ECON: Working women almost certainly caused the credit crunch

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

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999

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.



I swear OT, you just make this stuff up as you go along.

www.ojp.usdoj.gov...


Of all children under age 5 murdered from 1976-2005 --

* 31% were killed by fathers
* 29% were killed by mothers
* 23% were killed by male acquaintances
* 7% were killed by other relatives
* 3% were killed by strangers

Of those children killed by someone other than their parent, 81% were killed by males.


www.rlnn.com...


LOGAN - Before being sentenced on Tuesday for abusing and killing his 2-year-old son, Mychal Denny delivered a tearful statement to the court.
“I would like to apologize to my son . . . to my family . . . to my sons that I will leave behind,” Denny said. “I know that when I get out, through the love of my family, someday . . . I will be the brother, husband, son and father that I've always wanted to be.”
The apology held little sway with 1st District Judge Thomas Willmore, who ordered Denny, 23, to spend one to 15 years in prison for the death of Tyson Robertson Denny. The judge said he will ask the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole to keep Denny - who pleaded guilty to second-degree felony child-abuse homicide - in prison for the full term.
Willmore also imposed a $18,500 fine.


www.orlandosentinel.com...


Father gets 9 years for killing infant son

Sarah Lundy | Sentinel Staff Writer
9:23 AM EST, February 18, 2009

An Orlando father was sentenced to more than nine years in prison for the death of his 1-month-old son.

William Pickett II, 21, told Orange Circuit Court Judge Jenifer Davis this morning that he did everything he could to revive his son and couldn't believe what happened.

His attorney, Jeff Dowdy, tried to persuade the judge to issue a lighter sentence for Pickett, who had no criminal history and a "tough" upbringing.


en.wikipedia.org...


Susan Smith (born September 26, 1971 as Susan Leigh Vaughan), is an American woman sentenced to life in prison for murdering her children. Born in Union, South Carolina, and a former student of the University of South Carolina Union, she was convicted on July 22, 1995 of murdering her two sons, 3-year-old Michael Daniel Smith, born October 10, 1991, and 14-month-old Alexander Tyler Smith, born August 5, 1993. The case gained worldwide attention shortly after it developed.


Andrea Yates was originally sentenced to life in prison also.


Yates's 2002 conviction of capital murder and sentence to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 40 years was later overturned on appeal. On July 26, 2006, a Texas jury ruled Yates to be not guilty by reason of insanity. She was consequently committed by the court to the North Texas State Hospital, Vernon Campus,[2] a high-security mental health facility in Vernon, Texas, where she received medical treatment and was a roommate of Dena Schlosser, another woman who committed filicide. In January 2007, Yates was moved to a low security state mental hospital in Kerrville, Texas.[3]


And is now in a mental institution where she belongs. Clearly, that women was crazy. Her husband was never convicted of child endangerment, however, even though, (from the same source)


Without consulting the doctor about his plans, and against medical advice, Mr. Yates began leaving his wife alone with the children in the weeks leading up to the drownings.[8] Russell had announced to a family gathering the weekend before the drownings that he had decided to leave Andrea home alone for an hour each morning and evening, so that she would not become totally dependent on him and his mother for her maternal responsibilities.[17] Andrea Yates' brother, Brian Kennedy, told Larry King on a broadcast of CNN's Larry King Live that Russell expressed to him in 2001 while transporting her to Devereux treatment facility that all depressed people needed was a "swift kick in the pants" to get them motivated.[18] Mrs. Yates' mother, Jutta Karin Kennedy, expressed shock when she heard of Russell's plan while at the dinner gathering with them, saying that she wasn't stable enough to care for the children. She noted that her daughter demonstrated she wasn't in her right mind when she nearly choked her still-toothless infant Mary by trying to feed her solid food.[



Originally posted by orangetom1999
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.


If you take anything on a case by case basis, you can make any point. Clearly, not all men who are killing their children are being hung and given life sentences. Clearly all women are not either. But you sure as heck cant make a coherent argument based on these two case that women are getting off with slaps on the wrist for murdering their children while men are being hung for it.

If anything, a bigger deal is made when women murder, because it is considered so aberrant, while just another guy murdering is barely even newsworthy. Bottom line, there are miscarriages of justice when men are the murderers, and when women are the murderers. Any court, any where, can fail to punish criminals appropriately. But to argue that women are given a pass, just isnt true.




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
generally-speaking, women have a greater threshhold for pain, however, this is not always the case, and certainly not in the case of a 70 year old woman. they need to come up with an alternative for beating old people.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999


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.


Ok OT, that was a brilliant move. So now, even the men who put the rules in place that you so eloquently complain about, arent really men. They are women, with penises.

Um, am I the only one who sees a problem with this?

What you are doing, unwittingly, is making a point I think many of the females here have made. There just isnt that clear a line between the genders. There is a range of human expression, from height, intelligence, bravery, willingness to accept risk, etc. While more males may fall on one end of some of those ranges, (height and risk taking notably) and females on the other, other qualities, (like intelligence) tend to be spread more evenly between the sexes. Bravery it is hard to say what the natural fall would be, since women are (in many cultures) strongly conditioned to "be nice. be ladylike." As I pointed out earlier, the Romans wrote with both horror and awe at the bravery and willingness to battle of the women in pre-Christian Britain. Hard to tell whats nature and whats nurture at this point in that area.

When there is a range of expression, there is often considerable overlap. I for instance am the size of the average male. 5'10" and a muscular 155lbs. Which is why women will not likely "flock in droves" to construction, small and weak people, male and female, tend not to do well in that field. It requires physical strength that many people of both genders lack. You dont see a whole lot of Asian men in construction either, or small slight men of any ethnicity. At least not here in the US. I suppose in their own countries, they work with what they have.

You just seem to want there to be this line. Clear cut, very defined, between us, and there isnt. Aside from ownership of a penis. And now you are casting even that out of the ring as a defining male feature. Face it OT, the vast majority of all people male and female, are looking for something for as little as they can get away with paying. It is not a female trait, but a human one. People with the values you attribute to "males" are rare. This noble character, brave, intelligent, reasonable, honest, hardworking, self sacrificing for the common good, this is the rarest of all humans. It has always been so. Read Plato's Republic, and you will see Plato outlining even then, in that most patriarchal society, how uncommon that sort is.

But even Plato acknowledged it could be found in a female. It was a rare quality, but not a male quality. Rare in all humans, but not non-existent in the female gender.

Men are not the victims here. Historically, they have repressed, and suppressed women, not the other way round. Though women have been discriminated against historically, not all women being locked out of positions are being discriminated against. Just like there are crappy men, in abundance, there are also crappy women in abundance. But its a human issue, not really a gender based one. We have more people of bad character than what we consider noble now, and always have. Thats what makes it admirable and valued. Its rarity. Womens rights just ensures that some percentage of humans with good and noble traits arent prevented from being able to contribute their portion to the world because of some fallacious assumption that they are by nature unable to possess these qualities.

Who knows how much further along the species would be if some portion of the worlds geniuses, people of good character, brave and noble, had not been consigned to virtual slavery based on gender.





[edit on 9-3-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


agreed. ancient greece was both patriarchal AND pederastic! women were only useful for creating progeny. the men spent all their time with their young male apprentices. in essence, the entire society was composed of male homosexual pedophiles, who didn't do much of anything with their wives. that was an ENTIRE society, in which women were barely a blip on the radar. the poetry, the art forms, were predominantly about males and the female children were typically killed at birth (no doubt one of the reasons the grecian empire fell to rome, who figured out the bigger the family, the stronger the empire).



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
I was going to respond but I think Illusionsaregrander said it better than I could anyway. "Yeah, that."

PJ



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Illusionsaregrander,

I still standby what I said in that women and females are more inclined to get away with the killing of another human being than males.

A man who would have drowned his children in that lake as did Susan Smith (Oh..and thanks for providing the name) and then attempt to blame it on someone else..would have gotten a different sentance. However..to my surprise ..it was most of the women to whom I spoke who felt her sentance should have been death..not the men. THe men tend to go easer on a woman than another woman particularly in cases like this.

As to the woman who drowned here children...five of them...one or two is bad enough ...five gets thin. Once again..what would have happened to a man in a case like this?? I think it would have been a different outcome.

Also Illusions ..concerning this..



Originally posted by orangetom1999
"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. "

Ok OT, that was a brilliant move. So now, even the men who put the rules in place that you so eloquently complain about, arent really men. They are women, with penises.


Illusions, This is my entire quote and rationale in this..it is not the point you are making.


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.


When one who is capable of thinking sees the whole post it paints a differnt picture from the offense you imagine and are wont to post about. It is however typical of todays education and media standards. It is also a view which is seldom presented to the public for what it is.

It is not who does the voting for this or that legislation..it is who voted to put politicians in office....especially if they want to get elected and then re elected. The most common technique is to vote for moneys out of the public trough to get re elected. Security issues verses employment opportunities. The most disposable and expendable vote in this arena is the male vote...since their maintenance requirements verses production are tend overall to be very different. This however will change as we produce males with high maintenance requirements. Especailly when we ask them socailly and politically to go to war to maintain more of this pattern/template. And it will eventually happen.


But even Plato acknowledged it could be found in a female. It was a rare quality, but not a male quality. Rare in all humans, but not non-existent in the female gender.


Agree..it is indeed rare..in both males and females. It is extremely rare in a consumer oriented social structure where the overall belief system promoted is that governemnt can and is responsible for everyone by entitlement out of the public trough. Yet this very government works the system to get the most and easiest obtainable votes by a system of entitlement themselves. One can hear it in the political rhetoric. They are fostering and maintaining this system for thier advantage.
They are using or misusing the credit system to maintain political advantage ...even over the public interest in the end..in the long run...for political expediency. To buy up votes.

IN such a political economic system it will become more rare in the females..in lieu of expediency or convenience...voting from the public trough...on the public credit.
At some point ..even the men will catch on and refuse to support such a system...particulary in war when the default is that they are expected to die for this stuff and for hidden masters/purposes. This has already happened in WW1 but kept out of most of the history books.


Womens rights just ensures that some percentage of humans with good and noble traits arent prevented from being able to contribute their portion to the world because of some fallacious assumption that they are by nature unable to possess these qualities.


This quoted above is not the point I am debating here..but it is the point about which you and so many of the women here seem to take offense. No problem here.

undo,
You bring out a good point here in this quote


agreed. ancient greece was both patriarchal AND pederastic! women were only useful for creating progeny. the men spent all their time with their young male apprentices. in essence, the entire society was composed of male homosexual pedophiles, who didn't do much of anything with their wives. that was an ENTIRE society, in which women were barely a blip on the radar. the poetry, the art forms, were predominantly about males and the female children were typically killed at birth (no doubt one of the reasons the grecian empire fell to rome, who figured out the bigger the family, the stronger the empire).


If this is true...why would we think it is intelligence and rationale today in bring back this system and promote it as human excellence?? A statement of human greatness?? Is this logical and reasonable for women today??
Is it not being promoted today as a statement of human excellence??

What does it say about the intelligence of a nation to promote homosexuality and alter the pool of males available as "good providers" in willingness to take risks for the female and children of the species???

Thanks to all for thier posts,
Orangetom









[edit on 13-3-2009 by orangetom1999]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by nikiano
I would be more than happy to give up my job so I can stay at home eating bon-bons all day.

Just find me a man these days who is not addicted to drugs, porn or alcohol, who is as responsible as I am with money, who has a credit score as high as I do, and who will willingly go to work 4 days a week at the hospital to pay the mortgage, plus keep up my part-time business on the side, and also continue my independent research and books that I am currently writing, and I will be happy to give it all up to stay home to "save society."

I just can't find a man these days that can do all that a woman can.

But of course, it's our fault. We've become too competent. Too polished. Too dominant. Too intimidating. Oh, yes.... it must be our fault. Everything is our fault. It couldn't possibly be that once women started working outside the home, men said something akin to: "Cool; now I can lay back, rest, and play video games all day. Honey, fetch me another beer!"

Find me a guy these days who is WILLING to do half as much as a woman does on a daily basis, with even a quarter of the emotional maturity, and I'll quit work, marry him, and stay home and have kids.

Because honestly, I haven't found one yet worth marrying, and I don't think they exist anymore these days.


Wow, you have so many generalisations and myths in there that I really don't know where to start ripping your whole post apart.

The majority of men are not addicted to drugs, alcohol or even porn. The same way the majority of women are not addicted to fancy cars, money and shopping. See how easy it is to lump all women into a category as you did with men? Also, hmm I wonder why men turn to these depressants? Could it be that the women in their lives usually think of their own emotional and physical needs before that of their partners?

Men get crucified for expressing or referring to their hormonal impulses, but women are given all the space in the world and understanding when it comes to their hormonal functioning. It's always "oh he's a male and just being a selfish pig" but with her "she just needs space and understanding, be fair and put yourself in her shoes."

Why do you imply men only possess a "quarter the emotional maturity" than women? Do you say this because you cannot find a male who wants to form a serious relationship with you? Perhaps you should lower your standards and consider his needs and obligations, in addition to your own. Maybe his maturity level would be higher if you showed you cared a little about his endeavours and virtues.

I understand the title of this thread might be provocative and I see why you have responded like this. So i don't mean to be rude in my reply. You sound smart, assertive and independent. I just think you need to be more realistic and fairer with the standards you set.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


Dark Ghost,


Men get crucified for expressing or referring to their hormonal impulses, but women are given all the space in the world and understanding when it comes to their hormonal functioning. It's always "oh he's a male and just being a selfish pig" but with her "she just needs space and understanding, be fair and put yourself in her shoes."


It is very interesting to me that for years I heard that women wanted a sensitive man. A man who is not afraid to express their feelings...their thinking , their values.

What you learn on threads like this one is that this is not entirely true. They want a sensitive man alright..but a man who is sensitive about them. Not his true feelings and thoughts. In other words he must trade his feelings, sentiments, and values for hers...particularly the power and allure of her sex and sexuality. What you see and sense over and over ...is that most women...what they have is sexuality..that is it. Carte blanche. They must always revert to type. You can see this over and over in threads such as this one.
THey want a man to submit his feelings, his sexuality..everything about himself...to her...particularly to her sexuality. Not a good trade off.
Now are all women like this ..no ...but among the most vocal..you can see this pattern clearly.
My time, moneys, labors, and RISKS...ie..love... are worth much more than a woman's sexuality.

Which brings us to this ..


Why do you imply men only possess a "quarter the emotional maturity" than women? Do you say this because you cannot find a male who wants to form a serious relationship with you? Perhaps you should lower your standards and consider his needs and obligations, in addition to your own. Maybe his maturity level would be higher if you showed you cared a little about his endeavours and virtues.


This is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated on and by an unthinking group of people. Unfortunately most men sit in mute ignorance when such a textbook stereotype concept is thrown out in the arena of threads like this one. So many women are accustomed to the men being silent and mute on this that they think they can play through unquestioned and unchallanged. And for the most part ..they are quite correct. There is in fact among most men and males little thinking going on about this hoax.

Most men are accustomed to taking certain RISKS in their work/occupations. To do this and survive..they must discipline their emotions...not cede to them. IF they do they will kill or injure themselves and others. This is a side of men that most of the women have little interest in nor want to see...or experience. It can socially and politically be ignored..taken for granted..as long as the paychecks/goods keep coming.

The ability of a male to stow his emotions, so core to his survival, works at odds to his being able to express his thoughts and vulnerabilities in threads like this one. So when he does...it becomes very easy for most women to promote their "emotional maturity " as the creme de la creme...the apex of human evolution.
I do not believe it is maturity in women at all. It is very easy to "appear mature" when much of your social expectations are of someone else to RISK..to cede...to give up their values and thinking for yours.

This is the appearance of maturity ..not real maturity. Economic affluence and social beliefs ..givens..taking for granted...actually works to hide a lot of this " appearance of maturity" verses real honest maturity.

IF this economy goes bust as many are forecasting..we are going to find out how many ..male and female are actually mature and how many expect to play through unaccountable by default..on social roles..not real maturity.

Social roles, beliefs, and expectations are not maturity.

Notice that Nikiano's post is only about her...not about a relationship. It is self promotion. This is textbook of what I am explaining and few males even notice it. Even more astonishing..few women even notice it...they think this one sidedness is female power. IF this is so..what is the beef with not being able to keep a relationship?? It must be him if he cannot figure out what real value she has?? How dare he think outside the social default beliefs and ask what real long term value she is capable of bringing him. Everyone knows ..it is all about her. LOL LOL Textbook.
This is a woman for whom a man will never be able to find Peace. Only her requirements, her beliefs, her values. I dont even think she realizes it.
All the Piece in the world will not make up for a lack of Peace in a man's life.

This is a variation of the dogma...

"Everyone knows..I'm sitting on the only one in town."

The real stupidity of the male is his ignorance of the concept that he is willing to take RISKS in dangerous occupations...for moneys in fields/occupations that most women would call powerlessness. He is dumb enough to call it power and success and then turn over the proceeds of his RISK to his woman for her discretionary spending while the women falsely scream about how much of a patriarchal society this is. Extremely stupid of him to sit mute while this is going on.
Yet most males cannot vocalize such a concept. They are perfectly content to watch NASCAR or the Lakers or any such drivel and not think. The women for the most part..don't care as long as the social structure can keep going and conceal this concept...behind social constructs. Many of these constructs being bogus. Politicians and social engineers are very well aware of this trend.
Give a guy some sex and a little sports and he is good for another hundred thousand miles....astonishing!!

Thanks,
Orangetom





[edit on 23-3-2009 by orangetom1999]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Amen, brother. You make some significant points in your above post. When I first saw her post, I was like "sigh...that is oversimplified and sterotypical, textbook style. Maybe I should clear this up?" Then another part of me said (and you mentioned this as the average males reaction) "I cant be bothered even replying to such bs."

In hindsight, I'm glad I did reply and expose the utter hypocrisy and self-centreredness in her post. Otherwise I would not have seen your subsequent wisdom unfold before me



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


Dark Ghost,

To you as well as other men out here..Please don't misunderstand me here.

A real woman is worth her weight in gold...and more. They are become quite rare out here in lieu of the "appearance of womanhood."

A real woman who understands her man and not just her consumption rates is a fine bottle of wine.. a beautiful strand of pearls.

Problem is that there are not that many of them out here in this fast food, high speed, entitlement lane of life or what passes for life/living now days.

I could make the same argument for real men as well and am often wont to do so.
To me a lot of men have forgotten how to lead...and have ceded this position and skill to the fast food lane expectations, beliefs, and default settings.
This is a mans fault for not knowing the difference and substituting sports and oil shortage mentalithy in lieu of real manhood values/thinking.

Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Speaking of leading..as per my last post and also in keeping with the Credit Crunch as per the OP on page 1 of this thread.

Here it is going into the springtime.

How many of you men/males out here have your heads pulled out of your backside and are able to get a breath of fresh air and do some thinking.

Turn off the sports/cheerleaders on television put down the swimsuit edition and the next time you are in the orange place as was I today...do some thinking after some careful observation.

It is springtime here, the weather is breaking, and with any trip to the orange place...Home Depot ...or even Lowes or any other such home and garden store. ....Notice how many downtrodden women are there making product selections in this business. Notice also how many men are there pushing around the shopping cart and taking instructions from their women and loading the heavy items in the cart or flatbed. Have any of you noticed this? Does this look Patriarchal to you?? Does this look like a downtrodden, victimized, browbeaten group of women??

Notice how victimized the women are in these places in the appliance section where a woman is never asked what kind of appliances are desired in the mans home???!! She has absolutely no input in this Patriarchal Society.
Ever notice this also ..in these "flip this house" type of program? The woman in a Patriarchal Society have no say in any of these types of programs. No input into how a house is repaired, changed, or flipped.

They have no say so on how moneys are spent. We know this is true because when the cart winds up at the check out stands at the orange place...it is the man who often pays...by credit, check or cash. She has no say in what went into the cart...correct?? She is a "Victim!!"
After all...everyone knows it is a Patriarical Society?? Right???

Once you develop enough acumen to spot this template taking place in front of you daily...you will be able to spot it in the grocery store as well as department stores. The wholesale "victimization" taking place in a Patriarical Society.
Shame on you males...especially for not seeing this taking place right in front of you!!

Hope this helps some of you men to think outside of the sports conditioning which has blinded many of us for so long.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Hey,

It's taken me a while to type this up ( for a number of reasons) so you really need not hurry with a, however brief, response.


And no, your last post on this forum didn't make me feel any more 'victimized' by women than i did. Why do you think women buy all those things to make the home easier to manage ( of which she will do by far the most no matter if she works longer hours) and or 'prettier' ( perhaps you would get bored of it too if you spent so much time cleaning it up) if not to create a better living environment for the the family? Would you rather pick the food or are you , like me, happy to see it bought and prepared withought much input from your side?


Originally posted by orangetom1999
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.


But what i in fact tried to say was that we are NOT getting more income! People are working longer and longer hours not to get richer but to prevent their disposal income from shrinking even faster. More disposal income for far fewer hours worked ( Hugo Chavez has dropped work hours for state employers, and others, to six hours so they have time to 'develop' themselves in) might in fact work but how will we ever know when the capitalist system keeps driving the vast majority of it's subjects into a frenzy of activity?


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.


Well that's how they have been propagandized to evaluate themselves for a half century ( TV) and more.... As for defining ourselves by our sex that does not seem as odd/illogical as you seem to suggest. Why should we be 'the same' ( or our consumption) when we have such widely different biological functions and social roles?


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.


Luckily i don't have to catch myself as i am such a terrible consumer that even 'seen it all' Japanese sales folk might be horrified.
I don't consider the consumption 'race' worth the effort as frankly it's mostly a race to the see who would do or accept the most immoral work or tasks for more and more money. I am even paranoid enough to consider the possibility that that was and still is the ultimate aim.


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.


If house work ( as normally done by women the world over) where paid work the global economy have gain a rather large number of consumers but try to explain that to the corporate capitalist would rather have a large slice of s small pie than a smaller slice of a larger pie.....


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.


Admittedly it does not take the daily rote tasks, women are saddled with, to keep the rain out of ceiling or the ants from carrying away the food... Sure gardening can take time but again that's something women mostly do. Sorry if you were looking for someone who believes men couldn't do a whole lot more before starting to talk about 'sharing' the 'burden'.



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.


Poor men! Should we just get rid of the women folk that for the overwhelming part makes our daily existence worth any effort we go to? Are you not presuming that men can or want to do without women when the opposite is far, far closer to the truth? This is why men have basically chained their women to the proverbial ( legally at least) the sink for a very great part of human existence; we realise they can leave us and what we do then?


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.


Sure the system discriminated against men ( in the Roman empire men were totally beholden to their fathers) but far more so against women who where in most societies virtual cattle to be traded and used to create a inheritor and then some additional relatively cheap slave labor. Admittedly on the personal level things were not always bad as long as the women played her part and didn't try to shirk her assigned tasks in which case the community would 'set her strait'. Things were bad for men and worse for 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.


Which i just see as excuses for a relatively well understood history where women had not even the meager rights men attained under their various kings and local tyrants.


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??


Up until very recently yes, that was basically what women could do when being married off to whoever her parents allowed her too. This was the norm and to suggest otherwise is turning history on it's head. Why hold women responsible for being married 'up' in the economic ladder by her parents; the social conditioning they have been subjected to for thousands of years might just be 'sticking'?


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???


Which wouldn't make much sense to do as men are mostly hopelessly insecure when it comes to women who are economically better off than themselves. Again women are blamed for what men can't deal with. I know a few couple's, who are not divorcing, where the wife earns more and what they have in common seems to be men who can't be bothered with what other men might think.


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??


You mean the few in the western world who have gained access to opportunities that have allowed them to actually surpass men in both training and experience? You mean those few tens of millions? So what? What about the other few billion women? But i suppose this is a discussion about the ball-breaking western women who might in fact be lesbian who are just having relationships with men to taunt them? Eish.....


Todays woman of intelligence does not think of status and marrying or living up...right??


Depending on their culture, no, they do not. In many Asian cultures women are making tons of money but are still very dependent on gaining the blessings of their family when it comes to marriage. I am sure that plays much the same role in the decision making as it has up to this century.


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???


Not really following and it just seems rather strange... I can't say that i have met a women( perhaps i am unlucky but from casual research i don't think so) who have not tried to increase my maintenance level.
As for the children it's not like men would actually work much , if not to support the wife and children which, after all, largely makes their existence worth the effort. Again psychologically women can do without men, even with all the social conditioning it fails often, but the same can not be said for very many men who's lives all but revolves around creating the the conditions that will allow them to , until relatively recently, often 'buy' women from their fathers.


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.


Well frankly i could see a world with a few million men and a few billion women where things would be largely peaceful ( What does a man have to prove when he has access to as many women as he likes? ) and everyone happy. Man has very little status and proves it year in and year out by slaughtering fellow men on command or just beating whichever women makes him feel inferior. Sorry for not being a male that feels his being 'oppressed' by the system. Talk about a victim mentality?


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.


But again to think of the Clinton women as women in my mind suggests that you should not be trusted with the word 'women'. You could just has well added the British Queens to your list to emphasis which women you were talking about! How would Indian women understand the Clinton women who could just as well have come from Mars in terms of women's rights and cultural norms in India?

Continued

[edit on 27-4-2009 by StellarX]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   

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..


I can see that you dug hard but in my opinion you are digging far too deep and finding examples of women who behave exactly like power crazed male statesmen; i just don't see how the example/comparisons are fair beside showing that the system only allows certain types of people into power.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
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.


If the system did what it had to do to get votes it would have been responsive; it is not. I don't know how it can be suggested that the 'system' it selling it's 'soul' for votes when people never seem to get what they ask for and certainly not what they voted for. How many republicans voted for Bush in the belief that he would 'work with other countries' and find peaceful solutions? These guys are NOT buying votes or doing anything for us to get votes. What benefits us we have always taken from their grasping paws at either gunpoint or by creating in them the real fear that they would lose far more control if they did not meet at least some of our demands. That is how we have made progress.


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.


I would call you on that but frankly i don't see how you could prove it or i could disprove it. Any other limbs you wish to crawl out on to mister orange? Eesh. Greatest voting power? I surmise you have forgotten that until recently they were not allowed to vote?Talk about a turn around in political dynamics!


The women in this country are the majority influence in all categories except the most stressful and dangerous jobs.


When you prove that i will address it but until then i will just presume you never claimed it. As for the most 'stressful and dangerous job' again that was childbirth until a few decades ago.... But i suppose that doesn't count as a job as like most things women do it's just presumed to 'happen' without much fanfare and reward.


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.


In societies where the worth of a person is determined by their bank balance it's not very surprising that women will be affected and that this might not become a ever larger consideration.


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.


Until a few decades ago when they couldn't vote and for all intense and purposes could not get raped; yes. Why wouldn't women focus on a man's earning power? If your going to be property and or wife/mother wouldn't you fight for the best standard of living you can arrange; better to argue in the shade than work in the sun?


What opprressed vicitmized group has the time and moneys to purchase and read so much of this stuff??


What oppressed victimized group wouldn't resorts to formulaic novels of a better life provided their economic situation allowed at least that? Do you think they would have remained home to read their romance novels if they were not so often consigned to stay home or stuck with men who couldn't care less if they were happy with their life or not?


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.


As i have previously explained this victim dictum is absolute nonsense considering how capitalism does it best to teach us that we are responsible for making our own profits or suffering in this world. The 'victim dictum' can perhaps be discussed in terms of how those who were never granted a chance to participate equally are painted as victims of their base, stupid and or generally inferior racial characteristics; capitalist imperialist have employed tribalism/racist from day one and personally i am not greatly surprised that such large sections of society still falls for it.

In terms of political expediency the various classes ( as created by economic favoritism/loyalty) have been perpetually played off against one another so as to best disrupt the cooperative tendencies that the poorer , and majority, classes could and would employ to get themselves a fairer deal. In fact these meager successes is why we have rights at all and don't all still work the kings fields.


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?


There are very few governments who could not pay these entitlements/social developments out of the military and security budgets they normally employ to keep the poor poor and the rich well defended. How do you destroy the economic base of your country buy spending the taxes you gain on the people that paid it? Where did the senseless idea originate that the taxes people pay can be spent on things the people never asked for or programs that simply enrich the same old small powerful minorities?


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


Who but the state/community ( in which until recently women had much less power than today) is going to be around to pick up the pieces when men and families discard women or female children for not measuring up to their cattle like economic expectations of them? Sure women may be the major beneficiaries but only because they have up until recently been granted practically no opportunity to find gainful economic activities ( beside selling their bodies) themselves? Why this fascination with blaming the victims for their circumstances?


Among ng 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.


Sure and again who is allowing these companies to flee the country that made them so wealthy, trough generous access to public land, resources and labor? Why blame the citizens for wanting to see business taxed to at least the same levels they are? Don't the businesses use the roads we built? Don't they use our rivers and minerals under the earth? Why shouldn't they pay their share of the profit after having paid us as little in terms of salary as they could get away with?


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.


Well if malnourishment and other problems doesn't make you a 'victim' in a country with as much natural wealth as the US what would? You have shown me anything that would lead me to think of the victims of the system as anything but what they seem to be; victims. Television programming and advertisements focus almost exclusively on creating and reinforcing consumption of products, services and there is very little in there that i can see to be creating a class of people that do not understand that everything costs money and that you better for it or practically starve.


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.


What do you mean there is no safety net for males? Who is normally the person who has a primary job to lose ( 'lower class' women are even more likely to find anything but minimum wage Walmart jobs) and thus the primary beneficiary ( paid into his account) of compensation for disability or unemployment claims? If there is no safety net for men ( they can always turn to crime as inner city culture may probably illustrate) would you call prostitution the safety net of women? Eastern European women have, after the " fall " of the Soviet Union certainly learnt that there will always be one job open to them in both their own countries and in western Europe. Great safety net indeed.

Continued



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   

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.


What female power? When did the gain much access to any independent means of wealth creation? Your this angry so few years after women got the vote and started to employ it to better the entire country? In fact where would America be today if not for the social progress created by women who were also willing to risk their lives ( men in uniform are quite a bit more unlikely to shoot at their wives and girlfriends when they holding , or taking part in, marches and rally's against oppressive corporate/state power) for social progress? In fact which large scale marches in Russia led to the Russian revolution? Interesting, wouldn't you say?


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.


Like mine? Only problem being that i am not a women? Sure our roles have become 'dysfunctional' but only in the sense that both mothers and fathers are being turned into corporate automatons who consume and consume in a mostly vain attempt to fill the holes created by dozens of hours of soulless work ever week.


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.


Yes, perhaps interestingly the same can be said for prisoners who have spent too much time in jail; even if you release them they will commit whatever crimes they have to because they have been completely institutionalized; propaganda and social conditioning works on both the slave owners and the slaves. Why do you feel so threatened by women?


Disagree for the reasons stated above.


And they don't in my opinion ammount to reasons as much as they display the various ways in which you are afraid of the competition ever more liberated women in your mind represents.


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.


As if there is even one major religion that has not turned women into third class citizens ( sometimes below slaves as slaves had monetary value) you are going to just throw this statement out there? What else do most mothers do but socialize their daughters with a significant ( but declining in western countries) proportion of the norms and values that their fathers, husbands and religions leaders have dictated to them?

If anything this again exposes the fact that you think women needs be taken care of when there are plenty of historic examples of women taking care of themselves and each other and the tribal structure in fact being matriarchal. Isn't that what paganism ( belief in 'witches' ; meaning women with power/social authority) was all about and why the major religions were so united in their destruction? Women could in theory do without the protection of men for most of human history; what tasks remains for men in a overwhelmingly 'gatherer' society ( hunting were not nearly as important as suggested) but the most obvious? Again men never had to logically gain the power over women you now think they are being robbed of and it in fact wasn't always the case.


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.


Beside the fact that women have and raise children, who have to start doing the same as soon as they are physically able, have since the agricultural revolution worked the fields and land alongside men and it may in fact be said that more often than not they did more of it than the men did; someone had to 'watch' the fire, right? Women have in my opinion contributed more to the basis of 'civilization' than men often did and if not held back and locked up at home ( when slaves could or were introduced) in later centuries perhaps we could have gotten where we are now sooner.


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.


Actually that is a relatively recent addition as until recently ( and in most societies for thousands of years) women had very little say in the matter of who they married. The fact that consumption orientated&socialized western , or more specifically American, oft results in them looking for and choosing men that can generate 'success' is hardly something that can be blamed on them. As for the objectifying of women into sex objects that is just a commercialisation , in a consumption oriented&propagandized, of women's fertility; should we really be surprised that corporate capitalism and patriarchal dominance of society debases even our very means of perpetuating the species?


This too has become disfunctional in todays social economic structure in that it too has not brought the stability it used to do.


'Stability' gained by the outright oppression of fully one half , and in my opinion, but perhaps arguably, the most important half, of the human species. The quicker we tear that sort of oppressive stability to pieces the better.


LOL LOL Whitewave is often wont to remind me and other males about the women as "sex objects." Keeps us in line.!!


It's sad that propaganda and social conditioning is so effective that you can convince the victim to play the very part you invented to keep them enslaved. Much like the female 'sexual' revolution suited the vast majority of males in the west , but not the patriarchal economic system itself , far more than it did women ( as if they become any less able to fulfill their sexual and procreative roles later) so the acceptance of the objectification of women by themselves and each other have not helped their struggle for equality much if anything. In fact i think it can be argued quite convincingly that by even partially succumbing to this corporate/patriarchal ploy women have been both additionally exploited and fundamentally divided amongst themselves after their years of cooperative ( their fertility were rated more important than their sexuality; reduced to the lowest common denominator if you will) struggle to gain the relatively freedom that suffrage allowed.

In this way women have been forced to commercialize themselves ( to the great delight of most men beside perhaps you.
? ) to gain the now ever more dubious sexually orientated attention ( at least at first) of men. There used to be a time when women could mostly get away with being fertile ( which women tend to be to the great horror of the now sexually oriented male prospector who want to inspect the gold before getting any kind of license) but now they have to dress up&makeup themselves, because they are after all now a product to be advertised&sold&consumed, literally jump trough hoops ( to lose weight if nothing else) to gain the attention of the consumer class that is your 12- 30 ( perhaps i am being generous as i know plenty of thirty year old guys who have not grown up much) male. All this in open competition with other women/girls who are forced to compete for the same 'sucessfull' male who still get a much higher salary for doing EXACTLY the same job they just did most of the day. So yes, western ( as that is who you were , and i thus am, mostly talking about ) women are in in my opinion in most respects far better off than the used to be but that does not mean that everything improved for them or that they are not , just like men, faced with new sets of oft demeaning challenges. Corporate capitalism may be said to consume the souls of all of it's wage slaves but at least a man's body can take the wear and tear that capitalism imposes on the vast majority of the worlds 6.7 billion people.

Continued



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   

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.


' Like and appreciate', indeed. I think today's men have got it pretty good , certainly better than women, but as you say we are consuming ( unwillingly) far too much of the propaganda that is making both our own lives and relationships a great deal more superficial and empty than they need be if we could have or could gain the time to better inform ourselves about our situation.


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.


I am not sure what the relatively inexpendibility( not that that gets in the way of them being forced to keep having children) proves in terms of your argument as i would just say that in recent modern history ( last few thousand years) it just perhaps shows why there were so much energy devoted to controlling them. If women are gaining as much power as you suggest why shouldn't i just see that as the power that they should logically have as result of their 'inexpendability'? Why do we need so many males? I don't disagree that both had harder lives but i can't agree with the analysis that women had it better for almost all of history and certainly not that have suddenly caught up or yet fairly shares male power.


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.


And yet overall mortality for men may not have been much lower considering who got drafted for wars and the ever prevalent risk of disease and like problems. I am not just talking about higher or lower mortality but how much freedom of choice in action of expression women had. As far as that is concerned it's always been lower and in my opinion still very much is.


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.


More often than not the sincerity , or lack of it, in a certain belief can be shown up by which aspects or points is pursued and i think's it's a a very valuable thing to have a good idea of when not to pursue a point; historically male mortality can in my opinion be said to have involved more choices where women had most of normal risks and the additional repeated threat of childbirth.


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??

I would say that it has done a great deal for both and that male life expectancy is at this point a bit lower ( in developed countries) mostly because men still indulge in the same old risky behaviour that they also have while women have far fewer children and in much safer environments.


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.


Absolutely and it could have happened much faster if not for patent rights and the general massive exploitation by the first world of the rest.


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.


Safety standards have obviously increased in most regards as it's obviously becoming increasingly expensive to ensure workers ( to say nothing of the press who just can't wait for a collapse) and the mines so deep that massive structural reinforcements are needed to mine safely or unsafely.. You can take the following for what it may or may not be worth ( it's a corporation AND a mining one at that) :

www.ashantigold.com...

Mostly i think men would not want their women underground as frankly the risks are obvious. Mining is still hard physical labor and given that it takes place in environments where cardiovascular fitness and general strength are very important few women can ( I forget the number that US army study cited, it's high thought) and will be capable of the same efficiency.


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


Too bad really and if ATS forums is anything to go by we could dispose of a few more males without hurting civilization any.


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


Well i don't think i said that as i can't think of new mortality risks for western women that isn't shared by men. As for women the world over that is a different story.


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.


Agreed with the addendum that the risks ( provided that there are no wars) still falls more heavily on the females while they share very little in most of the basic economic/ political freedoms even third world men have gained. I should add that many of these third world people were first world people before their countries were invaded by the west ( or others) and are in some still cases STILL doing worse than they were centuries ago.


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


Facts are facts.


Stellar



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Lets sum this up. A fair share of men are dominating a-holes. A fair share of women are subversive, manipulative c****. Of course, both sexes have both expressions. In modern western society, the one cannot exist without the other, or at least without a widespread belief that the other is occuring. Men, I think we play up the subversive, backstabbing, tear-you-down power of women, even though quite a few do use these angles quite often. Women, you assuredly exaggerate the brutal male. It justifies your pettiness. Break the domination, manipulation stick.
I am now going to show my male bias, but I will at least admit it is a bias; keep that much in mind. Picture an archetypal image of man and woman. The man is strong, fierce, with a club in his hand. The Woman is sitting on the ground in sensual ecstasy. Men are keenly attracted to women, and are societally forbidden from holding these characteristics in himself, so he needs a woman. Even when men had the direct power, a man was expected to make his thoughts in the head space of his significant others emotions and intuitions, for he was less than a man if he dared be honest about his own feelings. Therefore, woman has been able to weave a spider web directing men's actions throughout the whole time he was in power. Do not forget the many queens of tremendous power in wetsren civilization. Do not forget the lady liberty. Do not forget lady justice. Western civilization, in the secular realm since at least the french and american revolutions, and birthing in the renaissance and reformation has been spiritually led by women. Both sexes are responsible for the plight of the world. People forget the power of language. They think only figureheads hold the power.
All that being said, today, women are allowed to express a full range of the masculine and the feminine. Ironically, a feminist might go off half-pussied about the superiority of feminine virtues, but the second a man starts to enter her feminine headspace, and not let her merely act as the spirit that animates the man, the power in the shadows, she talks about him not being a real man. Women work about 10% less hours than men, and earn about 10% less. sounds about right. Also, women spend 60% of the money in america. Hows that for oppressed economically. If a man wants a baby, his girlfriend/wife can abort the child, neglecting all responsibility, her choice. If the man forgoes responsibility, he is a deadbeat. We are supposed to compete side by side the fiercely independant woman, all the while not treading on her delicate sensibilities. Women can be nasty to men in the workplace and get off scott free. If a man does something unseemly, or even if he does not, his job is in serious jeopardy. 50% of rape cases have been found to be fabricated, outright lies. This is just as much as a power play, as much as a violation as rape. The courts award women children unless she is the devil incarnate. Women can play submissive, needy child or adult, whatever is to her advantage. Women are placed in careers that are male dominated through affirmative action. There is no such push for men. The list goes on and on.
My answer to the problem? The pendulum has swung, but 2 wrongs don't make a right. It is time for the sexes to have a clean slate. One must not condemn or belittle the other for doing what they need to for personal and financial development, unless they are actively (or passively) screwing somebody else over. Ostracize bad people. Celebrate good ones. Don't label women as "good" and men as "bad," or vice versa.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   
And to the point that women are more marginalized in third world countries; that goes without saying. Lots of people are dirty, selfish, narcissistic, lustful idiots. women and men. However, in the less civil parts of the world, where there is less of a structure in place, it is easier for the bad men to dominate women. It is not becuase the men are any worse; it is because they have the opportunity; they are physically stronger. In the west, women have used the system for oppression and manipulation of truths, because they can get away with it, much like the men in the less civil areas can get away with raw domination. Women just might be pressing for equal rights and special treatment after they have far surpassed men. But at what cost. The gain would be without merit. Bad people will try to get away with bad things. Unless we want constant war in the world, men and women need to stop warring. This requires honesty, something disappearing from the world in droves, but I think something that has started to resurface. Only time will tell, but it is our choice. Just be warned, 2 wrongs making a right will lead to three, foour, etc. Eye for an eye and the whole world is blind. We have to stop judging. When judging people, we only see a spectre of our imagination. When communicating as equals, a result of nonjudgment, we come to a meeting place and see the other being.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


On Prison Planet they had an interview with a friend of a Rockerfeller (Can't remember which one) and he was complimenting the Rockerfeller Foundation for supporting women's rights.
Rockerfeller laughed at him and informed him subsequently that the rights were a ruse. They had no control over fifty percent of the population and by getting them into the workforce cured that problem for the elite.
Taxes, buying into the pernicious economics of labor, the cache of being who they really are, yada, yada was the outcome.
They bought into the the system that now has them doing so much useful stuff for the people who now own them instead of the families they once nourished.
These people are smarter than us and we deserve to die for them.
Just ask them.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by largo
 


LOL LOL LOL...Largo..

It is not actually funny...ironic would be more like it. Sickeningly ironic.
Even disgusting.

There is an obvious measure of truth to what you are posting..and I believe it.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Yeah, I basically agree. It would be good idea to make one parent (male or female) a full-time carer to children at any one time.

40-50 years ago, women did not work once they had children. Can we seriously say we are better off now that both parents *have to* work? Or do we just have to work harder to be secure?





new topics
top topics
 
58
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join