Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-10-2011, 04:59 PM
 
10,854 posts, read 9,286,124 times
Reputation: 3122

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
I'm dying laughing. Feminism is selfish. Because women should generously play a subservient role in society. And men should take that for granted. It's the proper order of things.

Do you understand that your insistence that women shouldn't be your equals is much more selfish than women wanting equality?
Of course not!

Why?

His opinion is pretty clear that personal empowerment of women is "selfish".

His own sense of and need for male superiority is so deeply ingrained in him there is no way he can see the depths of his own sense of self entitlement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-10-2011, 05:00 PM
 
Location: London
1,583 posts, read 3,672,352 times
Reputation: 1335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimbochick View Post
See here's the thing you are just not hearing, feminists don't fit into a mould, they are not all the same. I am a proud feminist, radical even, I have been with my spouse for 23 years, and I am a stay-at-home-mom, I used to have a great career, I have never had an abortion, but I am vehemently pro-choice. I have chosen this path, I was never forced by anyone to make decisions about my family or my body. My spouse treats me as an equal, he respects me to make the best decisions for myself and my family. We respect one another, no one is subservient or dominant. We share parenting, and have happy kids.

But this is what I have chosen for me. This is what works for me and my family. I would never suppose to tell any other woman how to live their life, raise their children, or treat their partner.
Shh! You're the kind of feminist they don't want to hear about. You don't fit into their stereotype!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2011, 05:04 PM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,293,746 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doobage View Post
Shh! You're the kind of feminist they don't want to hear about. You don't fit into their stereotype!
Sounds more like a libertarian to me.

Way too intelligent to be anything else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2011, 05:04 PM
 
10,854 posts, read 9,286,124 times
Reputation: 3122
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
How about those women NOT get pregnant until they have a commitment from the man? Or they pick a man that won't abandon her. Or already has children by multiple women.

If I hear "baby-daddy" one more time, I may hurl.
Then I would suggest walking around with a towel or another suitable item to clean up the mess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2011, 05:15 PM
 
10,854 posts, read 9,286,124 times
Reputation: 3122
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90sman View Post
I don't understand why some people think they're ready for a lifetime job of parenting, but don't want the commitment and stability of a marriage. It seems to me that between marriage and raising children, raising children would be more difficult and would be easier if married, and being married would also benefit the children too.
You don't understand.

So what?

Who made you judge and jury of another person's choice on how they live their lives.

The reality is even if you do decide to get married it is a coin toss if your marriage is going to survive. A marriage is a promise, sometimes with the best of intentions and sometimes not. It is NOT a guarantee. Being married also doesn't make you a good parent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2011, 05:16 PM
 
14,944 posts, read 8,558,182 times
Reputation: 7361
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
I actually do appreciate that you've put a considerable thought into your response. I think quite often in discussions that there are a lot of ramming heads not because people don't listen to one another, but because the foundations for having a true discourse are missing.

For instance, you consider equality to be a myth. I don't. The guy sitting at the desk in the next office, he's a fantastic athlete. A world champion, in fact. I could never duplicate his athletic achievements. We're unequal in that perspective. That guy, though, he could never duplicate some of my achievements. There are things he excels at, there are things I excel at. We are all individuals. Just because he's better at some things doesn't mean he's better than I. Just because I'm better than he at some things doesn't mean I'm better than he is. When our Founding Fathers talked about all men are equal, they didn't mean that every person was just the same as every other person. They did mean that society should value every person equally, because every person has something to contribute. My head isn't stuffed with propaganda. It's stuffed with respect for my fellow man.

You think that there is a natural order. And why wouldn't you? Men have benefited from the so-called natural order for millenia. The thing is, I haven't abandoned my "fundamental nature and instincts" at all. I've embraced them. Why would you think my fundamental nature would be to marry and have children? My fundamental nature is to challenge myself, to learn, to share ideas, even to argue with people who disagree with me. Because in that argument I have the opportunity to refine my ideas, to grow even more. My fundamental nature was never to have children. And I love children. But it would have been unfair to the world to unleash upon it a pack of brats spoiled and indulged by me.

I don't think there is a natural order. I think that different societies impose different orders, and that the people who benefit from these orders invariably see them as natural. I think that the nobility in aristocratic Europe saw the order which gave them infinite advantages thought that it was perfectly natural, that nature identified and rewarded the finer people. I think that slave-owners throughout world history perceived their ownership of other human beings as a natural order. And I think that men who've benefited for generations from a patriarchal system think that discriminating against women is perfectly rational, perfectly natural. But I suspect that the majority of serfs in aristocratic Europe didn't see anything natural about some people having everything while their families starved. The maids and servants were probably keenly aware of just how fallible their masters were, just how human. The servants could see that their masters weren't superior by nature, but only superior by opportunity. But their masters for the most part couldn't or wouldn't see that. The people on top always try to justify their superior social standing by asserting superiority in other ways. Like slave-owners asserting that slaves were sub-human. The fact is that while we are all individuals, with our own personal strengths and weaknesses, that we've progressed as human beings far enough to shun the idea that characteristics like skin color or gender can define an individual. And that any such characteristic makes us less equal than other human beings.
You seem to have a clear intelligent mind and a good grasp of common sense. And your demeanor is that of a reasonable person, and independent thinker. So I'll chalk up the confusion you seem to have about this "equality" thing as a failure on my part to adequately elucidate the point ... let me try another angle ...

Often, what is viewed as discrimination or unequal treatment is simply preference. And preferential treatment one person might receive over another can be the result of one or more of hundreds of potential variables with gender being only one factor. This also occurs within the same gender ... such as a slender attractive female getting a job instead of the less attractive, slightly overweight female that may indeed possess better credentials. The preference of the hirer made the determination that the personal appearance factor was an advantage that outweighed the more experienced person ... and even though it would certainly seem unfair to the person who was rejected, that doesn't mean it was a bad or wrong decision. Maybe the position was for a sales executive of a company that sells health products ... the slimmer, more attractive person presents a better image for the company. Should not the company be free to make those decisions? Of course they should.

This happens to men ... women ... different racial groups every day. And it's as much a part of life as is breathing. You cannot eliminate preference, nor do I think one should strive to do so. What makes one person attracted to another ... what secret formula makes a personal interview a job clinching foregone conclusion for one person, while a 40/60 prospect for another? Personal charisma ... style ... communication skills .... professional qualifications .... gut feelings .... smell ... the list goes on ... and hence there is no such thing as equality ... equality is as much a myth as is unicorns and leprechauns .... it's a fraud.

So what would you propose to do .. legislatively, from a law perspective to ensure "equality" given the hundreds of variables that are subjective preference? What if we decided that when faced with the previous hypothetical ... that the slightly overweight person was given the job over the slim more attractive person ... in order to avoid the appearance of unfairness? Wouldn't that be preferential treatment too, and unfair to the slim person? Chasing "equality" is an exercise in futility, just as much so as the desire to eliminate unfairness.

These situations often work in favor of women too you know? Let's say I own a bar, and I have an opening for a bar tender .... a very attractive woman 30 years old applies, as does a middle aged male. The woman has 5 years experience .... the man has 20 years experience. Bothe interview well and both have excellent references. I'm hiring the woman .. no doubt about it ... because I know my male clients are going to spend more money at the bar with an attractive female bartender .. and the women are too. It's as simple as that. Is that fair for the guy? Hell no ... but that's life ... it is inherently unfair. I feel it is supremely unfair that the stork didn't drop me off at the Trump house ... and chose instead to deliver me to the working poor

The other angle to this whole "equality" and "fairness" thing is this ... you will find evidence for whatever it is you are looking specifically for. And if you search for examples of women being denied something based on their gender, you will find plenty of those examples. At the same time, there may be even more examples of women receiving preferential treatment and consideration based on them being women, as in the bartender example.

I'll tell you this ... if a man and a woman of equal qualification applies for a job today ... I'm putting my money on the woman, and you can put as much money on the table as you care to and I'll match it! Excluding the no brainer situations like if the job was furniture delvery and the guy is 6' 2", 220 lbs and the women 5' 2" and 105 lbs. I'm talking about business positions .... the woman has an extreme advantage ... particularly in competition with a white male.

What do they say about someone who has great taste? They have "discriminating taste" ? Discrimination is a preference ... and in business ... businesses make decisions based on what they perceive to be the best decision for the bottom line.

You'll never eliminate preference ... and I suggest to you that if you did ... women would come out as net losers ... not winners.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2011, 05:51 PM
 
21,026 posts, read 22,117,192 times
Reputation: 5941
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
You seem to have a clear intelligent mind and a good grasp of common sense. And your demeanor is that of a reasonable person, and independent thinker. So I'll chalk up the confusion you seem to have about this "equality" thing as a failure on my part to adequately elucidate the point ... let me try another angle ...

Often, what is viewed as discrimination or unequal treatment is simply preference. And preferential treatment one person might receive over another can be the result of one or more of hundreds of potential variables with gender being only one factor. This also occurs within the same gender ... such as a slender attractive female getting a job instead of the less attractive, slightly overweight female that may indeed possess better credentials. The preference of the hirer made the determination that the personal appearance factor was an advantage that outweighed the more experienced person ... and even though it would certainly seem unfair to the person who was rejected, that doesn't mean it was a bad or wrong decision. Maybe the position was for a sales executive of a company that sells health products ... the slimmer, more attractive person presents a better image for the company. Should not the company be free to make those decisions? Of course they should.

This happens to men ... women ... different racial groups every day. And it's as much a part of life as is breathing. You cannot eliminate preference, nor do I think one should strive to do so. What makes one person attracted to another ... what secret formula makes a personal interview a job clinching foregone conclusion for one person, while a 40/60 prospect for another? Personal charisma ... style ... communication skills .... professional qualifications .... gut feelings .... smell ... the list goes on ... and hence there is no such thing as equality ... equality is as much a myth as is unicorns and leprechauns .... it's a fraud.

So what would you propose to do .. legislatively, from a law perspective to ensure "equality" given the hundreds of variables that are subjective preference? What if we decided that when faced with the previous hypothetical ... that the slightly overweight person was given the job over the slim more attractive person ... in order to avoid the appearance of unfairness? Wouldn't that be preferential treatment too, and unfair to the slim person? Chasing "equality" is an exercise in futility, just as much so as the desire to eliminate unfairness.

These situations often work in favor of women too you know? Let's say I own a bar, and I have an opening for a bar tender .... a very attractive woman 30 years old applies, as does a middle aged male. The woman has 5 years experience .... the man has 20 years experience. Bothe interview well and both have excellent references. I'm hiring the woman .. no doubt about it ... because I know my male clients are going to spend more money at the bar with an attractive female bartender .. and the women are too. It's as simple as that. Is that fair for the guy? Hell no ... but that's life ... it is inherently unfair. I feel it is supremely unfair that the stork didn't drop me off at the Trump house ... and chose instead to deliver me to the working poor

The other angle to this whole "equality" and "fairness" thing is this ... you will find evidence for whatever it is you are looking specifically for. And if you search for examples of women being denied something based on their gender, you will find plenty of those examples. At the same time, there may be even more examples of women receiving preferential treatment and consideration based on them being women, as in the bartender example.

I'll tell you this ... if a man and a woman of equal qualification applies for a job today ... I'm putting my money on the woman, and you can put as much money on the table as you care to and I'll match it! Excluding the no brainer situations like if the job was furniture delvery and the guy is 6' 2", 220 lbs and the women 5' 2" and 105 lbs. I'm talking about business positions .... the woman has an extreme advantage ... particularly in competition with a white male.

What do they say about someone who has great taste? They have "discriminating taste" ? Discrimination is a preference ... and in business ... businesses make decisions based on what they perceive to be the best decision for the bottom line.

You'll never eliminate preference ... and I suggest to you that if you did ... women would come out as net losers ... not winners.
So I'll chalk up the confusion you seem to have about this "equality" thing ....you will NOT learn from all the preceeding posts...you probably haven't read them. Why? Because most are by women...to you, helpless little baby makers who need a big strong all-knowing man to help them along.

You can't seem to grasp that women don't care what men like you think...YOU do not make the rules. ...you are definitely confused about that.


You refuse to reflect on history which proves you wrong over and over again...

And all your long segues/diatribes into another realm won't help....


Luckily, what you wish for, total subjugation of women, isn't going to happen.... You'll have to try to pump up your ego some other way...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2011, 05:55 PM
 
21,026 posts, read 22,117,192 times
Reputation: 5941
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
You seem to have a clear intelligent mind and a good grasp of common sense. And your demeanor is that of a reasonable person, and independent thinker. So I'll chalk up the confusion you seem to have about this "equality" thing as a failure on my part to adequately elucidate the point ... let me try another angle ...

Often, what is viewed as discrimination or unequal treatment is simply preference. And preferential treatment one person might receive over another can be the result of one or more of hundreds of potential variables with gender being only one factor. This also occurs within the same gender ... such as a slender attractive female getting a job instead of the less attractive, slightly overweight female that may indeed possess better credentials. The preference of the hirer made the determination that the personal appearance factor was an advantage that outweighed the more experienced person ... and even though it would certainly seem unfair to the person who was rejected, that doesn't mean it was a bad or wrong decision. Maybe the position was for a sales executive of a company that sells health products ... the slimmer, more attractive person presents a better image for the company. Should not the company be free to make those decisions? Of course they should.

This happens to men ... women ... different racial groups every day. And it's as much a part of life as is breathing. You cannot eliminate preference, nor do I think one should strive to do so. What makes one person attracted to another ... what secret formula makes a personal interview a job clinching foregone conclusion for one person, while a 40/60 prospect for another? Personal charisma ... style ... communication skills .... professional qualifications .... gut feelings .... smell ... the list goes on ... and hence there is no such thing as equality ... equality is as much a myth as is unicorns and leprechauns .... it's a fraud.

So what would you propose to do .. legislatively, from a law perspective to ensure "equality" given the hundreds of variables that are subjective preference? What if we decided that when faced with the previous hypothetical ... that the slightly overweight person was given the job over the slim more attractive person ... in order to avoid the appearance of unfairness? Wouldn't that be preferential treatment too, and unfair to the slim person? Chasing "equality" is an exercise in futility, just as much so as the desire to eliminate unfairness.

These situations often work in favor of women too you know? Let's say I own a bar, and I have an opening for a bar tender .... a very attractive woman 30 years old applies, as does a middle aged male. The woman has 5 years experience .... the man has 20 years experience. Bothe interview well and both have excellent references. I'm hiring the woman .. no doubt about it ... because I know my male clients are going to spend more money at the bar with an attractive female bartender .. and the women are too. It's as simple as that. Is that fair for the guy? Hell no ... but that's life ... it is inherently unfair. I feel it is supremely unfair that the stork didn't drop me off at the Trump house ... and chose instead to deliver me to the working poor

The other angle to this whole "equality" and "fairness" thing is this ... you will find evidence for whatever it is you are looking specifically for. And if you search for examples of women being denied something based on their gender, you will find plenty of those examples. At the same time, there may be even more examples of women receiving preferential treatment and consideration based on them being women, as in the bartender example.

I'll tell you this ... if a man and a woman of equal qualification applies for a job today ... I'm putting my money on the woman, and you can put as much money on the table as you care to and I'll match it! Excluding the no brainer situations like if the job was furniture delvery and the guy is 6' 2", 220 lbs and the women 5' 2" and 105 lbs. I'm talking about business positions .... the woman has an extreme advantage ... particularly in competition with a white male.

What do they say about someone who has great taste? They have "discriminating taste" ? Discrimination is a preference ... and in business ... businesses make decisions based on what they perceive to be the best decision for the bottom line.

You'll never eliminate preference ... and I suggest to you that if you did ... women would come out as net losers ... not winners.
Sounds like the argument for black slavery....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2011, 06:03 PM
 
10,854 posts, read 9,286,124 times
Reputation: 3122
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
I don't know how old you are, but I was born in the 1950's ... and I have seen the dramatic shifts and changes.

You may claim that the comparisons are the same ... such as how the ultra conservative wanted to ban Elvis Presley because his hip gyrations were viewed as morally indignant ... but it ain't gonna wash. No comparison at all to the mosh pits and the satanic devil music and the moral decline we see occurring right now ... like Lady Gaga blood soaked chest. You'd have to be a blind fool not to notice the cult of death .... the skulls ... the blood ... the soul shattering evil of this cultist style death music.

Look around you ... War and Terror .... Terror and War .... death and destruction ... BP and the Gulf of Mexico ... Japan's 6 Nuclear meltdowns ... Afghanistan and Iraq .. and Libya ... next is Pakistan and Syria and Iran

In case you haven't noticed .. the world has gone stark raving insane ... the likes of which we have never seen before in this country.

And what worries the fine ladies here? They're worried about their legal right to kill babies.

Charming.
There have ALWAYS been political and military conflicts around the globe. The world isn't any more insane that it was before you are just more aware of it due to 200 digital HD channels and the internet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2011, 06:08 PM
 
21,026 posts, read 22,117,192 times
Reputation: 5941
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy View Post
There have ALWAYS been political and military conflicts around the globe. The world isn't any more insane that it was before you are just more aware of it due to 200 digital HD channels and the internet.
No, no, no, I'm sure you have it wrong! The world did NOT start until GuynTexas was born! Isn't obvious?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:31 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top