It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ECON: Working women almost certainly caused the credit crunch

page: 16
58
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Also, another point, women aren't property. They should not be traded in marriage, virginal until that moment, and stick it out with the kind of men who have voiced sexist and atrocious opinons on this thread, because they live in a sexist, patriarchal society that does not provide substantive equality for the sexes, including equalizing social programs and funds, value the work that mothers do, and respect all children.

And, I will never empower, or accept anything other than a completely ideal, cooperative society. This thread shows a complete lack of respect, equality and education. Some of the opinions expressed here should be criminal, as they could be designated hate literature.

I also believe this thread is somehow politically tied in to an agenda. On that note, understand, its not happening. Give it up, just like the nwo agenda. Because its not happening, in fact, those countries that are suppressing and abusing their women, and subsequently their children by exposing them to this inequality, are going to be freed one day soon.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by mystiq]




posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
My first real post at ATS after lurking for a long time.

My solution to the OP's situation: Men work three 10-hour days Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Women work three 10-hour days Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. During the week, parents alternate caring for the kids (if any), and if there are no kids a person can choose to work 3 days a week or 6 days a week. Sundays everyone rests. For the working family, both spouses have equal career opportunities and the moderately reduced income two 30-hour work weeks provide (instead of two 40-hour work weeks). Kids get raised by both parents. Home chores and errands get done by the person staying home that day. Everyone wins, with no day care expenses. This would even save gas.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jumbles
My first real post at ATS after lurking for a long time.

My solution to the OP's situation: Men work three 10-hour days Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Women work three 10-hour days Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. During the week, parents alternate caring for the kids (if any), and if there are no kids a person can choose to work 3 days a week or 6 days a week. Sundays everyone rests. For the working family, both spouses have equal career opportunities and the moderately reduced income two 30-hour work weeks provide (instead of two 40-hour work weeks). Kids get raised by both parents. Home chores and errands get done by the person staying home that day. Everyone wins, with no day care expenses. This would even save gas.



That works for two person families, what about single parent families?

And no i'm not ripping it apart, the idea is sound and has merit.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Response to vkey:

I haven't quite worked out what single-parent families would do. Perhaps single moms/dads would negotiate an arrangement with other single moms/dads. Or perhaps there would be day care and government subsidies for them, like there are today. It's all sort of pie in the sky anyway, because I can't see the powers that be changing just because I thought of another way to structure society. (But maybe some alternative-lifestyle community might try it...)



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mystiq
Also, another point, women aren't property. They should not be traded in marriage, virginal until that moment, and stick it out with the kind of men who have voiced sexist and atrocious opinons on this thread, because they live in a sexist, patriarchal society that does not provide substantive equality for the sexes, including equalizing social programs and funds, value the work that mothers do, and respect all children.


Well I agree with that. Or at least, if all humans are property, we all own ourselves, at the least. (I must be property-not-person or why couldn't I sell sex? There is no other human service it's illegal to sell, short of murder.)


This thread shows a complete lack of respect, equality and education. Some of the opinions expressed here should be criminal, as they could be designated hate literature.


Aw come on. The thread shows how people think and feel. They are how they are. I don't have to like it but that doesn't mean I have to wish for censorship of anybody's freely expressing their perspective, because it'd be labeled 'hate literature' and they'd be fined or jailed for it.

That is, if anything, the kind of over-the-top punish-men mindset that probably causes some of them to be so knee-jerk bozo in the first place. (Why do people always believe in freedom of speech until it's someone disagreeing with them, I often wonder.)


I also believe this thread is somehow politically tied in to an agenda.


Well, probably lots of people have those, political or otherwise. But I've posted on the thread and I'm a woman and I don't have one. Aside from having some interest in social politics including things related to females. But others have said that there are definite agendas against women. Maybe I just haven't read enough about this to be exposed to the details. Happy to hear them, here or elsewhere.

PJ



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jumbles
My solution to the OP's situation: Men work three 10-hour days Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Women work three 10-hour days Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. During the week, parents alternate caring for the kids (if any), and if there are no kids a person can choose to work 3 days a week or 6 days a week. Sundays everyone rests. For the working family, both spouses have equal career opportunities and the moderately reduced income two 30-hour work weeks provide (instead of two 40-hour work weeks). Kids get raised by both parents. Home chores and errands get done by the person staying home that day. Everyone wins, with no day care expenses. This would even save gas.



The 4-day work week, just as one example, has been studied extensively. They have found that it saves money in literally every category imaginable, not to mention reduction of sickness and street repair and car accidents and power drain and -- the list is endless. There is overwhelming evidence that this is by far a vastly more intelligent way to go about it.

And still employers will seldom do it. Go figure.

I've spent some time in the past working out some ideas that amounted to a business-based commune system specifically for single mothers, that would allow them to trade skills and home duties and job income. Seemed like a good idea at the time.

The problem I ran into is this: culturally, we're just screwed. A shocking percentage of people, especially younger people likely to be single parents, are profoundly mis/un-educated (despite a life of schooling), immature to the point of emotionally retarded, dysfunctional sometimes to the point of near sociopathic, and a variety of other things that makes doing this with the public in general pretty much impractical.

The reality is that stuff like that really needs to be run through a church. The Mormon church actually has a pretty good "social governmental structure". I think in a truly capitalist society, the culture desperately needs things like that. You don't see mormons starving in the streets -- they help each other, they have a strong social network, and of course it's rather biased in favor of the traditional men-rule-everything, women-should-raise-lotsa-kids philosophy, but as a workable, self-proven model it works pretty well. Seems to me some lessons from that and a different idea could come up with something even better.

I actually believe that this lack is the primary cause of the exponential growth of liberalism in the USA, although of course serious 5th column agendas pretty much taking over both media and edu have been a lot of that. I believe that the dissolution of decent family structures, of nearly all extended family networks, of churchgoing for the younger generation, has resulted in half a culture of people who subconsciously fear that they have no support, no safety net, no backup, no strength in numbers. So they try to get the government to become the extended family or church network that they don't have. Then "the authority figure will take care of them." My politics are different, only in that I believe in choosing a local authority figure (family, church, friends) and vesting in that, rather than drastically neutering and burdening an otherwise decent government structure with being everybody's babysitter too. Anyway I think much of this is happening below the conscious level but is a cultural phenomenon of sorts. I find that people who have a strong family structure (by this I mean solid parents, others in parent generations, siblings/cousins, etc. that in bad times one could get help from) and a church network almost never think the government should be taking peoples' money to take care of other people -- but people who haven't got at least one (and definitely without both) of those in place nearly always do. Well that's my philosophy but it's probably worth what yer payin for it.

Anyway about the intentional temporary commune idea I had -- which reminded me slightly of yours -- the real problem is that responsibility and loyalty are critical to anything. If people don't have those two things, even good situations, people, organizations, and opportunities that could provide them a good opportunity -- but do need their support in return in order to be viable -- would fail. Looking around me I just do not see the kind of behavior in people that leads me to believe it'd work.

Which is really a bummer since it kind of comes down to, quality opportunities have to be designed for quality people. I am not sure how many of those our culture is actually breeding anymore. Perhaps this is just a sign that I'm getting old.

PJ



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Jumbles
 


at it's core it is a very good set of ideas.

I agree though it would take an act of whatever to make them change the way things are currently done..



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Does anyone take OP ED pieces seriously?

I thought it was rather funny that someone would attempt to boil complex economics down to one variable.

Its just another Angry Loser who's not got enough money and can't attract women. Cut them off work and maybe he'll get one at last! Must be an awfully homely fellow.

In the US the failed economy is being blamed on everyone from blacks to Mexicans to Feminists to Unions.

I guess we must continue to try hard as we may to keep those fingers from pointing at the bankers and politicians.

For the conservative lot who thinks all will be fine with Mum at home - please remember that women have always worked. Forgotten history, have you? An Irishman overlooking Gram out in the fields, ought to be ashamed of himself.

Ah but when one's feeling inadequate I suppose it must be someone else's fault.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by mystiq
 


A little metaphorical, but hey, I'll take what I can get.

Sums it up quite nicely I would say.



-Edrick

[edit on 5-3-2009 by Edrick]

[edit on 5-3-2009 by Edrick]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


My statement was meant to be a general statement, I understand that we are all individuals and not everyone is a "mommy" person.

I'm not. In fact I am stunned by my bodies seeminlgy insatiable need to copulate for procreation instead of leisure as I reach my mid 30s. I've never really wanted children, but now all of a sudden it seems that I do..Confusing to say the least. I don't want to give up my nice life of sleeping in on the weekends and long weekends in Paris, but my biology is trumping anything my mind wants.

Women ARE biologically built to be mothers, how can you deny that? We evolved to be the main care taker, we have breasts to feed our children with, how could a man be the main caretaker if he couldn't feed his young?

Of course, today we have evolved intellectually beyond the base physical and it allows a man to be the main caretaker. My point has been through out that we as a society should appreciate and support whomever has chosen to be the keeper of the hearth. We should support that person not just with words, but with actions. That person should be protected legally and financially. That person whould respected.


I choose to be the main care taker when and if I have a baby. And I'm sick of WOMEN telling me that I'm somehow giving up my lfe to do so.

My boss just had a baby three months ago, she went off work for three lousy months because she didn't want to hurt her career. Now she's here working ten hours per day trying to advance her career whilst her newly born child is off at the babysitters. It isn't the money, its that need to feel respected by her collegues who insinuate that fulltime motherhood is somehow a weakness.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 05:06 AM
link   
for the amount of money they spend trying to address the problems that have arisen by the cohabitation of those two income families, those one income families, along with those one parent families, ect....well....
seems to me they could have given families some sort of government for their youngest children till they reached three or four. They should have started this with a different perspective instead of clinging to age old traditions that never worked to begin with. ....both men and women share equally in all the aspects of fullfillling the child's needs...from bringing home the money, to washing the dirty diapers and dishes.... instead of seeing bribing those women to stay home with the kids (and out of the workforce and more importantly, out of the unemployment numbers), through government checks, they could have reduced the workweek for us all, allowed them into the workforce, have a decent paying job for everyone, and well, the companies and corporations could probably have saved enough through the reduced taxes to pay us just as much for that reduced workweek as they do now!

but, welll, they didn't chose to go that way, did they, na, had to preserve "man's God given authority over women" that was more important...so we have what we have...

and well, this is what we have:

money.cnn.com...

so, ya...let's pressure all the mothers out of the workforce....on the assumption that their husbands will be able to come up with that additional, god, whatever the amount extra that it would cost him to insure her....and well, how many women do you think we would have out there with no insurance or healthcare? our current healthcare system is very unfriendly towards the stay at home mothers! heck, it borders on gender discrimination really! do, tell yas all what, you go spend some time writing letters to the government demanding that they fix that mess, and when they do, then you can come back and gripe at us women for screwing up your economy, okay!
till then, I will be in your workforce, or leaving your society, one of the two!



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Picao84
reply to post by nikiano
 


Hi Nikiano.. Modesty aside.. im am that kind of man.. i live alone, i clean, cook, etc.. i was raised to be prepared to do it all by myself.. i dont smoke, drink alchool in large quantities.. well I play WoW (in private servers, free.. not official) but only when i dont have nothing more interesting to do :p.. and yes i like gadgets :p.. but i dont buy a new one every 6 months.. minimum a 2 year span.. And im quite sure that if i was married and with kids they would be my last prioritie.. Ah and final: im taking and paying my Msc.. not for earning more money.. but because i like to learn
so im not the kind of (negative) guy you described..

Well this is unfortenately the reality in Portugal..

[edit on 3-3-2009 by Picao84]


Similar story with me in the UK.
It seems few women that fit the 'ideal' woman. Unless you like woman who are chavs.
Just ladette creatures that play 'imitate the man and get wasted' every free moment they've got!



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Byrd,

Well, that would be me and my husband for several years of our marriage. In a few years, he will retire while I will go back to teaching.


Congratulations Byrd. However..I was referring to as a career...while the men stay home. Good health or not on the part of the men. Thus a man can explore his Options while his woman works and risks to maintain them. Children or not. That is my point.


I'm far more concerned about the girls who are pressured to have sex and have babies here in America... while the guys essentially act as sperm donors and vanish from their lives. That doesn't leave a girl with many options and (to be frank), most of them are very bad.


Once again ..this was not the point I was making. However since you are wont to make it. I agree ..this is a concern. I don't care for the marketing and sexuality which are foisted off on our young to the point of ridiculousness. We have children who are out here knowing little to nothing about how to maintain a home and lifestyle..yet are also out here attempting to define themselves as great and wonderful by sexuality. Male and female both. This doesn't make good nonsense but it does make for good and wonderful consumers...even consumers consuming themselves.

In the spirit of Mystiq's mindset of superiority of the female. Could it be possible that the female of the species is not as intelligent as advertised??
I am not saying the males are all that bright as I have had ample evidence to see that this is not so..but the scenario you are wont to paint does not fit in with Mystiq's insecurities desire for superiority.
By the way Byrd..the males are also pressured into having sex and in like manner are wont to define themselves so. There are no one sex "victims" here. The males are just as stupid and non superior as the females. They have both bought into a paradigm which is not theirs.

In my mind..the female investment in men has not evolved here ...for millineums. There is something very jaded about the whole process especially today.
Conversely ..the male investment in the female in many ways has not also evolved. I think that men should expect so much more from females than they are wont to do.
Which is why I am so often wont to ask a woman..what she has to offer me. Sex is not it. Too bad more men cannot seem to figure this out.


I know a number of women with older husbands who are in a similar situation. Perhaps it's our age and our gender that explains why you don't know any of them -- women my age don't sit around and whimper about tough situations.


I agree with your statement here. Most of the women of whom I know to day are of a different caliber than in times past. Congratulations. Well stated.

Mistiq,

I cannot pass this up as it is so textbook of intelligentsia today.
It is none of that.

What is interesting to me is the number of men on this thread who allow such non intelligent emotional rambling as yours to play through without a murmur.
And Edrick uses a line from a movie to Illustrate his point. LOL LOL Amazing!!

I don't really think you are interested in what is to be said on this topic but , for those who are, Warren Farrell covers what you are attempting to state quite clearly in his audio interview in the link Edrick posted from the #4 Session on to the number 9 session where I am currently listening. It is very informative and covers quite well the ranting you are wont to make and attempt to default through by emotions.


Also, another point, women aren't property. They should not be traded in marriage, virginal until that moment, and stick it out with the kind of men who have voiced sexist and atrocious opinions on this thread, because they live in a sexist, patriarchal society that does not provide substantive equality for the sexes, including equalizing social programs and funds, value the work that mothers do, and respect all children.


Women are property. Surely you jest here Mistiq. This is a statement is depending on a default to play through unquestioned, unchallanged and will succeed with the abominable ignorance of the average American Male who thinks from the wrong head...constantly.

Ever watch a woman...in or out of marriage when she feels threatened by another female ...invading or threatening her hold over her man?? Property/territory?? I can assure you Mystique...women are quite territorial and property oriented.
You are going to have to get up a lot earlier to sell me on the idea that women are property. Only a man can be this naturally stupid about property and women both...women are not. Most of the women are far more aware and subtle than a man by far...in this arena. They are not however..invisible.

As to virginity...not speaking for all men or males here..but I have no interest in a woman's virgnity. I have interest in her intelligence backed up by integrity and character. Virginity is not to me the same thing as intelligence , integrity, and character.

Patriarchal society?? As Warren Farrell..states in Video/audio #4...there exists a ratio of about 7 to 1 of goods sold and marketed to women in most stores in this country. Both sexes... purchase for women. They do not both purchase for the men. They do not also therefore RISK for the men.
Mystiq...this means it is not a patriarchal society. It is a matriarchal society masquerading as a patriarchal society. By Stealth. Covert...Occult. Concealed. As any knowledgable woman can tell you ..a man works much harder and skillfully if he thinks it is his idea. I have seen this too ...over and over. I call this..giving a man clues and cues to perform as expected. This is verified to me by the silence of most of the males on this thread to posts such as yours.
As I have stated many times on ATS/BTS...the very economics and who is the determiner of how and what products are manufactured/purchased in the affluent economies is determined by the females..not the males. This is true particularly of big ticket items though it also applies to the daily smaller items purchased..mostly at the discretion of the female..not the male. This is a lot of economic power which means it is a lot of political power. It also makes victimization politics very wolfie to those males who can see it through. Fortunately for most females..the average male is dumber than a box of rocks in this arena.
Only a male can be this naturally stupid and not know it....and furthermore sit quietly mute while women such as yourself default through with such.


And, I will never empower, or accept anything other than a completely ideal, cooperative society. This thread shows a complete lack of respect, equality and education. Some of the opinions expressed here should be criminal, as they could be designated hate literature.


I agree here..I expect a lot more from the women I see than to just take off their clothes and then attempt to substitute their value, thinking systems, and expectations for mine.

And yes...your opinions show a very high lack of respect, equality and education. Before you speak of criminality and hate speech/literature, I suggest you practice a lot more on your rhetoric and also look in the mirror. Please try real thinking and not so much emoting/drama in an attempt to pass your positions off as the moral high ground.

No problem with you posting your opinions here..just be ready for another opinion questioning them or explaining your attempt at defaulting through.

Your positions and technique may be very intimidating to most of what passes for men today ..just not to me.

Your posts are in stark contrast to Whitewave's posts or even Byrd who use straightforeward reasoning and explaination not drama. I can respect this even in disagreement. Not so with drama techniques.
Drama techniques have become so much of a cottage indusrty in this country for votes it has become wolfie to those of us groomed to spot it. Drama has become core to the support of the Victim Dictum...which by this process has also become wolfie.

Thanks for your posts Mistiq.

Red Cairo,


Aw come on. The thread shows how people think and feel. They are how they are. I don't have to like it but that doesn't mean I have to wish for censorship of anybody's freely expressing their perspective, because it'd be labeled 'hate literature' and they'd be fined or jailed for it.

That is, if anything, the kind of over-the-top punish-men mindset that probably causes some of them to be so knee-jerk bozo in the first place. (Why do people always believe in freedom of speech until it's someone disagreeing with them, I often wonder.)


Thank you ...well said..and reasonable...no drama. Well done. And also again wiith an economy of words of which I lack.

Thanks to all for thier posts,
Orangetom


[edit on 5-3-2009 by orangetom1999]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Merigold
 


Merigold,

Wow!!! Well said as well. Well spoken.


I choose to be the main care taker when and if I have a baby. And I'm sick of WOMEN telling me that I'm somehow giving up my lfe to do so.

My boss just had a baby three months ago, she went off work for three lousy months because she didn't want to hurt her career. Now she's here working ten hours per day trying to advance her career whilst her newly born child is off at the babysitters. It isn't the money, its that need to feel respected by her collegues who insinuate that fulltime motherhood is somehow a weakness.


Motherhood is indeed very very important work and like much of manhood does not get the recognition and respect is rightfully deserves. What is astonishing to me is that much of this non recognition and respect came from the women's movements themselves.

Watching the years transpire..I am suspecting that many of todays women are looking back and realizing that the womens movement like so much of politics ..failed to deliver the goods. They are coming to the realization that their mothers and grandmothers were not fulfilled on the movements bills of fare.

Well stated in your quote above..straight shooting. I like and respect it.

Thanks,
Orangetom



[edit on 5-3-2009 by orangetom1999]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
orangetom,

every time a woman states her position in terms you find particularly disagreeable, you label it as emotional. i'm thinkin' you're projecting.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
orangetom,

every time a woman states her position in terms you find particularly disagreeable, you label it as emotional. i'm thinkin' you're projecting.


Hmmmm ..interestinig observation. Not everytime Undo.

Should I switch to attempts to default through on emotions/drama??
I say this verses taking a point in a post and explaining/demonstrating why one does not agree or agrees with it.

Now lets contrast this with not liking what someone is saying and then going on to use drama and emotions ..while not debating the point/points someone makes in thier post in an attempt to use such confusion/drama to project...default through unquestioned..getting in the last word..which is required methodology among many.

I remember watching a video of Geraldine Ferraro...in the vice presidential debates and also in an question and answer interview.
In the debate ..she had to get in the standard emotional line..

"Dont patronize me!!"

Also in another question and answer session..she was asked "Not haveing any military service or experience, how do you expect to be able to satisfactorily serve as the Commander in Chief over all the military peoples.

Her reply was to the effect ..that " I did not undersand the question?? What does being a person who wants peace have to do with not having served in the military or being Commander in Chief?"

IT was a very skillful political answer and obviously rehersed for effect....a default An emotional jag so typical of politicians. So few people even noticed that she answered a question not even asked.

Both instances depended on emotional involvement by the audience to not notice what had transpired.

Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 5-3-2009 by orangetom1999]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merigold
reply to post by Byrd
 

Women ARE biologically built to be mothers, how can you deny that? We evolved to be the main care taker, we have breasts to feed our children with, how could a man be the main caretaker if he couldn't feed his young?

To some degree in homo sapiens, yes. But the caretaker need not be the mother. Many women, for instance, can't breasfeed (and there was a class of women in earlier society who basically earned their living as human "cows", producing milk for a number of babies not their own.


My point has been through out that we as a society should appreciate and support whomever has chosen to be the keeper of the hearth. We should support that person not just with words, but with actions. That person should be protected legally and financially. That person whould respected.


Sadly, in today's society, the person who's the caretaker is more often stressed and given fewer resources, I think. And things like protection for those who do this job (nannies, housemaids, mothers) is not as strong as it could be.



I choose to be the main care taker when and if I have a baby. And I'm sick of WOMEN telling me that I'm somehow giving up my lfe to do so.


Good for you! Go for it!



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


depends on if you think it'll sound any different to the readers. for example, as i'm reading your material, i see it's very even tempered and seems to be appealing to logic. then as you address a specific point that appears to upset you moreso than others, your words become more vitrolic and emotion-charged.

that doesn't mean SHE'S not being emotional, nor does it mean she's not being vitrolic. it just means welcome to the club, orangetom. emotion is a valuable tool. it's particularly good for expressing yourself.

but let us dispense with the concept that this tendency to appeal to and express through emotion, is only a skill of the fairer (?)
sex, shall we? i doubt the framers of the US constitution spoke their words with a lack of conviction, for example.



[edit on 5-3-2009 by undo]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Watching the years transpire..I am suspecting that many of todays women are looking back and realizing that the womens movement like so much of politics ..failed to deliver the goods.


Actually, it did. We have
* child labor laws
* laws against cruelty to women
* "safe houses" for abused families
* school meal programs for disadvantaged kids
* the right to vote
* the right to own property
* the right to have bank accounts
* the right to enter military service
* the right to become astronauts
* the right to become physicians
* the right to become engineers and scientists (and computer programmers)
* the right to own large companies
* the right to become CEO of a large company
* the right to become diplomats and ambassadors
* the right to run for Congress
* the right to run for mayor
* the right to run for police chief
* the right to run for local government positions
...and on and on and on. Wages have gone up, though not on par yet.

We also got involved with environmental issues, too.

Overall, it's been fairly successful in spite of some heavy resistance.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I collect dictionaries. The 1929 Webster's defines "woman" as:



in the lesser sense of human being, a person

... and as chattel




The 1997 Webster's definition is:



an adult female person, as distinguished from a girl or a man.




So - legally:

1. I am now a person.

2. You don't own me, and legally,

3. You CAN'T own me.

I'd call that progress.


:nose:



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join