they are afraid of losing priveleges, control, domination.
for so long, men were taught to have the woman "under their thumb' - that was considered manly - controlling the wife. having her obey the husband.
today, women's increasing independence is a threat to that control and to the identity of what is being male
some say violence against women is a symptom of that loss of control -in fact, in some countries, police and politicians will blame the violence on the women - it's their increasing rights ~ women can report these cases now ~ (not when they are dead though!) this only serves to blame the victim though. there are more factors than that.
2007-11-09 11:54:25
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
2⤋
I don't think that the measure of equality under the law between the genders should be whether or not the ERA passed. Rather, it should be whether or not the United States has made any laws which specifically discriminate against one gender or the other. That is the only thing the ERA would protect against. Could somebody please point me to that particular law which specifically discriminates against women? Eleanor: That is indeed an inequity. However, the ERA would not cover that. The Armed Services operate under their own set of laws by Executive Authority. Many things are illegal under military law that have no bearing on the civilian population. It is also illegal to tell your commanding officer that you are gay in the military. Eleanor: I'm beginning to enjoy debating with you. That was one of criticisms leveled at the ERA. However it has very little basis in legal fact. Sort of like the argument "if we legalize gay marriage, the sanctity of marriage will be destroyed." Although the argument was a powerful deterrent and quite pervasive, it is not very well thought out. Also, I would argue that the ERA has been routinely defeated by the nature of politicians. They don't want to touch anything which seems remotely contentious so they used committees to prevent a vote on the issue.
2016-04-03 04:38:01
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Equality would mean giving one side more rights and taking another side's rights away. For example, men are no longer allowed to rape their wives (in most states), and men have stopped being defined as the head of the household by the government. This rights shouldn't be available to anyone. But men who oppose equality want ALL the power.
2007-11-09 14:49:03
·
answer #3
·
answered by Rio Madeira 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
No one denies that women are equal unless they are ignorant and immature.
But its interesting to note how many times we use the words equality when we want something to benifit "US" (whoever the said us is)
And use the word discriminatory when we dont like something.
As for the men arent needed comment.... I have to say, thats hilarious......a world full of only women will never happen.
Know why?
Because women don't like other women, and they dont like another woman being better or perceived better than they are. So eliminating men wont solve anything.
Cheers : )
Be happy! Life is what you make of it!
2007-11-09 13:55:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by D 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Believe it or not, sometimes equality actually goes further than equality and is repressive to men. that threatens me. That being said, i am all for equality, but if i apply for a job against a woman, or person of colour and we have exactly the same qualifications - equal opportunity employment practices will have the woman or minority hired because they are a woman or minority. that is oppressive. I am not saying i should be hired for being white or male, and i don't really know how i would handle this as an employer, but fact is, if someone doesn't get hired because they are a woman or minority and that is considered oppressive, the same applies if a man is not hired because he is white and/or a man.
2007-11-09 11:48:44
·
answer #5
·
answered by Spartan316 3
·
4⤊
1⤋
mebbe it's because of the lack of decent jobs available.
it's hard enough, and the women march in, making the competition even fierce.
they also might not want any drama office romance going on at workplace.
and there's still this stereotype about women and the thought of woman CEOs.... you know, just sort of makes them fell bad? (i can't think of another word)
2007-11-09 11:45:44
·
answer #6
·
answered by The Questioner 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
i think that's a stupidity because they don't know the value of woman. without a women we can't be men. But sometime it depend on the woman how she responded her man
2007-11-10 09:49:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Men are territorial. They feel there are men's areas and there are women's areas and as such when a woman enters the male area they feel they are losing their independance and become insecure.
The shoe is also on the other foot. Not to further any gender stereotypes, but my mother and grandmother control the kitchen. men are not allowed in while they are cooking, period. The psychology here is the same.
It's not about equality, it's about boundaries and space.
2007-11-09 11:46:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by mazdamandan 4
·
2⤊
4⤋
A lot of them get their egos pumped by thinking they can do a job "no woman could ever do". Then when they're forced to admit it's not true they get hostile.
2007-11-09 12:36:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Hunny there is a THREAT b/c they know that we really are better than them. We dont NEED them,just a few of their best swimmers we can have kids by ourselves make our own money, and one day they will just be our lap dogs
2007-11-09 11:55:59
·
answer #10
·
answered by City Gurl 2
·
3⤊
5⤋