreign land, but are dismissive when women want to claim their own equal rights. Think about it.

If you look among animals, you can see males are generally the dominant ones and the leaders.

See a fight between a male lion and a female lion. See who wins.

Men are supposed to be leaders and in charge. That's how nature works. Humanity is no exception.

Now, it doesn't mean women can't be leaders. They definitely can. But, men tend to be more natural at it. That's how we were created perhaps.

 

[sweep_shot]

Will you stop repeating this oxymoron? It’s like “benevolent slaver”.

I don't think it is an oxymoron.

Benevolent patriarchy is a type of patriarchy where woman achieves success due to good work ethic, good attitude, and good communication. Everybody benefits when that happens.

 

[James]

Another unfair comparison.

In slavery, a slave is trapped; he is at the mercy of the master.

In a benevolent patriarchy, a woman is not necessarily trapped. She can still achieve success and fulfill her dreams. There are many stories of women being successful despite being in patriarchic environments. They succeeded because they had good attitudes and good work ethics; they didn't blame everything on men like radical feminists do nowadays.

With respect, this reads as somewhat nonsensical.

 

[sweep_shot]

With respect, this reads as somewhat nonsensical.

How so?

Check out all the successful women from the past. They succeeded despite patriarchy.

I believe success depends on one's own effort generally.

 

[Sidilicious]

Another unfair comparison.

In slavery, a slave is trapped; he is at the mercy of the master.

In a benevolent patriarchy, a woman is not necessarily trapped. She can still achieve success and fulfill her dreams. There are many stories of women being successful despite being in patriarchic environments. They succeeded because they had good attitudes and good work ethics; they didn't blame everything on men like radical feminists do nowadays.

And who decides whether a woman is trapped or not? If a man tells his wife or daughter that they can't work, then who decides?

Man, you are digging yourself a big hole here. You are coming of as an Incel who has been rejected by women and has given up, and now wants to control them, because they rejected him.

 

[Abel Reames]

Liberals flummoxed. Benevolent patriarchy is not an oxymoron, it's perfect sense, but liberals will not accept the term because Liberals will no longer have an argument.

Only in the delusional mind of liberals is patriarchy, a sense of slavery.

The British used to argue that their form of colonialism was benevolent compared to other European powers.

 

[sweep_shot]

And who decides whether a woman is trapped or not? If a man tells his wife or daughter that they can't work, then who decides?

Man, you are digging yourself a big hole here. You are coming of as an Incel who has been rejected by women and has given up, and now wants to control them, because they rejected him.

I am not an incel. I have female friends. I respect women and recognize their rights.

My beef is with radical feminism only. I believe it is not good for society.

 

[Abel Reames]

Why aren't liberals appealing to nature here? Liberals love to appeal to nature when it comes to homosexuality, but nature is full of examples where the male is dominant - hypocrites to the max.

An appeal to nature? Check out chimapnzees and pygmy chimpanzees also known as bonobos, only a couple of percentage points different to themselves and us humans. The chimpanzees are run on patriarchal lines but bonobos are run as matriarchal socities. Chimapnzees are aggressive, territorial and warlike. Bonobos are peace and love. My own take is that chimpanzees are the capitalists and bonobos the socialists, but that is my own take on it.

 

[James]

I am not an incel. I have female friends. I respect women and recognize their rights.

My beef is with radical feminism only. I believe it is not good for society.

Then just have equality.

Don’t support upholding of patriarchy.

 

[sweep_shot]

I noticed one thing.

Many seem to assume men are evil and women are innocent by default. That's where my issue is. This biased mindset allows women to frame innocent men. Look at what Amber Heard tried to do to Johnny Depp. Depp won thankfully.

 

[Robert]

If you look among animals, you can see males are generally the dominant ones and the leaders.

See a fight between a male lion and a female lion. See who wins.

Men are supposed to be leaders and in charge. That's how nature works. Humanity is no exception.

Now, it doesn't mean women can't be leaders. They definitely can. But, men tend to be more natural at it. That's how we were created perhaps.

There are plenty of species where females are in charge but that’s irrelevant.

If we went by “how nature work” we’d all be warring bands of hunter-gatherer hominids, dead by forty from violence, predation, disease or parasites.

 

[Technics 1210]

I noticed one thing.

Many seem to assume men are evil and women are innocent by default. That's where my issue is. This biased mindset allows women to frame innocent men. Look at what Amber Heard tried to do to Johnny Depp. Depp won thankfully.

Welcome to liberalism. This fascist ideology is judge, jury, and executioner - all in the absence of evidence, but in the presence of emotive rhetoric.

 

[Robert]

Then just have equality.

Don’t support upholding of patriarchy.

This.

 

[Robert]

I noticed one thing.

Many seem to assume men are evil and women are innocent by default. That's where my issue is. This biased mindset allows women to frame innocent men. Look at what Amber Heard tried to do to Johnny Depp. Depp won thankfully.

So the scorecard now reads:

Evil women 1, Evil men 573 million.

 

[sweep_shot]

Then just have equality.

Don’t support upholding of patriarchy.

I am all for fairness. I believe both men and women have their rights and their rights shouldn't be violated.

However, I also recognize there are clear biological, psychological, and physical differences between men and women. These differences may or may not influence their rights.

 

[Champ_Pal]

I am all for fairness. I believe both men and women have their rights and their rights shouldn't be violated.

However, I also recognize there are clear biological, psychological, and physical differences between men and women. These differences may or may not influence their rights.

Do you believe that outside of physical stuff, are men and women equal? Do you think men and women are equally intelligent and can make decisions for the family and the nation?

 

[sweep_shot]

So the scorecard now reads:

Evil women 1, Evil men 573 million.

This statement clearly shows your bias.

It seems like you believe women are always innocent while men are always guilty.

 

[sweep_shot]

Do you believe that outside of physical stuff, are men and women equal? Do you think men and women are equally intelligent and can make decisions for the family and the nation?

I believe men are better leaders than women generally. History proves it.

But, there are of course exceptions.

 

[Champ_Pal]

I believe men are better leaders than women generally. History proves it.

But, there are of course exceptions.

Should woman lead a country when men are available? Is their witness equal in the court?

 

[sweep_shot]

Should woman lead a country when men are available? Is their witness equal in the court?

If men are qualified, men should lead. It is all about qualification.

Who would you pick between Karun Nair and Rohit Sharma? I think answer is obvious.

 

[ahsan17]

Haven't read through much if any of this thread,
but the concept of patriarchy as discussed by feminists is largely a myth. Within households it is largely women making financial spending decisions, what the children learn (including the culture, which is what patriarchy is supposedly derived from), etc. This includes countries seen to be patriarchal. So women are basically teaching their kids to be patriarchal?

The whole concept is too simple with very little nuance and sophistication.

Just a few anecdotes from my part, but we were trying to find arrange marriage partners for male family members. Many of the girls we met didn't want to work. And when we probed into it, this was being driven by girls themselves and their mothers - the fathers were largely passive in the entire process. We were actually only looking for girls who want to have careers.

That's one anecdote. But generally speaking the primary thing going against the existence of patriarchy is that it is women primarily that drive the culture and the thinking of their kids.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Patriarchy exists because women are biologically different. They have very specific physical differences that mean it is simply not theoretical that they have power. The menstrual cycle is akin to bipolar disorder in the psychological changes that occur, monthly.

Islamically, women do have equal rights, more in may respects, patriarchy is mostly to do with power and control.

Islam, while perfect, has rarely had this exemplary society. Saudis are most certainly not to be used as a barometer for any good.

And yes, the obvious one, men are stronger in the main, physically, so wars for example, wouldn't be wise between the sexes. Yes, I know some women can lift 300kg, they're an anomaly

 

[SalimBhai]

I don't think it is an oxymoron.

Benevolent patriarchy is a type of patriarchy where woman achieves success due to good work ethic, good attitude, and good communication. Everybody benefits when that happens.

According to gender inequality index, out of 55 muslim majority countries. Most are in the bottom half. Benevolent patriarchy not working so well for them it seems

 

[Robert]

This statement clearly shows your bias.

It seems like you believe women are always innocent while men are always guilty.

No, it means that in historical terms, women have been the victims of men in nearly all cases, men the victims of women in comparatively tiny numbers. and that’s just accepting reality.

 

[sweep_shot]

According to gender inequality index, out of 55 muslim majority countries. Most are in the bottom half. Benevolent patriarchy not working so well for them it seems

Gender Inequality Index itself is biased and faulty.

There needs to be a new index that is free from agendas (i.e. radical feminism).

 

[sweep_shot]

No, it means that in historical terms, women have been the victims of men in nearly all cases, men the victims of women in comparatively tiny numbers. and that’s just accepting reality.

So, are you saying women were always the victims and they were never at faults?

How about poor work ethic or poor attitude? I believe most women failed (and continue to fail) due to their own shortcomings.

There are many women in the past who were successful despite being in patriarchic societies.

I think everyone should take individual responsibility instead of trying to find a scapegoat; that's true for both men and women.

 

[Stewie]

A lot is made of Patriarchy when quite honestly I think women mostly rule our households. Men earn and women make most of the decisions. Women in our culture have mastered the art of using politics and manipulation to get what they want.

They have evolved!

 

[SalimBhai]

Gender Inequality Index itself is biased and faulty.

There needs to be a new index that is free from agendas (i.e. radical feminism).

Please go in some detail why is it bias. Give me some points. FYI as you have stated many times. Being topless or not is not considered one of the factors.

 

[Champ_Pal]

If men are qualified, men should lead. It is all about qualification.

Who would you pick between Karun Nair and Rohit Sharma? I think answer is obvious.

So if both are equally qualified, you will prefer men. Good to know your preferences.

Both Karun and Rohit are men. So your statement did not make any sense.

My issue is with leading a nation and family. Sports and Athletics that involve physical prowess, men will excel there due to biology. But brainy matters, both are equal.

 

[Champ_Pal]

So, are you saying women were always the victims and they were never at faults?

How about poor work ethic or poor attitude? I believe most women failed (and continue to fail) due to their own shortcomings.

There are many women in the past who were successful despite being in patriarchic societies.

I think everyone should take individual responsibility instead of trying to find a scapegoat; that's true for both men and women.

Women fail because of the restrictions that are imposed on them by male oriented rules. After all, the rules are made by men.
In misogynist cultures, females are not encouraged to go for higher education and employment. They will be kept at homes hidden in kitchens cooking and cleaning for men and the rest of the family. Of course they have to deliver babies too while the man twirls his moustache and feels he did a great job.

 

[sweep_shot]

So if both are equally qualified, you will prefer men. Good to know your preferences.

If it is a tie, man should be the leader due to past track record. That's how it works in real life too. History/track record is given preference.

It is like Ashes series where challenger has to win the trophy to regain it; drawing is not enough.

 

[sweep_shot]

Women fail because of the restrictions that are imposed on them by male oriented rules. After all, the rules are made by men.
In misogynist cultures, females are not encouraged to go for higher education and employment. They will be kept at homes hidden in kitchens cooking and cleaning for men and the rest of the family. Of course they have to deliver babies too while the man twirls his moustache and feels he did a great job.

Not at all.

This is a very faulty way of thinking.

A lot of women fail because they have poor work ethics and poor attitudes. They should learn the art of diplomacy; there are ways to bypass the negative affects of patriarchy (if there are any).

Rather than always looking for shortcuts/scapegoats, people (both men and women) should focus on individual responsibilities.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Not at all.

This is a very faulty way of thinking.

A lot of women fail because they have poor work ethics and poor attitudes. They should learn the art of diplomacy; there are ways to bypass the negative affects of patriarchy (if there are any).

Rather than always looking for shortcuts/scapegoats, people (both men and women) should focus on individual responsibilities.

Your assumption that women have poor work ethic itself wreaks of patriarchy and misogyny. You seem to have a very low opinion on women.

 

[Champ_Pal]

If it is a tie, man should be the leader due to past track record. That's how it works in real life too. History/track record is given preference.

It is like Ashes series where challenger has to win the trophy to regain it; drawing is not enough.

Please reread your postings when you have a cup of tea on a free evening. I am sure you will be embarrassed.

 

[sweep_shot]

Your assumption that women have poor work ethic itself wreaks of patriarchy and misogyny. You seem to have a very low opinion on women.

I didn't say women have poor work ethics. I said many women who fail in lives do so due to their own shortcomings. Not patriarchy or any other excuse.

I have a balanced opinion on women. You, on the other hand, seem to give free passes to women.

 

[sweep_shot]

Please reread your postings when you have a cup of tea on a free evening. I am sure you will be embarrassed.

Answer me this.

Let's say, there is a job position. One male and one female are equally qualified. Who would you hire and why?

Don't say you want to hire the woman just because she is a woman.

 

[Champ_Pal]

I didn't say women have poor work ethics. I said many women who fail in lives do so due to their own shortcomings. Not patriarchy or any other excuse.

I have a balanced opinion on women. You, on the other hand, seem to give free passes to women.

Its the same for Men too. Many fail because of their own shortcomings as you have said. Success is same for Men and women. In fact women can put on a lot of hours if they have to run a business.

I am not saying one is better than the other. Given an opportunity, women can match men and can even go one up on them.

During my school and University days, it was always a girl that used to stand first in the class. She is now a reputed Urologist in US. a few others also became doctors and settled in US.

Bro, intellectually, women are not inferior to men. They are only inferior to men physically.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Answer me this.

Let's say, there is a job position. One male and one female are equally qualified. Who would you hire and why?

Don't say you want to hire the woman just because she is a woman.

I will select the one who can analyze better and who can come up with a better solution. People may be equally qualified. But still they differ a few things. Whoever answers better will be selected.

 

[sweep_shot]

Please go in some detail why is it bias. Give me some points. FYI as you have stated many times. Being topless or not is not considered one of the factors.

Let's first take a look at which areas this index focuses on.

As per WHO website, Gender Inequality Index focuses on 3 areas:

How is it defined?

The Gender Inequality Index is a composite measure reflecting inequality in achievements between The GII is a composite measure, reflecting inequality in achievements between women and men in three dimensions: reproductive health, empowerment and the labour market.

The health dimension is measured by the maternal mortality ratio and the adolescent fertility rate.

The empowerment dimension is measured by the share of parliamentary seats held by each gender, and by secondary and higher education attainment levels.

The labour dimension is measured by women's participation in the workforce.

The GII varies between 0 (when women and men fare equally) and 1 (when men or women fare poorly compared to the other in all dimensions). It is designed to reveal the extent to which national human development achievements are eroded by gender inequality, and to provide empirical foundations for policy analysis and advocacy efforts.

See the bolded part.

You can clearly see this index gives weight to how many female seats there are in parliament. It is faulty because it doesn't take into consideration the qualities of the female candidates. It focuses on gender only. In other words, it is advocating for gender quotas (whether qualified or not).

This alone is enough to disqualify this index. We need a better index.

Reference: https://www.who.int/data/nutrition/...ty Index is,empowerment and the labour market..

 

[Robert]

Answer me this.

Let's say, there is a job position. One male and one female are equally qualified. Who would you hire and why?

Don't say you want to hire the woman just because she is a woman.

I would go with which one can fit in with my team better.

If one gender is underrepresented I will choose the candidate of that gender.

Decades back I applied for a job where 85% of staff were women. I think part of the reason they employed me was to redress this imbalance, get in more men for my particular grade.

 

[Robert]

I didn't say women have poor work ethics. I said many women who fail in lives do so due to their own shortcomings. Not patriarchy or any other excuse.

I have a balanced opinion on women. You, on the other hand, seem to give free passes to women.

No, you don’t. Hundreds of posts have explained why but you just reject them all. Your thinking is sexist and you will be held up in work by your obsolete views until you change them.

 

[Salma_T]

4 pages on this topic, read the first page....@sweep shot probably repeating what many have said:

Women don't get promoted due to gender if that was the case 50% of fortune100 companies would have a female ceo.

Mediocre men on the other hand are promoted a lot purely due to being men.

Men and women have roles roles that compliment each, not ones where one is oppressing the other.

 

[SalimBhai]

Let's first take a look at which areas this index focuses on.

As per WHO website, Gender Inequality Index focuses on 3 areas:
There are no female quotes in most countries. What are you on about. The reason Almost all muslim countries are at the bottom are:
1: Suppression of women's movement
2: Suppression of women's choice to choose what the wanna do in life.
3: The male making most of the choices for her
4: Child mortality
5: Health care
and the list goes on and on and on.



See the bolded part.

You can clearly see this index gives weight to how many female seats there are in parliament. It is faulty because it doesn't take into consideration the qualities of the female candidates. It focuses on gender only. In other words, it is advocating for gender quotas (whether qualified or not).

This alone is enough to disqualify this index. We need a better index.

Reference: https://www.who.int/data/nutrition/...ty Index is,empowerment and the labour market..

There are no female quotes in most countries. What are you on about. The reason Almost all muslim countries are at the bottom are:
1: Suppression of women's movement
2: Suppression of women's choice to choose what the wanna do in life.
3: The male making most of the choices for her
4: Child mortality
5: Health care
and the list goes on and on and on.

 

[sweep_shot]

There are no female quotes in most countries. What are you on about. The reason Almost all muslim countries are at the bottom are:
1: Suppression of women's movement
2: Suppression of women's choice to choose what the wanna do in life.
3: The male making most of the choices for her
4: Child mortality
5: Health care
and the list goes on and on and on.

You did not quote me correctly. Looks like you added your own statements inside my quote.

The reason why this faulty index puts Muslim countries at the bottom is because it gives weight to how many women are in parliaments. Please check this link: https://www.who.int/data/nutrition/...ty Index is,empowerment and the labour market.

2: Suppression of women's choice to choose what the wanna do in life.

This is not always wrong though. If a woman wants to be a stripper, men of the family have every right to stop her from doing so. It is called civility.

 

[sweep_shot]

No, you don’t. Hundreds of posts have explained why but you just reject them all. Your thinking is sexist and you will be held up in work by your obsolete views until you change them.

I am not sexist at all. I am a realist.

I am a straight man. I love women. I respect women.

What I do not respect is radical feminism. I believe radical feminism is bad not just for men but also for women. It doesn't allow a woman to succeed naturally. It assumes woman is weak and she needs feminism to succeed.

 

[sweep_shot]

There are no female quotes in most countries. What are you on about. The reason Almost all muslim countries are at the bottom are:
1: Suppression of women's movement
2: Suppression of women's choice to choose what the wanna do in life.
3: The male making most of the choices for her
4: Child mortality
5: Health care
and the list goes on and on and on.

BTW, you are yet to answer my question.

I asked you which women's rights are missing in Saudi Arabia. Women in KSA can drive, study, and work. What else is missing according to you?

 

[Robert]

I am not sexist at all. I am a realist.

I am a straight man. I love women. I respect women.

What I do not respect is radical feminism. I believe radical feminism is bad not just for men but also for women. It doesn't allow a woman to succeed naturally. It assumes woman is weak and she needs feminism to succeed.

You respect women but want them to be second class citizens. So you don’t respect them. You respect an ideal of them which is in your head.

I don’t think you are a realist. You don’t understand what patriarchy is after all these posts.

 

[sweep_shot]

You respect women but want them to be second class citizens. So you don’t respect them. You respect an ideal of them which is in your head.

I don’t think you are a realist. You don’t understand what patriarchy is after all these posts.

Women deserve their own class and men deserve their own class. There is no first or second. Both have their rights (may or may not be same due to biological, physical, and psychological differences).

 

[sweep_shot]

You don’t understand what patriarchy is after all these posts.

Definition of patriarchy:

A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.

Tell me what exactly is evil about it? It is only evil if it is oppressive in nature.

Patriarchy is not oppressive by default. It is possible for a woman to succeed within a patriarchy. These are my arguments in this thread.

 

[JaDed]

Women deserve their own class and men deserve their own class. There is no first or second. Both have their rights (may or may not be same due to biological, physical, and psychological differences).

So they both have their own class and both have rights, so basically you are saying no one needs to be head and both can be equal?

 

[sweep_shot]

So they both have their own class and both have rights, so basically you are saying no one needs to be head and both can be equal?

Both men and women have rights. That's right.

But, there is nothing wrong if male is the head. It is not automatically evil and toxic. That's my argument.

 

[ahsan17]

Definition of patriarchy:

A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.

Tell me what exactly is evil about it? It is only evil if it is oppressive in nature.

Patriarchy is not oppressive by default. It is possible for a woman to succeed within a patriarchy. These are my arguments in this thread.

The main thing is it doesn't exist. Family's financial decisions, passing down the culture to kids are driven by women in the family. This is true even in very conservative and/or religious families. Patriarchy is just an overly simplistic mythical concept that doesn't exist in real life.

I made a post about this earlier in the thread.