Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Social ScienceGender Studies · 3 months ago

Are men and women really equal?

If they're equal, why wouldn't they put a woman in a boxing match against Deontey Wilder? Or maybe a woman to fight Khabib in MMA? Is it because the woman will likely be killed? 

15 Answers

Relevance
  • 2 months ago

    by any single metric they may be viewed as equivalent.

    but because they are the opposite side of the same coin they were never designed to be interchangeable.

    boxing and mma have rules and rules are designed to give someone the advantage. in this case it gives the edge to men.

    blood for blood, no rules, women are just as deadly as men.

    tmm

  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    Equality : is a biblical concept in that God sees both genders as equals. 

    How so : Man or woman cannot commit sin. Death.

    No such thing as a man can break the Laws of God while a woman is held to a diff standatd.

    Same standard for both genders .. get it ?

    A man's role is specified as well as a woman's role.

    So , a woman completes a man .. 50% + 50% = 100%.

    U r obviously not christian n dus not understand christian concepts that rule humanity.

    U hv learnt something NEW .. how God works !

  • Foofa
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    If all that mattered in humankind was brute strength women most certainly wouldn't be equal. Thankfully in the modern world brains matter more than brawn.

  • Elana
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    Are men equal to each other?  Are women equal to each other?  Are we ignoring people who identify as the other gender or have physical characteristics found on the other gender (trans, etc)?

    There is so much variation across gender it's not particularly useful to make grand sweeping statements about how the genders relate to each other.

    Even if you were to "average" a particular characteristic across all men and then try to compare that average with women, most characteristics are effected by social change.

    Even when great care is taken to make sure that social change does not effect things.

    Consider the IQ test which was supposed to use questions that would not be effected by race, creed, gender or class.

    In the 70s, women tested (on average) worse than men.  They now test (at least in the West) better.  I promise you, the genetics of men and women have not significantly changed.  I suppose hormone levels (on average) may have.

    The difference is that society and the forces acting on people have changed.

    In any case, IQ was never supposed to be used as the grand measuring stick on which to measure people's brains.  When it comes down to it, IQ tests measure the ability to ... take IQ tests.  The numbers can be useful if understood in context, but to say that (right now) women are "more intelligent than men" is to show your own ignorance of the testing.

    Yes, there are many differences that are actually due to body chemistry where they clearly are NOT equal to each other.  If you decide one of those characteristics is really important and the rest not so, you're probably going to contend the corresponding gender is better than the other.

    You might conclude that height, speed and strength are the most important.  So that means you probably think men are "better".  You might think that resistance to disease, hunger, or growing hair is "better" so you might think that women are "better".

    You might think the ability to have literally thousands of children (eg Ghenhis Kahn) is better, you might think the ability to birth and suckle children is better.

    But that says more about YOU than the genders.

    Can you compare apples and oranges?  That's what you're trying to get your answerers to do.

    All you can do is compare aspects and averages of each.  Grand statements are inflammatory and pointless.

    All that being said, to the question of equality:  Should they be treated the same except when not practical due to biology?  Absolutely.  Should that have the same rights and responsibilities (again, where practical)?  Absolutely.

    So if you have to have a battle of the sexes, it will be over practicality.  Clearly we should not expect men to take the necessary hormones to be able to lactate and suckle  children.  Clearly we should not expect women to physically lift above their capacity in the workplace, which will generally be less than men.

    But even there, we have work-arounds for both.  We have artificial milk (not great) and machines to do heavy lifting (again, not great).

    So what is the point of trying to get people to fight over minor differences?

    Oh I know ... it's fun.

    Right?

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    Both men and women have some pros and cons. Women can be better than men in some ways and men can be better than women in other ways. Both men and women aren't superior/inferior to each other. 

      

    Secondly, why the hell are you taking the name of a crappy boxer like Deontay Wilder? You should have taken the name of legendary boxers like Wladimir Klitschko, Mike Tyson, Oleksandr Usyk and Tyson Fury. 

  • 2 months ago

    If you ask in terms of physical, both are not equal. Women can give birth which men can't do. Men are physically stronger than women. This is the reason why in sports men & women cannot compete in the same race. In other terms such as feelings, educations, working, financially both should be equal as the gender does not reflect all the qualities.

  • 2 months ago

    "Are men and women really equal?"

    Men are not equal to other men.  So how can men and women be equal?  EVERYONE is different by physical stature, demeanour, temperament, astuteness, natural ability and so on.  When we cross the gender (sex) line, there are even more differences.

    And this is exactly why only the original (first wave) feminists got it right with their version of equality.  And that is for women to have equal legal Rights to men as the ONLY measure of equality.  None of this dogmatic ideology and radical "feminist theories" to pollute the waters.

    Current feminists demand we change the entire society to meet women's -average- disposition against  the most -elite- men's outcomes.  In other words, feminists today expect all women to get the same treatment and outcomes as the most respected men get.  Not the average, since that would be the same.  Men's behaviours are at the extremes also, rather than the middle.  So there are more superior males, with a similar over-representation of homeless and destitute males.  Feminists ignore this biological reality.

    Note that this answer doesn't even entertain the idea of the traditional non-equality system of treating the sexes differently rather than equally, for what if more fair for each sex rather than just assuming equality to be the best.  But that is another discussion entirely.
.

  • Bill
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    Nope. Feminism is and has always been bullshit like every other left wing ideology.

    @Anonymous: You realize that the bible doesn't say anything even close to men and women being equals, right? The bible in fact supports traditionalism and gender roles. 

  • GF
    Lv 5
    3 months ago

    Exactly! 

    That's why in certain job fields, they don't deserve the same pay if they don't produce the same amount of work. 

  • Anonymous
    3 months ago

    Just because women can’t operate automobiles as efficiently as men doesn’t mean they’re less

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.