It's still not up to me or you to decide how a woman shall live her life.

I did not say that it is up to us two only to decide this thing.

But it is up to society to stop complete nonsense. As big societies just die now because of "smart" decisions made by university professors, "feminists" and other strange guys. You claim Hitler as horrible man all across education and media. How about this people who literally eliminated Europe and US future and just did not allow woman to give birth and, instead made them fight now along their husbands (if they are lucky) for same money combined, but now without caring for their children. It is not progress, it is called genocide.

OK, how term "gender" help with anything?

Well, for example, if Judith Butler's book Gender Trouble was called Sex trouble it would sell much more ;)

Obsession with "equality" does not arise because of a lack of equality, per se. It always comes when arbitrary limits are placed on a group of people (for whatever defining characteristic - gender, race, etc) from a person or group outside of the one being limited.

In other words, when men tell women what they can and can't do for long enough (which we have), and these patterns become oppressive enough (which they have), it is natural for a group to rebel. The early stages of such a rebellion will necessarily be somewhat lacking in nuance and reactionary, thus blanket statements such as equality, etc.

However, as a teacher, I always notice that if you don't focus on equality, but rather on giving people the space, resources (there's that x factor again), and encouragement to do what they do to their best, whatever that may be (meaning they have a bigger say in it than I do), then they will generally not only tolerate huge differences in skills/talent/opportunity, but will actually celebrate them without a single complaint about what "the other" is getting. However, if I set up a series of seemingly arbitrary rules about who they are, what they are allowed to do, and tie all of it to big (but shallow) identifiers such as gender and race, then my system will rightly be viewed as unfair, lacking in nuance, and more about my interests than about the reality of what that individual is meant to be, capable of being, and wanting to be.

Alas, concentrated power will always tell others what to do for its own interests, and the reaction after time will always be a primal reaction that seeks "equality", whatever that may or may not mean. You can see this in racial issues, social class issues, gender issues, and on and on.

@Vitaliy

What exactly is "social theory" ? I understand "social reality" and I understand "real consequences". But it is just wrong term to call some fantasies as :social theory".

Social theory does have implications on policies that have influence on our biological lives or deaths for that matter. It's not some weird transcendental poetry.

Terms as "gender" and such are here to help us communicate and better and more precisely pinpoint problems and issues, not to blur or destroy meaning.

That has nothing to do with gender equality. Some things have to change or we are all fucked, no matter what gender or sex or whatever you like to call it.

It has all to do with equality. As if you put woman in equal role she must work equally, hence no proper baby feeding and caring - as result children with constant health and mental problems. Nature does not care about your "equality". As it never existed in nature before and very soon will vanish to same place were it originated.

I prefer the term gender for social and cultural and sex for biological aspects, but that is also blurry, and a topic of it's own.

What is exactly "social and cultural" aspects? Sex is sex, nothing wrong with it. As term "gender" had been fully artificially injected via books and media.

Shouldn't we shape the system to help her? Long way, perhaps utopian, but a legitimate goal for me.

We can. But it won't be equality. It'll be some form of favoritism. In fact it will be full discrimination against woman who decided not to have children.

Some "smart" countries even pay for each extra children. This measure resulted in negative selection as people with goal to get more money an without any skills and education started to produce big amount of offsprings. So, thing that look "smart" on paper look horrible in reality.

But, to start with, it is not natural science it is a social theory so really hard to compare.

What exactly is "social theory" ? I understand "social reality" and I understand "real consequences". But it is just wrong term to call some fantasies as :social theory".

My #1 proof that a feminist movement is necessary is that a majority of women around me report having been sexually assaulted by men. This ranges from verbal assaults on the streets to the most atrocious acts I have no words to describe for.

I see big problem with it. What you mean under "assault"? How womans survived thousands of years if they were constantly "assaulted"?

As your fight resulted in situation were people on work can't flirt or meet. And were firms force people to sign idiotic papers.

Sweden's (and to a lesser degree Denmark and Norway) official, politically correct approach to "gender politics" is oppressive and warped. There's a bias in liberal media here domestically and abroad to portray those policies as popular and an expression of the happy, smiley Scandinavians. In reality the liberal political and cultural elite use authoritative legislative force to push their insane policies down our throats. Most Scandinavians are are disgusted by some of the idiotic stuff these politicians and think-tanks cook up.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev Okay, I'm sorry but the reason why most changes happen tends to come down to economics or political pressure more often than any sense of "what's right". That has nothing to do with what I was discussing, nor does it have anything to do with the original post that you started the thread with.

If you pay a woman less than a man for doing the same job, then I have a problem with that. If you prevent a competent women from getting a job because of her gender, then I have a problem with that.

And no, everyone isn't the same - just like all people with the same gender aren't the same. There are traits that I prize in my friends that I've encountered in a very small number of people, some of them men and some of them women. And I've encountered their exact opposite in people of the same gender. It's not that gender isn't present - it's that it's not an accurate indicator of either personality traits or competence because there is so much variation.

One of my favorite collaborators is a singer, composer, mother and third-degree black-belt martial artist. She is capable of both great warmth and ferocity and her professional ability is beyond reproach. What exactly am I supposed to gain in my evaluation of her by looking at her gender before I consider whether I want to work with her? I can't even assume a voice type based on her gender (there's a pretty big difference between an alto and a high soprano). And if you think that her son is missing out because of her professional life, then you've clearly never met him.

In Sweden, paternity leave is available to parents of either gender. The most important thing is for the kid to get to have a chance to bond with their parent(s). Yes, of course it's normally ideal for the kid to get to have breast milk as opposed to formula. But how long is that an issue for? Kids move to solid foods rather quickly and at that point the most important thing is whether the child has a parent that provides closeness and comfort, not the gender of that parent.

Anyway, don't get me started on parenting. If you want to know where I'm coming from just read one of the books my parents individually wrote (or co-wrote) on the topic.

http://www.amazon.com/Pocket-Coach-Parenthood-Winning-Parents/dp/0965776085

http://www.amazon.com/Eye-Vol-Gloria-J-Walther/dp/1439273499

http://www.amazon.com/Eye-Volume-Gloria-J-Walther/dp/1453795979

Here's one of my thoughts on the subject, drawing from another technology area: video games.

In 2005 I was at the Game Developer's Conference (GDC) in San Francisco, which also played host to various awards ceremonies. While there were many more men there than women, women were still represented at every level of involvement from casual observer through entry level content creation up through to producers and (to a less frequent extent) executives. Nonetheless, the rhetoric and tone of several aspects was clearly male-targeted, including jokes about strippers and felatio by people involved in some of the awards ceremonies. Keep in mind, this is at what is considered to be one of the most serious and professionally oriented events the industry had to offer. It didn't take long being there to feel like the environment was actually discouraging potential involvement by women that might have attended if the event were (in a non-patronizing way) more friendly towards women, or at the very least a little less obviously skewed towards men.

I'm not a woman, and even if I were to experience life as one, I would only be one sample. It's very hard to accurately read what effect every variable will have on a large group of people that is different from us. But if I look at the reasons I've contributed in various online forums for a long time, I'd say the quality of the information and tone of the discourse played a huge part. But another part is the extent to which my peers encouraged me to participate or look for such things.

I don't know what I would think as a woman reading through this thread. But I can't help but feel that a lot of the comments made here would lead me to infer that either

1. I'd have to spend a huge amount of my time trying to update outdated concepts of gender roles just to be able to engage in unfettered discussion of the subjects I actually came to talk about or
2. that what passed for humor on this site was of such poor taste that I would have little reason to filter through it.

They just want the same rights as men, can't see anything wrong about that

Evolution (i.e. REALITY) and feminism DO NOT work together.

???

"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women."

just equal 'de jure' and equal in common sense.

What does it mean to "be equal"? Such thing just does not exist. I know, some elites in some countries try to inject as much of this ideas in small children so they could switch off their senses and ignore all they see around.

Maybe because women tend to have much richer social lives than men

I wouldn't call it "richer"... maybe just "more". Due to all the vindictive behavior, and bridge-burning they do. :) They've got to make up for it with quantity. But, the actual "quality" of most women's social interaction (in value to society on the whole) seems to be very low. Although, on the other hand... when it comes to keeping families together, planning family-events, and such... it seems to be very high.

So, to sum it up based on my observations and studies, men seem to actually be better at social interaction on society at large (macro/strategy/business)... and women better at family, smaller-tribal unit, interaction (micro/subjective).

with less need to seek comfort and companionship in imaginary online relationships.

This is about 100% opposite of any measure of observable reality. Didn't you read the stats posted "one and a half times MORE on technology"? ...technology, which is these days is all about social interaction. Smartphones, twitter, instagram, are like DRUGS for women's psyches.

Anyways, I don't think any of us "dudes" on here are looking for "companionship". We talk cameras, tech, politics, film-making, philosophy, ect... i.e. just business stuff.

And this, unfortunately, won't last long. All the changes you see happened because suddenly plenty of resources became available, and females are good for preserving them, distribution them. Males are good for getting them.

I also agree with this... as I mostly do on your biology/evolutionary topics.

I'm liberal, leftist, feminist, atheist

So you just don't like reality? :)

That's one thing I don't get... how some atheists (which I am) believe in evolution, but also feminism... which basically slaps evolution in the face and says "fuck biology". Evolution (i.e. REALITY) and feminism DO NOT work together. They are diametrically opposed.

This is the danger of Feminism (post-modernism, leftism) in science and objective studies...