Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
When it comes to being police, cops, and firefighters, I believe men have the right because a) They are the ones that founded those institutions,
and b) From what I understand, many of those proffessions have LOWERED the standards for women.
A minority soo small that instituting legislation so that all women can feel better knowing that they can become a cop or something, when in fact, 99% of all women will not choose or be able to do so, seems assenine to me.
Men are simply not biologically suited to hold higher office.
now that women don't need men to reproduce and refinance, the question is, will we keep you around? And the answer is ... you know we need you in the way we need ice cream, you'll be more ornamental.
As a species is it possible that men are ever so last century?
Deep down all men want the same thing: a virgin in a gingham dress.
if there's one thing men fear it's a woman who uses her critical faculties.
Laws do prohibit the permanent assignment of Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force women to ships and aircraft engaged in a combat mission, and while there is no comparable statutory prohibition for Army women, policies adopted by the Army and the other services further restrict women's roles. Whether statutory, or a matter of service policy, these prohibitions bar women in many career fields from being assigned to positions necessary or advantageous to advancement and promotion. In the U.S. armed services overall, 50 percent of military jobs are open to women, but the percentages vary greatly by service.
Originally posted by Athenion
So I'm interested in hearing your thoughts there.
Originally posted by Athenion
This topic is quite interesting. I agree that there should be equality, and that to state otherwise is sophmoric and sexist. Especially when one person is deciding what another person can or can't do based on gender.
That being said, I do have some problems with the stereotypical "femenist" stance, and I'd like to hear what people think about them.
My first problem, is with people like Maureen Dowd, who are considered outrageous and outspoken femenist spokesmodels.
Dowd's comments (taken out of context, I should add) are really great fuel for the fire. Her "you don't need a man to get a loan" sounds shrieks of outrage -- unless you lived in the 1970's, when women couldn't get bank accounts, loans, or even buy or rent cars (except under unusual circumstances) without a man/husband/brother cosigning or guaranteeing the loan.
Originally posted by Athenion
I was just interested in your take on the effect these extreme femenists have on the femenist movement.
Is the sensationalism of spewing man hate good because it attracts attention to the issue
or bad because it ratchets up the rhetoric and emotional reactions, as opposed to level headed debate.
Originally posted by YIAWETA
This has indeed been an interesting thread. The only real problem with Feminism is that it did come out of a communist or marxist origin.
Both Steinam and Freidan both were active in CIA activities prior to their magazine or book careers.
So what rings hollow today is the fact that although women have made some strides this 'movement' has succeeded in it's effort to destroy the American family structure. Just the other day in my local newspaper's birth announcements 11 out of 13 babies were born to unwed couples. This may be an anomally, but I doubt it.
I believe the number of drop outs, teen pregnancies and children in foster care are a direct result of the family structure's dismantling.
The feminist movement is somewhat like the immigration issue today, alot of false promises where in the end you're left holding the bag. It's just the 'used' getting 'used' again.
Women deserved better!
Originally posted by WolfofWar
so wait, women = Child molestors?
All I gottasay is I'd like to be a stay at home dad.
I could do freelance graphic design work from my office, take care of the kids, not have to dothe 9 to 5 stuff.
Originally posted by dawnstar
why can't you do that now?? even without the kids as an excuse? I mean if that is your dream, why not go for it, unless of course your graphic design skills are as crappy as mine...then well....what can I say, ever hear of the starving artist...
if it is you know that money will be short for awhile, well, why not expect your wife to pitch in in that respect.....as long as you are willing to pitch in with the children and household chores of course.
of course, what you will more than likely both find out is that there just aren't enough hours in the day to earn your living, plus take care of children and home, and enjoy life also....no matter how you devide all the various responsibilities up.
You have voted smallpeeps for the Way Above Top Secret award.
Originally posted by smallpeeps
As long as women never collectively understand or desire tech, the male power structure knows they are safe to use tech for war and death before healing and peace.
Human family life implies paternal investment, which is unlikely to develop unless males can be reasonably certain that they are caring for their own, not someone else's, offspring. Bonobo society lacks any such guarantee, but humans protect the integrity of their family units through all kinds of moral restrictions and taboos. Thus, although our species is characterized by an extraordinary interest in sex, there are no societies in which people engage in it at the drop of a hat (or a cardboard box, as the case may be). A sense of shame and a desire for domestic privacy are typical human concepts related to the evolution and cultural bolstering of the family.
Yet no degree of moralizing can make sex disappear from every realm of human life that does not relate to the nuclear family. The bonobo's behavioral peculiarities may help us understand the role of sex and may have serious implications for models of human society.
Just imagine that we had never heard of chimpanzees or baboons and had known bonobos first. We would at present most likely believe that early hominids lived in female- centered societies, in which sex served important social functions and in which warfare was rare or absent. In the end, perhaps the most successful reconstruction of our past will be based not on chimpanzees or even on bonobos but on a three-way comparison of chimpanzees, bonobos and humans.
Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars - Breakthrough
The greatest hurdle which theoretical economists faced was the accurate description of the household as an industry. This is a challenge because consumer purchases are a matter of choice which in turn is influenced by income, price, and other economic factors.
This hurdle was cleared in an indirect and statistically approximate way by an application of shock testing to determine the current characteristics, called current technical coefficients, of a household industry.
Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars - System Analysis
Factor III - Mother
The female element of human society is ruled by emotion first and logic second. In the battle between logic and imagination, imagination always wins, fantasy prevails, maternal instinct dominates so that the child comes first and the future comes second. A woman with a newborn baby is too starry-eyed to see a wealthy man's cannon fodder or a cheap source of slave labor. A woman must, however, be conditioned to accept the transition to "reality" when it comes, or sooner.
As the transition becomes more difficult to manage, the family unit must be carefully disintegrated, and state-controlled public education and state-operated child-care centers must be become more common and legally enforced so as to begin the detachment of the child from the mother and father at an earlier age. Inoculation of behavioral drugs [Ritalin] can speed the transition for the child (mandatory). Caution: A woman's impulsive anger can override her fear. An irate woman's power must never be underestimated, and her power over a [vulva]-whipped husband must likewise never be underestimated. It got women the vote in 1920.
SWFQW is a collage, an overlay and paste-up of the works and words of many authors. I was the author only in the sense that I compiled and linked the gems of other writers. The book is not a hoax. Wassily W. Leontief proved the content of SWFQW by his article in the September 1980 issue of Scientific American, entitled "the world Economy in the Year 2000." Leontief was the father of the Silent Weapons System, and was awarded the 1973 Nobel Prize in Economics long after his creation (1948) became recognized by the elite to be a weapon (1965).
Years passing do not change the invariant truths of science, not even of economic science. The elite were never fully named in SWFQW. It was not necessary to name them specifically. They are always among us, and they always will be among us.
SWFQW was a study in human nature; of motivation, psychological impulse and momentum, and force of habit; of control of social energy by influence, suggestion, and hypnosis; of the use of sociopathic processes to induce paranoid behavior; and so on. That is enough description of the theme and conceptual content of SWFQW. We now move on to a presentation of information sources.
Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
My girlfriend happened to be looking over my shoulder, and she asked "who's Rommel?" No lie. The kicker is, she's German.
So what do y'all make of that? Is it enough to provide equal employment when there's such a huge gap in the educational regimen? Do certain fields and subjects fall outside of feminine interest (for the most part) naturally, or does it take conscious manipulation to keep that norm in place? Should this be changed, eliminated, protected?
I don't understand that idea.
The study of WWII is part of a history class required to graduate high school, isn't it? I don't think they have special requirements for male and female graduates
Originally posted by Diseria
A little late, but I'll explain why I didn't know the name Rommel.
Simply put -- in all my years of history classes, I (*honestly*) never knew that WWII involved anything beyond Europe and Russia. Rommel was never brought up. So, yes, it was required for graduation... but we never learned the full story, I guess.
Originally posted by Byrd
In fact, they weren't. At one time these were functions performed by ALL the members of society. It's only in recent centuries that it became a "men only" institution.
They do use different standards, yes. I should point out that this also allows smaller men of other cultures (Japanese, for instance) on the force.Does this mean it's wrong? Hardly.
There are many times when a police officer who is a woman can negotiate a situation (and a male officer would cause fear or aggression.) There are many times when a suspect or a victim will relate better to an officer of one gender rather than the other.
Why ignore the victim's needs? Why should society give up this better system (officers of both genders and all ages who can relate to the people in their care) and return to an old "white men only" policy?
Women have better hearing and better reaction times than men do (which compensates for their lack of strength.) There are other gender-based physiological differences (which actually overlap but are more commonly found in women) that supplement physiological limitations that men don't have. Because of their better reaction times, they're 2.5% less likely to die in traffic accidents than men and are safer drivers.And you would deny their male teammates the benefits of having a woman on their team.
That's simply a leftover of the culture of the 1950's.
The issues really are complex, and are not black-and-white.
We were once all equals in a tribal system and both men and women acted as protectors and invokers of justice; as people who ensured the safety of other members of their tribe. I see every reason to go back to this equality that we started with in our primitive times and no reasons to continue under a patriarchial system where one gender dictates to the other what is acceptable.