Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

ECON: Working women almost certainly caused the credit crunch

page: 20
58
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Besides, the sexist shoe can be worn by both sexes. If I were truly concerned with suppression of basic equality and human rights, I'd go so far as to make an argument that much of the problems with the world, the ruling elite, and the dog eat dog fundamentals that exist in a world of such tragedy, with billions treated as expendable non-persons by the ruling class, and corporate greed seen as the end to all of apsirations, as out of control male energy. If I were truly sexist, I would not think working for the balance between both creative driving forces, and cooperative social justice arrangements was not the most ideal, and immediately consider gathering all women together, as we are 52% of the population by age 20, and swiftly curtail male rights entirely.

52% of us may find men rather adorable in aprons with not much else on, if you get my drift. Thankfully, the whole idea of suppression of anyones energy and rights is repulsive to me.




posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I dont feel that women working has had a negative impact on families.

1) Poor women have always had to work. As have women who were divorced, abandoned, widowed, etc. Now they can actually afford to feed, clothe, and educate their children. This is a positive thing.

2)Before women had the right to work for decent pay, many women were forced by economics to put up with physical and emotional abuse. (as were their children who witnessed it) Now they can leave, and at the very least, less children have to grow up watching Mom get her butt whipped regularly.
It still happens, I know, but now more women can leave, because they can afford to support themselves.


I agree with both those points as positives of women working, though they don't really rebut the comment.


3)Women in the past had so much physical housework they werent watching their kids and telling them stories 24/7. They sent them out of the house while they scrubbed, cleaned and cooked by hand. Kids arent getting less hours of the day of parental attention because of women working outside the home.


Hmmn. I hadn't really thought about that idea. I was the one doing the housework as a kid, but my life was hell and I grew up with stepfamilies, so my upbringing was such an outlier I have no idea what is 'normal' for most people.


4)No one wants to blame the media. They dont want to blame the violent content, nor do they want to blame our addiction to it. Our society would be much better off if women continued to work outside the home, and families spent their leisure time together, doing things, talking, not plopped down in front of computers, TVs, video games, or on the phone. The American family is NOT worse off because of women working outside the home. Its worse off because even when the whole family is home, they arent spending quality time together.


I do think there is a great deal to be said for that issue.

When I was in high school, my boyfriend was Canadian, and Christian. His family every night after dinner sat down for about 1-1.5 hours on couches and had coffee, tea, cocoa, whatever, and just talked about the day and life. I'd never been exposed to such a thing. (In my house, there was mental illness and just-short-of-murder-level-malevolence going on 24/7, so just the fact that his family didn't hate each other was weird enough; them being so healthy on top of it was just surreal to me!) After a short time though, I came to hugely respect that. It seemed like a bond for the family since aside from that, they were all running around like crazy with school (and both his parents were teachers) and sports and church and so on. Oddly I have still not had a family situation where I could do that, but I think it's a terrific idea.

I ditched the TV in 1993 as a time- attention- life- sucking pit for the most part. However when I had a kid in '96 I taught myself computer stuff and went through graphics and websites and then database site coding until that was my living. Now my 12 year old is a computer freak too. On the other hand we do spend time together and are pretty close across the board.

Most the people I'm exposed to, such as her friends' families, the parents work, come home, make dinner, watch TV until bed; there isn't really room or time for the kids; they're "expensive and inconvenient" and a chore to take care of, rather than an opportunity for some kind of relationship. I figure I have it easier than them because I'm a single mom with only one kid and I work from home.


No one is claiming that women working during WW2 ruined families. Because it didnt. The men were gone, and women were working, and families were fine. But every house did not have a huge black hole in their living room sucking up all the attention of the family members.


Hmmn. I don't think I've ever heard any argument in either direction about the WWII issues, but I suspect even if it were equal, nobody would argue about it because it was seen as 'necessary'. Once that era passed, women working appeared to be more optional/arbitrary. (In some cases.) But you're right that there are other things that have happened in the same time period as women's move into the workforce, which may have equal or stronger influence on the 'end-result' than women at work.

I know a lot of kids raised nearly alone--for 3-5 hours in the afternoon, and usually on their own in the mornings--and how it really caused problems. I don't think that was too big an issue when the mom was at home. However, I do think you're right that poor women have always worked and this issue is probably only a change for the middle-class+.

I'll have to think about that more. It has always seemed to me that generally families disintegrated as women worked more and more, but I guess I hadn't before really thought about what other reasons there might be for that. Thanks.

PJ



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by mcguyvermanolo
 



Great post.

Certainly anyone with the power and will to undermine a culture over time would see certain qualities of the traditional family life as qualities that would have to be disrupted. Many women and men just may have traded those qualities for other consideration having been convinced of a better model.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Merigold,


Originally posted by Marigold
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 breastfeed (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.


I agree with Byrd here in their position. Merigold what you are alluding to and what happens so often socially is that the male is relegated to second class position by a social default while claiming it is not so and in fact claiming that the very reverse is so. The male socially is required to take first class risks for second or third or further down the road...recognition and respect even position in the pecking order.
THe assumption, the givens, the default so often taking place is that in their work and risk taking a male is not a primary caretaker over a flock ..they are merely worker be drones...the default is socially and automatically to the female. This is quite clearly carried out in the courts and also in threads like this as the primary default..the primary devout religious belief.
Therefore any questioning of this status quo is to be abhorred, rebuked, detested. No light shall be allowed to be put on this concept.

Also this Merigold,



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 would respected.


No problem with this concept Merigold from me..but I don't buy into the standard mantra that this is a victimized, downtrodden, browbeaten group of peoples.
Now..Merigold...under supported legally and financially..question here about this. Who is going to pay for and take risks for this support??
WHo would be required to support this system of protection..ie..security blanket?? Who in fact does pay???

Byrd,

My apologies for not getting back to you with speed but have had a full schedule here the last day or so.

Very interesting list you have posted here of "delivering 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.


I have no problems with the child labor laws. This one should have been coming a long time ago. There are countries where this is still going on.

Laws against cruelty to women... I don't believe in abuse to women as so often wont to be posted in the textbook examples given here...against men. But at the same time I also recognize what is not spoken on threads like this one and that is that most violence and abuse is male on male...not male on female. Males perish and are maimed for life in almost all categories in this abuse..either in the workplace or on the streets. Hardly a word is spoken about it in protest unless it involves huge insurance liabilities. THat is when changes take place...otherwise changes happen not.
Also ..socially and in the courts women are far more inclined to get away with violence against males and anyone else than are males. There seems to be an automatic default in play for the women and females.
I don't remember their names but the woman who drowned her two children some years back by pushing their car into a lake down south somewhere is textbook of this....even while claiming someone else did it.
Also that women ..once again I cannot remember her name ....but she drowned her five children in a bathtub as I recall.

Any man who would have done this would have long ago been strung up on the yardarm.
In short ..women's violence is often covered up or downplayed and male violence is played up. A very interesting double standard.

Violence is abhored..male against female..and lots said about it ..but not the other way around.
I am not promoting violence against women..here..I am merely pointing out a very huge gap in the way it is tolerated and presented to a very uninformed public.

You know Byrd...it is a bit ironic to me but back when that woman drowned her two kids in the lake of which I spoke about above...the woman I was seeing at the time ...came out and stated point blank that she murdered them and not someone else as claimed... even before they arrested and charged her. Somehow she knew way before I had even considered the possibility. At the time it was quite astonishing to me how acute her radar was in this matter. I can only conclude that somehow she read it in the woman's body posture in a interview.

With the exception of the right to vote on which I will comment later ..most of the rest of the list I submit to you is a result of economic affluence ...not the reasons most would ever think or consider.
If you notice historical trends these things take place mostly in economically aflluent social structures..not third world countries.
I know this because not many women are chaffing at the bit to move to third world countries who have tasted the affluence one sees in the west. I also know by comparision that women as a whole are not chaffing at the bit to move to less developed states where one has to start at ground levels..like Wyoming ..verses Georgia or Washington DC etc.

By this I mean nations where the daily struggle is not mostly on the very mechanics/struggle of survival level economics..but economies which offer more options...which is one facet I am constantly getting at in my posts.

Question once again..who takes the risks to build up, keep, and maintain these security oriented systems of goods and or services of which you have in your list??

As to what is so often touted as wage disparity I can cover that one too. This too is often touted as "Victimization." The whole picture is not told to most of us so it is so little questioned or challanged.

THanks,
Orangetom



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



Undo,

From page 18 of this thread. Oh ..and this thread seems to move rather rapidly. Lots of pages with which to keep up.
Your quote here..I actually didn't catch this the first time around. Glad I caught it here this time.


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.


Men getting a job for less moneys than a woman doing the same work...tends to leave women very disgruntled..even resentful. This too is obvious by some of the posts on this thread and others. This is because it tends to leave women more responsible and less optional....ie..it changes their status. I've known a number of women who divorced their men because these men could not sufficiently "provide" the options to which the women felt that they and the children were due. In othewords they felt it more profitable all around to work the system than to follow it, work within, or support it. Interesting to me that there are not polls indicating this very trend. As I have stated before..I know a number of these women because they finally settle down ...again.... when the biology begins to run out and it is getting close to midnight Cinderella. Now this is the polling data for which I would be interested. I don't think it would ever be forthcoming.

As I am often wont to state or ask..how many women do you know who are happy and content to "provide" for a man and children while the man explores his options at the cost of her economic affluence?? THere is a distinctive social/economic paradigm here at play and one which is often left undefined for political reasons.

Yet ironically it is also the men who never are able to think this through far enough until they get a woman who in fact leaves them and works the system for options they were not getting in marriage.
However..I am not just speaking of the women or men here...as the children also pay a very high price for this devout religion at work here. This is truly the sad part.


some ladies only buy fancy clothes for other ladies.. meaning that they want to impress their peer group and not necessarily men.


I tend to agree with the overall premise of this quote of yours above


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


I do not agree in its entirety with this quote of yours.
Sports conditioning is conditioning for men to survive and provide for their families in a competitive environment. Men who are effeminate and cannot withstand the rigors are soon left by the wayside. Also men who are like this ...effeminate do not get their choice of the women bidding and competing themselves in heavy competition...for the men who demonstrate the most "potential" The "P" word..potential. Males begin to sense this fingerprint at young ages.
Another translation of this trend line is that men or males make themselves disposable and expendable by sports conditioning ..ie competition. This is ingrained in many of them without most even being aware of what it is. I genuinely don't believe many even think about it..they just respond to a competitive stimulus which they are not even aware that they are not controlling it.
I've seen many a woman use this sports competitiveness/conditioning to their advantage in maneuvering their man to take risks for them and the children..for "options"....not necessarily for the benefit or survival of the family. I don't actually think either male or female anymore know the difference or even think about it.
All one has to do is to get a man with extensive sports conditioning ...give him the clue and cue..and he will go out in the world often at great risk and run touchdowns for her and the children...little thinking going on.
Manufacturers, advertisers, and merchandisers and even educators know this and have invested extensively in keeping this paradigm afloat at great expense to the family unit and its survival.

If very difficult economic times come to us as some are predicting...I am asking myself who will be getting the options through social default settings and who will be working and risking for them. Who will be expendable and disposable for more of this template while receiving little to no benefit for it.

Red Cairo,


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?


Women are the prime movers and shakers of how and what direction the economy turns or does not turn. The women in economically developed nations determine what products are purchased from big ticket items to the small every day items consumed in most of the homes in this nation. Not the men. The men only earn the moneys and turn discretionary spending over to the women..to spend for the homes and children.
It does not work out to where the women work, earn more , and then turn over the bulk of their earning over to the man for his discretionary spending on his views , beliefs, expectations and the children's views, beliefs, expectations.

No matter how you cut it ..this is not a downtrodden, victimized group of peoples in affluent nations.

Oh...by the way..I know this about not being downtrodden and victimized..because when I go to the stores I see the men so often subserviently following their women pushing the cart and taking instructions from the woman and sometimes even the children. Astonishing!!
You know..on that very line of thought ..here soon it will be springtime if not actually so in many parts of the country. Once again the men will be seen following around their woman in Home Depot and Lowes...pushing the cart and loading the heavy items into the cart ...pushing them around even more and then paying when arriving at the registers. Here it is most noticable ..though one can see it annually and at anytime in the other stores.
This is not victimization. Nor downtrodden.

No one asks what RISKS,,abuse or dehumanization a man had to undergo to get the moneys to make such purchases for the woman...or woman and children. It only gets press..the other way around.

The false assumption is that it is a mans world. I don't buy into the concept that it is a man's world.

In affluent western nations it is a woman's world in almost every category and the most ignorant about it is the males...in almost every category.

Undo,


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.


My apologies. I many be getting you confused with Red Cairo. Once again my apologies for this confusion.

Illusions Are Grander,


Yes it is. They just don't get the checks. It is their children that the taxpayers are supporting, AND many of them don't 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 doesn't even have to be saddled with the child, or the stigma of being a "welfare father."


I don't buy this Illusions. Once again this is so one sided. Most males even in their ignorance by sports conditioning turn over their moneys to their women for discretionary spending in marriages. What we only hear about in posts and women's movement articles are the drunkards and abusers.
You speak of snot wiping and diaper changing as if it is dehumanizing?? Is this so?? There is indeed a male involved in every baby..so too a female.

He benefits by the taxpayer?? When a marriage breaks up or a woman leaves a man and goes on assistance..benefit..what is protected in that relationship for the male??? I say this verses the female and children.

Zero emotional attachment is protected for the male. He is often tasked with paying for a home in which he does not dwell..and maintaining two households...plus often the vehicles involved too.

Nothing or next to nothing is protected for the male or man. The woman and children get protected by a system ..while screaming inequality.

There is not even a emotional safety net for the male. he is out there alone...left to navigate burdens for which he will often not see or witness the fruition ..yet pay a high price in abuse, labor and dehumanization to acquire for others.

No where and in almost none of the posts like this do I see either the men or the women able to post such a view. The men are for all purposes ...invisible...while others scream victimization.
It never occurs to the posters on such that the male tendency to rage over this is a symptom of powerlessness..not male power. Ironically even the males are oblivious to this concept.
The males never developed the tools to ask themselves what hazards their sports conditioning leaves themselves vulnerable to..which are not seen..not known....not taken into account.

Hmmmm...running out of characters down at the bottom of this page..

Continued..



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Continued to Illusionsargrander,


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.


What you are posting here is very true. So we should see a number of women flocking to these occupations now that they are safer. Yes??
Is there such an exodus going on since many of these jobs also pay more than traditionally female jobs and for which the women and the movements are so often wont to scream wage disparity?? These are also jobs which by nature ..involve travel, overtime, and hostile conditions as compared to traditional occupations.
This too is not vicitmization.
I would also venture that the risks associated with childbirth have dropped very very significantly as compared to these occupations. Safer inventions or occupational aids or not.
Among women this would be considered abuse and dehumanization. Not so among men.

This also does not change my point that the most dangerous professions which tend to pay more are where men work and then turn over the discretionary spending...ie...credit...to their women and children.
Do men tend to debase, abuse, and dehumanize themselves in order to accomplish this for their women and children..ie..expendable and disposable...or are most men drunkards, abusers of women and children etc etc etc??

And also ...once again..are women as a whole..a social group ..groomed, educated, cultured to work in professions which involve risks, abuse, dehumanization, make more than men, and then turn thier earnings/credit. over to the male for discretionary spending on the male and children??

Red Cairo,


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...


Think this through. This is so textbook of the very double standard of which I am wont to speak. When women complain about conditions they expect someone else to make up the difference by rote..no thinking involved. Or they take advantage of a government program..a substitute wallet. Mostly emoting..which is precisely what you are attempting to do here. Thinking that no one will notice it and ,by shame, fall immidiately in line with what is expected..a given ..a default. Is this not the very thing the women are complaing about?? The defaults??
See the double standard here??

Yet when a man makes them there is obvously something very wrong. He needs to get in line....by intimidation techniques. Sorry ..but this does not work on me. And women can bitch about it all they want...they need to make up the difference themselves..no safety net.

This is very much in like manner to women complaining about porn..while themselves being subjected to so much of it 24/7. I dont recall at the moment who made the comment on this thread and to whom I replied on this topic.


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 not of which I was speaking....but it is the standard replys on this topic. My point constantly is that this is not "Victimization" as is so often claimed or inferred in this topic line.

I am not against men paying child support or even women doing the same.

What I am saying is that there is no such support system for the male..expecially emotionally. Women by social role do get a substitute wallet without the risks, liabilities of marriage..men get less than zero..which is one of the biggest complaints of the men...though I dont think most men are even capable of vocalizing it verses vocalizing a point spread. Really stupid of them!! THe men are for all purposes expendable, disposable, and even invisible in this.

All the emotional and physical support a man marrys for ..are gone under these conditions..none are supported by a government program. A Very discriminatory ...process.

However..in keeping with the OP on page 1...This system in play does sponsor a huge credit market for consumer goods and people who are good consumers.


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


LOL LOL LOL..this also makes victimization, downtrodden dogmas moot. Interesting to see the switch take place..to the standard defaults to play through unquestioned and undebated.
Once again..Red Cairo..would we see this happen in reverse...?? Again one of my points?? Or would we see many of the women taking the money and running the consumer race..untilt he biology/options runs out??

I agree..it is about human beings having self determination ...not defaulting through.

Illusionsaregrander,


You are right here, it is porn. Literary porn rather than visual porn. But, porn none-the -less. However all of that "how do they have time for it if they are victimized" stuff, makes a lot less sense. How do man have all the time to read the books geared predominantly towards them? Action adventure, Sci-fi, Westerns (which can also be literary porn, btw) endless magazines on cars, motorcycles, computers and electronics (consumption porn) not to mention just flat old nekkid girl porn. (Or guy porn if you are so inclined.)

After all, the "womens" porn magazine, Playgirl, has more male subscribers.


Glad to see someone else gets it.
As to the si fi..western books geared to men...it took me a long time to fathom this one out. Most of these books and magazines are geared to mens performance beliefs to try out within a framework for female approval. To reinforce mens beliefs within this male social acceptability standards...but not to think about the risks or nature of the risks they are taking or their expendability and disposability in doing so. Sports Illustrated and the Swimsuit edition are to me textbook of this genre.
While I dont have any problems with performing for the right reasons..I think alot of this subculture is misdirected and self destructive....as well as profitable in the process. Same thing for the women.

I get Handyman and Woodworker magazine in the mail. Will I be seeing a tltle on the cover such as....

How to loose forty pounds off that walnut cabinet ...without really working at it.

Not only can I loose the weight but there is no risk involved either and no discomforture too.


Which is what I think your problem is. You choose to associate with women who bolster your stereotypes. Ones who care more about their nails than being a good shot. Ones who sit around and watch daytime TV, rather than do something more productive. And then, you judge all women by the ones you choose. Who you end up with says more about you than the opposite gender.


You may have a point here Illusions. The other types are not that common around here and I dont spend alot of time out in the marketplace in that regard. As to caring about their nails..I dont particularly care about this as long as they pay for their nail jobs and dont let the family/children suffer for it.

However..these shows proliferate greatly in many of the afternoon time slots and at one time werre in many of the daytime viewing slots along with soaps. The audience is mostly and directed to women betelling of a huge block of women with time on thier hands. I am not imagining this.
This is a huge market for the advertisers sponsoring such programs..once again betelling much. And I am not imagining this as well.

Red Cairo,

Nonetheless..such a plethora of books, magazines , television programs of this genre are very telling of something going on ...a tell tale of something bigger.

Now watch how this works..


If women are reading these in mind-boggling numbers, it would tell me that en masse they must have a great desire to feel happier than they are--which would support the opposite of your theory.


LOL LOL LOL..no it doesnt..it does pretty much what I have been stating from the begining. Who will be taking the RISK for making women happier?? Who will be doing the work and turning over thier production to make this occur??
Are these women reading this material looking to make this happier out of thier own sacrafice or is the common thread in much of this literature..."you deserve it the others dont." And or ..if you play your cards right ...good things will happen to you...just keep subscribing.
Is there something implicit in these books, magazines, and programs?? Something not spoken..

Continued,,,



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Ok, if you are right, can my wife work the outside job and I just fix pc's on the side? More gaming time.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Continued to Red Cairo,

Taken for granted .not open...

Yes..people read books to become happy or to escape..no problems here with this. I too read to escape. Ive read a lot of James Clavell's works when I've had the time.

I have also read some romance novels. I believe Danielle Steel is one of the most popular in this genre in the manner of Tom Clancy for the men. Like Clancy ..Danielle has spun off a lot of others competing in the business.
Danielle Steele has a very predictable format in a lot of her books and that is ..male death equals female glory and beauty..status. Male death is often core to the plot line.
Once I noted this fingerprint I was able to see it often repeated in Video format in many of the Chick Flicks. Titanic comes to mind.
Male sacrifice and male death core to the plot line. Don'T worry ..Tom Clancy is not much different.
Although I must tell you ...Mistral's Daughter was one of her books I really enjoyed. That is ...I think it was her book.

You know ..years ago I read "Clan of the Cave Bears." I almost put the book away in disgust. This author spread the sex scene out over some huge amount of space ..through several chapters. I kept saying ...Pleaseeeeeee....get on with it so this stuff is not taking up so much of the pages of this book and we can continue with the essence of the story. I was so glad when they finally threw down..to use a crudity..but we could now get on with the story.

I think Kathleen Woodiwiss is another author of this genre for whom I have read her books.

Nonetheless...there is a huge market for this type of material...thus once again asking ..who has the time and moneys for this huge market?? Also once again..indicating a lack of victimization....particularly economic victimization as well as time victimization.

You are correct in that you did not make any comments about me and my sexuality. I was not referring to myself in this at all. Correct.

I am making reference to the concept that the sex/porn market is not exclusively a male market. Women are bombarded by this stuff constantly and more subtilty than males can even fathom. They are way to one dimensional on this.
All I have to do is go to the check out stands and see the editions of Cosmo. Elle, Redbook and such ..then imagine taking the sex and sexual connotations out of these magazines and see how much real content remains. SAme with romance novels.
This stuff is highly pornographic..but just not quite in a way marketed to men...but it is obscene nonetheless. The pulp magazines too. Globe, enquirer...etc.
The fact that the public is bombarded by this stuff at the drug stores, and department, grocery store checkouts strongly indicates that there is a large and substantial market for this stuff...which also indicates a tell tale of personal beliefs and standards. What people find acceptable. I can even see this fingerprint on the evening news as standards fall..rapidly. Very tabloid like. And much of it is indeed obscene.

I am gratified to see that Illusions at least recognized this fingerprint for what it is.
Also in this manner I consider GQ, and the swimsuit edition of SI the same.
You know Red Cairo...I picked up a copy of a magazine at work called Maxim. Looking through the pages I was astonished to see the format very much like Cosmo..but directed to men. It was a male version of Helen Gurley Browns magazine. I was a bit surprised..that the males were finally being marketed to in the same manner.
I disagree that men are the ones mostly using porn..which is my point.
I will use William Farrell's definition of porn as it is a good one.

"Access to dreams, fantasies, expectations, beliefs...cheaply and without rejection."

Continuing on to your other post...this is very interesting.


Using beauty instead of finance this exists equally in the other direction.

Based on personal experience, I see more of the opposite -- women marrying men from a lower income class than themselves.


You are kidding here..right!! So equality is indeed happening. What are the women's complaints about??
I have a theory about this but it will wait till later.

Ahhh..ok..interesting point you make concerning someone who works to get their engineering degree et al..and gets paid well...for it.
The problem we are going to be seeing is that Degrees in today's economy are no longer a measure of success. There are becoming more and more people of degrees and letters in the unemployment lines. We were told and programmed to believe that degrees/letters=success across the board.
What I am going to be interested and will watch closely to see is who gets the government safety net and who gets discarded by the wayside..expendable and disposable...males or females?? Degrees or not.

LOL LOL LOL...I agree...about what you posted about the hot car to get the girl. I find this pitiful. I have no use for a woman whose standard of measure of a man is what type of car they drive. I have seen many women like this as well as many men. They deserve each other. To me the men like this are as shallow as the women.
I remember overhearing some girl talk among three women. One of them says.. "I first see what kind of car he drives and then look into his eyes to see if he can maintain eye contact." I almost busted out laughing. In retrospect perhaps I should have but I also thought to myself..how shallow. How high maintenance.

And guys tend towards buying a certain kind of car because they never saw an ugly woman get out of one. Again ...shallow and high maintenance.

LOL LOL LOL..I agree...they can compete...indeed. I too have a black belt and also a brown belt in a different martial discipline..but this is not the crux of who and what I am...just as in my comments about oversexualty marketed today. My sexuality is not the crux of whom or what I am. No a man need not feel insecure about such things. Their insecurities are falsely based.
Also correct..Red Cairo...a person..male or female can learn a lot of things ..it is just a matter of logging the time and doing ones homework.

I think of how many people laughed at me over the years for riding my mopeds and today a scooter to and fro work. When gasoline got over .$2.00 per gallon they stopped laughing. I didn't care one whit either way. I knew what the real deal was all along and I own two cars and a truck. For years now ..I have figured out how one method to give myself more economic options rather than pouring dollars down the gas tank.
I am not better than others for it..only different.

Oh..by the way..on your other post..I do think that is the name of that woman talk show host..Laura Schlessinger..Yes. I do not even know if they are still on the air. There is another woman I like too but I think more recent and not quite the same caliber as Laura. Her name is Tammy Bruce.


I think you're confusing "equal" with "the same" here


Ahhhhh..the mantra...the dogma for years and years..was "equality"..did they change it to the "Same" and not tell anyone?? Either way .it is not working out equal nor is it working out the same. Could it be that politics hijacked it all?? And without either sex knowing it was going on??

Watching the clock and must go for now. I will post something on your statement about votes/voting when I am able.

Thanks,
Orangetom


Post Script,

mcguyvermanolo ..that is a very interesting post you have made concerning the alcohol verses gasoline origins. Thanks for that. I will have to digest that post several times. Thanks.
Orangetom



[edit on 8-3-2009 by orangetom1999]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Hi,


Men getting a job for less moneys than a woman doing the same work...tends to leave women very disgruntled..even resentful. [...] This is because it tends to leave women more responsible and less optional....ie..it changes their status.


No, it's because we're all raised in a society that believes in fairness.

And because doing the same job at the same level for less money reflects a devaluation of a person's worth since the money paid by a company is its literal "valuation" of that employee, so one takes it personally I assume.

Women don't resent it 'because it might make them more responsible', that's absurd.


Another translation of this trend line is that men or males make themselves disposable and expendable by sports conditioning ..ie competition.


Humans are naturally competitive, all of them, and men tend to channel this into physical forms. Sports are a way of men having a bunch of fun, acting out natural competition and getting much-needed physical exercise.

I don't believe men are manipulated into playing sports because it makes them disposable/expendable, I think that's absurd too.


No one asks what RISKS,,abuse or dehumanization a man had to undergo to get the moneys to make such purchases for the woman...or woman and children.


The fact that you work in nuclear really can't be ignored when considering the above statement ... and how your personal emotions about all this fit into it.


Zero emotional attachment is protected for the male. [...] Nothing or next to nothing is protected for the male or man. [...] There is not even a emotional safety net for the male. he is out there alone...left to navigate burdens for which he will often not see or witness the fruition ..yet pay a high price in abuse, labor and dehumanization to acquire for others.


I'm sorry about your job. I don't think you can extrapolate your situation to the entirety of men though.


Do men tend to debase, abuse, and dehumanize themselves in order to accomplish this for their women and children..ie..expendable and disposable...or are most men drunkards, abusers of women and children etc etc etc??


There is no single definition for men and those are two extreme polarities (both equally dysfunctional I might add). I know lots of men who are good people married to good people and that's the baseline norm in my world.



Ludicrous. If my brother were alive today I believe he would say, "Then they're p*ssies!"

Mostly emoting..which is precisely what you are attempting to do here. Thinking that no one will notice it and ,by shame, fall immidiately in line with what is expected..a given ..a default. Is this not the very thing the women are complaing about?? The defaults?? See the double standard here?? [...] Yet when a man makes them there is obvously something very wrong. He needs to get in line....by intimidation techniques.


You really twisted the whole context of this (as you have done several previous things). No abuse of you happened here, and it wasn't even about you. You specifically SAID repeatedly that totally aside from making a living and expenses, that men just have no control of their own income and hand it over to women to spend on 'discretionary' things. I said if men (as individuals) make those decisions it is that mans' responsibility for his own decisions (god-given free will plays a role here).

If they're too weak to even tell their wife, "If we have some extra cash I'd like to have a say in how it is spent" then they're wimps, period. None of this translates to an intimidation attack on you personally. And the same criteria goes for women if they were in the situation rather than men. I say "Be responsible for yourself" and you act like I'm victimizing you, and rant about how women won't be responsible for themselves basically! -- gee whiz, this seems to be some hot-button issue apparently.


What I am saying is that there is no such support system for the male..expecially emotionally. Women by social role do get a substitute wallet without the risks, liabilities of marriage..men get less than zero..which is one of the biggest complaints of the men...though I dont think most men are even capable of vocalizing it verses vocalizing a point spread. Really stupid of them!!


I think maybe most men are just a little more healthy and don't articulate your views because they don't share them. Sure I know men who would happily complain about say, child support, or father's rights, or a sense of bias in favor of women in the social services systems overall based on programs which mostly exist to support children, but I don't know much of any men who are hooked on the idea that they need emotional support they aren't getting, or that they haven't any say in how the _discretionary_ portion of their income is spent, or whatever.


Is there something implicit in these books, magazines, and programs?? Something not spoken.


I think you are attributing a great deal more conspiracy to romance novels than they deserve. :-)

Best,
PJ



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Danielle Steele has a very predictable format in a lot of her books and that is ..male death equals female glory and beauty..status. Male death is often core to the plot line.


I've never read her stuff -- or probably have eons ago but don't recall -- but in all the romance books I read, male death is really not involved, holy cow. In fact if I had to count the romance books where death was involved, at least that I've read, I think the most endangered species is "sisters" LOL. (This is slightly different in the paranormal romance category, where people die right and left.)


Once I noted this fingerprint I was able to see it often repeated in Video format in many of the Chick Flicks. Titanic comes to mind. Male sacrifice and male death core to the plot line. Don'T worry ..Tom Clancy is not much different.


It's the archetype of the knight rescuing the damsel and it plays throughout history. (In exchange, the woman lives to marry another knight and wash his dishes for the next 50 years LOL.) There are lots and lots of movies where the woman dies -- not sure why one would have great meaning and the other wouldn't. I think death of someone loved is a powerful archetype no matter what the role or gender. I don't perceive it as being overwhelmingly biased in favor of killing off men in romance novels.

a

Nonetheless...there is a huge market for this type of material...thus once again asking ..who has the time and moneys for this huge market?? Also once again..indicating a lack of victimization....particularly economic victimization as well as time victimization.


You and I will have to agree to disagree on this point apparently. I believe that arguing against workplace inequality using as the logic that there are too many romance books so women just can't have time to be inequal (and obviously have tons of money because they buy books) is ... not logical to say the least. I also believe that using this same logic of 'quantity of material' equalling 'people obviously having tons of time and money available' would require that we observe porn and consider men the ones who must have tons of time and money by the same criteria. I don't believe this criteria, it's yours not mine, I'm just saying that when you apply the same logic to a similar situation the logic starts sounding even more absurd, which it is.


I am making reference to the concept that the sex/porn market is not exclusively a male market. Women are bombarded by this stuff constantly and more subtilty than males can even fathom.


I just don't think this is the thread for this particular discussion; I don't care about the issue and I don't consider this related to the debate of women's role in economics; it only came up when you twisted what I said about 'comparative logic' (see item above) and instead started arguing about pornography rather than whether your logic had a problem.


I think of how many people laughed at me over the years for riding my mopeds and today a scooter to and fro work. When gasoline got over .$2.00 per gallon they stopped laughing. I didn't care one whit either way. I knew what the real deal was all along and I own two cars and a truck.


And here I thought some woman had psychically influenced you to voluntarily give up your entire discretionary income for her whim LOL!


Oh..by the way..on your other post..I do think that is the name of that woman talk show host..Laura Schlessinger..Yes. I do not even know if they are still on the air. There is another woman I like too but I think more recent and not quite the same caliber as Laura. Her name is Tammy Bruce.


Laura is ... interesting. She seemed alright years ago until the fundamentalist thing took over her brain. I haven't heard Tammy.

Best,
PJ



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I couldn't find a specific thing to quote, but I feel as if I've been overly hard in some way. Sometimes on the internet it's easy to slip into discussion that disattaches from the diplomacy any of us would have in person. I apologize if I've done that somewhere here. PJ



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Whisper67
 


Builder burge were behind letting women have right to vote and get jobs.

That equality thing is all about builder burge able to tax women.

a family has 2 parents a male and female why just tax males when you can tax them both and get more money that way.


it's about money and control. In todays time you need both the parents to work in order to keep up with todays rates.

Every year taxes rises. Expesnises rises cause tax rises. Import taxes go up every year so in todays time we need both working.

it's all smartly planned.

The builder burge group wins.

It dosen't matter if your a female or a male your both being taxed the same way.

Just my contributing.


Like my fav saying. " There is always more then what meets the eye."

that saying is 100% . You think you got to the bottom of the truth yet you keep finding more and more the hole never ends.

Just saying.

I don't think women nore men are the cause of the recession. I would say Government are the problem.

They tax us to death and keep adding on every year.


I already heard talks they want to tax us on how many miles we drive in a year per car.

That is just nuts.


if such a think happen I will riot. I can tell most people can't take that.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I will just say this.

Being a sibling of 5, my mother barely worked.

But she has risen us 5 kids better than almost anyone we know.

Not saying I agree or disagree with the OP, but we are ALL different. Races, sexes, species, etc. We are DIFFERENT.

Just like how creationists argue how the bible got us here today, well, the "old school family structure" got us "here" today also.

Both have their truths and lies.

To those mothers out there, working or not - just know that us guys understand it ain't easy raising a worthy family. Keep up the good work.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Red Cairo
I couldn't find a specific thing to quote, but I feel as if I've been overly hard in some way. Sometimes on the internet it's easy to slip into discussion that disattaches from the diplomacy any of us would have in person. I apologize if I've done that somewhere here. PJ


PJ,

I don't believe you have been overly hard. YOu have your beliefs and have expressed them for the most part in a way which does not give offence but are thought out ..not drama per se. I can deal with this no problem. Not speaking for others but myself here.

Now as to the vote.

It took me a number of years to fathom this out but it fits in the overall scheme of what we see happening around us and also some of what is to come.

When the Ninteenth Amendment took effect ..this was to change the marketplace tremendously.

What the body politic realized was that the women or female can be stroked emotionally for a vote in the voting booth under security issues more easily than for opportunity issues and also more easily and emotionally stroked than the male. And there were up and coming ..a huge block of women voters. Get the right candidate with the right issues and one is guaranteed to get the women's vote..especially true in high electorial vote states where the social structure and economies are more developed and there were to be found a larger number of women. The woman's vote would be essential in achieving these elections and re elections.

Issues for security verses opportunity were to be the calling card for these votes. And the body politic was to eventually pander to these very security issues for votes. This continues unto today.

By 1971 there came along the 26th Amendment and 18 year olds got the vote. Once again this changed the face of politics and more security issues were to take precedence in politics. Also at least half or more of these new voters were females..and not males.
Security oriented issues were to take precedence once again over opportunity issues.

Between these two events ..issues have abounded and continue to abound to those who have or will not risk as much for the manner of their standard of living as are others socially required to do.
Politicians do not care one whit about this but rather are interested in what votes it will get them come election or re election time. Politicians are also interested that light not be put on this process...but that more Victimization take place in the minds of the public. More emotional stroking.

The new voting blocks to be catered to on security issues will be illegal aliens. This is going to cause huge frictions/resentments in an already farmed out/stressed economy amongst these groups of voters already getting security handouts from government for votes. In other words competition for handouts for votes. It is going to be interesting to see how our whorish media manage to cover up or downplay this when it arrives while still supporting/shilling for their various political parties.

I was told about this trend over 20 years ago..but it is now coming to where it can be seen more so than back then. There is more to this but it will suffice for now.

Whenever today I see an issue on the news concerning the latest our politicians manage to announce..I ask myself who's vote they are buying up now. You can see this in many of the stimulus packages of both parties...buying up votes on the public purse. Because the public will eventually wind up paying for it.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   



Women are twice as likely as men to work in the public sector. ..

Yet they are barely represented in the useful public services of firefighting and arresting people. E


So a firemans role is far more important, than the role of the emergency switch board operator who tells him where the fire is.
Consider also how difficult it has been women to break into these roles (outside of a war) and that might explain the low numbers of women in these occupations

The work of women has been downgraded throughout history. Take the position of office clerk. During the early 20th century most clerks were men. The job was seen as important and even one to aspire to. As more women filled the spaces left by men during WW1 the role of clerical workers was less respected. It became a womans job.

During wars women suddenly gain extrordinary abilities, previously unable to comprehend the moving parts of a whisk they can now build tanks; rewire submarines (my sons great grandmother did this) and even put out fires.

The status of women is reflected in the uneven pay. (same job different wage) It is interesting to note that whilst many single mothers are villified for not going to work. Their married counterparts are equally villified for doing so. Of course there is the exceptions of widows who are looked upon more kindly for staying at home. Why is this?

Women do most of the worlds labour yet receive less than half of the money from it. They are not the cause of econimic slow down but are often the victims of it as they are the first group to loose their jobs.

Heres an idea, why not see women as adults and partners. Instead of keeping your wife why not both work part-time.

How about using cash instead of credit you dont have.


How about not buying every piece of crap on the planet so you can work yourself in an early grave.

How about sharing the domestic chores. How about actually seeing your children outside of the weekend and holidays. But then I suppose if men stayed at home more often - work would become useless!



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by computerwiz32
reply to post by Whisper67
 


Builder burge were behind letting women have right to vote and get jobs.



Women are members of the human race with minds capable of comprehension. The idea that the burge were behind the fight for equality is just nuts! A further example of this woolly minded thinking towards your fellow humans is the assumption that is not your vote which has been bought!

The tide was turning long before WW1/2. Women in France only gained the vote after the war.

Women are not from Venus and men are not from Mars, we are from Earth and if this planet is to stand a chance against the Builder Burges of this world we better start working together. The battle of the sexes is just a massive diversion to stop you looking at the very chains you wear.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by HulaAnglers
a couple of days ago, my very intuitive girlfriend had a dream she was raped in her own home and screamed herself awake when they were going after her daughter.


True story, although this is somewhat offtopic and certainly ups the weirdness quotient of this thread: my aunt once had a dream that she woke up and saw the dark figure, like dark-energy, of a man standing next to her bed looking down at her. She was terrified. A few days later (she lived alone) a man (unknown to her) broke into her house while she slept and raped her. He was never caught. I don't know how to explain that-- perhaps on some unconscious she had peripherally seen him and gut-instinct was telling her something-- but while nightmares do happen, I think those kind of dreams are worth paying attention to sometimes.

I'm wracking my brain for how to tie this into the topic at hand and I can't find one. Well at least it's brief!

PJ



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
What the body politic realized was that the women or female can be stroked emotionally for a vote in the voting booth under security issues more easily than for opportunity issues and also more easily and emotionally stroked than the male. And there were up and coming ..a huge block of women voters. Get the right candidate with the right issues and one is guaranteed to get the women's vote..especially true in high electorial vote states where the social structure and economies are more developed and there were to be found a larger number of women. The woman's vote would be essential in achieving these elections and re elections.

Issues for security verses opportunity were to be the calling card for these votes. And the body politic was to eventually pander to these very security issues for votes. This continues unto today.


OK now, if you ever have this discussion again in the future, I recommend avoiding the "women can't be victims because there are lots of romance books" angle and starting with this one, which is a much better argument.

I haven't studied enough of this kind of 'comparative psychology' (though I've studied much psychology, sociology, and cult psychology) to know much detail regarding men vs. women when it comes to decision making. Illusionsaregrander probably would be better commentary than I on that point.

However I suspect there is something to the idea that men respond more to issues of opportunity and women more to issues of security; biologically this would make sense.

This might actually make the situation--at least this specific thing outlined above--relatively accurate for all I know.

I would call that "a natural evolution of society which controlling elements have (in mercenary ways) exploited".

It doesn't necessarily make me think it shouldn't have happened, but it does make me think it's a shame that such control-issue stuff goes on as a hidden groundwork throughout the development of our society.

At this point, as I mentioned previously, Pandora won't close that box and get back in the apron, so now what?

If you look at the political structures, you will notice that the farther conservative a woman goes, the less she is likely to demand the government take care of anybody including her. So I actually think that a huge % of the gripe with what you see as women's demands, well some of them are reasonable for society (eg equal wages for equal jobs, care for pregnant women, infants and [to a lesser degree; I am not a welfare champion] children) but probably some demands and perhaps some degree of even the seemingly just ones are basically socialism, liberalism, that has been growing like a fungus through the country for decades now.

There is a fine line with social care that is difficult to judge--I don't want people starving in the streets, but I grew up around huge families of people that literally lived on welfare generation after generation and it gave me some strong opinions about that too. I'm not sure I have the answer to what is right politically--only that I'd rather err on the side of not creating any precedent moving away from the founding fathers' ideals--but I do know that at this point in history, "we are where we are".

We can't go back and have a do-over based on the retrospect of hindsight. Freedom is the one thing you cannot give a person and then take away; trying that always eventually causes festering problems that will either force change or lead to literal revolt. So women DO vote and women DO work, and that is where we are now; that is definitely not going to change.

Is there anything that could reasonably BE changed that would improve the situation?

PJ


[edit on 8-3-2009 by RedCairo]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
This here is a link to a story that appeared today on cnn.com and I am posting it to prove a point. I am interested to see who can tell me what is wrong with the article with relation to its headline and its content. I am anxious to see which of us can see the point I am trying to make. Here is the link:


Saudis order 40 lashes for elderly woman for mingling


If you need a clue, you should listen to the 3+ hour link that Eldrick posted earlier on in the thread of which orangetom has used to formulate many of his posts on this topic. I will repost that link here:

The Myth of Male Power

I recommend to anyone on this thread to spend the necessary time listening to the link above.



[edit on 9-3-2009 by Pontius]

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Pontius]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Pontius
 



Pontius,

Yes I believe I caught it. However, it took me three times of reading the article and then thinking it through to catch it as the paradigm is often so ingrained in me that it is a real effort to catch much of what transpires daily.
I will standby on this to see who else gets it and posts such on this thread.

IllusionsAreGrander,

I actually missed this point on your post back on page 18 of this thread.


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.


This is actually a good point and one in which I agree. Both women and men do in fact fall head over heals for this paradigm as well as others. What happens often is that they pay a high price for this belief in beauty being value and raising value in the marketplace such that they overlook other things which may in fact be telling of more important values at work than beauty dogmas.

Going head over heals for a woman or man with beauty traits has not proved out to be an indicator of real value in a person. However ..this drug is a very difficult one to give up when it is catered to in almost every avenue of merchandising which bombards us throughout the media...24/7.

You know..as I recall one of the first women to speak out on this and cause quite a controversy concerning beauty myths is a woman named Naomi Wolf..or is it Wolfe?? I recall reading her article some years ago and was impressed with what she stated.

Now this ..Illusionsaregrander...is weak...very weak. However....I hold little hope or expectation that most males will ever think it through and that women with your tack will continue to use just this very technique to "Default" through unquestioned and unchallenged.

I will now put light on how this is a false template concerning your quote here from page 18.


Poor poor little mens. Oh wait, aren't those politicians largely men? No matter. Poor poor little mens.


This Illusions makes good politic on those who cannot think it through, which would be the bulk of men in this country, the women as well. It makes good rationale sense ..it just happens not to be true and even demonstrates the very sexism of which I so often voice dissenting opinion.
Now to be frank here..this is not the fault of the women per-se.it is the abominable ignorance of the male who is programmed to perform without thinking about the intrinsic value of this "willingness " to do so ..even at his long term expense...inequality. So why would he ever be wont to think outside the textbook defaults in which he limits himself ..even in ignorance.

The falseness of your quote above is that even though the bulk of politicians are men...they are in fact very feminine in nature. They tend to go where the risks are less and the options are more. Not much different from the bulk of women. It is not a matter of what sex they are ..male or female..but who has the greater number of votes..especially in high electorial vote states on national elections. To whom they must appeal ..who constitutes the bigger and more affluent voting block. It is not the males in this country. It is the women and minorities...many of whom are women. They will constantly be predicted and controlled to vote for more out of the public trough while supporting the election/re election of those passing such legislation...ie..security issues ...not opportunity issues.

However..my point in many of my posts is often ..who benefits from these votes for more out of the public trough ..with no benefit for those also paying for it..taking RISK. In keeping with the theme of this thread..who gets the primary benefit from this credit crunch..to buy votes...and who takes RISKS to support it. By this I mean the defecit spending/credit on social programs.

In other words to keep this up ..the nation must be more polarized..politically and in a manner not seen or spoken about such that it will continue to default through ..unseen unchallanged..and unquestioned. This is the purpose of a political default. The political system is highly femminine..not masculine. Thus also indicating that this is not a patriarical system ..but a matriarchal system.
It is not a matter of who casts there votes in Washington DC or in our states ..but who votes for them...who gets them elected. This is the concealed, hidden, Occult political paradigm for which it is not desired for the public to be aware.

This begs Red Cairo's question at the end of one of her last posts. And it is a good question and worthy of consideration.


Is there anything that could reasonably BE changed that would improve the situation?


Watching the clock...here and must shove off.

Thanks,
Orangetom





new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join