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: 18
58
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 


the rest of your post assumes that religious people or christians still do view sex as dirty. that's just not the case. the focus has always been on the war between the temporal (Temporary) demands of the body and the eternal state of the spirit. for all we know, the physical dimension may be the odd one out and most or the rest of the universe, is populated almost exclusively in the spiritual dimension. it's a matter of defining spirit and knowing how the temporary body interacts with it or if there's even a need for it to do so in the normal ways (via sex magic or what have you). our third dimensional flesh bodies may be an unusual manifestation in an universal sense. sure, there's alot of 3d entities. chances are, though, the physical dimension is the least populated since it's temporary.


anyway, i think the stereotypes of what "Religious" people believe about sex are off- the -charts incorrect.




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


the differences become apparent when you consider a man getting a job, for less money, doing what a woman traditionally has done. even though both are perfectly capable of doing the job in the manner required, one is paid less than the other due to gender. this was the situation some women were experiencing before the onset of feminism. ridiculous situation causes back lash. back lash becomes increasingly more extreme, the more it is resisted, till you have this big mess you see now. solution? don't start that pendulum up again or the next back lash will be unconscionable. instead, just look for ways to equalize it. but stop the stereotyping, seriously.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
some ladies only buy fancy clothes for other ladies.. meaning that they want to impress their peer group and not necessarily men.

some men only participate in sports to impress other men...meaning that they want to impress their peer group and not necessarily women.

it isn't that they seek sexually appealing impressions on their peers, but rather acceptance and comraderie.

it just isn't as cut and dry as you think, orangetom



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by RedCairo
 


i think it was the part about religion making sex "dirty." it isn't that at all. some people may translate it that way, but if solomon had a thousand wives (ever read the song of solomon?) and God told us to be fruitful and multiply (mwahaha)... the whole point of celibacy is the same as with ascetism -- you give it up to rechannel the energy normally used in that way, into something spiritual or physical exercise or marathon exams, or some goal you want to achieve that will make you a better person. it isn't religion that's the problem. it's the way people translate the wise men and their related texts.


Undo,

Solomon may have had a thousand wives...but this is often used or misused to give people the wrong impression of conditions in those times. It is part of a time warp technique I am so often wont to describe being used on threads like this.

It was the custom among leaders in those days and even unto recent times that to insure peace and prosperity ..better economic times verses war and conflict...to marry off ones daughters to another King and thus to help cement such a peaceful relationship between kingdoms.

I hardly think any king or leader would be willing to underwrite the maintenance costs for 1000 women and think they were getting a good sexual deal verses the other costs...do you?? Somehow I dont think a king has such difficulty striking oil..that they have to marry 1000 women and underwrite their costs for their oil shortage.
Amazing to me how many people over look this line of thinking while posting some kind of inference that it was all about sex. It was about extablishing peaceful coexistance between nations/kingdoms.

Red Cairo,


Um, well, you could say that christianity teaches us to love so how did the Crusades and the Inquisition happen -- those were merely the way people translated the wise men and their related texts -


There is a series of passages in the book of John about a woman caught in adultery..in the very act. This woman was brought before Jesus and they asked him "What say ye Rabbi." Thus meaning about the woman caught in adultery.

What is not taught to most of the people even by thier clergy ...expecially by thier clergy ..is that you cannot catch a woman in adultery ..in the very act without catch a man. These pharisees brought only the woman..they did not bring the man. Yet these pharisees were wont to say and boast of keeping the Law of Moses in all parts.

The Law of Moses says ..they both shall be stoned. Meaning two ..male and female.

THe pharisees were in fact ..keeping another law than the Law of Moses. The pharisees had privily/secretly switched to another god and another law. The law the pharisees kept said women get stoned for adultery and men do not. This was not God's law given through Moses. "The pharisees were infact disobedient and also counterfieting God's law..substituting instead the traditions of men...another law ..secretly and privily.
Very few clergy I have ever met will teach this for what it is.

Now..in like manner...this is the answer to your question above. How did they justify the Crusades and Inquesition. By the traditions of men. They are counterfieting God's instructions in His Word.

There exists no such instruction in God's Word to carry out an Inquesition or a Crusade for God's power and Glory. Any church which does this is disobedient and counterfieting. They have switched gods to another god and like the pharisees ..told no one they had done this.
This is one of the obvious reasons the Hebrew leadership felt they had to kill Jesus. They were in danger of Jesus exposing them for what they were doing in disobedience and in counterfeit.
This pattern and fingerprint is stil going on today.

Hope this helps Red Cairo.

Undo,

quite correct here.


yet it is a stereotype to assume that people who believe in christianity think sex is dirty. they just have rules about how to go about having it. this is how it goes... sex is fine in marriage "(meaning that you've agreed to be with one person.. this has several benefits). sex is not fine with someone else's spouse. duh. sex is not fine outside marriage (unwanted pregnancies, increased chance of STDs, etc). sex, if at all possible, should just be avoided so that you can focus on your spiritual self, which is your eternal body.

it's not very complicated, and it doesn't mean it's dirty. it means it's got some social, mental, physical and spiritual implications and complications.


There is one facet of this often left out yet when one reads the whole of the Bible and looks at it in this view one thing stands out. Believers are never to define who and what they are by thier sexuality. EVER.

I did not say they were not to have sex..I am saying sex and sexuality are not who and what they are .

For the nations surrounding the Believers have always done this abomination and continue to do so today..nothing new going on here with the exception that most do not know of this facet or history. Even their clergy are not teaching this to thier flocks.

Stellar X


Well he goes far too fast too far but as can be seen from the earlier stats double household incomes have not made the majority of American households economically better off for it.


I agree here with your quote above. More income has not made us better people. It has however made us better consumers. Even to the point of consuming ourselves.

However..just as in defining ourselves by sex and or sexuality...I think it is also very ignorant to define ourselves by what goods we consume. Do you know a people who would tend to do such a thing??? I know lots of them. You know..I was about to buy myself one of those new fangled flat screen televisions last year. I caught myself and realized.."snap out of it. I dont even watch that much television to justify such a purchase." What a bonehead. Keep up with the neighbors.


Again that depends on whether you define house work as work. As you say women often had to work the fields or in factories while raising children and keeping the house.


I do indeed define housework as work. For I am often wont to say that my mother worked harder than most women today and even harder than many men today.
I hear many of the women today complaining of the men not helping them with thier household work....equally. I do not see the women arguing for the right and or the responsibility to help the men with thier traditional work around the home...equally. It doesnt matter if they work or not in jobs outside the home or in the home. The mans work and struggle tend towards invisiblity....except on payday.


But learning wasn't always frowned upon as was almost always the case for women? I do not for a moment think that the history of the world were a kinder place to women than the modern world is. In fact until very recently ( and still only in some places) women were little other than property , in the community sense, that had to make the best arrangements they could with the male they were mostly saddled ( i accurate pun if ever) with by their parents or community?


I dont agree here. Even in those days few men could read well or read at all. The system discriminated against men as well as women. Those women who could read were undoubtedly of the more affluent classes. The history is not often told in its entirety in lieu of the Victim dictum conbined witht the time warp technique.

As to making the best arrangetment they could with the male...your kidding me right?? Women today are very eager to marry down the economic ladder"" Right?? Even in living with a man...women today cannot wait to move in with a man who makes less than they and support him in the manner to which he is accustomed while they make up the difference as a career...right??? Todays intelligent thinking woman has enough accumen to move a man in with her who is of less eoconomic worth and call it a career opportunity. Right?? Todays woman of intelligence does not think of status and marrying or living up...right?? She does not think of a man as being high maintenance ..right?? How to lower his maintenance costs while increasing the costs/opportunitys/options to her and the children. No safety net under him???

Any questioning of a mans status in this manner brings the rebuke and scorn one sees on threads like this one..in favor of the one way default settings. Because to question a mans status is to question a womans status. Particularly in ecoomically affluent nations.

When Hillary and Chelsey Clinton when to Lahore, India to a womans conference during the Clinton Administration...their message of womens positions was not well recieved because it had little daily application to the women of those nations. These women in third world nations could not imagine how western women survived in ministering to thier families with such beliefs. You have to dig hard to find this inforrmations.

Hmmmm..running out of space here..will continue..

Orangetom



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


clearly i'm stating solomon's situation to prove that sex was never considered a dirty thing. be fruitful and multiply means just what it says. but jesus mentions that it is better to refocus that energy into other things, the things of the spirit. he didn't say you shouldn't. he said it is better. but if you have a strong sex drive, better to get a spouse than to go around sexually abusing other people's marriages and bodies. pretty clear cut.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by undo]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999

You know Undo...on this same line of thought.. I have a friend who god divorced shortly after marriage. One of the points his now ex made constantly..was one of the problems with him is that like me ..he does not watch sports. She had made the connection with male sports conditioning in worshiping the ability to run touchdowns ..with being able to come in an overtake/hijack this paradigm in making a man malleable to her performance conditioning..to try out for her approval even at great expense/risk to himself...and not her. In other words to run touchdowns for her and at her discretion. She actually thought this was normal..and the way things were supposed to be.


Interesting. I wonder if this paradigm at work, as you call it, is anything like the paradigm that says women must LOOK a certain way in our culture. That she must have her hair, nails, and face, made up in such a way, and wear shoes that damage her feet, and wear skirts that leave her legs exposed to the cold even in brutal winters. You know, that paradigm that makes women judge themselves constantly by the most superficial of qualities, their youth and beauty.

What you are discussing, that many females find fit males attractive, was built in by natural selection. It isnt some evil conspiracy by women. Likewise many men prefer women whose faces and bodies betray great fertility, so much so that women will go out of their way to accentuate those markers of fertility by artificial means. If you have a beef, take it up with God if you dont believe in evolution, or nature if you do. And get over yourself. Men judge other men by precisely the same things as they fight among themselves to determine who is alpha, and who is beta. (Or lower) Having worked in construction for years I can promise you that men are every bit as harsh on men for not being physically competent. Its the way they determine who is the leader of the pack. The fact of the matter is that we have been physical beings far longer than we have been intellectual beings, and dominance and sexual desirability are still, by and large, a function of your physical capability. Not how clever you are. In nature, you can be as clever as you like and if the first guy with a club who walks by squashes your head, your genes do not get passed down.

Use some of your much touted "reason" and intellect to identify the causes here. Rather than just spout your opinion that women themselves are the cause. I will point out that while women may love the quarterbacks, women are much more forgiving than men of these natural rules. They use their heads to override nature much more than males do.



Originally posted by orangetom1999
I don't particularly believe in in men trying out for approval and acknowledgement by such sacrifice. I also don't believe in women using this male willingness to perform for approval at great risk to the male verses the women becoming more self sufficient in lieu of being heavily marketed.



I dont believe in it either. Mostly because your whole theory is poorly thought through. Men compete in dangerous sports even in times historically and places geographically where women did not even have the choice of whom to marry or any say in matters at all. How do you pin that on females?





Originally posted by orangetom1999
However..both groups ..politicians and women use this subtilty and the mans willingness to perform for approval to get and achieve power and control. All the feminists have done is institutionalized this technique and the politicians have overtaken/hijacked the feminists for votes.


Poor poor little mens. Oh wait, arent those politicians largely men? No matter. Poor poor little mens.



Originally posted by orangetom1999
They are not finding satisfaction out in the world growing old alone or under many of the concepts they were told were valuable and to be sought after.


More older women are alone than older men. And you are forgetting the old joke of trading in your 40 year old wife for two twenties. But in male victimization land, it is men who are cast aside to grow old alone, when they are no longer beautiful and young. So sad for them, really.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
I am waiting to see if and when the draft comes back that women will be required socially and politically to take first place risks as well in being drafted and making themselves expendable and disposable in like manner to the men. Somehow I don't think so.


Pre-Christian European women fought in combat. The Romans who came up to conquer wrote about it. Women are conscripted in Israel. There are several reason for women not being allowed into combat in many places. One, is that she could be pregnant and the baby could be killed. We see that even with fights that no late stage abortion be performed even to save the mothers life. These rules are not just to protect women, or we wouldnt have people arguing that a fetus' right to life be more important than the mothers survival. But we do see people arguing that. Historically, evolutionarily, you can afford to lose more men of child bearing age than women and have the group rebound. Not to mention that women question authority, and tend towards not doing stupid risky things. I can imagine as a commander, I would want troops who questioned authority less if I were assigning them to a mission I knew was a suicide mission.



Originally posted by orangetom1999
Imagine women being drafted and sent to some "adventure " for years and years across the world in some remote land. Rotated in and out by the thousands and thousands. They would not be home to direct and consume the goods in the economy. They would not be here to use credit in the manner expected or predicted. This would be economic chaos. A disaster in the making.


You can be so silly sometimes. Women are in Iraq. I personally know women who have served there. They just arent serving in combat positions. So they are being rotated in and out on some adventure. And the economy goes on, without their credit card purchases. And I might point out those female non combat soldiers are dying over there too. And being injured. Taking risk.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
illusions



They use their heads to override nature much more than males do.


SOME some some. if you use the generic "men" and "women" concepts, you put the pendulum right back into the dramatic swing to the other side. i don't know if you could even call it a norm. part of the problem also may be how these ideas are presented in the popular media of our time. a thoroughly stereotyped, one dimensional figure is easier to understand but not necessarily reflective of society. clearly, not every woman is a marilyn monroe, nor is every man a rock hudson, in other words.

if you use stereotype and he uses stereotype, instead of equality, we end up with 2 potential extremes, neither of which solve the problem but rather create unfair conditions. personally, i don't want that thing swinging back to the other side. the middle is much better on this particular topic



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo


not every woman is a marilyn monroe, nor is every man a rock hudson, in other words.

if you use stereotype and he uses stereotype, instead of equality, we end up with 2 potential extremes, neither of which solve the problem but rather create unfair conditions. personally, i don't want that thing swinging back to the other side. the middle is much better on this particular topic


But wasn't Rock Hudson..... n/m.....


I agree on the use of stereotypes, they really need to be thrown out and replaced with much more realistic views of the individuals that are involved in a particular situation...rather than a lump group.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I think the entire _original_ point I was making about sex zoomed right by the respondents--I'm sure this is my fault for poor communication, I apologize--so I'll briefly try to make it again and then drop it.

I am not in favor of overly promiscuous sex, for sex with other peoples' mates, nor am I in favor of the ghastly bombardment of sex in the media that made my six year old daughter worried about how her butt looked in her jeans. The conversation devolved into other (to me-) unrelated areas.

What I was saying is that sex's correlation with "the flesh" and the flesh's correlation with "original sin" and "not being of the spirit" is a fundamental cultural setting handed down. Although yes many people (even if it's not official in theology) translate this into sex/masturbation=bad unless there's specialized permission (marriage), it's true not all do. But the point is that sex is not just of the flesh (in our culture it often is, but that is the shallow version of it), and anybody who thinks it is has exactly the kind of limited perspective on it that caused my comment in the first place.

Sex, like mathematics, has a higher level of application in which what we normally consider that topic becomes simplistic and crude; a fundamental of bringing about the rest, sure, but a really shallow version of the larger potential.


the rest of your post assumes that religious people or christians still do view sex as dirty. that's just not the case. the focus has always been on the war between the temporal (Temporary) demands of the body and the eternal state of the spirit.


As you point out, you separate spirit from the body, which was the primary point I was trying to make but apparently did so badly. I don't separate them wholly. I believe in spirit wholeheartedly, but I think we as entities are vastly larger than we know and we are an entire "spectrum" of vibrating energy -- which in the small little bandwidth we call physical reality, we call flesh, and we generically assign all the rest of us to 'spirit'.


it's a matter of defining spirit and knowing how the temporary body interacts with it


We're white light; the body is the red-band of the rainbow. We can manifest and unmanifest although in this framework it's done via what we call birth and death. I do not see the body as a temporary shell that houses spirit and drags it down from more spiritual things; I see it as OF the spirit.

It's basically a theological-philosophical difference, and that's ok.


chances are, though, the physical dimension is the least populated since it's temporary.


Every dimension is just vibrating energy; a frequency bandwidth. An entity can be fully present in this dimension without having physical mass; that's an option, is all. We use it to talk to each other so we think it's the only option because we don't hear all the others around us. Well except a few and then we attribute them to all kinds of aliens, entities, paranormal critters.

Best,
PJ



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 


(pardon the off topic jaunt! but i gotta ask...how do you think this relates to the idea that new city jerusalem is supposed to be composed almost entirely of crystalline structures? even the street is described as see-thru gold colored crystals of some sort. every time i think about that, it messes with my head.)

back on the topic: yes well, i think you make a good point and this all relates now to the idea of-- do women (generic) and men (generic) vibrate differently and what does that mean? i sure hope we aren't different in the spiritual plane because i've had just about enough of that entire idea.

to quote the muppets take manhattan: peoples is peoples.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by undo]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
continued to Stellar X,


I think your overplaying the victim ideology when the capitalist system the world currently suffers under is doing it's absolute best to perpetuate the myth that there are no victims and that people fail or suffer due to their own actions, or for those who really suffer, their supposed inaction.

Perpetuating a victim ideology would be VERY bad for business as people would come to , somehow, not explained, 'rely' on government which would then have to be responsive to their needs thus failing to reroute ever more of their taxes to the rich minority who practically owns the government and its propaganda tools.


Disagree here..economics is politics is, if necessary, selling the souls of the public to which ever template gets them votes to keep and maintain power. It is also often a Hegelian Dialectic at work. Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.

The technique so often popular and used here is in fact the "Victim Dictum."

In this couintry there is no other group of people outside of women who watch more television and buy more products and direct more of the economics and who also have the greatest voting power in any election outside of any so called minority..ever.
The women in this country are the majority influence in all categories except the most stressful and dangerous jobs.
They do however tend to marry or attach themselves to the most successful men in these cagtegories and reap the benefits of such risk taking. Competition can be fierce for these successful men.

All I have to do is read romance novels to see this pattern of female success perpetuated over and over in the minds of women. And women buy alot of these books and magazines..thus demonstrating again that this is not an oppressed minorithy. What opprressed vicitmized group has the time and moneys to purchase and read so much of this stuff??

Oh and I agree.in the long run perpetuating the Victim dictum will indeed be bad for buisness. It will however be very good for the body politic to keep and maintain power by getting votes using this dictum. Hence political expediency will be maintained in lieu of what is good for buisness.
Are not many security/socially minded governments attempting to maintain thier power base..voting for more security minded social programs for votes...in spite of destroying their economic base, who is required to pay for these programs? What group or sex is the major beneficiary of such programs?? I can gaurantee you it is not the males.

Here among the states ..California is paying a heavy price for this security mindedness. Buisnesses are fleeing the state while they are imposing even more support taxes on the remaining buisnesses. It will cause the remaining buisnesses to flee even faster.

If you dissect closely ..the television programming and advertisements both are highly skewed to this direction and purpose...to this group while teaching and preaching that this is a victimized minority. I am not buying into it.

When one dissects it down to its common denominators...and particularly in economically developed nations....male power is for the purpose of directing it to the female and children. No safety net for him.

Female power is for the purpose of directing it to the female needs and the childrens needs while screaming inequalty injustice. Lots of safety net for them and the children..either through a man or a government program or both...and increasing here.

In short ..the roles have become disfunctioinal...as is obvious by the posts on this thread. Any questioning of this status brings about the rebuke and scorn one gets as per on here.

Now .are all men and women buying into this template..no they are not. Thank God this is not so across the board. But it is becoming increasingly apparent that something is not working. What is working is alot of default settings ..givens...its a given.


Strange that even with your perspective women ends up the longest suffering victims of our current system.


Disagree for the reasons stated above.


And in my mind they are and when women eventually figures this out and gains the power to do something about it 'we' might really be in trouble. There is a particularly good Anime series that comes to mind.


Indeed...there is no women's socialization instruction to take care of the men in the manner men have traditionally taken care of the females.
To do something about it means that the women will be responsible for keeping and maintaining all the systems they currently take so for granted all around them. Most will not be wont to do this type of labor or commitment. See my statements above about safety nets.

The sad truth about things is that women tend to go for "success objects" in objectifying men..and men tend to go for "sex objects" in objectifying women. This too has become disfunctional in todays social economic structure in that it too has not brought the stability it used to do.
LOL LOL Whitewave is often wont to remind me and other males about the women as "sex objects." Keeps us in line.!!
Though I like and appreciate the female form as much as the next man, I think men today have sold themselves way short in this arena due to thier own natural ignorance. The women as well.


But historically women were even more expendable&disposable as the high death's from multiple births ( to say nothing of war&famine) should in my opinion indicate? Sure men protected their families but seemingly as their possessions.

I think that while , mostly western, women are facing new risks ( as well as plenty of the old ones ) these days their potential gains are astronomically higher hence the fact that you find them struggling for similar opportunities all over the world.

In closing i don't see that women have much, if anything, to lose even if society itself is changed in perhaps less obviously progressive ways.


Diagree..again...Stellar.

While this once may have been true...once again it is however and example of female inexpendabilty and male expendability both in history and now. Remember ..both male and female had much shorter and more difficult lives in past history. Now today..this has changed substantially. One trip to graveyards with headstone dates over a hundred years olde illustrates clearly that there was a noticable trend of women perishing in childbirth. this is undeliable. I have myself seen numerous olde headstones of women and right next to them thier newborns. Very sad to see.
Technology has greatly reversed this trend and this too is obvous by graveyard headstones today of more recent times.
So when I see people trying to insert this as an example of victimization ...I quickly say to myself..ok...time warp techniques...I am supppsed to be silent on this one and let it pass.

Knowledge and technological innovation is what has changed this for the better. Not victimization still going on. While this technological innovation has done much for childbirth and death of the woman and child in birth..what has it done for male risks across the borad and on the job??

This medical knowledge and benefit is more and more finding its way to the traditionally third world nations and making a difference in Childbirth/Mother deaths in those nations. About tiime too.

I believe you are in Africa. What has technological innovation done to make diamond mining more safe for the males involved in it..or are there now droves of women going down into these deep mines?? It is my belief that if women were going down into these mines they would be made safer places to work rather quickly...or shutdown due to the costs of maintaining them. That is ..unless of course the costs can be deducted off a companys taxes...ie..subsidized..where everyone picks up the tab. Once again demonstrating male disposability and expendability

While mostly Western women are facing new risks???....I dont think so Stellar.

I think that more third world women and men both face more daily risks than both western men and women and have always done so. Little to no safety net for them. Nothing new here. Compared to third world peoples ..western man has had it so fantastically good...we have to mess it up..we simply have little perspective on other places in the world today Our technology has shielded us from much of the world and other conditions. It has made us better consumers and not better peoples.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I don't understand why you make whole posts italic. It is more difficult to read on the dark theme.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
In this couintry there is no other group of people outside of women who watch more television and buy more products and direct more of the economics and who also have the greatest voting power in any election outside of any so called minority..ever.


Which translates to, "There are slightly more women than men." And, "Women do more of the shopping." The latter is changing, as advertisers note.

If you ask me this is in part because most men really don't care as much as women do what color the curtains are or what kind of stove they get or the details of what might be for dinner next week. There are exceptions.


All I have to do is read romance novels to see this pattern of female success perpetuated over and over in the minds of women.


I sometimes read romance novels. I recently finished writing a paranormal mystery romance novel. Could you please remind me of what 'pattern' you are abstractly referring to here so I can look for it.

You mean the pattern where a goodhearted and somewhat lovely woman meets a goodhearted and somewhat lovely man?--that is the basis for romance novels. All the other details vary.


And women buy alot of these books and magazines..thus demonstrating again that this is not an oppressed minorithy. What opprressed vicitmized group has the time and moneys to purchase and read so much of this stuff??


I beg your pardon? You are implying that entire history of women can be disregarded as irrelevant or inaccurate because women read romance novels?! What kind of logic is this--never mind, it is not logic.

First of all, you have no idea who is reading them or how much they're reading.

Second, you don't know anything about why some women might have time for that.

Third, you don't know anything about how much time it really takes to read a book for each individual. I can read an 800-1100 page book in a day if I wish, and this is somewhat above normal, but it means I could sit down and read several romance novels every day and it would take far less time than most people spend gazing at the television.

Fourth, if we compared 'romance novel quantity' to 'porn quantity' with the same logic, it's amazing any man ever gets anything done LOL.


Are not many security/socially minded governments attempting to maintain thier power base..voting for more security minded social programs for votes...in spite of destroying their economic base, who is required to pay for these programs? What group or sex is the major beneficiary of such programs?? I can gaurantee you it is not the males.


Women are the ones who give birth to most of the kids those programs target. (The rest are gender-neutral.) Take it up with God.


Here among the states ..California is paying a heavy price for this security mindedness.


You can't possibly look at the illegal alien situation in california and tell me women are the problem. Good grief.


When one dissects it down to its common denominators...and particularly in economically developed nations....male power is for the purpose of directing it to the female and children.


Biologically and historically, that is fairly accurate; the man's role was as provider and protector. In healthy humans this is not a bad thing, and the roles are often reversed in today's world, but usually one person takes that role.


Female power is for the purpose of directing it to the female needs and the childrens needs while screaming inequalty injustice.


Biologically and historically, it is for the children and protecting the mother to raise the children. In healthy humans this is a good thing.

Your stapling on "screaming inequality injustice" may in some cases be valid but (a) sometimes they are accurate frankly, and (b) it's not like this is an issue with every woman on earth. Really, you sound kind of hysterical.


In short ..the roles have become disfunctioinal...as is obvious by the posts on this thread. Any questioning of this status brings about the rebuke and scorn one gets as per on here.


There's as much from men as women on this thread overall. And some of the women were responded to by other women in defense as well. I notice you... overlooked that part.


Indeed...there is no women's socialization instruction to take care of the men in the manner men have traditionally taken care of the females.


For good reason. Men are generally stronger and do not usually have 9 months of pregnancy and then an infant and toddler to care for.


To do something about it means that the women will be responsible for keeping and maintaining all the systems they currently take so for granted all around them. Most will not be wont to do this type of labor or commitment.


You mean they won't dig ditches while the man breastfeeds? Be specific.


The sad truth about things is that women tend to go for "success objects" in objectifying men..and men tend to go for "sex objects" in objectifying women. This too has become disfunctional in todays social economic structure


I lost track of which person said this, but I agree with this. People mature enough to look for character, humor, intelligence, integrity, are rare in both genders.

Best,
PJ



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Orangetom,

well, here's the problem.....
most of the workforce at my place of employment ARE WOMEN!!!

kind of flies in the face of your stereotypical view of things don't ya think?

ya, we all find it so emotionally rewarding to have to follow a tyrannical witch with an issue when it comes to power....

sure....

and as far as us watching more tv, ya we might watch more tv, but I bet you guys spend more hours playing video games than we do watching tv! and as far as spending, you barking up the wrong tree with me!! since before christmas...I've been to three stores, mainly because well, it's quite painful to get around and well, my husband would rather be in charge of spending the money anyways,...(he has more control that way)

I read your posts and they are so unlike how I live, I almost find them laughable!

at least I have enough common sense to know that not all men are like my husband....you being one of them, or I'd probably be blasting you right now....since the wicked witch of the west has such a tendancy of putting me in a really fowl mood and well....I ain't been out of work that long..



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
While this technological innovation has done much for childbirth and death of the woman and child in birth..what has it done for male risks across the borad and on the job??

Technology has improved the situation of humans almost across the board. There are a rare few exceptions. I cannot believe you resent women in an area like this. That isn't the fault of women.

Besides, nearly all the technological innovations until recently were actually brought about men, because they were the ones more prone to have that kind of education and job. (Not all were men. Many women go unrecognized for great contributions the last few centuries. But the majority.)


I believe you are in Africa. What has technological innovation done to make diamond mining more safe for the males involved in it..or are there now droves of women going down into these deep mines??


There are women miners, but much like digging ditches, the vast vast majority tend to be men. This might be because of its odd similarity with (wait for it) digging ditches.

Most mining is a nasty job and the overall process has a nasty effect on everything from the ecology to the workers. The people who OWN the mining companies are mostly men. Regardless, the state of mining as a hazardous occupation is not the fault of women.


It is my belief that if women were going down into these mines they would be made safer places to work rather quickly...or shutdown due to the costs of maintaining them.


Historically, women have died right along with men in lousy jobs when they had them. If they had them more seldom because, usually, they were home raising children, again that's an issue to take up with a higher authority than women.

Your belief is a belief. I have one too. I think if women were mining more often it probably wouldn't change anything. Unless, eventually, women themselves were impelled to seek change--which I might add, women often are.

Now if you wanted to discuss the philosophy of why women will strive for better conditions and men will plod on miserably, that's interesting, but a different subject in a way. Either way, men's choices in that area are not the fault of women; if they are simply not driven toward the activism to make things safer, prettier, or more flexible--as women have been in the workplace the last half century--that is not the fault of women.


Our technology has shielded us from much of the world and other conditions. It has made us better consumers and not better peoples.


I agree with that. But what has it to do with women?

PJ




[edit on 6-3-2009 by RedCairo]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
illusions



SOME some some. if you use the generic "men" and "women" concepts, you put the pendulum right back into the dramatic swing to the other side. i don't know if you could even call it a norm.


True. Some. But I would call it a norm. Look at media. Look at sitcoms, movies, etc. You see far more non-quarterback of the football team males having girlfriends, spouses, etc., that are "female alphas" in terms of beauty, than you see "female betas" in terms of beauty linked with the male alphas in terms of physicality. We do have an expectation that women can be paired with men who are less physically virile and attractive, and we do question why a handsome dominant male would choose to be with a female that is less than beautiful or youthful.

Again, natural selection has played a part in this. Womens fertility DOES diminish over time more rapidly than male fertility does. But culture has also played a role in this. The fact that marriage has often been the only predictor of a womans social and economic standing has created a situation where women will override their feelings about a male physically (if he is old, out of shape, or just plain unattractive,) to marry well.

If women had an equally powerful position in society, and were able to provide for themselves just as well as men were, you would not expect to see this. You would see females selecting men based on sexual attractiveness much like males do, rather than on sheer economics. As was seen in Britain before the culture and religions of the south were imposed.

www.archive.org...


Apropos of this, a quite
witty remark is reported of the wife of Argentocoxus,
a Caledonian, to Julia Augusta, when the latter after
the treaty was joking her about the free intercourse of
her sex in Britain with men. Thereupon the foreigner
asserted: "We fulfill the necessities of nature in a
much better way than you Eoman women. We have
dealings openly with the best men, whereas you let
yourselves be debauched in secret by the vilest. " This
is what the British woman said.


So while I agree with you it is some, and not all, one can rarely logically say all in relation to humans, I would say it is a norm. It is a cultural expectation that women overlook the physical qualities of men to a greater degree that that expected of men. It is so common for women to be judged on their beauty and youth alone, we hold pageants for it. I have never heard a male candidate for President be criticized for his lack of physical prowess, but I have heard Hillary called names like "ugly."

www.msnbc.msn.com...


The reporter, Ben Smith, told the AP that Spencer made the comments as Spencer, his wife and Smith sat together. He said he didn't tape-record the comments but did take notes.

"You ever see a picture of her back then? Whew. I don't know why Bill married her," The Daily News quoted Spencer as saying about Clinton.

Spencer said Clinton looks different now, chalking it up to "millions of dollars" of "work," according to the tabloid.



mediamatters.org...

And of course Imus. Not to mention all the criticism of her hair, shoes, pantsuits, etc.

I think it is entirely fair to say that womens physicality is judged more harshly than the physical virility of men, both culturally and personally. While nature would not indicate that that should be the case.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Solomon was under the Law of Moses. Not that sex was or was not a dirty thing. It is this misconstruing which so often confuses people. The Hebrews of Solomon's time had no such instruction to define themselves by whether sex was or was not a dirty thing.
What is clear to those who can think it through is not about sex or sexuality in the Law of Moses. This trend of sex or sexuality was already being covered more than amply in the traditions of the nations surrounding Ancient Israel. The Pagan Nations. These Hebrews were instructed to not do as the nations surrounding them were ALREADY doing.

If one knows anything about the festivities of these nations and their worship services to their gods it becomes obvious. Their traditions.
And these are the very traditions which the leadership of Israel began to sneak in privily in place of the Law of Moses and even to overlay it into the Law of Moses as if it was the Law when it was no such thing.

To the Believer it is never about sex and sexuality. To the traditionalist..the pagan it is always about this kind of thing...first and foremost.

This can be found over and over in history if one knows where and how to look. It is throughout their economies and customs as it is becoming so in ours.


Which translates to, "There are slightly more women than men." And, "Women do more of the shopping." The latter is changing, as advertisers note.

If you ask me this is in part because most men really don't care as much as women do what color the curtains are or what kind of stove they get or the details of what might be for dinner next week. There are exceptions.


Quite correct here Red Cairo. Correct. Not only are there slightly more women than men but they also have the discretionary spending of not only the moneys they earn but their mans as well. This is a lot of economic power which means political power, which means advertising power, which means more advertising marketed to them in all time slots and througout all of the media. This once gain cannot possibly be a "victimized group" of peoples


The standard nonsensical rhetoric is men earn more moneys. What men do not do for the moneys they earn is have such discretionary control over the spending of the moneys they earn. This is NEVER explained while touting the standard lines about wage inequality and glass ceilings. Women making as much or more than men will not change this pattern at all. Women are not going to turn over such a large amount of their earnings to a man for his discretionary spending.
No matter how you cut it ..in western economies ...women are not a "victimized group."

I am not arguing for the point of women making less than men...don't get me wrong here. If a woman works in the same occupation as a man and takes the same risks...she should be recognized with the same pay.

I am saying that this is not a victimized group.


I beg your pardon? You are implying that entire history of women can be disregarded as irrelevant or inaccurate because women read romance novels?! What kind of logic is this--never mind, it is not logic.


Your doing fine in your points here Red Cairo..don't get all drama on me now. I am implying no such thing. I am saying that the male point is defaulted in lieu of the female drama..through victimization politics..victimization socialism defaults to play through unquestioned ..unchallenged.
I am saying what "downtrodden victimized group" has this much time to support such a huge market for so many of this type of books?? I am not using time warp techniques here..I am speaking of right now.....of recent.

I go to Books A Million, Barnes and Noble as well as used book stores. The amount of shelf space for these kinds of books is staggering once I began to take notice. Magazines as well.


First of all, you have no idea who is reading them or how much they're reading.

Second, you don't know anything about why some women might have time for that.

Third, you don't know anything about how much time it really takes to read a book for each individual. I can read an 800-1100 page book in a day if I wish, and this is somewhat above normal, but it means I could sit down and read several romance novels every day and it would take far less time than most people spend gazing at the television.


You are absolutely correct here. I don't know who is reading them or why they have time for that. That is none of my business. Correct here.

What I do know is that there is obviously a huge market share for these books/magazines both in new and used format. HUGE!! This is a tell tale trace or sign of something bigger happening.
What it does not tell tale..is Victimization.

Oh..and correct again Red Cairo...I do not in fact know how long it takes individuals to read a book. 800 to 1000 pages in a day. Wow!! That is good. I can do this too with most novels. You are to be congratulated here. Most folks today would rather be watchers than readers and thinkers.
You are somewhat of a square peg in a round hole in this regard.


Fourth, if we compared 'romance novel quantity' to 'porn quantity' with the same logic, it's amazing any man ever gets anything done LOL.


LOL LOL LOL Red Cairo...this ..is not worthy of you ..really ..
I believe you need to think this through much more.

I do know what is soft porn in many of these magazines and romance novels. Just because sex is fed to women in a different manner/venue than it is to men does not make it non porn. Many of these novels and magazine are in fact quite steamy and in some ways obscene. It is just not marketed to men as it is to women. It would not sell if marketed in the same manner. They are still selling sex, sexulalty.
"Access to dreams fantasies, beliefs, expectations, cheaply and without rejection."
The only difference is that their market is targeted to women.

You are going to have to be a lot faster to sell me on the porn thing. I do not fit the textbook oil shortage, swimsuit edition, sports/cheerleaders mentality of most males out here.

Why do you think I often make the statement that people are so much more than sexuality??


Women are the ones who give birth to most of the kids those programs target. (The rest are gender-neutral.) Take it up with God.
"
Here among the states ..California is paying a heavy price for this security mindedness.
"
You can't possibly look at the illegal alien situation in california and tell me women are the problem. Good grief.


Think your first quote through and then look at your second quote ..mine is the one in between. Think it trough carefully.

The folks in California are begining to vote with thier feet. Most security minded programs are directed to women and children ..they are not directed to men.


Biologically and historically, that is fairly accurate; the man's role was as provider and protector. In healthy humans this is not a bad thing, and the roles are often reversed in today's world, but usually one person takes that role.


Correct ..it is not an unhealthy thing. But I stand by what I stated..most of the women I know are not interested in Good providing for a male in the manner female socialization expects and beleives is due. Children or not.
The tendency is to marry or date up the economic/status ladder..not down.
Competition can be fierce in this arena.
Women have not evolved this far as of yet. Victimization for now is more convenient and disguises much of what I am saying.


Your stapling on "screaming inequality injustice" may in some cases be valid but (a) sometimes they are accurate frankly, and (b) it's not like this is an issue with every woman on earth. Really, you sound kind of hysterical.


No it is not an issue with every woman on earth..correct again. But it is a template found often and when a man stands up it recieves exactly the responses one sees on this thread. No problem I have been here before...alone.

You know the woman I see sometimes comes over in the afternoon when I take off and watches those afternoon programs directed to and for women. YOu know ...the ones where they take a lie detector test or a DNA test. I cannot sit down an watch them with her ..they are disgusting. I have enough problems and tasks to solve of my own..I dont need to be voyeuristically watching someone elses. I call these the male bashing programs. There is a plethora of them now days and they have replaced the previous generations. One thing is quite obvious about them...they cannot alienate their audience.

I have only heard one talk show host who tells it pretty much like it is male and female. Ironically it is a woman, not a man...and her name escapes me at the moment. I think they were or are a psychologist.
Though I admire her alot for being able to shoot straight I dont always agree with her but respect her nonetheless ...for beign able to shooting straight. I dont even know if they are still around..I have not heard them in quite some time. But I cannot seem to recall the name.!!??

I am running out of characters or numbers down at the bottom of my counter. Will continue once again.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Undo..continued.


Indeed...there is no women's socialization instruction to take care of the men in the manner men have traditionally taken care of the females.

For good reason. Men are generally stronger and do not usually have 9 months of pregnancy and then an infant and toddler to care for.


So this justifies male expendability and disposability and for marketing reasons??..ie..votes?? It is also not equality.

There is an overall tendency socially of tenderness of the male to the female in all categories ...particularly in more advanced western economies and particularly the tenderness expressed as the willingness to take RISKs for a woman and child. This is not the other way around. socially. It is also not equality. It will become dysfunctional if trends continue..by victimization and entitlement.


To do something about it means that the women will be responsible for keeping and maintaining all the systems they currently take so for granted all around them. Most will not be wont to do this type of labor or commitment.

You mean they won't dig ditches while the man breastfeeds? Be specific.


Not worthy of you Red Cairo..just like Illusions. I am saying that the systems and risks which keep much of our economies going are not the kind of risks and skills in which most women are wont to pursue as a career. Can you see women doing refrigeration work..both installing and maintaining commercial refrigeration units at the local shopping centers as well as at the offices where so many work?? Yet they reap the benefits of this risk from others. It does not do well to scream victimization once one thinks this through.
I know what kind of work Illusions does for her moneys and it is mostly a male environment. I tip my hat and more power to her. She is sort of a square peg in a round hole..but I don't think the bulk of womanhood is trying ravenously to take her job from her...nor mine as a nuclear fueler.

Yes I too don't recall who stated it but have seen it several times about success objects and sex objects.

I am watching the clock and must shove off now.

Thanks for your post and time in making it

Orangetom


[edit on 6-3-2009 by orangetom1999]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
What group or sex is the major beneficiary of such programs?? I can gaurantee you it is not the males.


Yes it is. They just dont get the checks. It is their children that the taxpayers are supporting, AND many of them dont even do the day to day snot wiping and diaper changing end of it. You guys always forget that there is a male involved in every baby. So, he is benefiting. His crappy genes get passed down right along side the crappy female genes and the taxpayers make sure the child survives to have more children. He benefits even more, because he doesnt even have to be saddled with the child, or the stigma of being a "welfare father."



Originally posted by orangetom1999
Knowledge and technological innovation is what has changed this for the better. Not victimization still going on. While this technological innovation has done much for childbirth and death of the woman and child in birth..what has it done for male risks across the borad and on the job??


Clearly a man who has never worked in the trades. While it is true, the male executive is just as likely to get a paper cut, or a sore rear end from sitting at his desk all day, or perhaps suffer a golf injury, safety has improved greatly for the construction male, the military male, and many other of these risk taking males you mention. (and females who do those jobs too)

This of course does not mean no one dies, but to even try to claim that there has been no lessening of risk and death to males is just a flat out lie. Or total ignorance. Safety equipment, machine guards, harnesses, testing equipment to make sure manholes are not full of lethal gasses, blowers, MSDS sheets, lock out tag out procedures, fines from OSHA, etc, etc, have all contributed to far less injury and death on the job in risky professions.

Body armor, armored vehicles, mine sweepers, night vision, longer range weapons, etc., etc., have also made the terribly dangerous profession of the military somewhat safer. You cant eliminate ALL risk, either from childbirth or war, but please lets not dramatize here and pretend that all the protections of society are directed towards women.


[edit on 6-3-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


i didn't say any of things you claimed i did in that post. wrong person.

what i keep saying and will continue to say is: stop stereotyping.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Geesh this is getting long, so it will take a few separate posts to hit each point.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Not only are there slightly more women than men but they also have the discretionary spending of not only the moneys they earn but their mans as well.


I see this as a stereotype and a bias. I have seen more women asking permission of their mate to use their own money for something than I have seen women simply taking their mate's money on top of their own and doing whatever they want without his input.

You are using this entire bias -- that women have their own (lesser-earned though equally worked) money "and the man's too!" to justify:

"This is a lot of economic power which means political power, which means advertising power [...] cannot possibly be a "victimized group" of peoples."

You are extending the minimal territory your logic buys you into conclusions that are not at all supported by it. I believe this is looking for justification of a belief system, vs. arriving at a belief system by any system of reason.


What men do not do for the moneys they earn is have such discretionary control over the spending of the moneys they earn.


Ludicrous. If my brother were alive today I believe he would say, "Then they're p*ssies!" A truly sexist remark itself of course but his favorite adjective for spineless wimpering dolts. Of course he was one of those men women bitch about...

Literally this is just like saying, "Today I made $10. I went and [voluntarily gave it to my roommate who also made $10. It's so unfair that my roommate has all the money!" The key in there is that MEN DO WHAT THEY CHOOSE TO DO. You cannot blame women for men's decisions--that is just irrational.

If you really believe this stuff you should start a movement, web page, blog, whatever, to encourage men to have some self respect and learn to take control of their lives.

As for mandated $: women result often in men having to pay child support -- but men result often in women having to pay probably 80% of the cost of raising a kid even WITH child support, let alone how many raise them without it, and that's despite the fact that in every case a man was 50% of that child coming about. So we'll have to stick with 'giving it away voluntarily' as the complaint since in the mandated child support case the women are vastly worse off than men.



This is NEVER explained while touting the standard lines about wage inequality and glass ceilings.


It is never explained that men have no control over their own income and they voluntarily give it to their women and so this makes any gripes about workplace inequality etc. moot?!--come on, that's not logical at all either. Why should those two go together except maybe for you personally? I have not seen those two topics particularly related in people around me or in my own life.


I do see one thing from this thread. My men are a lot tougher. Any man who didn't have the courage to disagree with me and chart the course of his own life and work with me as an equal would be out of my life in minutes. If this means that wimpy men get worse women just like wimpy women get worse men, it wouldn't surprise me, but that's another issue. In either case it's still about human beings having a little self-determination.



Women are not going to turn over such a large amount of their earnings to a man for his discretionary spending.


Why should they? Why should men to begin with? 'Discretionary' is not 'basic living stuff'. So what men give up to their women is their choice. And I'm still not in agreement that they hand it over to the women anyway. On my street there are only four houses. In one, an elderly widow lives. She supported her man for many years. On the left, a mid-50's couple lives. They both work; they have no children together. They make decisions about money together and they make about the same doing different jobs (='not much'). On the right, a mid-30's couple lives. She's a nurse and she mostly supports him. Seasonally, he works 'occasionally', but mostly drinks too much and treats all of them badly. And then there's me, I'm a single mom with no child support. In this little microcosm example of a real neighborhood, there's not a single example supporting your theory but several examples refuting it.

So maybe in your world, all women are calculating and all men are pitiful and have to hand over their paychecks to their "discretionary" whims. But in my world, it just doesn't work that way. Maybe we are both wrong, but what it mostly shows is that this is a stereotype either way.



I am saying that this is not a victimized group.


I simply fail to see that your personal bias constitutes any objective logic about this.

I would be more than happy to hear good logic on this. I support a good number of things like 'Father's Rights' and do not always support the feminist stuff, much of which I think is overblown.

PJ




top topics



 
58
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join