What is wrong with this picture?

[mrniceguy148]

Because the alternative to competition is a monopoly, which while good for the boss, is bad for the consumer? People hate competition because it means that they actually have to do some work to make it. The fact is, and this is the harsh reality of life, if you can't compete, you fail. If you can't compete with a female or male applicant, you won't get the job, if your boss' business can't compete with other businesses it will fail too. If you keep trying to hard and failing, that means you need to rethink your aproach. The only thing a good capitalist society needs is a force to ensure monopolies and trusts (such as the RIAA) don't form and then try to institute mono/oligopolistic control over their industry...

-- No! The alternative to market saturation, declining wages and job scarcity is a return to family values and defined gender roles. We’ll still be hip-deep in healthy competition even if every women in the country handed in their resignation tomorrow.. Don’t you think that there was plenty of healthy competition before women started stampeding into male professions?

Understand, I fully understand and appreciate capitalism. I used to be a member of the Libertarian Party and I’ve even contributed money to the party. The reason why I often vote Libertarian is because often they are a better alternative to the tax and spend social engineers who are running the show right now. Libertarianism stands for hard-core capitalism, so I’m quite familiar with it. There are other things to be considered though, and that's why we have child labor laws.

So while the presence of more or less melatonin(spelling?) in the skin, a physical and born-with characteristic is worth not discriminating against, somehow the lack of a Y chromosome, also a born-with characteristic of a person, is somehow different? They're both things a person has no control over, and quite honestly given the right upbringing a female can succeed just as well in any area as her male counterpart is..

Like I said earlier, any moron can do 99.9% of the jobs out there with the proper training so what‘s all this “best person for the job“ nonsense? The fact of the matter is that my wife’s male assistant manager is a better worker than she is. The only reason why my wife’s the boss is simply because she was there first. There’s your real world example of the “best person for the job” scenario! If I owned a company I’d hire a black man over an equally qualified white women because:

1. I assume that he is, or will be, the breadwinner in his family while the women is just looking to supplement her husbands income.

2. By hiring the black man I don’t have to worry about things like maternity leave or her going home early because her kid has the sniffles.

3. It’s been my experience that men “usually” are harder workers and are “usually” willing to put in longer hours. Note my use of the word “usually”.

While I essentially agree it should be their choice, we already require them to hire people of all races (I really hate using the word that way, we're all humans as far as I'm concerned), so gender might as well fall under a similar category..

Pregnancy and child rearing issues are things that cannot be over looked by any company who's main concern is the bottom line.

Well as long as you're not using the bible as a basis to say "All people should be legally obligated to do X thing or follow X rule, because the bible said so!" then I'm fine..

Agreed!

Just a small note. Not all "feminists" are the bald, angry, lesbian, "death to all men!!!" stereotype. There are a lot that just want an equal chance to pursue their own dreams..

Maybe so! But as with gangstas and loan sharks, I'd rather just tune them out completely.......

Ultimately I do believe the government should stop enforcing such things on a free society, yes. However, I'm also not about to support the sudden removal of one half (women) over just removing the entire thing and letting businesses make up ther own minds. So either all or nothing here..

---- Although I’d like to see our society revert back to an era of more stable family units and more defined gender roles, these changes would have to come about as a result of a free society moving back in that direction. The idea of government stepping in and telling women that they can’t work in certain professions is just as bad as the government sponsored gender hiring quotas that started this mess in the first place.

And you can't blame just women for saturating the job market. The fact of the matter is blaming any one gender, race, etc. is totally ridiculous. That's like blaming all muslems for 9/11..

--- When we talk about working women were talking about something that crosses all racial and ethnic lines. How, for even one second, can you say that a sudden doubling of the work force wouldn’t have a gigantic ripple effect throughout the economy? You must have blinders on if you cannot see that!

That's not necessarily true. What's more likely is we'll need fewer laborers and more scientists/intellectuals/programmers/etc. As we become more focused on technology we'll simply shift jobs towards that. There may be less jobs overal but I don't think it'll be a drastic reduction for anyone who's only working field isn't manual labor..

-- I disagree here. It’s just one more reason why we really need to consider going back to the one good income per family situation that worked so well in the 1950’s and ‘60’s. As you say, “there may be less jobs overall” and your plan would concentrate all the wealth at the top and leave nothing for the middle and lower classes. It’s not fair and it’s a breeding ground for revolution.

And this is ridiculous, why should we suddenly decide to punish half of the population, who had no choice in being born that gender, because you want higher wages? Another thing, there is no "meant to be." There's only "what I/we want it to be," and "What I/we think would be best.".

I’m talking figuratively here, so don’t take me so literally. The fact of the matter is that the divorce rate is climbing in step with working women’s rising incomes. Supermom can’t handle the strain! The proof is in the pudding.

Because why should we bring in immigrants when we can just use existing labor here? It's cheaper and allows people to, I don't know, follow their own dreams and become independent? I mean, hell, even immigrants have been greatly responsible for such market saturation back before women worked. Seems like you've just got some bias against women or are too stuck on your own ideas of what "should" be to accept the current way things are..

-- Family stability is the main reason why we should bring in immigrants! Long before women started flooding the work force, industry had always looked to immigrants to fill a labor shortage. Also, why not let others have a chance at the American Dream if and when we can afford to? Why are you so obsessed with mom and dad both working their asses off just to see their kids become juvenile delinquents and their marriage end in shambles. Don’t you understand yet? The two income household experiment has been a complete and utter failure! Just look around!

You know, I could just as easily blame non-english speaking mexicans who never graduated high-school for "saturating the market" in Fresno here, and resulting in my inability to find work. You know what though? I don't, I believe I need to develop more skills and become more appealing to an employer and then I'll get hired. You seem to blame women for either your own or someone else's inability to adiquately compete. The fact is if a job's profitable, unless there's a very high barrier to entry (such as with lawyers or doctors) it will most likely become saturated for a while, because everyone wants a piece of the pie. Eventually it'll die down and everyone will move to the next fad. Look at the .com boom/bust for a perfect example of this.

Yes I do, you're looking for a scapegoat to blame, and have for some reason chosen women. If your profession's not a good one, change professions. You don't keep hitting away at a chunk of granite with a small hammer, you go and try something different, namely a jackhammer. So if you're not getting what you want then apparently you're just not doing it right.

--- I work in a male dominated field (or should I say, “male exclusive”) and I always will. I’ll never have to worry about going through the embarrassment of having a female boss or seeing a women beat me out for a job. However, I feel sorry for guys in other fields (particularly guys in the military) who aren’t so lucky and then have to go home and explain it their wives who are depending on them. How can you guys just sit back and accept this shit? Speaking as an outsider looking in; it’s just mind boggling!

[mrniceguy148]

No hard feelings, and I don't see you as a threat since, as you say, my "side" is winning. I just wish you would've admitted it in the beginning when gregimotis accused you of being "Mrwomenaretoweaktodoanythinganyway,theyshouldjustmovebacktothekitchen148." Would've saved me a lot of puzzlement. Perhaps what I find most troubling is your constant referral to "we" and "people," but excluding women from that implication. It serioudly comes off as though you believe only men should determine who's in the workforce, who's in the military, what's best for our country, what policies to make, whether or not women should be in the home, etc. The old "father knows best" mentality that denies women control over their own lives and undermines their opinions. You can say that makes me an "angry feminist," I say it makes me a believer in equality.

I think it's amusing that the guys attracted to martial arts are typically conservative, whereas the girls attracted to martial arts are typically liberal. It's a barroom brawl waiting to happen! To help ease tension, here's some sexy martial arts girls for everybody! .

----No hard feelings and nothing personal! I’m glad that we understand each other!

Actually, in the old America women were happy in the home. It was the feminists that got women stirred up and angry. Now I hear more women actually want to go back to staying home but they can’t afford to. So much for the feminist, “big lie”!

I’ll have to check out that sexy martial arts girl site! Thanks for sharing!

Again, I wonder what things you are considering. In the "old America," only white males had decent jobs! Does that make it easier for the white males? Yah. Does that make it a better place? HELL NO. There is more competition now, I repeat, there is more competition now! To be willing to sacrifice another person's freedoms for your financial gain is very disturbing to me. I'm sure it's easy for you to say as a white male, but would you honestly want to be a woman (or even a non-white male) in that kind of society? And no "well if I was a woman I'd have a maternal instinct to make and take care of babies and obey my husband" crap, I mean answer as if you had your present mind but lived in a female body.

The pursuit of happiness is a right of every single human being in this country. To some that means motherhood or fatherhood, to others a meaningful career. If a person wants to devote their whole lives to being a (stay-at-home) mother, or being a (stay-at-home) father, then I respect and support their choice. But the key word here is choice... they should have the right to make that choice on their own... not be forced into it, and not restrict it to either sex. For the rest of us, there is the practical compromise of having either parent stay home to take care of the kid for the first few years of life, and when they reach kindergarden age, return to the workforce. Parents could even alternate who stays. I myself was raised by my grandparents..

---Again, in the Old America family unity was considered more important than anyone‘s desire to just do whatever they pleased. Nobody has ever had the, so called, right to demand jobs from employers who didn’t want there services, or who believed that they should hire that person for whatever reason; nor to usurp the federal government to overturn established institutions. Yes the pursuit of happiness is a right of every single human being but nobody (you, I or anyone else) has a Constitutional right to any job just because they want one because it would make them happy. That’s the difference. Unfortunately, our society has changed in recent years and we’ve all paid a terrible price for our moral cowardice

The difference is that in the old America a women could choose to work if she wanted to. Back then we had no shortage of female entertainers, nurses, teachers, etc.,.. but they stayed out of the male professions so we never even heard about things like “sexual harassment“. However, today most women are forced to work -- like it or not! Now the added competition is helping to drive down wages (notice I said “helping“). Actually the biggest suckers for the feminist “work gives freedom“ Nazi mantra were the women themselves.

Would I want to go back to 1950’s racism? No. Do I want to go back to black and white TV sets? No. Do I want to go back to an era where battered women were stuck in an abusive marriage with no way of getting out? No. Would I want to go back to an era that was so sexually repressed that it’s almost laughable now to even think about it? No. Would I like to go back to an era where gays were misunderstood and ostracized? No.
I’d just like to get back to an era where the family was considered more important than alternative lifestyles and where being a man actually required a guy to support his family and discipline his sons. Father Knows Best may not have been perfect but it sure as hell beats “Mr. Mom” and “Murphy Brown!

Actually, if I were a women I’d rather live in the old America because then I be free to pursue something rewarding like singing or acting instead of; like now, dropping the kids off at day care and fighting traffic to get to my stifling McJob that I had to take because my dead-beat husband's miserable paycheck doesn’t cover the bills.

There is a simple excercize you can do to check the bigotry contained in a statement. Simply read the quote again, and switch every word "female/woman" to "male/man" and vice versa, and see how it makes you feel. You say employment should be race-blind, but not gender-blind, yet go on to say employers should be left alone to make their own decisions about who to hire. It does not work that way.

You said earlier that "the best fit for any high paying career oriented position always has been, and always will be, a man," but I ask you now... do you have any idea how fucked up that statement is? Do you know which faction currently dominates "high paying career oriented position"s? Throughout the decades of supposed equal-opportunity employment for all races, those positions are still held mainly by white males. Are you then prepared to say that this proves the other races incapable, and therefore such positions always have and always will be held by white males?

The fact is there are still many bigots (racists and sexists) in the upper levels of decent jobs. Do you expect them to agree to race-blind employment if you give them free reign? This idea leaves all minorities at the mercy of employer biases. White males have held power in this society for several centuries, and they have issues letting anybody other than white males have true authority. That is the blatantly obvious reason why you don't see as many women or other "minorities" in those upper level jobs. If you put the selective hiring policy back into practice as it was in the 50's/60's, you certainly would have your glorious white male Utopia back, but everybody else would be screwed, LOL.

Simply put, I do not disagree with your economic observations. What I do disagree with is what caused them, how to solve them, and who (if anyone) to blame. Standards of living are rising around the world and so is population size. Allow me to spell out for you a very sobering fact: if every family in the world lived at the standards of resource wastefulness as a middle class US family from the 60's, or even today's, the Earth would not be able to support them by any stretch of the imagination. Does this mean we should oppress other countries, exploit their workers, ruin their economy, or deny people (yes, that includes women) equal rights (that includes equal opportunities)? Ehh... maybe that's the easiest solution, but Hitler tried doing that and worse to the Jews, who he used as a scapegoat for Germany's economic pitfalls, and that didn't end well. What we do need is better population control (studies show that you get the best results by educating the women of poorer countries) and better resource management..

-- I don’t believe that we’ll ever see the day when we run out of natural resources. There are alternative fuel sources and we can always recycle. However, education of all and population control are essential.

Also, I believe that I’ve been discriminated against because I don’t have a bachelor’s degree. There’s plenty of jobs that I could do better than some of those over-educated nincompoops who now occupy some of those positions. However, my lack of formal education disqualifies me from even being interviewed. I don’t like it! It’s very unfair but I don’t complain to my congressman about it. I’m just a victim of a societal decision and that’s just the way that it is. It’s the same for me now as it was for many women in the old America. The difference is, I accept my lot in life, which is a concept that many of today’s women refuse to come to terms with.

The greater good is a socialist motto. Pure capitalism is about free-for-all competition that weeds out the weak and rewards the ruthless, and then makes sure those select few don't slack off but keep trying to outdo each other. In a "free society," what you can do with your life is determined by your abilities, not by your race or sex. You are only limited by the consequences of your actions (such as ex-cons)..

----The “greater good” is a socialist motto only when used by socialists. When free people in a free society make decisions for the “greater good” it’s just free people voting with their voices and their wallets. Therefore, it was perfectly consistent with freedom and capitalism for old America to just decide that women (and blacks, for that matter) wouldn’t be allowed to work in certain professions. It was your socialist feminists who usurped the government and forced society to bend to their wishes. The feminist employed real government force to take what they wanted from free people and that’s real socialism.

There’s never been a modern society that’s ever practiced pure capitalism and I’ve already told you about “market saturation”.

I could see it happening in any country, but it wouldn't be women's fault by a longshot. USSR's collapse was due to badly practiced Communism (hey, it's a great idea and would work in a perfect world... but a perfect world this aint), and a lack of freedoms - social and economic. You had no control over your life. You went to school, and were steered into a career path not necessarily of your choosing or liking... but the only other option was to join the military, and nobody wanted that. Also, due to growing tension in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, a lot of the republics (ie: not Russia itself) started to rebel. They were sick of being part of the USSR and wanted to reclaim their national identities as sovereign nations. In my area the predominant conflict was the land dispute between Azerbaijani (Muslims) and Armenians (Christians). So anyways, yeah, it had nothing to do with women.

-----A financial collapse is often a catalyst for rebellion. The USSR bankrupted itself trying to keep up with us during the cold war. The rebellions probably started after the money ran out.

Presently the USA is running up huge deficits on the federal, state and local levels with no plan to pay off the debt except with higher taxes and even higher inflation rates (the same as Weimar Germany and the USSR). If this keeps up then our economy must implode someday and I think that it will be a world wide disaster. Working women would have very little effect on this except to shift income levels to the upper classes. I only pointed this out to suggest that some time in the future economic factors might force us to re-examine our present value system and return to a more conservative lifestyle.

[Fallout2man]

-- No! The alternative to market saturation, declining wages and job scarcity is a return to family values and defined gender roles. We’ll still be hip-deep in healthy competition even if every women in the country handed in their resignation tomorrow.. Don’t you think that there was plenty of healthy competition before women started stampeding into male professions?

I never mentioned market saturation, I mentioned competition, you're putting words into my mouth here.

Family values? A better term may be "my values," or "strict judeo-christian values." The word family values seems to be an improper descriptor. After all, many families have many values, the manson family valued murdering others for instance. So I'd prefer a bit more exact wording here.

And there was healthy competition, but that's no reason to suddenly bar people from doing what they want. Just because things were okay, doesn't mean they can't get any better, and often staying the same will only cause things to get worse. As well, there's no such thing as a "male" profession, unless the profession strictly requires male genetailia to preform.

Understand, I fully understand and appreciate capitalism. I used to be a member of the Libertarian Party and I’ve even contributed money to the party. The reason why I often vote Libertarian is because often they are a better alternative to the tax and spend social engineers who are running the show right now. Libertarianism stands for hard-core capitalism, so I’m quite familiar with it. There are other things to be considered though, and that's why we have child labor laws.

It should be noted that legally children are not treated as adults or as people, but more like pieces of property similar to a pet. So child labor laws are a very different sort of thing.

Like I said earlier, any moron can do 99.9% of the jobs out there with the proper training so what‘s all this “best person for the job“ nonsense?

Because of things like quotas, where an employer or college may be forced to pass up more qualified candidates so that they can get their share of women/minorities. I'm very opposed to quotas and would prefer everything be based on skill/experience/etc and simply have race/gender stricken from those sorts of decisions.

The fact of the matter is that my wife’s male assistant manager is a better worker than she is.

While I'll take your word for that; that statement does not mean all female workers are not as skilled at their jobs then their male counterparts.

The only reason why my wife’s the boss is simply because she was there first.

Again, I'll take your word for it; That still does not mean it's always the case.

There’s your real world example of the “best person for the job” scenario! If I owned a company I’d hire a black man over an equally qualified white women because:

1. I assume that he is, or will be, the breadwinner in his family while the women is just looking to supplement her husbands income.

2. By hiring the black man I don’t have to worry about things like maternity leave or her going home early because her kid has the sniffles.

3. It’s been my experience that men “usually” are harder workers and are “usually” willing to put in longer hours. Note my use of the word “usually”.

And as you run your own business you're free to make those decisions yourself. As you even ca see, these aren't always the case.

Pregnancy and child rearing issues are things that cannot be over looked by any company who's main concern is the bottom line.

If she can't do her job to the same standard as a male, for whatever reason, then I guess she just isn't cut out for it. If a company wishes to provide maternity leave then that's their perogative, but I don't believe in requiring those things either.

Maybe so! But as with gangstas and loan sharks, I'd rather just tune them out completely.......

Classifying feminists with gansters and loan sharks seems a bit ridiculous. Those are the type of people that seriously injure or kill you if they don't like you. A feminist, at worst, will yell at you a lot.

---- Although I’d like to see our society revert back to an era of more stable family units and more defined gender roles, these changes would have to come about as a result of a free society moving back in that direction. The idea of government stepping in and telling women that they can’t work in certain professions is just as bad as the government sponsored gender hiring quotas that started this mess in the first place.

Agreed, hiring quotas are a bad idea in any way you look at it.

--- When we talk about working women were talking about something that crosses all racial and ethnic lines. How, for even one second, can you say that a sudden doubling of the work force wouldn’t have a gigantic ripple effect throughout the economy? You must have blinders on if you cannot see that!

Of course it would have an effect, but I don't think we should discriminate against something someone has no choice about. If we really need to crack down then let's just get all of the illegal immigrants out of here. However, any citizen of this country over the age of 18, should not be disqualified from pursuing their dreams for something they have no say over.

-- I disagree here. It’s just one more reason why we really need to consider going back to the one good income per family situation that worked so well in the 1950’s and ‘60’s. As you say, “there may be less jobs overall” and your plan would concentrate all the wealth at the top and leave nothing for the middle and lower classes. It’s not fair and it’s a breeding ground for revolution.

Less jobs overal as in maybe a small cutback. As we shift from primarily physical labor to intillectual labor, we may see small changes in overal statistics but there's just so much we've yet to discover, to invent, I doubt there will be a severe shortage. As well, how would it concentrate wealth? Granted I probably should've mentioned that education would also need to drastically shift with the industry to be able to keep people prepared, but provding everything adapted accordingly, I don't see how this would be a change much different then the industrial revolution. The Industrial revolution did have hard times, and took a while to really grow and foster things, but it wasn't the end of the world.

I’m talking figuratively here, so don’t take me so literally. The fact of the matter is that the divorce rate is climbing in step with working women’s rising incomes. Supermom can’t handle the strain! The proof is in the pudding.

As I said before, correlation does not equal causation. On an unrelated note, I'd rather there be more divorces them more cold, harsh, and/or abusive marriages. I also fail to see how a male in a similar situation, were they both given the same wages, would handle any better or worse. So what's the point you're trying to make here?

-- Family stability is the main reason why we should bring in immigrants!

Last time I checked, protecting the "sanctity" of the judeo-christian nuclear family was not the governments job.

Long before women started flooding the work force, industry had always looked to immigrants to fill a labor shortage.

Just because it worked before doesn't mean it'll work now. If you'll care to remember, the flood of immigrants caused similar problems and vast outbreaks of hatred. Back in the early 1900s immigrant workers in factories were probably the worst treated workers I've ever read about in american history. If you think women drove down wages, you should've seen what immigrants did, it was truly horrible.

Also, why not let others have a chance at the American Dream if and when we can afford to?

That's exactly what I'm saying, with one difference. I believe our already american-born or citizen-ship granted people deserve precidence over hordes in foreign nations. I believe a woman should be just entitled to her piece of the American dream as a man should. Then after all our citizens have a chance, let the foreign peoples have their shot.

Why are you so obsessed with mom and dad both working their asses off just to see their kids become juvenile delinquents and their marriage end in shambles.

And why are you so fixated that somehow giving women the boot would fix any of this? The fact is that just because a woman stays home to be a homemaker does not mean the family will turn out any better. There were dysfunctional families, abusive familes, etc, back in the 50's and 60's too. The main difference between then and now, is divorce was a social taboo no one dared indulge in, and these situations were kept as quiet as possible from the outside world, while they're well known today. The only thing that changed was society's taboos.

Don’t you understand yet? The two income household experiment has been a complete and utter failure! Just look around!

And you have yet to provide me any direct and solid evidence that women working is responsible for any of this. You've provided only correlations, but I want to see something that can, without a doubt, prove it was caused directly by this. Do that and then I'll give your arguments more thought.

--- I work in a male dominated field (or should I say, “male exclusive”) and I always will. I’ll never have to worry about going through the embarrassment of having a female boss or seeing a women beat me out for a job. However, I feel sorry for guys in other fields (particularly guys in the military) who aren’t so lucky and then have to go home and explain it their wives who are depending on them. How can you guys just sit back and accept this shit? Speaking as an outsider looking in; it’s just mind boggling!

Why should it matter? That's just what you consider an embarrassment and your own definition of pride. If the woman was better qualified then she deserved the job more then you, if your boss is a better worker then you (and even if she isn't, most employees always say their bosses are lazier regardless) then whatever gender she is, she's a good boss. Let's see some real evidence here to back any of these allegations you've made up.

[Mulan]

Actually, in the old America women were happy in the home. It was the feminists that got women stirred up and angry. Now I hear more women actually want to go back to staying home but they can’t afford to.

Ehh, they weren't happy as much as a combination of ignorance, sexist upbringing, and feeling they had no other choice in the matter. They could try to get a job, but knew nobody would want to hire them. Instead, they worked their ass off in the home for no pay. Work without pay is generally defined as slavery. People had slaves in USA for a long while. Did the salves not rebel because they were happy? Or because they were born into it, didn't know any other lifestyle, and couldn't imagine they had other options? Even some of the slaves were happy and loyal to their masters. That doesn't justify anything.

Nobody has ever had the, so called, right to demand jobs from employers who didn’t want there services, or who believed that they should hire that person for whatever reason; nor to usurp the federal government to overturn established institutions. Yes the pursuit of happiness is a right of every single human being but nobody (you, I or anyone else) has a Constitutional right to any job just because they want one because it would make them happy. That’s the difference.

Nobody has a the right to a decent job, but every single human being has the right to equal opportunity for a job. THAT is the difference. I previously explained why complete selective hiring doesn't work, not with the still-lingering biases at least.

The difference is that in the old America a women could choose to work if she wanted to. Back then we had no shortage of female entertainers, nurses, teachers, etc.,.. but they stayed out of the male professions so we never even heard about things like “sexual harassment“.

So umm... basically, women can only have the jobs that men don't want (crappy pay, low prestige), and only at men's discretion. Female entertainers were also seen as tramps, and working women in general were seen as less of a woman.

All the respected, high-paying postions are in the so-called "male professions." So why do you believe only men should have decent jobs? This perpetuates patterns of oppression that have kept women from equality for centuries. Do you believe the only purpose in a woman's life should be to make and raise babies? What happens when those babies grow up? Men go out to pursue their own dreams, boast about their contributions to humanity, plaster their name all over history and undermine the accomplishemnts of everybody else.

The women are expected to sit back, put on an obedient smile, and enjoy the ride. Is this what the daughters have to look forward to? The privelege of making more men? They could be a nurse, but not a doctor; a teacher, but not a scientist; a secretary, but not a politician. They could heal soldiers, teach future Einsteins, manage the president's paperwork... but never get a shred of credit or appreciation. This what would be culturally perscribed to half the human species in your Utopia. And, right now, the last thing the world needs is breeders. You can "be fruitful and multiply" all you like when there's only two people left on Earth again.

However, today most women are forced to work -- like it or not! Now the added competition is helping to drive down wages (notice I said “helping“). Actually the biggest suckers for the feminist “work gives freedom“ Nazi mantra were the women themselves.

Well, men were always "forced" to work. How's that fair? Now that women have equal opportunity to work, why don't some of the men choose not to work? That'd take care of the saturated market just as well and you'd have your one-income household for those that desire it. Why do you automatically assume it is the women that have to leave? Stop thinking in terms of men and women and start thinking in terms of people. If there were too many men in the workforce would you also call for some of them to stop working because they're "stealing men's jobs"?

I’d just like to get back to an era where the family was considered more important than alternative lifestyles and where being a man actually required a guy to support his family and discipline his sons. Father Knows Best may not have been perfect but it sure as hell beats “Mr. Mom” and “Murphy Brown!

Why would you want to go back to that lifestyle and how is "father knows best" better than "Mr. Mom" and "Murphy Brown"? What's wrong with a father staying home and taking care of the kids? What's wrong with a woman suceeding in the business world? Culturaly-prescribed gender roles oppress the potentials and self-expression of both sexes. Both women and men have more options in today's world. Why do you feel that your urge to support a family and discipline sons is universal for all males and not just for you as an individual? You still have that option in today's society provided you find a woman willing to put up with it (as you obviously have).

Like it or not, selective hiring and/or a return to conservative values WILL bring about the 50's/60's Dystopia where the severe problems of the disadvantaged masses (read: all "minorities") are glossed over by the shining success of the select few. Making women financially dependent on their husband creates the perfect circumstances for emotional, mental, and physical manipulation and abuse. The era where a wife could try to speak her mind, but be shot down with a threat like "to the moon!" such as in the TV show Honeymooners, and have it be seen as humorous. Here a woman drifts aimlessly on the waves of her husband's successes and failures, observing life rather than living it, not even having her own name in the outside world but being reffered to as Mrs. Fred Allbright. You say you are against this, but the more you segregate the sexes in both roles and environments, the more inequality and invisibility for the women it creates. I'll take market saturation over oppression of personal freedoms and identities anyday of the week.

I don’t believe that we’ll ever see the day when we run out of natural resources. There are alternative fuel sources and we can always recycle. However, education of all and population control are essential.

That is what I meant by better resource management. The 50's and 60's used non-replenishing resources, such as oil, and didn't devote time to finding alternatives. Disturbingly enough, we still don't know how to efficiently use renewable resources (solar power, wind power, water power... at least we're learning nuclear power but that's a double-edged sword) and keep pushing back research on it in favor of "more immediate" issues. Part of the reason education of women helps control population is because women become qualified to enter the workforce and set goals for themselves beyond having children.

Also, I believe that I’ve been discriminated against because I don’t have a bachelor’s degree. There’s plenty of jobs that I could do better than some of those over-educated nincompoops who now occupy some of those positions. However, my lack of formal education disqualifies me from even being interviewed. I don’t like it! It’s very unfair but I don’t complain to my congressman about it.

Well, maybe the problem is that you don't complain to your congressman about it. As you can see, women did complain, and they pushed forward social change. If you want to play tortured martyr that's your choice. If everybody thought this way we'd still be a slave-owning British colony. Thankfully some people don't put up with shit they don't like, they do something about it. Women won't let themselves be herded like cattle anymore, and that's something men will just have to learn to live with.

If this keeps up then our economy must implode someday and I think that it will be a world wide disaster. Working women would have very little effect on this except to shift income levels to the upper classes. I only pointed this out to suggest that some time in the future economic factors might force us to re-examine our present value system and return to a more conservative lifestyle.

Sooo... if working women would have very little effect on this, and the stituation is on a federal level, how would that force us to re-examine our present value system?

[Mulan]

Like I said earlier, any moron can do 99.9% of the jobs out there with the proper training so what‘s all this “best person for the job“ nonsense? The fact of the matter is that my wife’s male assistant manager is a better worker than she is. The only reason why my wife’s the boss is simply because she was there first. There’s your real world example of the “best person for the job” scenario!

That same scenario happens just as often with: a male boss and a male assistant, a male boss and a female assistant, and a female boss and a female assistant. Seniority has benefits in a lot of jobs, and length of job experience does count for something.

If I owned a company I’d hire a black man over an equally qualified white women because:

1. I assume that he is, or will be, the breadwinner in his family while the women is just looking to supplement her husbands income.

2. By hiring the black man I don’t have to worry about things like maternity leave or her going home early because her kid has the sniffles.

3. It’s been my experience that men “usually” are harder workers and are “usually” willing to put in longer hours. Note my use of the word “usually”.

1. Stop assuming so much.

2. I'll combine this one with your additional quote, "Pregnancy and child rearing issues are things that cannot be over looked by any company who's main concern is the bottom line." Issues regarding pregnancy and child-rearing should not be "women's problems." Maternity leave and a kid having the sniffles should be equally important to males and females. In some countries you don't have to be female to get maternity leave, the partners decide among themselves who should stay home. Why would a dad not want to go home early because his kid has the sniffles?

Raising children is a cencern faced by any parent, and I believe it should be treated as integral to the design of the workforce, not as some inconvenience that goes on outside of it. Our society should work to offer viable programs for dual-income parents that work with these issues, not against them. That is the logical egalitarian progression resulting from women entering the workforce and bringing with them what have been traditionally women's issues. But they are not just women's issues anymore, they have been brought out of household isolation and into the mainstream arena of popular concern - just like in those egalitarian hunting & gathering societies. Children are our future, and this is relevant to every aspect of our lives. It is now a societal concern, paving the way for the establishment of the holistic family unit where both partners are equally responsible for child-rearing.

3. Well, at my job, it's the women that "usually" are harder workers and willing to put in longer hours. You say you've only experienced "male" professions, and given that you say not having a BA restricts you from good jobs, I'd guess not very prestigeous professions. As such, you probably haven't encountered women who have any real ambitions. I do have a BA degree, and I'll have you know that the women going to college (who are also scoring higher than the men as a group, might I add) are very determined. They work their asses off in grad school and are as dedicated and competitive as any man.

The fact of the matter is that the divorce rate is climbing in step with working women’s rising incomes. Supermom can’t handle the strain! The proof is in the pudding.

Perhaps the divorce rate is rising because women are no longer financially trapped by their husbands. It is difficult to stay together if both partners are equal in all things and there is no designated leader. Studies show that divorced women are happier than both married women and divorced men. Perhaps it is the man who can't handle dealing with an equal, can't handle not having unquestioned authority in the home anymore. Harmonious cooperation isn't exactly a traditional male strong point. They're certainly capable of it, but society just doesn't breed them that way. However, if spouses can face and acknowledge each other as equals, respect one another's input, and get along, the end result is a lot more meaningful, fulfilling, and rewarding.

Why are you so obsessed with mom and dad both working their asses off just to see their kids become juvenile delinquents and their marriage end in shambles. Don’t you understand yet? The two income household experiment has been a complete and utter failure! Just look around!

*looks around* I know plenty of great people raised by single working mothers, I know plenty of decent people raised by working parents, and I know plenty of despicable people raised by a stay-at-home parent. If you look at the statistics, it has less of an effect on the child's outcome than either you or I would imagine. Basically, it points to quality of time spent with children as much more signficant than quantity of time. Crimerates are actually falling, and have been for some time now. Two-income households are neither an experiment, nor did they fail in any significant way. You are exaggerating the situation beyond conceivable proportions. Yes, perhaps one can't afford luxurious cars or houses as easily as one could 50 years ago, but one can still afford a perfectly reasonable livelihood. Many middle-class people still can and do afford to have one-income households. I know middle class and upper middle class families that could afford luxuries on one income, but choose to both work anyway.

I work in a male dominated field (or should I say, “male exclusive”) and I always will. I’ll never have to worry about going through the embarrassment of having a female boss or seeing a women beat me out for a job. However, I feel sorry for guys in other fields (particularly guys in the military) who aren’t so lucky and then have to go home and explain it their wives who are depending on them. How can you guys just sit back and accept this shit?

*smirks* Why would it be embarassing to work under a female boss or having a woman beat you out for a job? Why do you assume some guy's wife that you don't know is depending on them? Alas these are rational questions, but I don't expect rational answers. But the insecurity that oozes from that "embarassment" quote is so adorable!!

Women having an equal opportunity to compete with men for jobs allows them to share the same workspace. Them sharing the same workspace allows them to interact and see each other as real human beings, not different species. This, in turn, eliminates erroneous strereotypes either sex might have about each other, erases the notion of culturally-prescribed gender roles (instead of going off of an individual's actual ability/desires), and revises our understanding and utilization of human potential. The more mixed-sex intereaction there is in all areas of life, the more stereotypes fade away. As you have yourself pointed out, you work in a "male exclusive" field. The long-term benefits of mixed-sex interaction has not touched you, and it shows. But don't worry, we'll be infiltrating your field soon, and if this will cause an inconvenience to you, I guess you'll have to learn to cooperate with people who have hypnotic mammary glands.

[Mulan]

it double-posted... ~_~x

[mrniceguy148]

[QUOTE=Mulan]Ehh, they weren't happy as much as a combination of ignorance, sexist upbringing, and feeling they had no other choice in the matter. They could try to get a job, but knew nobody would want to hire them. Instead, they worked their ass off in the home for no pay. Work without pay is generally defined as slavery. People had slaves in USA for a long while. Did the salves not rebel because they were happy? Or because they were born into it, didn't know any other lifestyle, and couldn't imagine they had other options? Even some of the slaves were happy and loyal to their masters. That doesn't justify anything.

--- Slavery! Oh shit! I didn’t know? Let’s go right away and chain ourselves to the White House Lawn and demand that they abolish this abusive and oppressive “marriage slavery” right now!

Actually, dear, it’s usually the guys who sacrifice most of their personal freedoms when they enter into a marriage agreement. Unless, of course, there’s some kind of abuse going on then marriage is usually a financial windfall for most women

Nobody has a the right to a decent job, but every single human being has the right to equal opportunity for a job. THAT is the difference. I previously explained why complete selective hiring doesn't work, not with the still-lingering biases at least.:

--- By saying “every single human being has the right to equal opportunity for a job” you’re justifying quotas and mandatory hiring practices. In a truly free society you’re only entitled to as much or as little as that society says you can have.

So umm... basically, women can only have the jobs that men don't want (crappy pay, low prestige), and only at men's discretion. Female entertainers were also seen as tramps, and working women in general were seen as less of a woman.

All the respected, high-paying postions are in the so-called "male professions." So why do you believe only men should have decent jobs? This perpetuates patterns of oppression that have kept women from equality for centuries. Do you believe the only purpose in a woman's life should be to make and raise babies? What happens when those babies grow up? Men go out to pursue their own dreams, boast about their contributions to humanity, plaster their name all over history and undermine the accomplishemnts of everybody else.

The women are expected to sit back, put on an obedient smile, and enjoy the ride. Is this what the daughters have to look forward to? The privelege of making more men? They could be a nurse, but not a doctor; a teacher, but not a scientist; a secretary, but not a politician. They could heal soldiers, teach future Einsteins, manage the president's paperwork... but never get a shred of credit or appreciation. This what would be culturally perscribed to half the human species in your Utopia. And, right now, the last thing the world needs is breeders. You can "be fruitful and multiply" all you like when there's only two people left on Earth again.:

--- We were all much better off when that was the case.

If you women ever decide you don’t ever want to have kids again then just let us know and we’ll make other arrangements. In the mean time, if a women has a kid then I expect her to actually stay home and raise that kid! Why? Because I don’t want some screwed up fatherless and feminized gangsta hitting me over the head and stealing my wallet because daddy was never around and mommy didn’t love him enough. You deal with the kid and I’ll take care of the bills! Fair enough?

Well, men were always "forced" to work. How's that fair? Now that women have equal opportunity to work, why don't some of the men choose not to work? That'd take care of the saturated market just as well and you'd have your one-income household for those that desire it. Why do you automatically assume it is the women that have to leave? Stop thinking in terms of men and women and start thinking in terms of people. If there were too many men in the workforce would you also call for some of them to stop working because they're "stealing men's jobs"? :

When many more women decide that they’d like to take construction jobs then we can talk about the men staying home and the women working. Until then, the guys should get first priority in the job market. It’s only fair!

Why would you want to go back to that lifestyle and how is "father knows best" better than "Mr. Mom" and "Murphy Brown"? What's wrong with a father staying home and taking care of the kids? What's wrong with a woman suceeding in the business world? Culturaly-prescribed gender roles oppress the potentials and self-expression of both sexes. Both women and men have more options in today's world. Why do you feel that your urge to support a family and discipline sons is universal for all males and not just for you as an individual? You still have that option in today's society provided you find a woman willing to put up with it (as you obviously have).:

Like it or not, selective hiring and/or a return to conservative values WILL bring about the 50's/60's Dystopia where the severe problems of the disadvantaged masses (read: all "minorities") are glossed over by the shining success of the select few. Making women financially dependent on their husband creates the perfect circumstances for emotional, mental, and physical manipulation and abuse. The era where a wife could try to speak her mind, but be shot down with a threat like "to the moon!" such as in the TV show Honeymooners, and have it be seen as humorous. Here a woman drifts aimlessly on the waves of her husband's successes and failures, observing life rather than living it, not even having her own name in the outside world but being reffered to as Mrs. Fred Allbright. You say you are against this, but the more you segregate the sexes in both roles and environments, the more inequality and invisibility for the women it creates. I'll take market saturation over oppression of personal freedoms and identities anyday of the week.:

-- Correction! Women have more options in today’s world while guys have less. Any guy who actually did stay home to raise the kids would become a laughing stock in his community and a disgrace to his own mother. While we men have standards that we’re expected to live up to, you women can just barge right in with nothing to lose and do whatever the hell you want to and damn the consequences. It must be nice! .

You say, “I'll take market saturation over oppression of personal freedoms and identities anyday of the week”; then I’d strongly suggest that you never accept a marriage proposal.

If a women is afraid of physical or emotional abuse than she shouldn't marry the guy. The fact is many women seek out abusive guys and are miserable when he leaves. The lack of a paycheck shouldn't stop her from getting help from relatives or calling the police if she's being abused. It's a self esteem issue, not a money issue. If my sister ever called me and told me that her husband was beating her then yiou better believe that I'd be there in a heartbeat!

A truely great women builds great men, she doesn't try to become one herself.

That is what I meant by better resource management. The 50's and 60's used non-replenishing resources, such as oil, and didn't devote time to finding alternatives. Disturbingly enough, we still don't know how to efficiently use renewable resources (solar power, wind power, water power... at least we're learning nuclear power but that's a double-edged sword) and keep pushing back research on it in favor of "more immediate" issues. Part of the reason education of women helps control population is because women become qualified to enter the workforce and set goals for themselves beyond having children.:

---America never became aware of conservation and environmental issues until the gas lines in 1973. Before that we has cheep fuel so we drove big cars.

These women should never marry either. Personally, I’d never even consider marrying a women who put herself and her career above her children. If the women’s ambitions go beyond “raising children” then she might be good for a nice fling but I’d never trust her with my kids, my home or my paycheck.

Well, maybe the problem is that you don't complain to your congressman about it. As you can see, women did complain, and they pushed forward social change. If you want to play tortured martyr that's your choice. If everybody thought this way we'd still be a slave-owning British colony. Thankfully some people don't put up with shit they don't like, they do something about it. Women won't let themselves be herded like cattle anymore, and that's something men will just have to learn to live with.:

--- My life is pretty well set as it is so I can‘t complain. However, it’s hard knowing that there are better jobs out there in my field that I can’t get because I don’t have a BA. I refuse to worry about it though

I think that most men have actually learned how to deal with these “women who won't let themselves be herded like cattle” although you wouldn‘t know it by just looking at the divorce statistics. That’s probably why the “love song” is dead in today’s music. It’s all about sex now. I wonder why that is?

Sooo... if working women would have very little effect on this, and the stituation is on a federal level, how would that force us to re-examine our present value system?

-- In an economic collapse there will be fewer jobs and society will be forced to reexamine such frivolities as “having women in the workforce”. An economic collapse will be our just punishment for all of the gluttony, stupidity and self centered greed that our society has perpetuated over the passed 40 years. When all is said and done, I just hope that we end up getting a benevolent dictatorship because our democratic system will probably have to be overthrown. As Benjamin Franklin said, “We’ll get the type of government that we deserve; being incapable of no other“.

[Thai Bri]

We have plenty of americans sitting on their asses that can fill the labor shortage. I'm all for imigration but it should be limited and controled. Kind of like how we take in the best from china and india, it should be that way with all of them. Having a flood of morons is not benificial to our country.

That is so true. You need no more of those.

[NaTurE-of-WaTeR]

no real comment here exept KILL BILL 1 AND 2

[Mulan]

mrniceguy148 has officially stopped making any sense to me... I guess I respect your opinion, so long as it's not forced on others, but I also kinda feel sorry that you'll probably never know what it's like to love a true equal for who they are rather than who you want them to be.

[Tom Yum]

Exactly and many forigners come over hear and do the same damn thing. I dont have a problem against immigrants its just that it should be limited and they shouldnt be on SSI or welfare. We also shouldnt have to pay for their parrents who they bring over to die. Yes i know they sign a waiver but we still end up paying.

I don't think you caught TB's humor, but you have an interesting point. Maybe the US is the last land of opportunity for these folks. The perception from some is that once you get here, you automatically become successfull.

The standard of living is much better here than their previous country. The freedom here is also alot better. The huge challenge is getting affiliated with American culture. Indians, Chinese, Russians, and Mexicans all have their traditions some which are difficult to break.

For example, if an Indian person marries a non-Indian they are totally shunned from their family and Indian community, yet they are all American citizens. Strange, isn't it? Russians seem to never want to talk about their work. I suppose its considered rude in their culture, but its a common topic of conversation to us. Chinese rarely show their emotions or affection in public - I don't know why, but it seems cold from the American persepective.

[Mulan]

By saying “every single human being has the right to equal opportunity for a job” you’re justifying quotas and mandatory hiring practices. In a truly free society you’re only entitled to as much or as little as that society says you can have.

By saying every single human being has the right to equal opportunity for a job, I'm saying every single human being has the right to equal opportunity for a job. This doesn't justify quotas any more than you saying hiring practices should be race-blind. If the employer's goal is to hire the best person for the job, then applications shouldn't list a person's race or sex, just their abilities and qualifications. No quotas involved.

We were all much better off when that was the case.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." ~Inigo Montoya~

If you women ever decide you don’t ever want to have kids again then just let us know and we’ll make other arrangements. In the mean time, if a women has a kid then I expect her to actually stay home and raise that kid! Why? Because I don’t want some screwed up fatherless and feminized gangsta hitting me over the head and stealing my wallet because daddy was never around and mommy didn’t love him enough.

You keep making this statement, yet have no facts to back it up that have anything to do with working women in particular. Most kids today are raised in two-income households, and most of them turn out just fine. The only real difference is that today's kids grow up notably less racist or sexist. The (??feminized??) gangstas you are talking about are mainly found in densely packed urban areas where competition is rife and the gap between the very poor and the very rich is most evident. The Haves live in view of the Have-nots, and the Have-nots grow bitter and grab what they can. Crimerates have been going down for a long while now.

When many more women decide that they’d like to take construction jobs then we can talk about the men staying home and the women working. Until then, the guys should get first priority in the job market. It’s only fair!

I am not for only women working and the men staying home with the kids. I am also not for only men working and women staying home with the kids. I am for the choice to do either, neither, or both. Furthermore, if construction jobs made up 100% of the available jobs, then maybe I could consider such an argument, but surely even you can see the utter logical fallacy of that statement. This again simply comes down to the most qualified person getting the job, regardless or race or sex.

Correction! Women have more options in today’s world while guys have less. Any guy who actually did stay home to raise the kids would become a laughing stock in his community and a disgrace to his own mother. While we men have standards that we’re expected to live up to, you women can just barge right in with nothing to lose and do whatever the hell you want to and damn the consequences. It must be nice!

How does a guy have less options in today's world than women? They could still shout lude comments or slap a girl's ass, but today they'd be held responsible for it through "sexual harassment" laws. They could still get any job they want provided they're the most qualified person. So yes, they have to learn to respect a lot more people's rights today that they felt free to trash in the past, but I wouldn't call that a bad thing.

A guy who stayed home to raise the kids would not become a laughing stock in his community unless his community was filled with people like you. I would see such a man as inspirational and courageus; a bright hope for the future of freedom and humanity. Most mature, educated people would maybe make a few jokes on the subject, but soon get used to it and respect it as their friend's choice. By the way, most mature, educated people would also poke fun if a female colleague chose to stay home. But again, they would soon forget about it and accept it. You say men have "standards" they're expected to live up to? Expected by whom? Who made those standards, exactly? (I'll give you a min to figure this one out) That's right, men made up those silly standards, and now you're complaining that they're restricting you? Well I'm sorry, that's what you get for trying to force gender roles.

Women also had these so-called "standards" to live up to int he 60's. They had to live up to the mother/housewife standard, and if they went outside of that they were deemed less of a woman. If a woman was an entertainer, she was seen as a slut or prostitute; if a woman worked, it was seen as a cute attempt at best, and a threat to her husband at worst. The difference is that women took charge and enacted a societal change to those standards. They made their own standard: be true to yourself. Men, however, made no subsequent efforts over the decades to change the rigid standards they set for themselves, and now whine about having more rigid standards than women. I'm happy not all men are like that. There is a growing men's movement that celebrates the historic diversity of male self-expression, from courageous warriors to loving fathers.

You say, “I'll take market saturation over oppression of personal freedoms and identities anyday of the week”; then I’d strongly suggest that you never accept a marriage proposal.

So let me get this straight, a married woman should:
~Not have goals in life besides staying home, raising kids
~Lose her personal freedoms and always obey her husband
~Lose her own name and individual identity and become invisible to the outside world
~Become completely dependent on a man and be at the mercy of his financial successes and failures
~Believe this is the ideal all women should aspire to be
If your wife agrees to all of this... well then that's just damn creepy.

A truely great women builds great men, she doesn't try to become one herself.

"if humans were meant to fly, we'd have feathers!" I don't think there's any woman in the world that would want to have a penis (transsexuals aside). Being a man or woman is a biological thing, not an ideological thing. If a woman is intelligent enough to be a successful scientist or a doctor, she remains very much a woman. Your morality can label her a man or a hostile mutant space creature, but in reality she is just a person who happens to have been born in a female body.

These women should never marry either. Personally, I’d never even consider marrying a women who put herself and her career above her children. If the women’s ambitions go beyond “raising children” then she might be good for a nice fling but I’d never trust her with my kids, my home or my paycheck.

Again, you are losing all objectivity and economic ground here. You're basically just going off your own convulted morality now, no matter how much it clashes with the actual world. But hey, most people do that. If you found a woman to agree with you, that's great for you. The rest of us can get along, have careers, and raise kids just fine without archaic moral baggage not founded in reality weighing us down.

How about this question... Do you put yourself and your career above your children just because you have a job? Do you have ambitions that go beyond "raising children"? Or do you see your job as a way to care for your children? Pretty deep, huh. Why does staying home and raising children not a quality a good father should have? Why are children a strictly female concern when it takes two people to make a child? Why is the mother and father not equally responsible for how much quality time they spend with their children? Why does a father have to be some cold, distant figure that's only around to "discipline his sons."

I think that most men have actually learned how to deal with these “women who won't let themselves be herded like cattle” although you wouldn‘t know it by just looking at the divorce statistics. That’s probably why the “love song” is dead in today’s music. It’s all about sex now. I wonder why that is?

That's funny, I hear love songs on the radio all the time. But yeah, there's more songs about sex too - coming from both male and female artists. And that's just cause, as you said before, today's society is a lot more sexually open and experimentational. And, contrary to what you are implying, this has more to do with women believing that sleeping with different guys is sexual liberation, rather than with men doing anything drastically different.

In an economic collapse there will be fewer jobs and society will be forced to reexamine such frivolities as “having women in the workforce”. An economic collapse will be our just punishment for all of the gluttony, stupidity and self centered greed that our society has perpetuated over the passed 40 years.

Yes, down with human rights! Down with integrated schools! Down with environmental awareness! Down with religious freedom! Those greedy, self-centered, liberal bastards! God knows you so-called moral conservatives have opposed these policies every single agonizing step of the way. Women in the workforce is part of of basic human equal rights, by the way. I understand that you see personal freedom as "frivolous," but some of us rather value it, and would put it last on the list of things to reexamine.

[Thai Bri]

I don't have anything to say. I just want to see how many bits Mulan quotes and replies to.

Women may well be better at chattering on than men, as evidenced by this thread.......

[mrniceguy148]

mrniceguy148 has officially stopped making any sense to me... I guess I respect your opinion, so long as it's not forced on others, but I also kinda feel sorry that you'll probably never know what it's like to love a true equal for who they are rather than who you want them to be.

Hi Mulan,

My wife is a pretty good women whether or not you call her "an equal".

However, every guy who've I've ever known who's married a "career minded women" has been served divorce papers. By design, these relationships are programed to fail. I'd say that probably 90% of today's kids will never retire with the samer person who they first marry. Hey, I understand your point of view also, but in actual practice, history has proven that it produces weak men and dysfunctional boys. Your so called "liberation" comes at a heavy price; both socially and economically. Most of today's kids have no chance of ever living as happily as my grandparents did. It's sad watching our society become so divided along gender lines. Our society was a much better, and nicer, place before feminism. Sorry that you cannot see it that way.

I have more to say about this and I'll post it when I have more time.

Take care,
Mr. Niceguy

[Mulan]

However, every guy who've I've ever known who's married a "career minded women" has been served divorce papers. By design, these relationships are programed to fail. I'd say that probably 90% of today's kids will never retire with the samer person who they first marry. Hey, I understand your point of view also, but in actual practice, history has proven that it produces weak men and dysfunctional boys. Your so called "liberation" comes at a heavy price; both socially and economically.

You keep saying this, yet you haven't presented real evidence for any of it. If it's the guys who are getting handed divorce papers, maybe they're the ones screwing up in the relationship, and are unable to respect the wishes of their partners. What is so wrong with divorce anyway? If a relationship doesn't work, it's usually a bad place for the kids to be in anyway, and spouses are better off finding somebody they get along with. I'd really like to see your evidence for working women producing "weak men and dysfunctional boys." It might seem logical in your mind, but "in practice" it's completely irrelevant to working women. Also, I would like to see what the guys here who have been raised by two working parents think of this. Even if you do deny the evidence to the contrary, look at the bright side, at least it raises strong, confident women.