Regular European men will maybe give you the answer that they hold it very cheap what feminism ideals have tried to tell society over the last decades, but they will sure also mix it with some factually sexistic views as, first, maybe they didn't want equality like that at all, and second, because they overshot it with the equality agenda here and meanwhile women are even privileged in some aspects of life already (e. g. see aspect "who takes the children after divorce?".
If you are asking for my answer, I will tell you: The thought about the physical strength subject is right, and there's absolutely no talking against it, otherwise someone should prove me differently why they use steriods and testosterone to illegally boost one's physical power in sports if it wouldn't work. About the social aspects, I may also go the way of not pressuring people into certain roles and leaving it open to everyone to take his role personally himself according to his talents and physical abilities. The only thing I may be really not very typically Western in is: Some typically male professions are not ever going to be flooded with women, sometimes there even shouldn't, because most females don't meet the requirement in physical strength that is needed for it. Some professions also hold risks which are worse in their social aspects for women if something goes wrong than for men. For example factory work, if a man gets heavy burns on his torso (non-visible clothes), it will make it harder for him to find a woman as companion, but it won't make it completely impossible. Think the same of a woman. If she's fortunate, she's still going to find somebody who regards her as a women to take as a mate. Once in a while you'll have a woman which meets the requirements in physical strength for a traditionally male profession, and vice versa, a man which doesn't, which rather meets the requirements for a typically female profession - those let do what they think they need to do, they will be suitable for it, otherwise they wouldn't try to pick those positions naturally. But this whole American feminism agenda that speaks like "there is no difference between men and women, all is socailly constructed" and blah blah blah, that's nonsense. That's factual nonsense. But that doesn't nessecarily mean that you're on the side of those chauvinists that cry "women back into the kitchen!". My position that I get to is both have different advantages and disadvantages in comparison to the other side and each of these sets of advantages and disadvantages may help you in a situation better than the other set, in some situations it may be a handicap. It's a matter of "being better adapted" to something or not. As there are very different situations in life, both sum up equal numbers of possibilities where they are better adapted to a thing and where they aren't.
no subject
If you are asking for my answer, I will tell you: The thought about the physical strength subject is right, and there's absolutely no talking against it, otherwise someone should prove me differently why they use steriods and testosterone to illegally boost one's physical power in sports if it wouldn't work.
About the social aspects, I may also go the way of not pressuring people into certain roles and leaving it open to everyone to take his role personally himself according to his talents and physical abilities.
The only thing I may be really not very typically Western in is: Some typically male professions are not ever going to be flooded with women, sometimes there even shouldn't, because most females don't meet the requirement in physical strength that is needed for it.
Some professions also hold risks which are worse in their social aspects for women if something goes wrong than for men. For example factory work, if a man gets heavy burns on his torso (non-visible clothes), it will make it harder for him to find a woman as companion, but it won't make it completely impossible. Think the same of a woman. If she's fortunate, she's still going to find somebody who regards her as a women to take as a mate.
Once in a while you'll have a woman which meets the requirements in physical strength for a traditionally male profession, and vice versa, a man which doesn't, which rather meets the requirements for a typically female profession - those let do what they think they need to do, they will be suitable for it, otherwise they wouldn't try to pick those positions naturally.
But this whole American feminism agenda that speaks like "there is no difference between men and women, all is socailly constructed" and blah blah blah, that's nonsense. That's factual nonsense.
But that doesn't nessecarily mean that you're on the side of those chauvinists that cry "women back into the kitchen!".
My position that I get to is both have different advantages and disadvantages in comparison to the other side and each of these sets of advantages and disadvantages may help you in a situation better than the other set, in some situations it may be a handicap.
It's a matter of "being better adapted" to something or not.
As there are very different situations in life, both sum up equal numbers of possibilities where they are better adapted to a thing and where they aren't.