First of all, I don't think anyone, including governments, should mandate a retirement age for anyone. Two, in many countries (Poland, if I'm not mistaken) women are forced/encouraged to retire sooner than men.
And that retirement age difference (wherever it is implemented) puts men in further disadvantage. However, I don't look at the retirement age as something that is a burden, but rather a blessing. Do you honestly think that your sample woman who just spent 40 years digging coal about a mile under the ground would just love to continue this till she turns 85?
I think you have a general tendency to look for a very straight line of argumentation, and avoid any questions and doubts that may arise on your way along that idealized line that supports your view/agenda. But few things, especially in extremely complex contexts such as human lives, are as simple as that. Even the question of whether retirement should be mandatory or not begs for some questions.
In today day and age the youth complains about the shortage of work. The youngsters are certainly no match to people who have held positions for a number of years and acquired a tremendous amount of knowledge and experience specific to the position, and irregardless of the gender. I know quite a few cases where people have retired (not forced into retirement though) and then, after just a few short months are rehired back as consultants to man the same positions. So now we have this person who made $100K before retirement, and now the same person, doing exactly the same job, is making $175K (former salary + the retirement money), while other still have to wait for promotion and thus cannot vacate positions that might be offered to the younger generation. Is that ideal? Or is it suicide of a society? Do you have any concept how much that costs the society to support both the unemployed (the kid) and the retired (the geezer) at the same time?
Psychology has a lot to do with social conditioning - if you teach part of the society that it's not ok to be assertive or ask directly for what you want, you're going to have that part of the society behaving in a less direct, aggressive way. Women can be as vicious as men, as soon as they realize it's ok.
I admitted that women can be vicious, even more so than men. If one example was not enough for you, I would like to encourage you to do some research on women guards in concentration camps.
However, social conditioning has only a limited impact on our psychology. I won't get deeper into that, but if you are eager to do further research on the matter why don't you check out some homosexual forums and try to convince the participants that their sexual preferences can be changed at will, given the right social context. The tell us and cite the 10 vulgarisms that were thrown at you in the course of that discussion.
The combat example is not very strong, either, because there are armies where women are at the front lines just like men, and underwear has nothing to do with it (and there are pills that eliminate the underwear issue altogether).
I am not sufficiently americanized to look for a pill every time there is a situation to be dealt with. I'm giving you generic examples showing how the genders are different by nature and you are suggesting generic drugs should be the solution.
Criminal activity might have something to do with physical strength, but I still think it's because girls are brought up in a manner that de-emphasizes standing up for yourself
Killing and stealing has now become "standing up for oneself"?
I was counting on a somewhat civilized debate with arguments that make sens, but instead I am reading nonsense. That is disappointing, considering your other valuable posts elsewhere. Still, I would not say your approach is typical of a woman, or a man for that matter.
It's all social conditioning. Did you know that before WWII male babies were dressed in pink, and female in blue, because blue was considered the "dainty" choice between the two colors? And why would someone need the "dainty" color to be assigned to girls, when male and female babies are virtually indistinguishable when it comes to appearance, behavior or social interaction?
Colors changed and the current selection is not as much social as it is commercial and was meant to standardize some choices and to underline the differfences that were there by nobody's choice but by nature.
Even though it's perfectly legal and socially acceptable, I don't see crowds women looking for steel toe boots they want to buy for themselves. Similarly, I am completely disinterested in the latest dress and perfume trends. I do admit I bough small quantities of nail polish remover because it is acetone and dissolves shellac like nothing else on the market.
I participate in two woodworking forums and there are women there too. Perhaps 10, out of about 10,000 members. I never felt tempted to check my wife's perfume forum, even though she tells me there are a few men on it. I saw a woman in a woodworking hardware store once. She was the cashier, not a shopper.
Women in the 50s were told they're BETTER OFF staying at home and taking care of the kids, because they're not cut out for the tough world out there, and that their largest accomplishment was going to be how "well" they marry. Well, apparently, time has shown a lot of us are not the withering violet type, after all.
In the 50's we were told a lot of things. Did you know that in those days more doctors smoke Camel cigarettes more than any other brand
? Or that one of the main propaganda official working for the US government decided to break up the gender divide and encouraged women to smoke?
Thankfully, it's 2011 (and yes, I am a smoker)