Why is it immoral to treat a woman like an object?

[QUOTE="SquatsAreAwesom"]

this cracked me up :lol:

[QUOTE="SquatsAreAwesom"]

this cracked me up :lol:

Ben Franklin's wife asked him to try to inject some women's rights into the US government and he lol'd at her...so idk what that tells usMr_Anderson1017

I think it was John Adams

Responding to his wife about giving women more power

As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh. We have been told that our Struggle has loosened the bands of Government every where. That Children and Apprentices were disobedient—that schools and Colleges were grown turbulent—that Indians slighted their Guardians and Negroes grew insolent to their Masters. But your Letter was the first Intimation that another Tribe more numerous and powerful than all the rest were grown discontented.—This is rather too coarse a Compliment but you are so saucy, I won't blot it out.

Depend upon it, We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems. Although they are in Full force, you know they are little more than Theory. We dare not exert our Power in its full Latitude. We are obliged to go fair, and softly, and in Practice you know We are the subjects. We have only the Name of Masters, and rather than give up this, which would completely subject Us to the Despotism of the peticoat, I hope General Washington, and all our brave Heroes would fight

Because they're humans and it's immoral to treat anyone like objects...

Men ruled the world back then. As a result of WWII, feminism took hold, and society changed forever.

SquatsAreAwesom

I would actually argue that WWII feminism got a good start.

Ever heard of Rosie the Riveter? And when did women start entering the work place, going to college, etc, in great numbers? Shortly after WWII.

As for the question, I would argue it is immoral to treat a woman like an object because...they are not objects :|

Men and women should both get the same treatment. If you're a girl and want to fight, I'd still punch you right in the face.

Because they are human beings. Infact, I would say women are far superior gender than men from what I have seen at educational institutions. They are more hardworking, more mature, etc.

Back in the day African Americans were also considered objects. I'd say the reason why it's immoral is because they are both human beings and should be considered as such.lilasianwonder

Go back enough in the day and everyone was treated like Objects,

if a woman wants equal rights then i better be able to punch her without people pitching a fit.

needled24-7

I do feel this was said in a mean spirited way but I do believe equal treatment should mean equal. Not "I just want the good parts of equality. Not the negative."

Treating women like an object is only wrong if they do not wish to be treated like an object. If a woman is happiest being taken care off and fulfilling traditional gender roles than more power to her. That being said women should be given the choice as to which they would prefer to do. So a long answer short; Women as a whole shouldn't be treated like objects but if an individual woman is happiest being treated like one, meh whatever floats the proverbial boat.Ken_Masterz

i agree with this

Because it is wrong to have ownership over other humans.

Woman are a gender of human,

there for it is wrong to treat woman as an object/ or lesser person you piece of ***** topic poster.

The world is not a ******** rap song, so treat woman with respect you ***.

Why is it immoral to treat a woman like an object? TC

....because they aren't objects? :|

Men and women should both get the same treatment. If you're a girl and want to fight, I'd still punch you right in the face.

Gaming-Planet

This might cause some problems for you, so I'd suggest remedying it.

Because we're not objects? You're no more of a human being than I am just because you have a penis.

[QUOTE="Ken_Masterz"]Treating women like an object is only wrong if they do not wish to be treated like an object. If a woman is happiest being taken care off and fulfilling traditional gender roles than more power to her. That being said women should be given the choice as to which they would prefer to do. So a long answer short; Women as a whole shouldn't be treated like objects but if an individual woman is happiest being treated like one, meh whatever floats the proverbial boat.smchacko

i agree with this

Because we're not objects? You're no more of a human being than I am just because you have a penis.

PeaceChild90

After reading the entire thread I see some people trolling and others using the "Well, if women want to be treated as equals, I should be able to beat them" argument. The argument is not uncommon amongst teenage idiots devoid of any female contact. Anyone who isn't a social monogloid or a crazy person doesn't think like this.

[QUOTE="PeaceChild90"]

Because we're not objects? You're no more of a human being than I am just because you have a penis.

WheresKinggiAt

After reading the entire thread I see some people trolling and others using the "Well, if women want to be treated as equals, I should be able to beat them" argument. The argument is not uncommon amongst teenage idiots devoid of any female contact. Anyone who isn't a social monogloid or a crazy person doesn't think like this.

I would have been willing to be a housewife, until I was trapped in a controlling relationship for 5 years, and then I realised what it's like to lose yourself.

I found this thread was horribly offensive btw.

Really....? :|

[QUOTE="WheresKinggiAt"]

[QUOTE="PeaceChild90"]

Because we're not objects? You're no more of a human being than I am just because you have a penis.

SeraphimGoddess

After reading the entire thread I see some people trolling and others using the "Well, if women want to be treated as equals, I should be able to beat them" argument. The argument is not uncommon amongst teenage idiots devoid of any female contact. Anyone who isn't a social monogloid or a crazy person doesn't think like this.

seriously let's take down jody from her throne :x i demand gabu to be in charge

I would have been willing to be a housewife, until I was trapped in a controlling relationship for 5 years, and then I realised what it's like to lose yourself.

I found this thread was horribly offensive btw.

MissLibrarian

I would have been willing to be a housewife, until I was trapped in a controlling relationship for 5 years, and then I realised what it's like to lose yourself.

I found this thread was horribly offensive btw.

MissLibrarian

o0squishy0o

* What if the men and women in the family agree to it?

SquatsAreAwesom

If people agree to something, that implies an equal amount of power in the relationship (2 parties reaching an agreement, versus 1 party dictating the terms of the relationship)

In this case, I see nothing wrong with them performing whatever roles they want to.
They are on equal ground and should be left to do whatever makes them happy/whatever works for their relationship

* Do you think it's appropriate?

SquatsAreAwesom

My fundamental philosophy in life is based around how one treats those with less social power.
It is not how you treat those with equal or more social power that matters (to me). It is how you treat those with less social power that matters.
...that is what makes you a 'good person' in my eyes

Depending on where you live, the amount of power of that women have varies greatly (from none to being VERY close to equal)
IMO, forcing a role upon someone is the equivalent of controlling their life.
It would make me a huge hypocrite to endorse this particular way of treating women.

I fail to see why anyone would want to do this...why anyone would want to make their partner unhappy...can a person ever truly be happy if their partner is miserable

[QUOTE="MissLibrarian"]o0squishy0o

[QUOTE="o0squishy0o"][QUOTE="MissLibrarian"]MissLibrarian

The very same reason men shouldn't be treated as objects... They're humans.

criinok

[QUOTE="o0squishy0o"][QUOTE="MissLibrarian"]MissLibrarian

Yeah. I mean many families I know work this way out of tradition or just agreement. The idea of a housewife shouldn't leave a person worried that the husband is some sexist pig controlling the women.

[QUOTE="o0squishy0o"][QUOTE="MissLibrarian"]MissLibrarian

to be completely honest, my goal in life is to be a stay-at-home dad for at least a few years.

Feminists exaggerateeverything. fiftey years ago men made all of the money and worked hard to earn it. Since the woman were home the least they could do was clean, cook & take care of the children while she was home. Either that or get a job herself just so she could spend her earnings on a maid and ababysitter.

Why is this thread up...?

I don't even...

Its thread like these that give OT a bad rep.

Feminists exaggerateeverything. fiftey years ago men made all of the money and worked hard to earn it. Since the woman were home the least they could do was clean, cook & take care of the children while she was home. Either that or get a job herself just so she could spend her earnings on a maid and ababysitter.

MagnumPI

Wow really its a stretch? Where women were basically at best a cocktail waiteress or secretary? And you don't see something wrong with that, that the woman is automatically expected to stay home and take care of the house and children?

[QUOTE="MagnumPI"]

Feminists exaggerateeverything. fiftey years ago men made all of the money and worked hard to earn it. Since the woman were home the least they could do was clean, cook & take care of the children while she was home. Either that or get a job herself just so she could spend her earnings on a maid and ababysitter.

sSubZerOo

Wow really its a stretch? Where women were basically at best a cocktail waiteress or secretary? And you don't see something wrong with that, that the woman is automatically expected to stay home and take care of the house and children?

I'd rather trust a woman with the kids than a man!

Because they're human beings.ghoklebutter

Would you want to be treated like an object as opposed to a person?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="MagnumPI"]

Feminists exaggerateeverything. fiftey years ago men made all of the money and worked hard to earn it. Since the woman were home the least they could do was clean, cook & take care of the children while she was home. Either that or get a job herself just so she could spend her earnings on a maid and ababysitter.

Espada12

Wow really its a stretch? Where women were basically at best a cocktail waiteress or secretary? And you don't see something wrong with that, that the woman is automatically expected to stay home and take care of the house and children?

I'd rather trust a woman with the kids than a man!

I think it has more to do with the specific personalities at hand.. There is examples for both sides.. This is the 21st century, gender roles don't exist the way they use to.

[QUOTE="MagnumPI"]

Feminists exaggerateeverything. fiftey years ago men made all of the money and worked hard to earn it. Since the woman were home the least they could do was clean, cook & take care of the children while she was home. Either that or get a job herself just so she could spend her earnings on a maid and ababysitter.

sSubZerOo

Wow really its a stretch? Where women were basically at best a cocktail waiteress or secretary? And you don't see something wrong with that, that the woman is automatically expected to stay home and take care of the house and children?

If you could find a woman that would subject herself to the working conditions of that time and could keep up things many have been different. You couldn't force them to go. It was common for workers to be seriously injured or killed. They didn't have all of the equipment and machinery that does all of the work LIKE TODAY. Most men had to subject their selves to losing a part being crippled or dying while all the woman had to do is... cook and watch the kids. It's easy, I've done it many times.

If someone were to bring me money, give me a roof to live under and food to eat and I all I had to do is watch the kids, cook and do some cleaning every now and again... okay.it'sbetter than sweating all day in a factory.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="MagnumPI"]

Feminists exaggerateeverything. fiftey years ago men made all of the money and worked hard to earn it. Since the woman were home the least they could do was clean, cook & take care of the children while she was home. Either that or get a job herself just so she could spend her earnings on a maid and ababysitter.

MagnumPI

Wow really its a stretch? Where women were basically at best a cocktail waiteress or secretary? And you don't see something wrong with that, that the woman is automatically expected to stay home and take care of the house and children?

If you could find a woman that would subject herself to the working conditions of that time and could keep up things many have been different. You couldn't force them to go. It was common for workers to be seriously injured or killed. They didn't have all of the equipment and machinery that does all of the work LIKE TODAY. Most men had to subject their selves to losing a part being crippled or dying while all the woman had to do is... cook and watch the kids. It's easy, I've done it many times.

If someone were to bring me money, give me a roof to live under and food to eat and I all I had to do is watch the kids, cook and do some cleaning every now and again... okay.it'sbetter than sweating all day in a factory.

Yet again women were never given the choice.. And infact they quite enjoyed the new work during World War 2 era, and were pissed off when they were not very politely fired from their jobs at the end of the war.. You seem not to understand, women didn't have a choice in the matter.. They were consistently seen as the second class citizen, that rarely made decisions.. And pretty much was always always completely supported by some one else and not themselves.. To me your showing a clear lack of perspective in this matter what so ever... This kind of reasoning can basically be used for other ridiculous things like slavery.. After all the settlers gave the black people a home, a steady job and even educated some for crying out loud! Yes but they did not have the choice, now this isn't some how saying that the slavery was any way the same as women's rights, they are completely different.. What I am pointing out is your entire reasoning is absurd.. Military consisted of extremely dangerous positions, yet there were women willing to do it.. But due to the fact they were women, through history.. They were forced into positions within the military they did not exactly want.