209 replies to this topic

[mock]

Autumnpuma, on Jan 10 2007, 03:56 AM, said:

From the pictures you've posted, your wife seems happy. I wonder how many 'equal' women can say that? Equality doesn't equate to happiness and surely happiness is the goal?

I agree with you 100 % there, you've got it spot on.

[cavallino]

mock, on Jan 10 2007, 02:32 AM, said:

You think women in the west get more respect, I don't.

Oh yes they bloody well do  

Quote

In India, most people would touch their parents feet as a sign of respect even today, it's a cultural thing you wouldn't understand.

I don't either, it is a repulsive archaic custom to demonstrate some kind of servility, fortunately my parents are not like that Bad example there, but you may have a point - I doubt the number of parents abandoned by their parents if you compare similar economic strata would be higher in India. The availability of cheap labour plays a hugely important role there though.

Autumnpuma, on Jan 10 2007, 09:26 AM, said:

I wonder how many 'equal' women can say that?

Hundreds. Well hundreds that I know/ know of, there could be more, there is a remote possibility that there may be equal happy women who I don't know of.

Funny you don't know any living in an 'equal' country  

Quote

Equality doesn't equate to happiness and surely happiness is the goal?

Locigal fallacy Nor does it equate to unhappiness.

[mock]

cavallino, on Jan 10 2007, 09:26 PM, said:

Oh yes they bloody well do  
I don't either, it is a repulsive archaic custom to demonstrate some kind of servility, fortunately my parents are not like that Bad example there, but you may have a point - I doubt the number of parents abandoned by their parents if you compare similar economic strata would be higher in India. The availability of cheap labour plays a hugely important role there though.
Hundreds. Well hundreds that I know/ know of, there could be more, there is a remote possibility that there may be equal happy women who I don't know of.
Funny you don't know any living in an 'equal' country  
Locigal fallacy Nor does it equate to unhappiness.

Don't agree - You've been living away from India for too long. Get your a## back here, NOW !

I don't either, but it is a sign of respect. Jesus did wash the feet of his disciples you know....

Murray had a point there - It is assumed that once one gains equality, happiness follows - does it ?? I'm not sure

[Autumnpuma]

cavallino, on Jan 10 2007, 07:56 AM, said:

Locigal fallacy Nor does it equate to unhappiness.

A logical fallacy would mean it's a false notion, which it clearly isn't. My statement is true, but of course so is yours.   My point being that happiness should be the goal, not equality or an Englishman's version of respect. Equality and respect can be components of happiness, but should be determined by each individual. Talking about individuals, there are many women that get equality and are not happy, so clearly equality or a version of respect, isn't required for happiness.

Edited by Autumnpuma, 10 January 2007 - 07:55 PM.

[Max Mosley]

Autumnpuma, on Jan 10 2007, 07:34 PM, said:

Talking about individuals, there are many women that get equality and are not happy, so clearly equality or a version of respect, isn't required for happiness.

Well I think this is a logical phallus.     It follows from the bold bit that equality and respect are not sufficient conditions for happiness.  But it doesn't follow that they are not required for happiness.  But anyway, I can't believe there is anything to debate here.  It's obvious that women desire equality and respect and that, everything else being equal, they will be happier having those things.  Also it's pretty obvious that Cav is right as usual in that women have more respect and equality in the West.

[Max Mosley]

mock, on Jan 10 2007, 06:12 PM, said:

Murray had a point there - It is assumed that once one gains equality, happiness follows - does it ?? I'm not sure

Is it any wonder I don't know whether you're in favour of equality or not?

[pabloh20]

Murray Walker, on Jan 10 2007, 09:13 PM, said:

Is it any wonder I don't know whether you're in favour of equality or not?

I wonder why you didn't tell me you were going to be in Liverpool this week!  

[Max Mosley]

Yeah maybe I should have!  Well I actually enjoyed my visit, for the record .  We went to the Fact centre, if you know it. Mainly to the cinema there after looking round the rest of that building, the centre of the city and especially in the new shopping centre.  There are some nice clothes shops there with good offers atm.

[pabloh20]

Murray Walker, on Jan 10 2007, 10:55 PM, said:

Yeah maybe I should have!  Well I actually enjoyed my visit, for the record .  We went to the Fact centre, if you know it. Mainly to the cinema there after looking round the rest of that building, the centre of the city and especially in the new shopping centre.  There are some nice clothes shops there with good offers atm.

I remember you mentioning it a while ago, Murray, but I didn't remember when you were going to be here.  You should have let me know, we might have been able to meet up for a bevvy!!  

[Max Mosley]

Yeah I'd like that Paul!  I visit Chester a lot so I'll probably be around in Liverpool sometime soon.  I'll let you know and we can get that drink together.  

[pabloh20]

Murray Walker, on Jan 10 2007, 11:45 PM, said:

Yeah I'd like that Paul!  I visit Chester a lot so I'll probably be around in Liverpool sometime soon.  I'll let you know and we can get that drink together.  

Excellent!  

[Jean Todt]

Autumnpuma, on Jan 10 2007, 07:34 PM, said:

A logical fallacy would mean it's a false notion, which it clearly isn't. My statement is true, but of course so is yours.   My point being that happiness should be the goal, not equality or an Englishman's version of respect. Equality and respect can be components of happiness, but should be determined by each individual. Talking about individuals, there are many women that get equality and are not happy, so clearly equality or a version of respect, isn't required for happiness.

         

Ive tried to make that point, but no one really paid much attention to it. Anyways, things would get political if i try to say anything more.(Pointing out examples) Anyways, i admit i couldnt have said it better than you!

Edited by abbas_gear, 11 January 2007 - 05:55 AM.

[Jean Todt]

Can the girls in this forum advice us HOW TO TALK TO YOU?

[Wez]

Alcohol my friends... Give me 6 beers I will chat up The Prom Queen, Margret Thatchet & A nun at the same time!

[Max Mosley]

Wez, on Jan 11 2007, 08:36 AM, said:

Alcohol my friends... Give me 6 beers I will chat up The Prom Queen, Margret Thatchet & A nun at the same time!

Or you could stay sober and manage to select girls that are (a) legal, (b ) the right side of 80 and (c ) not sworn to chastity.

Edited by Murray Walker, 11 January 2007 - 02:29 PM.

[Autumnpuma]

Murray Walker, on Jan 11 2007, 06:28 AM, said:

Or you could stay sober and manage to select girls that are (a) legal, (b ) the right side of 80 and (c ) not sworn to chastity.

[pabloh20]

Murray Walker, on Jan 11 2007, 02:28 PM, said:

Or you could stay sober and manage to select girls that are (a) legal, (b ) the right side of 80 and (c ) not sworn to chastity.

Bloody typical!  You've spoilt my plans for if we ever meet up for a bevvy!!  I'll have to think of a different place to take you now......

[cavallino]

mock, on Jan 11 2007, 05:12 AM, said:

Don't agree - You've been living away from India for too long. Get your a## back here, NOW !

I am in India You are in Bangalore, which warps your perspective. The rest of the country is different unfortunately

Quote

I don't either, but it is a sign of respect. Jesus did wash the feet of his disciples you know....

Respect isn't bought. I'll  refrain from reacting to the second sentence.

Quote

Murray had a point there - It is assumed that once one gains equality, happiness follows - does it ?? I'm not sure

Autumnpuma, on Jan 11 2007, 06:34 AM, said:

A logical fallacy would mean it's a false notion, which it clearly isn't.

It's a non sequitur

Some unequal women are happy.

does not imply

All equal women are unhappy.

Anyway, the point is merely saying that some women are happy not having the equal status does not prove anythign. Besides, I would argue that most of them choose to live being dictated to for other incentives, usually economic - there are very few who get off on being 'unequal'.

Quote

My statement is true, but of course so is yours.   My point being that happiness should be the goal, not equality

Happiness is a personal goal which has little to do with a matter of legal principle which equality is.

[Jean Todt]

Murray Walker, on Jan 11 2007, 02:28 PM, said:

Or you could stay sober and manage to select girls that are (a) legal, (b ) the right side of 80 and (c ) not sworn to chastity.

[Wez]

Murray Walker, on Jan 11 2007, 04:28 PM, said:

Or you could stay sober and manage to select girls that are (a) legal, (b ) the right side of 80 and (c ) not sworn to chastity.

You Old fart! If there is grass on the pitch, Play cricket!

[mock]

Murray Walker, on Jan 11 2007, 02:43 AM, said:

Is it any wonder I don't know whether you're in favour of equality or not?

In favour, very much. But my concept of equality does not extend to certain things - for example, a man can go bare chested on a hot day, in the middle of town. Equality would dictate that a woman too, should be allowed to perform similar actions, however, I do not think that that kind of equality is acceptable or warranted.....

I believe in equality, but my concept of equality does not extend to believing that women will be able to drive properly even if they were given an opportunity to do so. In short, try and keep them out of the drivers seat in a car, truck, bus or SUV or something similar.

I believe in equality but this does not extend to women serving actively in the armed forces in a war zone. That to me is stupidity.

I believe in equality but this does not extend to my preference to hire guys for my new office - when late work is to be done, it does not make sense to have women around - single ones face the transport back home, and irate parents should they be staying with their parents, and of course with marriage and kids around the corner, they become overheads, and if they are married and have kids well then, working late is not possible or fair is it ?

I believe in equality but I still wouldn't watch the Womens world cup football, and unlikely I would watch the Womens World cup for cricket.

Oh yes, I do believe in equality which is why I am in charge of washing the dishes, cooking once in a while, giving Mark his bath before he goes to sleep, changing his diapers and doing the grocery shopping and when needs be I do stuff like dusting, sweeping, mopping up. None of the traditional 'the woman is in charge of the home' BS for me..

Now, talking about the west, please explain to this lost soul on equality in the West.......

[pabloh20]

mock, on Jan 12 2007, 01:15 PM, said:

In favour, very much. But my concept of equality does not extend to certain things - for example, a man can go bare chested on a hot day, in the middle of town. Equality would dictate that a woman too, should be allowed to perform similar actions, however, I do not think that that kind of equality is acceptable or warranted.....

I believe in equality, but my concept of equality does not extend to believing that women will be able to drive properly even if they were given an opportunity to do so. In short, try and keep them out of the drivers seat in a car, truck, bus or SUV or something similar.

I believe in equality but this does not extend to women serving actively in the armed forces in a war zone. That to me is stupidity.

I believe in equality but this does not extend to my preference to hire guys for my new office - when late work is to be done, it does not make sense to have women around - single ones face the transport back home, and irate parents should they be staying with their parents, and of course with marriage and kids around the corner, they become overheads, and if they are married and have kids well then, working late is not possible or fair is it ?

I believe in equality but I still wouldn't watch the Womens world cup football, and unlikely I would watch the Womens World cup for cricket.

Oh yes, I do believe in equality which is why I am in charge of washing the dishes, cooking once in a while, giving Mark his bath before he goes to sleep, changing his diapers and doing the grocery shopping and when needs be I do stuff like dusting, sweeping, mopping up. None of the traditional 'the woman is in charge of the home' BS for me..

Now, talking about the west, please explain to this lost soul on equality in the West.......

They are allowed to go the football match these days, though it's not encouraged!  

[cavallino]

mock, on Jan 13 2007, 12:15 AM, said:

In favour, very much. But my concept of equality does not extend to certain things - for example, a man can go bare chested on a hot day, in the middle of town. Equality would dictate that a woman too, should be allowed to perform similar actions, however, I do not think that that kind of equality is acceptable or warranted.....

Why?

Quote

I believe in equality, but my concept of equality does not extend to believing that women will be able to drive properly even if they were given an opportunity to do so. In short, try and keep them out of the drivers seat in a car, truck, bus or SUV or something similar.

Meaningless. Everybody can drive competently, you'd have to be badly hampered in some way to not be able to - and I am talking of Indian roads here - a three toad ape with unopposed thumbs could drive in the west. It's not rocket science. Most of the jackasses on Indian roads are men, most drunk drivers are men, msot drivers going too afst for their own good are men.

Quote

I believe in equality but this does not extend to women serving actively in the armed forces in a war zone. That to me is stupidity.

Well if they want to..

Quote

I believe in equality but this does not extend to my preference to hire guys for my new office - when late work is to be done, it does not make sense to have women around - single ones face the transport back home, and irate parents should they be staying with their parents, and of course with marriage and kids around the corner, they become overheads, and if they are married and have kids well then, working late is not possible or fair is it ?

In many a western country, you'd have been sued for millions, and you would have lost under anti discrimination laws. Justifiably so. It's a crying shame people like you run companies in one of the most progressive cities in India. Whose fault is it that it is unsafe for women to work late, theirs?

Quote

I believe in equality but I still wouldn't watch the Womens world cup football, and unlikely I would watch the Womens World cup for cricket.

That has nothing to do with equality.

Quote

Oh yes, I do believe in equality which is why I am in charge of washing the dishes, cooking once in a while, giving Mark his bath before he goes to sleep, changing his diapers and doing the grocery shopping and when needs be I do stuff like dusting, sweeping, mopping up. None of the traditional 'the woman is in charge of the home' BS for me..

How very kind of you

[Max Mosley]

mock, on Jan 12 2007, 01:15 PM, said:

In favour, very much. But my concept of equality does not extend to certain things

Equality doesn't mean that men and women have to be treated identically at all.  For instance, there are good reasons why we only allow women to be grid girls.   Likewise there are good reasons why men tend to pay for dinner on a date, even though women often earn more nowadays, or why it's more acceptable for a women to slap a man than vice versa.  To say this is not to say we don't believe in equality - rather it's to understand precisely what equality means.

mock, on Jan 12 2007, 01:15 PM, said:

for example, a man can go bare chested on a hot day, in the middle of town. Equality would dictate that a woman too, should be allowed to perform similar actions, however, I do not think that that kind of equality is acceptable or warranted.....

Well there is clearly a distinction here between a man's chest and a woman's.  The woman's chest is very sexual, whereas a man's is not to the same extent.  You might argue that it is improper to be sexually provocative in such a public place, especially when there will be young children around, and so because of a real difference between men and women, we ought to be treated differently.  That's not a problem for equality because men and women are treated differently because we are different in a way that is relevant to that situation.

For the record, I don't know what the rules on toplessness in the "West" are.  Certainly women do very often go topless in public places, such as parks, beaches, bars, nightclubs, strip clubs etc, without ever being rebuked for it in my experience.  I've seen people have sex in public places plenty of times, which probably is illegal.  In fact I remember the Danish government recently paid women to go topless in public whilst holding placards telling drivers to slow down.  The rules will be different in every country and personally I would favour a very liberal approach both out of self interest and also because I can't see any reason to stop it other than prudishness.  Finally, in practice the reason women don't do this more often is really because they impose this rule on themselves: it's not men that object!

mock, on Jan 12 2007, 01:15 PM, said:

I believe in equality, but my concept of equality does not extend to believing that women will be able to drive properly even if they were given an opportunity to do so. In short, try and keep them out of the drivers seat in a car, truck, bus or SUV or something similar.

Well I'm in favour of women being allowed to drive but I agree they aren't very skilled drivers on average - again that's a genuine difference and nothing to do with equality.  The only consolation is that they are safer drivers than young men.

mock, on Jan 12 2007, 01:15 PM, said:

I believe in equality but this does not extend to women serving actively in the armed forces in a war zone. That to me is stupidity.

I'm probably in favour of them serving.  Only women who meet the same exacting standards as men should be allowed of course.  There will be 10 men for every woman who can do the job therefore, but those that can should be allowed to do it.  Sometimes people say that women shouldn't be allowed to do it because they want to protect the women!  This is a form of discrimination imho: women are perfectly capable of making their own decisions and they have the right to do so.  The only reason I can think of for not allowing women to serve would be if they would disrupt the army by inadvertently making the male soldiers act differently (maybe the men would disobey orders to protect women but not men colleagues).  Whether this happens has to be tested empirically.

mock, on Jan 12 2007, 01:15 PM, said:

I believe in equality but this does not extend to my preference to hire guys for my new office - when late work is to be done, it does not make sense to have women around - single ones face the transport back home, and irate parents should they be staying with their parents, and of course with marriage and kids around the corner, they become overheads, and if they are married and have kids well then, working late is not possible or fair is it ?

Well it's your business and I really don't want to interfere but in the "West" that would be illegal.  Women get paid less here but I personally think, somewhat controversially, that most of the gap is because of women's own actions and choices.  Like you say, they are more likely to take time out, not work as late, give up work altogether etc.  However there are lots of very capable women who do a great job and they must not be discriminated against just because they are anatomically capable of giving birth.  I think the West's approach here is more or less right.

mock, on Jan 12 2007, 01:15 PM, said:

I believe in equality but I still wouldn't watch the Womens world cup football, and unlikely I would watch the Womens World cup for cricket.

Nor would I.  Women aren't good at many sports.  Thats not discrimination, it's a choice based on a real difference between men and women.

mock, on Jan 12 2007, 01:15 PM, said:

Oh yes, I do believe in equality which is why I am in charge of washing the dishes, cooking once in a while, giving Mark his bath before he goes to sleep, changing his diapers and doing the grocery shopping and when needs be I do stuff like dusting, sweeping, mopping up. None of the traditional 'the woman is in charge of the home' BS for me..

  Good for you Mock!  You're better than I am...

mock, on Jan 12 2007, 01:15 PM, said:

Now, talking about the west, please explain to this lost soul on equality in the West.......

Well I think generally women have more respect and equality in the West and that that's a good thing.  Often people in other countries where women get a raw deal claim that women have more "respect" there than in the West based on a misunderstanding of equality and respect.  You need only look at what the Taleban or Victorian Englanders said to see good examples of what I'm talking about.  (India of course is nowhere near as bad as that but I just wanted to make the general point.)

[Max Mosley]

And I agree with Cav and Paul, as always.

[ykickamoocow]

Murray Walker, on Jan 13 2007, 02:22 AM, said:

In fact I remember the Danish government recently paid women to go topless in public whilst holding placards telling drivers to slow down.

Wouldnt that cause more accidents than it would prevent  

[Max Mosley]

That's exactly what I thought, ykick!  Apparently it did have some success though!  http://news.bbc.co.u...ope/6181788.stm

EDIT: OK it was only a video they made I think, so maybe it wasn't a very good example above.

Edited by Murray Walker, 12 January 2007 - 03:38 PM.

[mock]

Murray Walker, on Jan 12 2007, 08:52 PM, said:

Well I think generally women have more respect and equality in the West and that that's a good thing.  Often people in other countries where women get a raw deal claim that women have more "respect" there than in the West based on a misunderstanding of equality and respect.  You need only look at what the Taleban or Victorian Englanders said to see good examples of what I'm talking about.  (India of course is nowhere near as bad as that but I just wanted to make the general point.)

So we agree on most things. I would prefer to hire guys for my office simple because it makes more sense financially and economically and I have to show a profit at the end of the day. If I find a woman who can match up with a guy, stride for stride, I would prefer to hire her because they are more loyal and committed, at the end of the day, but you can't run a profit centre on loyalty and commitment only.

Well a lot of Indian culture and philosophy on women and sex and what is acceptable and what is not has been shaped by Victorian England.

We still don't have the same concepts of respect and equality and I'm OK with it. Everywhere you go, you have good examples and bad examples, there are very bad examples here to in India. And I guess I may also be speaking with a distorted view given the urban context and religious background I come from....

[cavallino]

mock, on Jan 14 2007, 04:35 PM, said:

So we agree on most things. I would prefer to hire guys for my office simple because it makes more sense financially and economically and I have to show a profit at the end of the day. If I find a woman who can match up with a guy, stride for stride, I would prefer to hire her because they are more loyal and committed, at the end of the day, but you can't run a profit centre on loyalty and commitment only.

I hope you get a nice profit at the end of the year , you are probably doing far more harm than the idiot who gropes women on a bus. Why don't you use child labour too? You'd get away with it and you can show a bigger profit. I do hope you don't pay any taxes, they eat into your profit you know. You do steal your electricity right, I hope you are not crazy enough to pay your bills, my what would that do to your profits.

[Max Mosley]

cavallino, on Jan 14 2007, 08:02 PM, said:

I hope you get a nice profit at the end of the year , you are probably doing far more harm than the idiot who gropes women on a bus. Why don't you use child labour too? You'd get away with it and you can show a bigger profit. I do hope you don't pay any taxes, they eat into your profit you know. You do steal your electricity right, I hope you are not crazy enough to pay your bills, my what would that do to your profits.

Yes I agree.  Mock, you say that even if a woman genuinely wanted to have casual sex with you, you'd turn her down because you think it would be disrespectful, but you're happy to employ men instead of women purely based on their gender.  This is exactly the sort of thing that always strikes me about people who talk about "respecting" women: they almost always have very old-fashioned notions that cause women great suffering.

mock, on Jan 14 2007, 05:35 AM, said:

Well a lot of Indian culture and philosophy on women and sex and what is acceptable and what is not has been shaped by Victorian England.

A more recent and very distinguished Englishman said "they fcuk you up, your parents, they don't mean to, but they do".  Perhaps there's something in there for India to learn too?

mock, on Jan 14 2007, 05:35 AM, said:

We still don't have the same concepts of respect and equality and I'm OK with it. Everywhere you go, you have good examples and bad examples, there are very bad examples here to in India. And I guess I may also be speaking with a distorted view given the urban context and religious background I come from....

Of course there are bad examples everywhere you go, but that's no excuse for supporting the Victorian notions that women are not capable either of making a free decision about with whom to sleep or working as effectively as men.

Edited by Murray Walker, 14 January 2007 - 09:13 PM.