What if all men just sat on their butts for the rest of their lives? How many buildings would be built that the feminists could meet in? How interesting would professional sports be? Who's going to connect power lines to the feminists' homes and buildings where they meet? I'm not saying that these things are impossible for all women to do, but I know how difficult it is for a strong, able- bodied man to do these things sometimes, so I can imagine the difficulty that the majorty of women would have trying to do them! There many physically demanding jobs that would be impossible for the vast majority of women. The strong women are be relatively small in number when compared to the number of strong men,therefore the strong women wouldn't be able to build the buildings, connect the power lines etc without the help of the strong able bodied men.
Strong Men, on the other hand, wouldn't need the help of strong women because there are more than enough strong men.
2007-03-10 05:43:37 · 12 answers · asked by Whatever 1 in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
Where are you getting the idea that feminists don't want physically strong people and sports stars? Feminism is about choice - the choice for women to enter any profession that they are interested in, regardless if they can or cannot match the abilities of men. If they are interested in doing it, and are going to invest an honest effort, then why should any one be restricted by gender?
If someone wants to become a firefighter or construction worker, there is a minimum requirement for physical ability - but if some women can achieve that standard, then why not give them the opportunity?
2007-03-10 05:59:49 · answer #1 · answered by Jett Girl 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Did you notice the answers here? What ever...
Your question made good sense. and very good points were made. This is women studies Right?
Well, most of the time women are not open for discussion. nor do they answer or agree.
They just attack from the women's side and point of view. Often a demeaning statement.
Especially, Especially, the Liberal Feminists. And this is not to say all women do this.
Better make that point clear to.
Some answers like, "So you can lift 100 pounds and I can't. I'll find another way to move that 100 pounds" makes the point.
Women being smaller and weaker might use two women to lift 100 lbs.
Some employers look at that as double labor for the same thing. when it is not necessary.
Ship yards are a good example.
You hardly ever see women working in ship yards, Where everything that's man handled is 100 hundred lbs and some times a little more. Some times there are no machines to move 100 lbs. Which is the real point trying to be made here.
Women are not as strong as men physically. and the point of doing what women do at home and from an intellectual stand point. was not raised by Whatever but, was raised by women answering only in self defense.
Sorry ladies, Whatever..., got cha on this one.
2007-03-10 19:03:05 · answer #2 · answered by smially 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
While I'm not a woman, I'd like to comment on this scenario you propose. The problem with the scenario is that you are taking the present condition and making an assumption (incorrect, I think) that everything must continue to exist as before. If women became the sole builders, they might build more, but smaller buildings(although I doubt that size actually makes any difference in the building trades due to the machinery available now; forklifts, cranes, etc). Ditto connecting power lines, etc. I want to see the guy anywhere in the world who can lift a reel of high voltage wire without a machine. As for sports, I actually prefer to see womens' basketball because they showboat less and exhibit more teamwork than the men. Personally, I prefer college sports over "professional" sports in all respects. The "pro" athletes are just too full of themselves across the board.
In short, society would adjust it's output to the capabilities of the resources.
2007-03-10 14:45:56 · answer #3 · answered by Charles L 1 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Women may not be able to do all of the "strong work" that you described as it stands now. No, probably not. However, women have been responsible for a lot of advancement in technology. So, I think women would find ways to make it lighter and easier to do. Besides, I know a LOT of men who sit on their butts all day and yet the world still turns. Plus, men like to think that they are necessary for life. Well, right now, you're not. Sorry. That's the whole great thing about the sperm donation banks. We could go there, have a baby, and have no male interaction at all. So, that would also mean less dead beat dads. WOO!
2007-03-11 04:17:30 · answer #4 · answered by Andi 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
So you're saying that brute force is the only thing necessary for progress? Not ingenuity? Creativity? I assure, women would find a way to get it done. I have volunteered for a "Women's Build" for Habitat for Humanity...we built a house from the ground up...not a single guy on site. We did it in the normal amount of time...and the house hasn't fallen down yet! There are women in third world countries that do the work of ten men in an industrial nation. Don't underestimate women...we built the planes, tanks and weapons that helped us win WWII. Do you REALLY think women couldn't "connect power lines" (I've seen plenty of women working in this field) or build buildings? Of course you do, but you are wrong.
2007-03-10 14:02:48 · answer #5 · answered by wendy g 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yes, if men everywhere sat on thier butts and did nothing it would be very bad. It is true that men are physically stronger than women.. they are built to do heavy work. Heavy work takes a toll on a woman's body, because a woman is built to have children. Each of our bodies are different and no one can deny that. If you do deny that - you are lying to advance your political view that a woman can do anything a man can do. Its just not true.
2007-03-10 16:07:58 · answer #6 · answered by B 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It doesn't take strength to erect a building. Your argument is not sensible nor plausible. Men have historically been trained to build and women can do the exact same thing. I can swing a hammer as good as the next person and have built enough structures to realize that without actually having any formal training. It doesn't take strength to use and electric saw nor to use a crane to lift steel girders.
2007-03-10 15:48:48 · answer #7 · answered by Deirdre O 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
umm why do you keep saying feminists think men are weak physically? Theory and practice have proven that men is stronger..all you are saying is that strong people build stuff.
No one is denying that statement..what are you trying to argue here? No women is rushing to build buildings... not all men want to do that too many of them are in white-collared jobs.
2007-03-10 14:18:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why are you so hung up on physical differences? People are people, and they have intellectual, emotional and spiritual capabilities in addition to their physical ones.
So you can lift 100 pounds and I can't. I'll find another way to move that 100 pounds. I can put a band -aid on a boo-boo and wipe away a childs tears. We each have something positive to contribute to society.
If you are arguing that men can survive without women, but women cannot survive without men, then your survival will be limited to one generation. No women, no babies, no future.
Since we know we BOTH need each other, let's focus on the positive contributions we each make, instead of trying to one-up each other.
2007-03-10 14:29:20 · answer #9 · answered by not yet 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
While it is true that some of these things would be hard for a woman to do I wonder how many of you big strong men could do that and then come home and make dinner, do laundry, watch 3 kids, go to a parent teacher meeting, take the kids to soccer and buy groceries before bedtime. Then do the same tomorrow the next day and the next day..........
2007-03-10 13:52:55 · answer #10 · answered by elaeblue 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋