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.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
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.
One can't help but wonder why it took Playgirl so long to embrace their male demographic, which accounts for 60% of the title's readership and 65% of online subscribers. As this abridged time line shows, the title has a rich homo history. 1978 Centerfold Brian Dawson won a 1989 leather competition. 30th anniversary hunk Scott Merritt came out in a 2003 Advocate interview, while February of 1979's David Grant paid the bills as gay porn star Clay Russell.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
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 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.
don't get all drama on me now. I am implying no such thing. [...] 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. [...] The amount of shelf space for these kinds of books is staggering once I began to take notice.
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.
Fourth, if we compared 'romance novel quantity' to 'porn quantity' with the same logic, it's amazing any man ever gets anything done LOL.
I do know what is soft porn in many of these magazines and romance novels. [...] 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??
Originally posted by undo
(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.)
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.
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.
Originally posted by whitewave
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
Women have always been in "the workforce", but now they're getting paid for their work. This seems to have upset quite a few men.
My! What powerful beings women are that we can bring the world's economy to it's knees without even trying! Puhleeeze! Men blaming women who are being paid for their labors as the cause for our current financial woes are a perfect example of that victimization mentality OT mentioned earlier.
Originally posted by JohnnyR
reply to post by nikiano
Oh nik, dont get so mad at me, I wasnt in all honesty taking a shot at you. I was only trying to say that maybe if you didnt have such a bad view of "most" men you would attract the ones you look for.
I dont know you and Im sure you are a great person and deserve someone just as great. Sorry for comming off so combative, but you cant deny how someone who doesnt know you would view that post.
As i stated early in reponse to Oracle, I agree the pickings are small, but you know how it goes with the law of attraction, but I digress, We're a bit off topic.
I guess what I was trying to get at but apparently stuck a size 11 in my mouth was, maybe we need to look at the ramifications of children not being raised by the one that can do it best. SHHHHH though, I might lose my role as the stay at home dad, and that would bum me out.
I see it, my wife is like a magician sometimes dealing with our kids, she just has that touch or 6th sence that i seem to be missing. hahaha
But ya sorry again Nik, didnt mean to come off like I was taking a shot at you.
JohnnyR
PS. I bet if we were actually in the same room talking Nik, instead of in a forum, you wouldnt have taken what I said as an insult, because you would have seen my face and noticed I meant no harm
[edit on 3/3/2009 by JohnnyR]
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.
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.!!??
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.
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.
Originally posted by mcguyvermanolo
In the early part of the last century two fuels were used to run Henry Ford's Automobiles.
Alcohol and Gasoline. You just moved a control on the dashboard to lean the mixture.
Cheap plentiful and clean, alcohol was the clear winner.
But the Rockerfeller's wanted the monopoly on gas and over alcohol. So they fronted the "Women's Temperance Movement". The Prohibition wiped out ALL alcohol consumption.
Brilliant, huh?
In the sixties, The Rockerfeller Foundation funded and actively promoted the "Women's Liberation Movement"
and the Rockerfeller's are one of the shareholders of "The FED", Women in the workplace DOUBLED their annual theft of the American People to the tune of 25-30% of their income.
As a bonus, they got the mothers out of the house and away from their children.
This made the indoctrination of Public Education for the entire Middle and Lower Classes
easy and clandestine.
This information was expressed to Aaron Russo by Nicholas Rockerfeller during their brief friendship. You can google Mr Russo's interviews on this topic and others with Alex Jones.
Aaron Russo was a filmmaker, giving us "The Rose" and "Trading Places".
His last gift to us was, "America, Freedom to Fascism". Everything on it is in the Public Domain and Vetted.
Originally posted by mcguyvermanolo
This information was expressed to Aaron Russo by Nicholas Rockerfeller
Originally posted by Dark Ghost
On the other hand, I personally do feel the large increase in the number of working women over the years has had a negative impact on the health of the average family around the world.
Originally posted by reasoner
Exactly.
Over the past 40 years, the US wealth per capita has risen substantially. There was once an idealistic concept that this wealth would mean that we could continue to lower the work week - like make a decent living while spending 36 or 32 hours away from the family. Kids would have more parental care, husbands and wives more time together, while maintaining a similar lifestyle. Instead we've seen the opposite trend. Everybody feels time pressed and overly busy, most households need two incomes. How is that possible?
Currently, one third of the wealth in the US is owned by the top 1%; the next third by the next 9%, and the final third by the remaining 90%. (For income the thirds go to 10% / 30% / 60%; not surprisingly, it's far easier to accumulate wealth if your income is $400,000/yr than $40,000 because you have far more surplus to invest).
These figures have been increasingly skewed upward every decade.
The migration of ever more income and wealth towards the top has been going on since the 50s. A number of political scientists and economists have indicated that after setting aside any emotional questions of "fairness", this is an unstable and unsustainable trend for society.
A nation (like the US) has a total net production of wealth (for example measured by the GDP), which is intended to rise by some percentage each year (but which falls in a recession). How that wealth gets divided also changes over time - as a higher or lower portion of the GDP goes to the top percentiles when all is said and done. If more of it flows to the top, it gets harder for 40 hours of labor to support a family in the middle or bottom. So women are often forced to work (and/or people take second jobs).
Don't blame the women - would it have been better for society and families if most men today had 60-80 hour work weeks while most women stayed home? Or for the children to work at factories instead of going to school?
It serves those in the top percentiles to have those in the lower percentiles fighting and blaming each other. "If it weren't for the women/blacks/latinos/illegals, we'd be earning a living wage and society would be better". This is fighting over the crumbs, seeing only what those who benefit most have directed you to see.
Some will immediately ignore this, calling it "class war". Yet actually my politics here are more like those of Dwight Eisenhower rather than Leon Trotsky. I don't want to go to the other extreme! I want to return to what used to be the American middle, but which has been systematically distorted via propaganda.
No matter what solution we think best (even maintaining the upward concentration of wealth if you think that really is the best system), I think we need to be constantly aware of what's going on. However, I believe this disparity of wealth (and thus power) will destroy the nation - ultimately collapsing under those at the top as well (unless they can surround themselves with private security guards or move to enclaves in other countries).
Let's all read these critiques of women in the workplace with the big picture in mind, always asking the questions Whisper67 suggests.
"Follow the money" - Deep Throat
reasoner
Originally posted by dodadoom
Hey, I'm not belittleing the hard work shown by women at all!
You are putting way more into what I said than I meant.
You're getting too different issues lumped together.
You want to stick up for the system that wouldn't let you
even vote for years? Go right ahead!!!
Better go back and study the movement in the 1920's.
I guess I should of said MAYBE this happened!
I'm saying I trust women generally.
The gubment? Not really. Thanks for callin me out on it!
My mother worked because dad got hurt. She worked at
home to be here for us. Whatever any person wants to do
is fine by me. My wife takes care of the home while I work,
her choice.
I would like her to work a little, but its nice shes
home too. If we we're dumb and had big payments, then ya.
We started in a small crappy house and fixed it up sold it
for more and eventually ended up in the one we wanted.
You cant just assume you can always make big payments!
Dont think its normal to have to work 24/7 just to have stuff
that is really pointless and made by china in the first place
therby creating jobs that are not here either!
Ya, thats WHY so many houses are in foreclosure.
The usa wasn't taught economics or living within it's means!
It also thinks the gubment should be weak and stay out of regulating, hereby giving the crooks free rein and actually rewarding them!
Amazing!
All systems check and plan is going according to schedule!
How are you gonna know all this living where you do anyway?
I think the title to this thread is questionable, being designed to
illicit arguments in the first place. IMO
Originally posted by Dark Ghost
On the other hand, I personally do feel the large increase in the number of working women over the years has had a negative impact on the health of the average family around the world.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
Alora, this is correct, in America we have not been able to sustain a family with one income since the 1960's.
And I am not saying the way to fix the economy is to fire every woman. I am also not blaming women for the economic crisis. I am referencing historically, and the article is referencing historically for Ireland.