What is wrong with this picture?

[squidd]

Ah, well, that's a nice try and very amusing... however, I just dun think it would work out...

Besides, I try to avoid Cali (earthquakes=BAD), love cats, and am allergic to dogs. Can we still be friends?

ouch. rejected...

lemme appeal this. what do you say we just don't allow pets in our conjugal home. besides, the pet hair is not going to be healthy for our kids. we want to have healthy kids now don't we... ooops, pardon me. looks like i've gotten ahead of myself, planning too far for the both of us.

can't we be more than friends?

[Mulan]

I don't want to have kids with anyone, and if I ever did want a kid I'd adopt one.

More than friends? Well, how would you like proof-reading the fight scenes in my novels for coherency and believability?

[squidd]

I don't want to have kids with anyone, and if I ever did want a kid I'd adopt one.

if that's what you want, that's fine with me... for as long as you are not vehemently opposed to going through that process that normal adults go through when trying to have kids... even if we won't have kids.

and if i can change your mind. i promise to take care of you and remain faithful even when you're pregnant.

More than friends? Well, how would you like proof-reading the fight scenes in my novels for coherency and believability?

why surely. i've edited marketing books in the past. i'm a freelance writer and i run a publicity firm.

[Mulan]

if that's what you want, that's fine with me... for as long as you are not vehemently opposed to going through that process that normal adults go through when trying to have kids... even if we won't have kids.

Oh sex is a wonderful thing, however for me it is highly tied to my spirituality and sense of identity, and therefore only to be done with people I'm very very very very insanely compatible with.

why surely. i've edited marketing books in the past. i'm a freelance writer and i run a publicity firm.

Oh goodie!! Cause I'm like in the 3rd wave of re-editing a fantasy novel I want to try to get published!

[Thai Bri]

He's writing a fantasy novel you know.

You should do - you're in it.

[mrniceguy148]

aw c'mon. live up to your name mr. nice guy... while you've been givin mulan all this hatin', i'm doing the oposite and givin her some lovin.

Hi squidd,

I'll be getting around to that eventually I guess, but for right now I've still got a few bullets left in my chamber.

[mrniceguy148]

(quick recap of thread for those that missed it)

mrniceguy148: women don't have any power.
Mulan: yes they do.
mrniceguy148: well, women shouldn't have any power.
Mulan: you're saying women shouldn't have any power.
mrniceguy148: no, I am saying women shouldn't have any power.
Mulan: but you are saying women shouldn't have any power!
mrniceguy148: yes, yes I am.
Mulan: I knew it!!
mrniceguy: ...?
Mulan: .......!!!

When I first saw this I knew something was wrong. Here's how my part should read:

Rich men have lots of power
Rich women have lots of power.

Middle class men have very little power
Middle class women have slightly more than very little power.

Poor men have no power.
Poor women have slightly more than no power.

Power isn't a gender issue. It's an economic issue. When rich feminists trash the rights and opportunities of poor guys, does that seem fair? If you answered "NO" than you're not a feminist and you're for equal opportunity for all! All famlies, that is! Not cry baby spoiled rich girls...........

Hope that this sets the record straight......

[mrniceguy148]

Hmm, ok, do you think mrniceguy148's plan of having males take precedence over females in the workforce will ensure that by 2012 America will be ruled by evil gay overlords from two-man-income households?

Hey, not so fast! This is your plan, not mine? Looks to me like some kind of mutation resulting from the feminist plan to outlaw marriage and castrate fathers by 2009. I thought you knew that I'm a "Father Knows Best" kind of guy. Leave me out of this one! Please! LOL !!

[mrniceguy148]

I don't really concern myself with worrying guys like that can vote. I mean, voting to me is about giving everybody a say, and at the end of the day you hope the sane people win. Sometimes that doesn't happen, but that's why there's always November '04 hehehe. Anyhow, this debate isn't really going anywhere. Defending women in the workforce and rationalizing correlations was bizzare enough, but the women voting thing is the last straw and I just can't take this topic seriously anymore. All I can really say is... you can go angry and bitter like that to your grave if you choose to, but WE (the majority of this generation's men and women) rather like the way things are going, and are really looking forward to the future. That is, a future where all the current tweaks in the non-equalities (such as differences in standards) are worked out and everyone has opportunities open to them based on ability rather than race, sex, or anything else. No society is perfect, but most of us like the pro's and con's of the current one rather than the pro's and con's of the one 40-50 years ago.

There is no battle of the sexes. The sexes are equal and interdependent and they always have been. It's just that "civilized" society and written laws are finally catching up to something that's as ancient as the human species. I would hope the majority of males are increasingly not threatened by women who are their equals in mind, opportunities, or even income, and want partners with their own personalities, opinions, and goals. If the two of them choose to have children, the father and mother would raise them together. Not mold them into a prescribed stereotype of what they should be, but encourage them to be themselves and develop their own dreams. This is something that has been denied both men and women in USA's past. It won't create a perfect world, and it won't happen overnight, but it will create a world full of individuals instead of cookiecutter clones. Those individuals would be like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that seek the one that fits them just right. They might make mistakes, but once they found the right person, the payoff would be phenomenal. Raising children is not an end in itself for either men or women. It is about raising human beings who will be autonomous for the greater majority of their lives, and deserve the equal chance to do with their lives whatever they want.

That is a world I hope we are working towards. Why do I have to resort to corny sentences to say something I feel is self-evident to most current-generation people. XD If you believe a woman would only want you to support her or for your income, then either you have a self-esteem problem or you've met the wrong kinds of women. Marriage to me is not a financial arrangement, it's an emotional one based on deep personal compatibility. Human society is based on change. Obviously somebody wasn't happy with the 50's/60's society, so they changed it. If enough people aren't happy with this one, they'll change it too. That's what democracy (and benevolent dictatorship) is all about!

You're right! We might as well fiddle while Rome continues to burn! Our society is just so friggin' happy right now that that we're divorcing eachother left and right. God help us when the next generation decides to scrap this whole mess and start all over again! I just can't wait to see how that will all turn out! Party on ya' nincompoops.........

[Mulan]

Power isn't a gender issue. It's an economic issue. When rich feminists trash the rights and opportunities of poor guys, does that seem fair? If you answered "NO" than you're not a feminist and you're for equal opportunity for all! All famlies, that is! Not cry baby spoiled rich girls...........

According to you, mr-"it's-either-us-or-them"-guy148, power is a gender issue. Battle of the sexes and all... What'r you... 40? 50? And you still think this way? Sheesh.

I never said I was a feminist, you called me a feminist. I couldn't give a damn about any -isms myself, but I do believe in equality between all human beings. Not families, but individual human beings, without whom families would not exist. And that means equal opportunity based on individual ability in all aspects of life for anybody that chooses to pursue them.

Hey, not so fast! This is your plan, not mine? Looks to me like some kind of mutation resulting from the feminist plan to outlaw marriage and castrate fathers by 2009. I thought you knew that I'm a "Father Knows Best" kind of guy. Leave me out of this one! Please! LOL !!

No, it refers to homosexual marriages and/or civil unions. If you want to say that opportunity in the workplace should be based on giving married men precedence over married or single women because you choose to assume that the man will be the sole or main breadwinner in the family, then that would leave single mothers and lesbian couples SOL, and would favor gay couples. Your plan makes the assumption of a "traditional" family, which is as naive and idealistic to assume now as it was back then. Families come in many shapes and sizes... always have and always will. You choose not to see this fact and prefer to think in terms of cookiecutter model families where every individual has a culturally perscribed role to play whether they like it or not. This rigid structure, in turn, ensures that the family members learn to get along no matter what their personal feelings are because there is no other viable alternative.

You're right! We might as well fiddle while Rome continues to burn! Our society is just so friggin' happy right now that that we're divorcing eachother left and right. God help us when the next generation decides to scrap this whole mess and start all over again! I just can't wait to see how that will all turn out! Party on ya' nincompoops.........

No, your Rome is burning, and good riddance. Our society now isn't happy or unhappy, it is honest with itself and does not hide behind shiny happy ideals of forced marital bliss that never existed. If women were as educated and financially independent then as they are now and simply chose to stay at home instead of work, divorces would happen just as often. Divorce isn't a measure of unhappiness in a society any more than real happiness being measured by an excess of stuff that you don't need. Divorce is a measure of incompatibility between two individuals, and the measures of uncompatibility are more complicated and less taboo today than they were back then. It's harder to find a person compatible with oneself today than it was before, because individuals are more unique now. There are no rulebooks that tell you how to live with complicated individuals that don't fit into neat little conceptual boxes, it is something people find out for themselves through experience.

We don't have an egalitarian society yet. We are definitely on the road towards one, but we're not there yet. People still have conceptual baggage and ideological dissonance in the back of their heads. Gender-typing is deeply ingrained into our culture. Much of the gender conflict going on now is the old patterns clashing with the new (duh). It takes time, but people are making great progress in redefining themselves and their place in society. Minds are expanding towards other cultures, a global community, different perspectives, the environment, and unprecedented freedom. In my opinion we are living in monumental times of change, and even though the old ways are in their valiant death throes, a new dawn is breaking for humanity as a whole, and the future is bright.

I feel good about it, and you understandably don't, but that is the nature of change...

[mrniceguy148]

According to you, mr-"it's-either-us-or-them"-guy148, power is a gender issue. Battle of the sexes and all... What'r you... 40? 50? And you still think this way? Sheesh.

I never said I was a feminist, you called me a feminist. I couldn't give a damn about any -isms myself, but I do believe in equality between all human beings. Not families, but individual human beings, without whom families would not exist. And that means equal opportunity based on individual ability in all aspects of life for anybody that chooses to pursue them....

Okay, then! Show me exactly where I said that power is a gender issue?

How could I possibly have said that when I've known for years that many women have more power than me and most men as well; if for no other reason than because those rich women were born into a rich family and were given a gold plated education from a first class university! How the hell is Joe Average (or below) supposed to compete with that, huh?! Where's your precious egalitarian equality coming from and who does it really benefit? They tried egalitarianism once in the USSR and I'm sure you're familiar with the disastrous consequences.

You've been missing my whole point right from the beginning. I've been talking economics and class issues (and, yes, gender issues are a big part of the mix) while you've been going off on some airy-fairy-pie-in-the-sky egalitarian utopia shit where single mom's and gay couples outnumber traditional nuclear families, where filthy-rich white women are considered economically oppressed while poor married white men are considered plunderers and where women and men all look, think and act the same! To that, I say WTF! What planet are you from anyway? There's not, or never will be, such a thing as "equal opportunity for all" and many times (even in the chauvanistic 1950"s) it's the rich and upper middle class men and WOMEN who actually take the lion's share

The problem with everything you say is that it isn't grounded by any economic or moral conviction. Yours is a plan for "chaos" and not "freedom"; at least not the kind of "freedom" that built this nation. Your philosophy also ignores the fact that most people are destined to live out their lives as "wage slaves" trapped in boring occupations simply because there's only so much room at the top -- no matter how many people make it through college. And you also ignore the fact that most women still actually want nothing more than to get married and have children. But nnnooooo! All that you keep harping on is finding every silly excuse why a women should leave her husband and go off with the kids to fulfill her destiny of becoming a "great scientist or doctor". Please!

You can call yourself whatever you like, but your ideas are "feminist" to the core and that's why I refer to you as such.

I made a mistake when I said, "it's either us or them". What I meant was, "it's either me or them" because I'm about the only guy left in this country who actually still gives a damn. The fact of the matter is that our society has already been corrupted beyond repair by people who think just like you. Hey, it's over -- okay! Go ahead! Become a cop or a five star general! Knock yourself out! At least I'll get a good laugh seeing how ridiculous you'll probably look being dressed in a man's uniform. This country has gone absolutely bonkers. It's really hard to take sometimes.

Lastly, if, as you say your for, "equal opportunity based on individual ability in all aspects of life for anybody that chooses to pursue them" than you could never have supported those first few women who forced themselves upon the Citadel, or you wouldn't have said that employers shouldn't be allowed to ask for gender and race information on a job application! The Citadel disaster was a quota scheme right from the get-go, and certainly not an example of "equal opportunity based on ability" What about the guys who were rejected in order to make room for those girls, but who were probably more qualified. As far as the job application thing goes, why is your right to an 'equal employment opportunity" more important than an employer's right to know all the facts about a person before agreeing to pay him or her a salary? I gotta hear this one...........

No, Mulan's definition of "freedom" is actually jury rigged, first and foremost, to benefit Mulan , and screw the rest of the world.....

No, it refers to homosexual marriages and/or civil unions. If you want to say that opportunity in the workplace should be based on giving married men precedence over married or single women because you choose to assume that the man will be the sole or main breadwinner in the family, then that would leave single mothers and lesbian couples SOL, and would favor gay couples. Your plan makes the assumption of a "traditional" family, which is as naive and idealistic to assume now as it was back then. Families come in many shapes and sizes... always have and always will. You choose not to see this fact and prefer to think in terms of cookiecutter model families where every individual has a culturally perscribed role to play whether they like it or not. This rigid structure, in turn, ensures that the family members learn to get along no matter what their personal feelings are because there is no other viable alternative....

--Alternate lifestyles are fine but there should also be a built in punishment mechanism for choosing those lifestyles. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Americans opt for the "cookiecutter model" because, for most people, it seems to be the most desirable way to live. However, alternate lifestyles are often the result of a failure of the parents involevd to "love, honor and cherish till death do us part". It's an essential concept if a couple is serious about making a marriage work.

I don't believe that men and women are equal, per se. I think that they are equal and opposites parts of a whole. I believe that the financial burden should be mostly the man's responsibility while the domestic and child rearing should be mostly the women's domain. However, if the guy abuses the women and the marriage has to end because of it then he should lose the kids, the house and he should be required to pay through the nose to support his family. On the other hand, it the women breaks off the marriage without just cause than she be forced to leave the family and get nothing. Gay and lesbian couples shouldn't need as much income because they probably won't be supporting any children.

However, like you, after seeing all these senselsess divorces by spoiled and selfish people, and hearing about some of the abuses, I'm really beginning to wonder if men and women were only meant to live together long enough to have a few kids and then move on to a new relationship. In that case we should just do away with all marriage contracts, as well as all child support and alamony laws and just make it one big "free-for-all". In that scenario we should probably be paying working women more than the men because they'll be stuck with the kids. In the future, the abolition of the traditional marriage might be the only thing that we can do.........

No, your Rome is burning, and good riddance. Our society now isn't happy or unhappy, it is honest with itself and does not hide behind shiny happy ideals of forced marital bliss that never existed. If women were as educated and financially independent then as they are now and simply chose to stay at home instead of work, divorces would happen just as often. Divorce isn't a measure of unhappiness in a society any more than real happiness being measured by an excess of stuff that you don't need. Divorce is a measure of incompatibility between two individuals, and the measures of uncompatibility are more complicated and less taboo today than they were back then. It's harder to find a person compatible with oneself today than it was before, because individuals are more unique now. There are no rulebooks that tell you how to live with complicated individuals that don't fit into neat little conceptual boxes, it is something people find out for themselves through experience.

We don't have an egalitarian society yet. We are definitely on the road towards one, but we're not there yet. People still have conceptual baggage and ideological dissonance in the back of their heads. Gender-typing is deeply ingrained into our culture. Much of the gender conflict going on now is the old patterns clashing with the new (duh). It takes time, but people are making great progress in redefining themselves and their place in society. Minds are expanding towards other cultures, a global community, different perspectives, the environment, and unprecedented freedom. In my opinion we are living in monumental times of change, and even though the old ways are in their valiant death throes, a new dawn is breaking for humanity as a whole, and the future is bright.

I feel good about it, and you understandably don't, but that is the nature of change...

-- Hey you can actually live in an egalitarian society right now if you want to!
Try China on for size! Or maybe Columbia? Don't forget to write!

[Mulan]

Okay, then! Show me exactly where I said that power is a gender issue?

In practically every one of your posts you said that if you had your way, women would be taken out of all positions of power outside the home.

How could I possibly have said that when I've known for years that many women have more power than me and most men as well; if for no other reason than because those rich women were born into a rich family and were given a gold plated education from a first class university! How the hell is Joe Average (or below) supposed to compete with that, huh?! Where's your precious egalitarian equality coming from and who does it really benefit?

Rich families don't have sons, I take it? My big annoyance with you is that you keep targeting the women and blame them for all of society's problems. Why aren't you complaining that blacks or Asians or Hispanics are taking your jobs and your college spots? Why not blame society's problems on them if you can't take responsibility for your own life?

Average women have to compete with rich women too, and rich men for that matter, so? Egalitarian equality is equality between the sexes, not between economic classes. There are both men and women in every economic class. Equality between economic classes is a totally different issue. If all men and all women wanted to work, there'd just be more competition, but this doesn't mean that all men or all women choose to work.

An egalitarian society benefits the most determined and competitive people regardless of sex. Just because somebody can go to college, doesn't mean they'll succeed and it also doesn't mean they'll end up doing the job they studied for. PUblic schools are available for everyone and there are scholarship programs there for those that are serious and dedicated to their education, and scholarships favor lower economic classes.

They tried egalitarianism once in the USSR and I'm sure you're familiar with the disastrous consequences.

?? lol. What happened in USSR had nothing to do with working women, I thought we were past that. It wasn't exactly egalitarian anyway; the laws were, not people's minds... as I thought I made quite clear with my experiences.

I've been talking economics and class issues (and, yes, gender issues are a big part of the mix) while you've been going off on some airy-fairy-pie-in-the-sky egalitarian utopia shit where single mom's and gay couples outnumber traditional nuclear families, where filthy-rich white women are considered economically oppressed while poor married white men are considered plunderers and where women and men all look, think and act the same!

Um, no, that's your biased interpertation of my perspective. "Equal opportunity for all" does not equate with Utopia or single moms or homosexual couples outnumbering anybody else. It means just what it says.

The problem with everything you say is that it isn't grounded by any economic or moral conviction. Yours is a plan for "chaos" and not "freedom"; at least not the kind of "freedom" that built this nation.

It is grounded in very strong moral conviction that everybody deserves to do with their lives whatever they choose to. The "chaos" and "freedom" is grounded in economic convictions that the more people are educated and in the job market, the more minds and potentials we are tapping for the most efficient progress in all fields with the most qualified people filling the positions. It is also grounded in competitiveness so that people and society is constantly bettering itself and striving for higher goals. For the most part, this stystem regulates and balances itself, and that which it does not regulate or balance can be taken care of through government programs (scholarships, more reasonable education fees, etc).

I hope you understand that I see your view as not grounded in rational morality and is supported by economic convictions that only benefit you. You are trying to make a dynamic and diverse world fit into a rigid, stagnant box that could never contain it. Reality is just too big for your comfort zone, and I'm sorry that you can't comprehend this. Fortunately, reality is big enough for everybody, yourself included.

Your philosophy also ignores the fact that most people are destined to live out their lives as "wage slaves" trapped in boring occupations simply because there's only so much room at the top -- no matter how many people make it through college. And you also ignore the fact that most women still actually want nothing more than to get married and have children.

Yes, most people, rich/average/poor, are destined to live out their lives in boring jobs. Most people don't have many goals in life or brilliant ideas. What the system does make sure of, is that those that do have the goals, the intelligence, and the determination, get to realize that potential. It benefits the most dedicated; those that are the most innovative and enthusiastic, and those that work the hardest to benefit their fields.

Yes, most women still want to get married and have children, which is no different from most men. If you are trying to say that most women or men want nothing more than that, then you are very wrong. Both men and women of my generation also want a holistic life inside and outside the home. They believe they can take care of children and pursue their interests, and that the two are not in conflict. They believe their children need strong, confident, assertive male and female role models if they are to grow up into productive citizens.

There are some men and women out there that do indeed want nothing more than to raise children, and that's fine and dandy too. That is their choice, and nobody is stopping them,but they also don't have a right to stop others from choosing something different. Nobody is talking about making men into women or women into men... that idea makes no sense to me except in cases of sex change. You are stuck in your ideological definitions of "men" and "women" which are just that: cultural ideals. They are not what individuals of either sex inherently are.

An egalitarian system simply raises individuals and pays little attention to what sex they are. If after being raised this way (which is not happening yet, mind you) a majority of women still just want to stay home and raise kids (which is also not happening, not even today), and a majority of men still just want to go and work their asses off pretending they're being great fathers by feeding their kids money, then that's fine. But that in no way invalidates the basic principle that those women that do want to compete in the workforce should have equal opportunity, and those men that don't, can be great fathers; or they can both work. This system does not stop your ideal family for those that want it... it just allows for many other options to be equally viable for those that don't.

I made a mistake when I said, "it's either us or them". What I meant was, "it's either me or them" because I'm about the only guy left in this country who actually still gives a damn. The fact of the matter is that our society has already been corrupted beyond repair by people who think just like you. Hey, it's over -- okay! Go ahead! Become a cop or a five star general! Knock yourself out! At least I'll get a good laugh seeing how ridiculous you'll probably look being dressed in a man's uniform. This country has gone absolutely bonkers. It's really hard to take sometimes.

You are a sad, twisted, bitter little man... O.o;;

Lastly, if, as you say your for, "equal opportunity based on individual ability in all aspects of life for anybody that chooses to pursue them" than you could never have supported those first few women who forced themselves upon the Citadel, or you wouldn't have said that employers shouldn't be allowed to ask for gender and race information on a job application!

I already said a while back that the women in the Citadel should have followed the same rules and met the same standards as the men, but they should have been allowed in. No, equal opportunity means employers shouldn't hire people based on race or sex information. I don't see how a self-proclaimed "98-pound weakling" is the most qualified person for a construction job either, but there you are, probably because you've met or passed the mnimium requirements needed to safely and efficiently do the job. Same goes for the women.

As far as the job application thing goes, why is your right to an 'equal employment opportunity" more important than an employer's right to know all the facts about a person before agreeing to pay him or her a salary? I gotta hear this one...........

I don't see why an employer needs to know information not relevant to job performance if the employer seeks to hire the best person for the job. Anything else is favoritism. If we didn't have racial or gender biases in our culture, then the race and sex information would've simply been irrelevant int he employer's mind and as such it would be harmless to put those on a job application. However, our society still has racial and sex biases, and therefore leaving race and sex (and sexual prefference) is among the best ways to ensure that the most qualified person gets hired without resorting to quotas. I believe employees should have as much rights as the employers in the process, especially in federal jobs and big businesses.

Alternate lifestyles are fine but there should also be a built in punishment mechanism for choosing those lifestyles.

For "choosing" those lifestyles?? Need I say more...

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Americans opt for the "cookiecutter model" because, for most people, it seems to be the most desirable way to live.

Umm, not anymore it's not. Families are more complicated and egalitarian now, especially of the current generation. "Alternative lifestyles" being linked to divorce is your speculation, not in any way fact, and quite far from the scientific data of it being genetic. Gay and lesbian couples often choose to adopt and raise children. I find marriage a silly institution myself. I respect intensity of actual emotional and spiritual bonds far more than I do some piece of paper or contract. I don't need external verification of my love for somebody or their love for me.

However, there's no need at all to abolish it. Lots of people like marriage and want to get married, and there's some nice financial benefits to that, and that's great! But even in a hypothetical "free-for-all" the guy would still have responsibility for the kid. A kid is not the woman's responsibility, it is the responsibility of both parents since it takes two to make one. Any biases in mothers getting the kids after a divorce should be eliminated. The kid(s) should go to the most suitable parent in the case of a divorce.

[mrniceguy148]

In practically every one of your posts you said that if you had your way, women would be taken out of all positions of power outside the home..

-- I never said that. However, I did say that I’d like to see women not working in fields like law, law enforcement, and management, etc.,.. and any field that was once considered to be male occupations. That’s not a power issue though. Actually, you turned it into a power issue by making the assumption that women, regardless of economic class, are powerless unless they are working. The fact of the matter is that power and freedom, as defined buy US living standards, is often determined by economic class and that usually translates into a situation where a person (man or women) born into the upper classes has more advantages and helpful contacts than a person born into a lower class situation. That’s why I say that the feminist assumption that women are an oppressed class is a total lie. Since when does a male gardener have more power than his idle rich female employer?

Rich families don't have sons, I take it? My big annoyance with you is that you keep targeting the women and blame them for all of society's problems. Why aren't you complaining that blacks or Asians or Hispanics are taking your jobs and your college spots? Why not blame society's problems on them if you can't take responsibility for your own life?..

-- Obviously rich families have sons. Did I ever say otherwise? Also, I actually do take responsibility for my life and I’ve been doing just that since I was in high school. I’ve had to work for my supper since I was 16 and I wasn’t lucky enough to be born into a stable family that could support me so I’d be able to just walk off my job and enroll in college Many people are in exactly the same situation! For people like me, higher education isn’t an option because we’re “wage slaves” and because tuition costs are too high for part-time students. All the grants and scholarships in the world can’t help a person who’s locked into a situation where he or she is forced to work full time at a low wage. That’s just the way it is. I’ve never had the luxury of ever being able to just stop working and actually take the time to attend college. Like I said, some people are born into financial freedom, so they have options, and others are just plane stuck with whatever life throws their way. There’s some “oppressed and disadvantaged women” running around out there who’ve had educational opportunities that most guys can only dream about. Fortunately, I’m finally getting some financial security for myself, but it took long enough and it sure as hell was much harder for me than it has been for most people who I know……… Also, I hate the idea of knowing that my road was “easy street” compared to all the obstacles that more and more young people will have working against them.

However, I don’t think that government has any business trying to even out the wealth gap between rich and poor. The result could only end up being another USSR style disaster. However, up until about thirty-five years ago, our society regulated wealth distribution as best it could by encouraging a strong family unit and with defined gender roles that assumed that the husband would be the main breadwinner. The system certainly wasn’t prefect. Obviously the black families were unfairly excluded from the available opportunities, but it was the most equitable and practical way of seeing that as many people as possible had a chance to share in America’s prosperity. As job opportunities became available men were promoted into those positions, thus lifting whole families out of poverty and into prosperity. However, now when a women takes a job in a traditionally male field she’s taking a job from a guy who probably has, or will have, a family to support. So the male breadwinner gets shafted just so some women can earn a second income for her family or, even worse, so she use the job as a springboard to dissolve her marriage. I just don’t think that’s right.

As far as single women and lesbians are concerned? We have plenty of need for women in teaching, nursing and health care and those jobs pay pretty well. My mother was a stewardess, and later a teacher, before she married my father. Then she gave it all up to raise a family. Way to go Mom!

The hard fact is that right now our society is educating more people than our economy can possibly incorporate into the system. I was trained to be a computer programmer but after school I ended up selling shoes because I was trained in a field with few entry level openings. It wasn’t that I wasn’t the best person for the job. The problem was simply that I was never even given the chance to prove myself; not even at minimum wage. I tried to enter a field that was totally saturated with qualified workers. i.e.,. “market saturation”. In contrast, my grandfather dropped out of school in the 6th grade but his lack of education didn’t stop him from rising to become president and CEO of a company in NYC. However, today our society is so hung up on degrees and formal education that most people are barred from even competing for jobs. If I thought that it would do any good then I’d go to my local college, buy the law books, study on my own and then go take the bar exam. Abraham Lincoln had the freedom to do that but I obviously don’t.

I don’t blame women for all societies problems because many of our problems are a direct result of big government mismanagement and outright stupidity. However, I target women here because they are the ones who often still pressure guys into getting married, then they buy into a bunch of feminist propaganda which acts as a cancer that destroys spousal and family relations. The fact is, thanks to feminist brainwashing, today’s women are generally more self-centered, more vindictive, and less forgiving than women from earlier generations and the make-up of our workforce and the resulting high divorce rate is a direct reflection of that anger and insecurity. The media used to refer to this as “the battle of the sexes”, but it was never actually a “battle” but more like an “ambush and massacre”. When women get mad, and act like spoiled children, the guys just cave in; and that’s been the pattern with gender relations over the passed thirty five years or so. It’s sad to see such moral cowardice coming from the men of this country!

Right now our economy is still riding on the momentum of post WWII prosperity but we’ve been seeing signs that our global economic dominance is nearing it’s end. Things like corporate downsizing, more efficient production methods, free trade and huge trade deficits, outsourcing of US jobs to offshore workers, environmental regulations illegal immigration, etc.,. all chip away at our economic base and make me doubtful that our economy will continue to be able to supply a job worth having to everyone who wants to work In that case, how do we divide a limited supply of opportunities among the greatest amount of deserving people? Personally, I don’t see where egalitarianism (or feminism) provides an acceptable answer to that question.

Understand, this whole notion of women entering fields that were traditionally considered male occupations wasn’t something that our society either needed or wanted. Instead, it was something that radical women’s groups just demanded, and succeeded in getting, through pressure from politicians and activist groups. In reality, our economy was already the best in the world long before women got into the act. We didn’t need women then in order to be the best and we’d be doing just fine without them now. So why are they even there? I'd imagine it's just a combination of greed and penis envy. LOL !!

















.

[mrniceguy148]

Average women have to compete with rich women too, and rich men for that matter, so? Egalitarian equality is equality between the sexes, not between economic classes. There are both men and women in every economic class. Equality between economic classes is a totally different issue. If all men and all women wanted to work, there'd just be more competition, but this doesn't mean that all men or all women choose to work

An egalitarian society benefits the most determined and competitive people regardless of sex. Just because somebody can go to college, doesn't mean they'll succeed and it also doesn't mean they'll end up doing the job they studied for. PUblic schools are available for everyone and there are scholarship programs there for those that are serious and dedicated to their education, and scholarships favor lower economic classes..

--- WRONG ! WRONG ! WRONG !

From Webster’s II dictionary:

Egalitarian: An adherent of the doctrine of equal political, ECONOMIC, and legal rights of all human beings.

As I said before, we don’t have a system of equal economic rights and opportunity in this country due to class differences, and those class differences are becoming wider. This has nothing to do with the oppression of women and it‘s certainly not egalitarianism.. So as I see it, you’re actually advocating that rich and educated families (i.e., those men and women) get first crack at all the best opportunities, followed by the middle class men and women; leaving the lower classes stuck at the bottom. Your egalitarianism is actually opportunity based on affluence, which is exactly the thing that’s killing the dream of upward mobility in this country right now

?? lol. What happened in USSR had nothing to do with working women, I thought we were past that. It wasn't exactly egalitarian anyway; the laws were, not people's minds... as I thought I made quite clear with my experiences...

--Wrong again! The only way true egalitarianism (equality) can ever exist is in a nation of slaves where nobody has any rights or opportunity. That’s why I suggested that you test the waters by moving to China or Columbia. Those two countries, along with the old USSR, are all textbook examples of an egalitarian paradise.

Um, no, that's your biased interpertation of my perspective. "Equal opportunity for all" does not equate with Utopia or single moms or homosexual couples outnumbering anybody else. It means just what it says....

-- It can’t ever happen here

It is grounded in very strong moral conviction that everybody deserves to do with their lives whatever they choose to. The "chaos" and "freedom" is grounded in economic convictions that the more people are educated and in the job market, the more minds and potentials we are tapping for the most efficient progress in all fields with the most qualified people filling the positions. It is also grounded in competitiveness so that people and society is constantly bettering itself and striving for higher goals. For the most part, this stystem regulates and balances itself, and that which it does not regulate or balance can be taken care of through government programs (scholarships, more reasonable education fees, etc).

I hope you understand that I see your view as not grounded in rational morality and is supported by economic convictions that only benefit you. You are trying to make a dynamic and diverse world fit into a rigid, stagnant box that could never contain it. Reality is just too big for your comfort zone, and I'm sorry that you can't comprehend this. Fortunately, reality is big enough for everybody, yourself included.....

-- Your philosophy would jeopardize the stability of millions of families in order to find the one women who might invent a new hangover remedy. Big friggin’ deal! At some point open competition becomes more destructive than helpful. There’s the “straight and narrow” road to happiness and then there’s many roads leading to misery.

Like I said before, our economy was the best in the world before women started moving into non-traditional occupations and it would probably be better off now if they had just stayed out. We had plenty of geniuses then and we have more than enough now. The fact of the matter is that this country isn’t some proletariat land marsh where it takes 1,000 rice pickers to collect a wheelbarrow’s worth of rice. US industry has been busy downsizing and streamlining it’s labor force while increasing productivity. Your philosophy is off base because the nature of capitalism has changed in recent years and you’re assuming that economic conditions will always remain as they are now. I assure you, they will not! Maybe you’ll figure it out someday after your job is eliminated through downsizing, leaving you flipping burgers someplace.

You’re right about the “self regulating” nature of our little egalitarian folly. When enough people are burned by it them maybe they’ll wise up and figure out what people like me have known all along: That is, it all begins and ends with family stability and defined gender roles!

You are a sad, twisted, bitter little man... O.o;;.

What can I say? I think you’re pretty warped yourself!

I already said a while back that the women in the Citadel should have followed the same rules and met the same standards as the men, but they should have been allowed in. No, equal opportunity means employers shouldn't hire people based on race or sex information. I don't see how a self-proclaimed "98-pound weakling" is the most qualified person for a construction job either, but there you are, probably because you've met or passed the mnimium requirements needed to safely and efficiently do the job. Same goes for the women.

-- This 98 pound weakling works in the bread business. Due to the extreme physical nature of my job it would be unsuitable for most women. However, there are many men who could do my job faster and better than I do, but it really doesn’t matter too much because if I screw up the worst thing that might happen is that I’ll spill a stack of bread trays. However, a physically weaker female cop or firefighter is an unnecessary danger to herself, her partner and to the people she’s trying to protect. Show me a strong women and I’ll show you a much stronger man. That’s why I say that women don’t belong in these types of fields; because lives are at stake and physical strength is a necessary part of the job! Here are two fields where we absolutely do need the best and the strongest! Women just don’t fit the job description!

I don't see why an employer needs to know information not relevant to job performance if the employer seeks to hire the best person for the job. Anything else is favoritism. If we didn't have racial or gender biases in our culture, then the race and sex information would've simply been irrelevant int he employer's mind and as such it would be harmless to put those on a job application. However, our society still has racial and sex biases, and therefore leaving race and sex (and sexual prefference) is among the best ways to ensure that the most qualified person gets hired without resorting to quotas. I believe employees should have as much rights as the employers in the process, especially in federal jobs and big businesses..

-- You obviously have no understanding of the American right to private property and property ownership. Understand, if Aryan Nation decides that they don’t want to hire a black or a Jew to design their web-site then they have a perfect right to ask for racial information on a job application! Get the picture? A business is a private entity, and not a public service, and private business has the right to ask for any information that they want to know! Even Aryan Nation has property rights! However, Government still needs race and gender information for the purpose of filling quotas.

[Mulan]

I never said that. However, I did say that I’d like to see women not working in fields like law, law enforcement, and management, etc.,.. and any field that was once considered to be male occupations. That’s not a power issue though.

Well, good that our society doesn't give out jobs based on what you'd like or wouldn't like. The bottom line is, if a woman or a man is able to be a lawyer, a manager, a doctor, and fits the requirements of being in law enforcement, there is no rational reason to not give them equal opportunity if they choose to pursue it - empty assumptions don't count. Law enforcement is more than beating somebody to a pulp with hand to hand. Just like in the military, it mostly involves weapons. It also requires social skills/perception, attention to detail (clues), and problem-solving skills. There are some female cops out there that are better overall than some male cops, and there are some male cops that are better overall than some female cops. There is no huge rift between qualified male and female cops or soldiers.

Actually, you turned it into a power issue by making the assumption that women, regardless of economic class, are powerless unless they are working. The fact of the matter is that power and freedom, as defined buy US living standards, is often determined by economic class and that usually translates into a situation where a person (man or women) born into the upper classes has more advantages and helpful contacts than a person born into a lower class situation.

I never said women or men are powerless or oppressed, unless they are working. I said that women and men of any ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion are oppressed if they do not have equal opportunity (based on whatever standards a society sets at the time) to take part in any aspect of life, public and domestic, if they choose to pursue it. Equal access to resources (economic equality between classes) is part of the definition of egalitarianism, but what you are making this thread about is equal opportunity between men and women (since all economic classes have men and women). Class issues are a different topic - a very important topic that should be addressed in its own right, but a wholly different topic.

As job opportunities became available men were promoted into those positions, thus lifting whole families out of poverty and into prosperity. However, now when a women takes a job in a traditionally male field she’s taking a job from a guy who probably has, or will have, a family to support. So the male breadwinner gets shafted just so some women can earn a second income for her family or, even worse, so she use the job as a springboard to dissolve her marriage.

That system works fine in the cookiecutter model and if you exclude non-whites from equal opportunity, but that just isn't the case anymore. Hell, it wasn't even the case back then. The only people that system benefits is those following the cookiecutter model. This is a very limited, rigid, and ultimately unstable approach because it doesn't account for the sheer reality that many people don't, can't, or won't follow a forced ideal. The only way to make such a system work is by forcing it and infringing on individual rights. And you keep making annoying assumptions about people and motivations that you don't know. How do you know the woman going for the high-paying position is earning a "second" income, how do you know she's not the breadwinner, how is her getting it going to benefit her family any less than her husband getting it? You are making no sense and arguing off of unfounded assumptions.

However, I target women here because they are the ones who often still pressure guys into getting married, then they buy into a bunch of feminist propaganda which acts as a cancer that destroys spousal and family relations. The fact is, thanks to feminist brainwashing, today’s women are generally more self-centered, more vindictive, and less forgiving than women from earlier generations and the make-up of our workforce and the resulting high divorce rate is a direct reflection of that anger and insecurity. The media used to refer to this as “the battle of the sexes”, but it was never actually a “battle” but more like an “ambush and massacre”. When women get mad, and act like spoiled children, the guys just cave in; and that’s been the pattern with gender relations over the passed thirty five years or so. It’s sad to see such moral cowardice coming from the men of this country!

That is so full of outright sexism and flawed correlations it's almost laughable. Sounds more like you're the one getting mad and acting like a spoiled child when a girl doesn't put up with your crap anymore. Boo hoo...

Understand, this whole notion of women entering fields that were traditionally considered male occupations wasn’t something that our society either needed or wanted. Instead, it was something that radical women’s groups just demanded, and succeeded in getting, through pressure from politicians and activist groups. In reality, our economy was already the best in the world long before women got into the act. We didn’t need women then in order to be the best and we’d be doing just fine without them now.

I could pick this apart but really just replace every word "women" with "minorities," add "white caucasian" to every word "male."

So why are they even there? I'd imagine it's just a combination of greed and penis envy. LOL !!

How about because they can? "Penis envy" means wanting something you don't have, and it's plain obvious that women have the intelligence, the ability, and the determination to compete with men on equal terms if they choose to. This is not a matter of you wanting or needing women or any other "minority" to have equal opportunity or to be in the workforce. This isn't about you at all. This is about basic rights every human being should have. What people do with those rights is a matter of individual choice, but the fact that those rights exist should not be questioned or sacrificed for any petty inconvenience they may cause you, since you would have the exact same rights. I repeat, egalitarianism isn't an "answer," it's a right.

You obviously have no understanding of the American right to private property and property ownership. Understand, if Aryan Nation decides that they don’t want to hire a black or a Jew to design their web-site then they have a perfect right to ask for racial information on a job application! Get the picture? A business is a private entity, and not a public service, and private business has the right to ask for any information that they want to know! Even Aryan Nation has property rights! However, Government still needs race and gender information for the purpose of filling quotas.

*snickers* If you have to bring this up as an example it only shows how weak your argument is. The example you got there is a case of racial discrimination. It is a case where race would be a relevant attribute, more important than actual ability. I do not see what other job description would need such qualifiers. For the vast majority of jobs, in a non-sexist/non-racist society, sex and race would be irrelevant compared to ability. But we are not a non-sexist/non-racist society yet, and as such employee rights should be protected, imo, otherwise we would lapse back into an era of segregation and people's lives being predetermined by their race or sex. You can't leave employees at the mercy of their employers if the employers have biases. But there is no need for quotas, either... quotas are counter equal-opportunity employment.

Wrong again! The only way true egalitarianism (equality) can ever exist is in a nation of slaves where nobody has any rights or opportunity. That’s why I suggested that you test the waters by moving to China or Columbia. Those two countries, along with the old USSR, are all textbook examples of an egalitarian paradise.

I don't know about Columbia, but USSR and China were/are only egalitarian in law, not in the minds of the masses. They are not "textbook examples of an egalitarian paradise" (what does paradise have to do with anything anyway?), they are just examples you like to use to support your side. The problems in USSR and in China stem from communist dictatorship, not egalitarianism (either sexual, economic, legal, or political). This is made obvious by the fact that countries with different governemnt/economic styles, such as Sweden or Finland, are more egalitarian than the USA yet more stable and not experiencing economic or social collapse. Therefore, sexual egalitarianism is not the problem, and arguing that it is would only be another flawed correlation.