GUEST POST FROM DR. KVAVIK: Hurra for kvinnfolk i Scandinavia, or ‘Hurray for women in Scandinavia’: Gender Quotas and the 40% Rule
By NoQuarterLive on December 5, 2008 at 10:00 PM in Current Affairs
Robert B. Kvavik, Ph.D., is Vice President of Planning and Professor of Political Science and Scandinavian Studies at the University of Minnesota.
The 2008 presidential election brought good news and bad news with respect to women in politics. The good news is that a woman came close to being the Democratic Party’s nominee for U.S. president and a woman was the Republican Party’s V.P. nominee. The bad news is that the level of misogyny demonstrated by the actions and comments of both women and men was nothing short of appalling and does not reflect well on our Republic.
Rather than being a world example of fairness and equity, we as a nation again showed that we are behind many countries of the Western world when it comes to gender equity. We have only to look to the Scandinavian countries where women have rights and a level of respect that exceed ours. Part of that is the culture, but also important is the dominant presence of women in politics. Here are examples:
Finland: In 1906, Finnish women were the first women in Europe to receive universal and equal franchise, and the first women in the world to become eligible for election to parliament. Recently, eight of seventeen cabinet ministers were appointed to the Government formed after the 2003 elections. Women hold the posts of Minister for Foreign Trade and Development, Minister of Education, Minister of Finance, Minister of Culture, Minister of Social Affairs and Health, Minister of Health and Social Services, Minister of Transport and Communications, and Minister of Labor. The winning candidate for the presidential election of 2000 was the then foreign minister Tarja Halonen, who became Finland’s first woman president. Note that four of the candidates were women and three men.
Iceland: Vigdís Finnbogadóttir was the fourth president of Iceland, serving for 16 years. She was the world’s first elected female president (1980-1996). Women received the right to vote in 1915.
Norway: In 1907, Norwegian women became eligible for election to parliament and were given the right to vote in 1913. A woman, Gro Harlem Brundtland, served as prime minister of Norway (1981, 1986-1989). Eight of 18 members of her cabinet were women. A woman, Anne-Grete Strom-Erichsen, has been Norway’s Minister of Defense since 2005. (The link (in Norwegian) is video from Norway’s Conservative newspaper, Aftenposten, and shows Strom-Erichsen flying in one of 4 new Hercules C-130’s, which Norway expects to use in Afghanistan, but mostly for humanitarian aid.)
Sweden: In all of Scandinavia, the number of women in parliament ranges from 33% to 47%, with Sweden having the highest percentage of women as parliamentarians – 10 of 22 cabinet ministers are women. Swedish women received the right to vote in 1919.
Denmark: Women in Denmark received the right to vote in 1915. Denmark lags somewhat behind her Scandinavian neighbors with slightly lower percentages of women in parliament and on the cabinet.
Women on bank notes
Of interest is also the presence of women on Norwegian banknotes. Of the 8 most used bank notes in Norway, three portray women: Camilla Collett, a writer considered the first Norwegian feminist writing a political novel on the difficulty of being a woman in a patriarchal society; Kirsten Flagstad, world renowned opera singer; and Sigrid Undset, a novelist who won the Nobel Prize in 1928. Note that all images on Norwegian paper currency in use are scientists and artists – not male presidents. Similarly, two of the five most common notes in Sweden portray women, and likewise, two of eight in Denmark.
To what is increased parity owed?
The increased parity between women and men in decision-making is closely linked to education and employment opportunities for women, as well as shared beliefs among men and women. Noteworthy is the shared belief that men cannot negotiate the values or the interests of women. In forming her government in 1986, prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland noted: “It is in the interest of society as a whole that women’s values and women’s sense of justice be integrated into political life.” Further, “Women will not become more empowered merely because we want them to be, but through legislative changes, increased information, and redirection of resources. It would be fatal to overlook this issue.”
A system of gender quotas and the 40% rule
Competence and gender-friendly attitudes are important. However, the Scandinavian experience indicates that the proportion of women in political institutions will not increase unless targeted measures such as gender quotas are employed. A system of gender quotas was first employed by the Socialist Left Party and the Liberal Party in the 1970s. Today virtually all of the major Norwegian parties apply a gender quota system in nominations to elections and to the make-up of party-governing bodies.
The party quota system is voluntary and self-imposed. It is now practiced to redress any imbalance in representation on committees where men tend to congregate, such as economics, agriculture, communications, technology and defense, and not limit women to areas such as health and education.
A quota system has also been introduced for publicly appointed committees, boards, councils, and state enterprises. The “40 per-cent-rule” was incorporated in the Local Government Act in 1992, which regulates municipal and county governments.
In conclusion, the equal presence and power of women in the Scandinavian governments and politics probably prevents the bad behavior we saw in the US election. Some members of the Democratic National Committee and the broadcast media would not have dared to behave as we saw in this country in 2008, even if they had wanted to make the sexist statements they did. The political power of women has had a significant impact on Scandinavian public policy with respect to equal rights, health care, education, and the care of children. The United States has an aversion to quotas. Nevertheless, without some equivalent measure, voluntary or involuntary, the emergence of women as a political force in American politics is likely to require major generational and attitudinal change.
———-
Materials presented have been extracted from news reports of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
For further reading see:
Anette Borchorst and Birte Siim. Woman-friendly policies and state feminism: Theorizing Scandinavian gender equality. Feminist Theory, Vol. 9, No. 2, 207-224 (2008).
Lauri Karvonen and Per Selle, Editors. Women in Nordic Politics: Closing the Gap. Dartmouth Publishing Co, (1995).
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
There is also no math gender gap in the Nordic countries. Girls actually score higher in math compared to boys while continuing to outscore boys in reading. Some of the worst gender gap scores in math are in Turkey…Let us all ponder perhaps why.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080602-why-judy-cant-add-gender-inequality-and-the-math-gap.html
Maybe Larry Summers can figure out why, maybe something to do with male brains in cold climates and in Turkey…. Something deeply scientific and not at all sexist, of course.
Very interesting blog! I love Scandinavia and spent a summer in Denmark and Sweden when I was 15. women’s attitudes in general were far more assertive and on an equal footing with men and and in my opinion they were very refreshing indeed!America. on the other hand has culturally reinforced negative stereotypes of women who are independent and are not ‘locked down’ with one male. One needs to look no further than current popular music trends … rap/hip-hop trivializes women as possessions while simultaneously degrading them in a most insidious and derogatory manner. while Most rock music depicts women as Shallow slutty game players who males need to walk away from while putting them down for ‘head games’ In today’s society where these kind of musical influences are being pounded into our youngest citizens heads when they are toddlers right through high school, It’s no wonder women continue to be treated in such a disrespectful, condescending and utterly negative light. It is getting worse, not better in America when national news anchors are allowed to participate in this morally criminal exercise. The treatment of Mrs. Clinton was awful, but the treatment of Mrs. Palin with all of the complete lies and insults about family,Insults about her motherhood, and attacks on her children were all condoned by a supposed “progressive” news media monster. We have a long way to go. baby!
Rap music is a national disgrace, and it has become so widespread, it’s hard to imagine that it *doesn’t* affect the minds of young people. when i hear that music (blasting form someone’s car at an intersection, etc.) it makes me want to slap the shit out of those people. they reap what they sow.
ERA — This must be passed. There is no excuse for women not to have full equality in this country. And until the ERA becomes part of the Constitution — women are still second class citizens.
Now I’ll wait for the usual 0bot boys to chip in that the ERA is not at all necessary — blah blah.
It may be too late… with America being overtaken by a macho mindset among our youth ERA will only be a token response that will not change behavior that is being ingrained into the youth . You only need to look into high school attitudes about women in sports. social settings and with heavy alcohol abuse problems arise almost immediately. The male kids have no positive adult role models to look to for guidance and to learn proper behavior patters for adulthood.
I know what you mean. This whole issue makes me so sad. 2008 was supposed to be the Year of the Woman! I can’t remember a year where women were bashed so blatantly on tv. Uppity has some new posts up today about this issue.
I have been a longtime advocate of ratifying the ERA. But the more I think about it, the more ludicrous it seems that the Constitution needs to be altered just so women can have recognition of the rights they were born with. That’s how screwed up our society is…are we not a rights based society…everyone is created equal and all that? After this election cycle, prop 8, etc, I’m really starting to wonder if this country is ever going to live up to what it said on paper.
You raise a good point. If the USSCt had simply done re sex what it did re race in the 14th amendment to the USConstitution, then there would never have been any need for an ERA. As it is, constitutional developments around the world have now surpassed the US non-discrimination provisions with (usually) extensive and detailed lists of which demographic characteristics are protectable categories, and expressly permitting ameliorative action, which has always been part of the purpose of the 14th amendment. E.g., Canada has a long list of protected groups in its equivalent to the 14th amendment, including sex, and protects sex in a separate ERA-like clause too, which creates an interpretive context in which it is obvious that all categories are to be protected, and making it more obvious that equality rights are to make a difference in the world.
In the US, the generations of lower-scrutiny decisions re sex discrimination create a hideous interpretive context, which means that an ERA would have to be very explicit (not the USConst drafting style) and anticipate future arguments, especially those raised by the Schlafley gang.
This is why Heidi Li is right, there needs to be a federal Commission on the Status of Women, and it has to have real scholars and activists on it, not just the watered-down likes of CKennedy. Even Eleanor R had a better grip on the realities of sex discrimination than the Kennedy who has specialized in ‘privacy’ all her life.
Yes, we must give it (ERA) another go and keeping going. A smart woman said for us to keep going…
Quotas are not the way to go. It only breeds resentment. Early childhood education stressing the uneven treatment of all female age groups is essential to women and men alike realizing the importance and self worth of both.
My wife works at a womens shelter and we both are regulars at local schools to show films about such things.
The earlier we reach both boys and girls to show them the correct meaning of equal, the less women show up at these shelters.
Harp:
Agree that early childhood education is important, but disagree about quotas.
Bring on the quotas, I want the equal rights, money, position NOW! It’s time for others to be resentful. I’ll take the cash, thanks.
Harp is right about the quotas. Look at the resentment many already have toward minorities that took jobs that they were not fully qualified for. The quota system has had many white males turned down from jobs, while the quota system was fulfilled with minorities way less qualified.
Dont get me wrong what was happening before was wrong but shouldnt the one most qualified be the one getting the job, into the college and etc.
Hey look what just happened to our nation. Im sorry to say but the only thing on Obama’s resume of any worth was his skin color. Look around guys what major mile stones did Obama have that were better than all the other candidates.
Don’t look now, but there seems to be plenty of freaking resentment towards women without quotas. Up to one out of 4 women sexually assaulted at some point; 73.5c on the dollar. Scandinavia seems to have worked out this problem; Spain is trying it out too.
Bring on the 40%. There’ll be an incentive to make sure women are qualified which will give girls and women better education (Sadker, Jones, McCormick, Marshall): it’ll affect the precious bottom line.
HARP, when women make up 50% of the population (in most Western countries, the percentage of women is just slightly higher), a 40% “quota” doesn’t seem to be unreasonable, especially when it comes to something like politics and the quota systems mentioned were in the political sphere (”that the proportion of women in political institutions will not increase unless targeted measures such as gender quotas are employed“).
I have to agree with HARP on this. As a victim of affirmative action, I originally was denied entry in the employment of my choice. As a white guy with a planning degree I tried to get a position with the city government here in Seattle 20 years ago
Even though I had great grades in college they told me that I was the wrong color and and the wrong gender.
This bothered me for awhile but my background was also in business and I have accomplished more than I could ever imagine in industry.
I was reminded this year once again about affirmative action and selecting the less qualifided candidate for the job.
No more quotas please!
SM, i don’t doubt that that experience pissed you off, but as a white male, you have no clue what REAL discrimination is, and how much more it affects a person’s very psyche.
i have been a victim of both “regular” discrimination (as a female in male dominated fields) and AA discrimination (as a white female in the field of K-12 education (non-white males get preference)), and i can tell you that there is NO COMPARISON in how those two types of discrimination affect a person. the fact that you probably think they are the same shows that as a white male you “don’t get it.” that’s just the way it is.
i don’t really have time to go into the details, but when you don’t get a government job because the government already has a zillion white males and they are trying to diversify, that’s not the same as being told “people like you don’t have a right to be here, and if we have anything to say about it, you’ll be in an inferior position in society until eternity,” which is what REAL discrimination says to a person.
You are correct. If I really wanted to pursue planning and it had been my only option for success I would have found another way.
What is the actual reality for me is that I actually am a champion for Women’s rights and as most of you know was fiercely loyal of both women candidates this year.i have also made the case that republicans need to become the party for Women’s equality and fairness and work to end the misogyny and sexism that we all saw this year.
As a final caveat i was the first to break the barrier for women running an industrial [plastics plant in my region. men are amazed how many women I have working for me at all levels.
… the Scandinavian experience indicates that the proportion of women in political institutions will not increase unless targeted measures such as gender quotas are employed.
Just Say No to quotas. They have no place in a free society.
a society shackled by biases is not a free society
Take that Communist talk down the road, sister. Socialism is not the answer!
I never realized MLK was a commie. Though I guess his detractors did call him that on occasion.
Dr. King wasn’t right about everything.
then I guess you’d be comfortable going back to the old biases of color.
“Wasn’t right about everything” is VERY different from “was wrong about everything.”
Oh shove it — you chauvinist pig.
Sexist pig –
What a comical thing to call someone! Do you realize how silly that makes you sound? Is that supposed to intimidate somebody? You teach your kids to call people names?
Dang…
UBM, don’t take it personally, as I’m sure you won’t. Northwest Rain called me a sexist pig the other day when I merely corrected her for a geographical error (she apparently thought Pakistan and Iraq are the same country). Her response to my correction was a simple “You’re a sexist pig!” I wish for her sake that she will eventually realize how silly it makes her sound.
My impression from her postings is that she is the type of person that disposes of children’s baseballs if they land in her yard. I’m now off to put on Kevlar and Nomex in preparation for her response.
Own your own candidate — he is a sexist pig and therefore anyone who voted for him is a sexist pig.
Black guy would be happier with the Black Panthers — they didn’t like MLK either — and disagreed with his views.
When it comes to geography — I know I can run rings around your knowledge. Sometimes in blog writing we use a short hand.
And the fact of the matter for male chauvinist pigs — you guys nit pick when when write.
I will NOT take any sexism any longer especially on a topic of MORE women in elected office.
Enough of the cult of the penis — too many of you guys think with your balls — that is where your brain lives.
He supports clean coal and therefore anyone who voted for him supports clean coal? Nope. He believes in God and therefore anyone who voted for him believes in God? Nope. He was running for President against John McCain, and therefore anyone who voted for him preferred him to John McCain as President? Yes.
You can say all Obama voters are the same, but it’s just not true. 68,724,397 Americans voted for him. We did so for different reasons. And you don’t have to agree with those reasons (though I hope what he does in the next four years gives you some reasons of your own to vote for him in 2012), but please don’t suggest that we all voted for the same reasons or have the same faults.
On a daily basis on this site, Obama voters get lumped together and accused of all sorts of terrible things. Please make your case about whatever you want – that Obama’s campaign relied on sexism, that media coverage was sexist, even that Obama isn’t a citizen – but you don’t have to criticize everyone who disagrees with you.
Danny: it is what you and other obama supporters were willing to overlook that gets you called out. My husband and I were unwilling to overlook misogyny and sexism. Feminism is a core value around here. Where you draw the line and we do are definitely in two different places. No matter what he does (or more likely, doesn’t do) in the next four years, it will never change the fact that he is a sexist pig and no we won’t vote for him. The Jews overlooked his antisemitism, the older people his ageism, the blacks his racism….but we won’t ever forget his sexism and we reject him as a leader.
Well said, Somerset!!! Right on all counts.
This is a recurring problem with discussions of how to reverse the effects of deeply entrenched misogyny in the US — anytime anyone opens their mouth about proactive steps, the discussion immediately degenerates into name-calling over the so-called ‘quota’ issue.
Save it for race, guys. There have been quotas in place for decades in the US in the minority contracting rules that BO so assiduously used to help buddies who appear to specialize in banking, real estate, money laundering, etc.
The better question is this: Even with quotas in place in various locations in US legal culture, why have they had virtually no impact on the status of women, even in the specific areas of enterprise directly affected by quotas?
What is it about sex discrimination that is reinforced even in pro-equity regimes like the minority contracting regimes, or, to give another example, in ordinary human rights law?
What you mean the “so-called ‘quota’ issue”? Author of this post flat-out called for gender quotes for elected officials? Is that not the most bizarre, un-American, anti-intellectual proposition you’ve heard lately?
And as for contracting set-asides… you know “women-owned businesses” benefit from those too, right?
Matter of fact, Obama wants more set-asides for women.
NOW do you like him?
So, with the bright flashing red herring of ‘quotas’ out of the way, I would like to say, with respect, that this author misses the real point about how so many other countries have surpassed the US in the quest for sex equality — a quest that has been a defining feature of US culture almost since its inception, I might add, and that permeates the indigenous cultures who preceded europeans.
Here is the real point that should come out of this article:
Even though the US was actively involved in 1979 in drafting the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women along with the other countries whose accomplishments are summarized in the article above, the US is the ONLY industrialized country that has not yet ratified this treaty — all the countries this author discussed in this article have ratified it, and ratified it early, along with what is now probably over 180 countries in the world.
This is no small thing. If you read the Convention (often abbreviated CEDAW), you will weep at the detailed and proactive lists of actions states parties pledge to take to eradicate — yes, eradicate — all forms of sex discrimination. This is the action plan that is in effect in 180 other countries around the globe. This is why so many other less developed and less rich countries are all so much further ahead than the US in making women’s equality real in so many ways.
And this is the real heart-breaker: Remember that wonderful speech Hillary gave at the UN’s Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995? She gave that speech as the keynote speaker at a worldwide convention that adopted the world’s most detailed detailed action plan for achieving women’s equality at that conference — the Platform for Action (PfA), which contains hundreds and hundreds of specific paragraphs outlining all the micro and macro and meso steps that need to be taken in governance and in culture to eradicate all forms of women’s inequality.
That PfA is not just an empty pile of works — it is an explanation for all those who come after as to how to recognize sexism, how to eliminate it, what needs to be done by every level of local, regional, national, and international governance to achieve it, and how to measure progress/regress at every step of the way.
That PfA is what Hillary was talking about in her historic speech. But the hearbreaker is that she was there pitching it to the world, which eagerly embraced it, but coming from a country that has not yet taken the very first baby step to going down the road to adopting any part of the PfA. No CEDAW ratification, no PfA. In the US, the PfA remains just an interesting historical artifact. In reality, it stands as one of the most concrete measures of each country’s commitment to CEDAW and to the PfA, because the UN status of women group obtained written statements from every country in 1995 as to exactly which parts and sub-parts of that PfA they were committing to right then and there. And since then, the lists of commitments and committing countries has grown.
The core of this story has one more piece: After the 1995 conference, every country that had signed onto any part of the PfA took it back home, and obtained detailed detailed detailed commitments from every government department, agency, and ministry as to exactly which of the specific (they are numbered) points in the PfA were going to be implemented by which departments.
These commitments have given countries that genuinely want to eradicate all forms of discrimination against women concrete ways to shape and measure implementation through good governments and bad, and to sustain the discussion of sex equality into the future.
CEDAW, the PfA, and country commitments are now several generations old. The US is the biggest and richest holdout against this global movement for sex equality. The spirit of CEDAW permeates the work that many people in the US do, including Hillary’s work, but in a few weeks, the US’s refusal to take the first step toward seriously committing to CEDAW will be 30 years old.
This is not about quotas.
This is about living in a country that helped envision and draft the single most comprehensive and substantive statement of how and why women are disadvantaged and what governments should do about it — but prefers to discuss the issues as if they all really came down to little techie arguments about ‘quotas.’
This is about genuinely seeing that the equal development of women is essential to the dignity and security of all human beings, and to the fullest evolution of every culture.
You want to do something about sexism and misogyny in the US? Begin by trying to get CEDAW back on the table, and make sure that any draft of the ERA that goes forward again is imbued with everything that can be learned from the texts of CEDAW, the PfA, and the many constitutional provisions protecting sex equality that are now in place around the world.
^ Kal, why don’t you start with the fact that women are biologically different than men. How “equal” can they be, given that?
For instance, should the U.S. Army have one set of physical fitness standards for all recruits? That sounds “equal” to me. Except that women can’t meet those standards… so women have a separate, unequal set of requirements!
Take push-ups. In order to graduate from basic training, a MALE recruit (age 17-21) must be able to do 35 push-ups; a FEMALE recruit must be able to do 13.
A MALE recruit must be able to run two miles in 16 1/2 minutes; a FEMALE recruit must be able to do it in about 20 minutes.
How about insisting that they perform equally with men before they are treated equally with men?
How about insisting that men perform equally with women before they are treated equally. The inherent problem with the argument is that “men are the gold standard”. Silly you.
My gold standard is women and the ability to give birth. So when men reach that ability we can talk about equality. Therefore I insist that men give birth before they are treated equally with women.
A gorilla is stronger than a man..so therefore a gorilla should be the standard we aspire too and gorillas are therefore the top of the social order?
The actual “biological” differences between men and women are not that great even though culturally we tend to exaggerate those differences in order to keep the patriarchy going.
Do all men in running the NY marathon” beat every single woman running in the same marathon. If every man beat every single woman running in the same race, then you may argue the “biological difference” only if we were only running marathons and somehow the ability to run a marathon was crucial to the well being of a culture and society.
I has been proven that in societies were the effects of gender discrimination are small, girls scholastically are either equal or out perform boys. Therefore, what performance are we going to use as a standard. The ability to do push-ups or the intellectual ability to solve societies complex problems and challenges?
I have personally physically outworked many men and then come in to make dinner and do the dishes. It may take me a bit longer, but at least you also get a meal.
Linda. Just to let you know, if you were to take a man and a woman with the same amount of muscle mass, not body weight, but if both had equal amount of actual muscle, women are just as strong in the upper body and sometimes stronger in the lower body. We just carry higher amounts of useless bodyfat. And if you incorporate a strength training regimen, all bets are off. Because of years of bodybuilding and powerlifting, I’m actually much stronger than the average man of 5′7″. Granted I’d get my ass kicked by some guy at six foot 260 pounds but then so would the 5′7″ guy. It drives me batty when I hear women say they think being strong is masculine.
The inherent problem with the argument is that “men are the gold standard”. Silly you.
No… silly you. Can we agree that physical strength is an essential element of being a competent soldier? You’ve got to haul gear, you’ve got to endure physically trying circumstances.
So we need soldiers who meet a certain baseline of strength. If you think that baseline should be 13 push-ups… so that women are allowed to pass basic training, that means men who can only perform 13 push-ups are also allowed to pass.
The result? A much weaker Army.
Ergo, “equality” should not be the ultimate value in human endeavors. Unless you specify that equals be treated equally.
I was told years ago that the U.S. Army abandoned the Colt .45 pistol as the standard sidearm — replaced with the 9mm Beretta — because most women cannot handle the .45. So in the spirit of “gender equality,” the military went with a lighter handgun.
The problem? The 9mm, with its smaller ammunition, is a less effective weapon. It has less stopping power.
See the problem, Linda C.? The entire institution suffers to placate some senseless egalitarian ideal. It’s time people stood up against this phenomenon.
So we went to a general argument that men are physically superior ergo deserve to be the gold standard to the specific instance of the physical superiority is necessary for a combat soldier ergo the need for male superiority. Silly you. What does that have to do with anything?
Personally I would rather have a smart combat soldier..Less likely to get themselves and their comrades killed.
I personally not too much in favor of women in combat situations. We are more inclined to get raped by our own brethren soldiers than by the enemy. Personally, they would all be dead meat in my book regardless of the uniform.
But doesn’t the ideology of “gender equality” demand that women take on combat roles? How “equal” would they be if they didn’t do an “equal” amount of the fighting and dying?
women have better hand eye coordination and can reload faster.
next time you take a woman on, remember that, buddy! And I mean that in the nicest possible way, fool.
Way to waste bandwith, beebop. Keep up the good work!
No not necessarily any more than gender equality mean that men must give birth.
BTW women do their share of fighting in dying in the world, just not in uniform.
How “equal” can they be, given that?
I dunno, but it’s a lot easier to walk around without a dick in your hand.
Just sayin.
Strawberry
The body fat isn’t useless..It is needed for hormone production. Therefore, women do need some.
The strength equals masculine argument drives me batty also. Work is a four letter word no matter who is doing it.
Where one doesn’t see a great accommodation for the true biological differences is in medicine. This ranges anywhere form treatment of heart disease to joint replacements.
Right. If men accommodated women’s differences to the same extent that women accommodate men’s, the world would look a lot different. Lots fewer guys getting their egos and other weak things propped up.
PUMA!!!
Now, to the extent that the tastes of individuals are modifiable by those individuals, it may well be that individuals are, to that extent, accountable for their tastes. ,