# Should the sexes be treated equally? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 4, 2010, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-sexes-be-treated-equally/538322 "2010-05-04T20:15:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-sexes-be-treated-equally/538322/41 "2010-05-07T17:08:07Z")
Because we are human and therefore like to be made comfortable. And we are comfortable with the familiar. This is human nature. Make it familiar, and it becomes comfortable. But familiar is necessary for comfort and comfort is important to human beings - it makes us feel safe and secure. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-sexes-be-treated-equally/538322/42 "2010-05-07T17:12:45Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > Should the sexes be treated equally? No. Screw equality. Girls in skirts with panty-lines look hot, men in skirts with panty-lines look like fools. ---
**Author:** ![InterestedObserver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@InterestedObserver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InterestedObserver)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-sexes-be-treated-equally/538322/43 "2010-05-07T17:27:15Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > These two sentences make your whole thread pointless. > > Arguing that men and women are equal, and should be treated equally, is not the same as arguing that they are “the same in every respect.” > > If you don’t understand that basic principle, there’s no point even arguing with you. I agree. One example is the case of human reproduction. The male role in reproduction (from a purely biological standpoint) takes about 15 minutes. The female role involves 10 lunar mths of gestation, birth and recovery and, ideally for the health of the child, breastfeeding for some mths or years. (the American Acad. of Pediatrics takes the position that BFing is the ideal feeding method and should continue for a min. of 1 yr, preferably 2 or even beyond.) So again, purely from a biological standpoint, the female role in human reproduction is MUCH more involved and time-consuming than the male role. To argue that men and women should be treated “the same in every respect” wrt their reproductive capacity is bullshit. It inherently penalizes women by denying them the accomodations they require to fulfill their role and forces a discriminatory choice between reproducing and pursuing a career/working outside the home. It serves as simply another way to enforce the antiquated idea that women should just stay at home. In order to achieve any degree of “equality” in this regard, there must be different standards applied which acknowledge the different functions and needs involved. Maternity leave and accomodations for BFing at work at the least. And I am totally behind paternity leave for new fathers..if the mothers get it, so should the fathers, even though biologically, it is not a necessity. That said, I tend to agree that men should be allowed to wear skirts or have long hair (same as women are now allowed to wear pants and have short hair) but yeah, different workplaces dictate their particular standards (some still require that women wear skirts, hose and/or makeup, for example). Such sexual discrimination doesn’t approach the degree of violation involved in more fundamental differences, imo. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-sexes-be-treated-equally/538322/44 "2010-05-07T17:35:19Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > But that argument, standing alone, is insufficient considering its frequent application in service of clearly unethical discrimination, wouldn’t you agree? It seems to me to be far too susceptible to possible use as a tool of unadulterated hatred. > > Blacks “caused disruption” and weren’t conducive to good business in all kinds of public accommodations, but eventually that wasn’t a good enough reason to refuse them entrance. Jews have been considered socially undesirable in many places, to put it mildly, but that isn’t exactly a justification for the way they’ve been treated all the time. Gay soldiers cause a disruption in the military, in the workplace, in school, whatever (for that matter, simply allowing _women_ to participate in a lot of these things), except, as it turns out, no they don’t. > > At some point, it seems like the flat assertion that “society doesn’t like it” becomes circular and loses its normative value, unless it’s accompanied by some plausible reason why it’s bad for society, so we can be assured that it isn’t the case that society isn’t just being bigoted – which, you know, society tends toward now and again. So I think the important question is, _why_ is it bad for society if a dude’s wearing a skirt? What societal benefit, apart from inertia, counterpoises or contradicts the notion that all things being equal, things should be equal? The thing is that blacks, jews, gays and women cannot help being black, jewish, gay or women. Dress codes, body mods and personal appearance are a matter of personal choice. Yes, there is the very valid argument that these are, for many, matters of personal identity. That without their piercings some people feel incomplete. That full face tattoos are not reversible. Still, they are seen as matters of personal choice. I will not bat an eyelash when in a couple years Dr. Soandso publishes a study where he finds the tattoo gene. Until then, people feel free to dislike them and want them out of their lives. Unfair? You bet. Should society change? I think so. Just don’t expect change to come from unregulated business owners. For every hotel owner that says “I don’t care if my receptionist has a dinner plate stuck in her lower lip”, there is another that won’t feel that same way and will get from him all the business from customers that don’t like “freaks”. So they all meet at the lowest common denominator. Sometimes the majority of business owners do want to change the standard but cannot afford the unfair edge given to the small group of the non-adopters. They are just hoping for regulation to force everyone to meet the new standard. That’s when the time is ripe for good lawmakers to jump in and change the world. Baseball catchers and race drivers are a good example of this. When new protective gear comes out, the guy wearing it is ridiculed by his peers who actually want that protection for themselves but cannot afford the ridicule of being an early adopter. Then they quietly lobby for that stuff to be made mandatory and once it is they all breath a sigh of relief and wear it without the stigma. Look at gays in the workplace in the 80’s and 90’s (for my location, dates for yours may vary). In the 80’s gays were no-no. Many a boss wanted to keep his valuable gay employee but had to yield to pressure if someone made a stink of it. Then came the 90’s with much better tolerance all the lists of “gay friendly” companies. Bingo. Being “gay friendly” was now a good thing and all the fence sitters and those who quietly hated being forced to drop their gay staff could happily keep them. Problem solved (I know, oversimplification much but the kernel is good). Tattoos and many body piercings are slowly going from being the sign of “OMG, biker trash” to being perfectly mainstream. Very few places even bother to mention it unless they are customer contact positions for businesses with a conservative clientèle (pardon my French, it is the spell checker that adds the accent, I swear). Long hair is really old hat by now. Many CEO’s have it, never mind caring if their employees do. Change comes. Not instantly and not equally to all locations but it comes sure and steady. Old people cannot help dying and with them their hangups. But as I have said, until that wave comes, some business owners are forced by their customers to keep traditional values. It sucks but such is life. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-sexes-be-treated-equally/538322/45 "2010-05-07T17:48:39Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Because we are human and therefore like to be made comfortable. And we are comfortable with the familiar. This is human nature. Make it familiar, and it becomes comfortable. But familiar is necessary for comfort and comfort is important to human beings - it makes us feel safe and secure. Again, we don’t like it because we don’t like it. This is the same “equality later” refrain that has repeated itself again and again across various planes and degrees of discrimination and inequality, passing the buck to some future version of society that will tolerate whatever difference we’re refusing to tolerate. It’s a beautiful thing when the people who are dragging their feet and standing in the way of progress are the people saying “these things just take _time_; can’t rush it. Human nature.” Not that I’m describing you specifically, just that this is the rationale. Regardless of whether or not it is an accurate description of the way people behave toward each other, it’s not an ethical justification of it, and it can’t be used to argue that things have to be that way. We’re not talking about hardwired, instinctive reactions, we’re talking about broad social conventions which are very much deliberated upon. And the slow changes that you’re talking about, the gradual tendency toward familiarity with the new, are not a result of everyone ignoring the problem; they’re a result of conflict between people who want a change and make a lot of noise about it, and people who can’t be bothered. **Sapo** , I agree with pretty much everything you’re saying; I just wanted to put the emphasis on the “should society change” part and make the distinction between is and should, since the thread seems to be asking about the latter. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-sexes-be-treated-equally/538322/46 "2010-05-07T19:17:18Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > And here we are, contemplating exactly this change, and we’re using people’s hesitancy about change to explain why things _shouldn’t_ change. What I’m pointing out is that historically, this is a terrible way to go about this decision. I am not arguing against change. Change is essential, and change to eliminate true injustice is necessary. My point is that there are many ways that people should be treated equally, but not necessarily every conceivable way. > [@InterestedObserver](#): > > …To argue that men and women should be treated “the same in every respect” wrt their reproductive capacity is bullshit. Who is arguing that, by the way? You started by agreeing with **mhendo’s** attack on my post, but then go on to make a point that agrees with me that men and women have differences that necessitate treatment that is fair but not “equal.” ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-sexes-be-treated-equally/538322/47 "2010-05-07T19:19:05Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Again, we don’t like it because we don’t like it. This is the same “equality later” refrain that has repeated itself again and again across various planes and degrees of discrimination and inequality, passing the buck to some future version of society that will tolerate whatever difference we’re refusing to tolerate. It’s a beautiful thing when the people who are dragging their feet and standing in the way of progress are the people saying “these things just take _time_; can’t rush it. Human nature.” Not that I’m describing you specifically, just that this is the rationale. > > Regardless of whether or not it is an accurate description of the way people behave toward each other, it’s not an ethical justification of it, and it can’t be used to argue that things have to be that way. We’re not talking about hardwired, instinctive reactions, we’re talking about broad social conventions which are very much deliberated upon. And the slow changes that you’re talking about, the gradual tendency toward familiarity with the new, are not a result of everyone ignoring the problem; they’re a result of conflict between people who want a change and make a lot of noise about it, and people who can’t be bothered. > > **Sapo** , I agree with pretty much everything you’re saying; I just wanted to put the emphasis on the “should society change” part and make the distinction between is and should, since the thread seems to be asking about the latter. No, we don’t like it because it doesn’t make us feel secure. That is quite different with not liking it because we don’t like it. And two can play the unethical game. Its unethical to make someone else feel uncomfortable so you can “be yourself.” Ethics has a lot to do with what you value. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-sexes-be-treated-equally/538322/48 "2010-05-07T19:27:18Z")
It’s _unethical_ to make someone else feel uncomfortable so you can “be yourself?” Seriously? Is that how you live your life? ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-sexes-be-treated-equally/538322/49 "2010-05-07T19:42:18Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > It’s _unethical_ to make someone else feel uncomfortable so you can “be yourself?” > > Seriously? Is that how you live your life? Well mannered. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2010, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-sexes-be-treated-equally/538322/50 "2010-05-08T03:39:53Z")
I can state having control of my hair, part of my own body, taken away in the name of livelihood by judgmental squares to be distressing. Can you articulate why dealing with a guy with long hair is so awful for you? ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2010, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-sexes-be-treated-equally/538322/51 "2010-05-08T16:51:20Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Again, we don’t like it because we don’t like it. This is the same “equality later” refrain that has repeated itself again and again across various planes and degrees of discrimination and inequality, passing the buck to some future version of society that will tolerate whatever difference we’re refusing to tolerate. It’s a beautiful thing when the people who are dragging their feet and standing in the way of progress are the people saying “these things just take _time_; can’t rush it. Human nature.” Not that I’m describing you specifically, just that this is the rationale. I understand your frustration with this argument but maybe you are not seeing it all the way through. Everything is new when it arrives. People is not always happy about new things. It makes people feel uncertain and not in control. Most people react poorly to big changes. Once something has been around long enough, people stop being so skittish about it. In due time you start having people who just cannot remember when that thing didn’t exist. Later on, you no longer have any people that remember that time when. Yes, it sucks for the early adopters who have to deal with the opposition but that’s just how it goes. It is different from just passing the buck to some hypothetical future generation. That generation is already here. If you live long enough, I bet something will come along that will make you nervous. Cyborgs, genemods, who knows. Our children will be ok with it. Our grandchildren won’t be able to understand what our hangup was about. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2010, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-sexes-be-treated-equally/538322/52 "2010-05-08T17:10:40Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > It’s _unethical_ to make someone else feel uncomfortable so you can “be yourself?” > > Seriously? Is that how you live your life? Some people adopt a certain appearance because that’s their form of self-expression. Some people do it specifically to make other people feel uncomfortable. The hippies in the 60s deliberately adopted an appearance that was in-your-face rejection not just of traditional appearance but everything about traditional, conservative culture. A person’s appearance is sometimes not just about their appearance, but how they want to get attention, or make a statement, or piss other people off, or whatever. Then again, sometimes people just like purple hair and that’s all there is to it. > [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > I can state having control of my hair, part of my own body, taken away in the name of livelihood by judgmental squares to be distressing. > > Can you articulate why dealing with a guy with long hair is so awful for you? First, no one is taking away control of how your body looks. They’re just offering you a choice, and your choice is to work someplace where they don’t care. Dealing with a guy with long hair is not awful for me (I didn’t see where anybody above said it’s awful for them either). I had hair down to my shoulders as a teenager. I generally don’t care what a guy’s hair looks like, but if I ran a security agency with uniformed officers I would require a military bearing and require short haircuts. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2010, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-sexes-be-treated-equally/538322/53 "2010-05-08T17:36:20Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > First, no one is taking away control of how your body looks. They’re just offering you a choice, and your choice is to work someplace where they don’t care. Great, and if say my employments are options are such that to work at all I have to get a hair cut how is that an option? These days employers can be very picky. > [@](#): > > Dealing with a guy with long hair is not awful for me (I didn’t see where anybody above said it’s awful for them either). I had hair down to my shoulders as a teenager. I generally don’t care what a guy’s hair looks like, but if I ran a security agency with uniformed officers I would require a military bearing and require short haircuts. Would dictate hair length to women in your employment in that scenario too? If not why would that policy be fair to your male employees? ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2010, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-sexes-be-treated-equally/538322/54 "2010-05-08T21:10:37Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Great, and if say my employments are options are such that to work at all I have to get a hair cut how is that an option? These days employers can be very picky. If my options are such that I have to bathe regularly, wear clothes without holes in them, and wear shoes, how is that an option? Employers are so picky. > [@](#): > > Would [you] dictate hair length to women in your employment in that scenario too? If not why would that policy be fair to your male employees? I would use the same standards as the U.S. Army for [men](http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/army/a/armygrooming_2.htm) and [women](http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/army/a/armygrooming_3.htm), which are different. Conforming to these won’t make you attract undue attention in public but gives a military bearing. I would imagine the military has the most stringent requirements you’ll find of any employer, and still doesn’t require anything that would make you look like a freak. Nobody gives a second look to a man with a close-cropped haircut but the same haircut would be a burden for a woman who otherwise would not want to make such a statement. Standards may change through time and from place to place, but I cannot think of a time or place where men and women had the same standards of appearance. Well, except maybe possibly Maoist China, although that was not a natural cultural development but a regime-imposed one. The uniformity of dress was symbolic and equality of the sexes extended to more than just appearance. There were two sides to the coin–men and women were treated equally but no longer had freedom of expression in their appearance. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-sexes-be-treated-equally/538322.md?page=2)