It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

The Feminist Movement—Ruining The Image Of Men

page: 25
57
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Keeping up with the "Jones's" - is hardly a modern concept.

I'd say TV (invented by a man) & the increase of commercialism has a lot more to do with people not know the difference between - WANT and NEED.

I'm really not getting the connection that Women's Rights is responsible.


I never said womens rights were responsible for this i was replying to something else and you've gotten the wrong end of the stick, no worries confusion happens.

reply to post by kalisdad
 


I'm not sure why you quoted my points and then provided links to prove them correct, but erm ok lol.

As for the disparity in pay, i hate to tell you but those figures are badly worked out. The wage gap is mostly a myth when talking about adult women without children, however when talking about women with children the wage gap increases as women are more likely to have to leave work at a moments notice to look after sick children or because the baby sitter cancelled or something of that nature. Are you honestly telling me that people should get equal pay for less work?

Women also tend to pick jobs which have more flexibility with their hours and this results in them turning down higher paying jobs, again this is rarely reflected in the figures used by governments or feminists.


Article about this

As for women getting fired for being pregnant, well that is illegal at least in the UK so the point is moot.




posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by Annee
Keeping up with the "Jones's" - is hardly a modern concept.

I'd say TV (invented by a man) & the increase of commercialism has a lot more to do with people not know the difference between - WANT and NEED.

I'm really not getting the connection that Women's Rights is responsible.


I never said womens rights were responsible for this i was replying to something else and you've gotten the wrong end of the stick, no worries confusion happens.

reply to post by kalisdad
 


I'm not sure why you quoted my points and then provided links to prove them correct, but erm ok lol.

As for the disparity in pay, i hate to tell you but those figures are badly worked out. The wage gap is mostly a myth when talking about adult women without children, however when talking about women with children the wage gap increases as women are more likely to have to leave work at a moments notice to look after sick children or because the baby sitter cancelled or something of that nature. Are you honestly telling me that people should get equal pay for less work?

Women also tend to pick jobs which have more flexibility with their hours and this results in them turning down higher paying jobs, again this is rarely reflected in the figures used by governments or feminists.


Article about this

As for women getting fired for being pregnant, well that is illegal at least in the UK so the point is moot.



many states in the US have what is called 'no cause termination' they don't need a reason to fire you... that way they can get around any discrimination lawsuits


and most of the links I posted show that the things you claim the modern movement (50's-present) are things that have been around for alot longer than that... the latest movement was all about 2 incomes.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by kalisdad]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by kalisdad
many states in the US have what is called 'no cause termination' they don't need a reason to fire you... that way they can get around any discrimination lawsuits


Well the USA is behind the times when it comes to employment law.


Originally posted by kalisdad
and most of the links I posted show that the things you claim the modern movement (50's-present) are things that have been around for alot longer than that... the latest movement was all about 2 incomes.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by kalisdad]


Oh so women already had all the rights they demanded to gain? Then why did the movement ask for those things if they already had them? Oh right it's because they didn't really have them at all.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by kalisdad
many states in the US have what is called 'no cause termination' they don't need a reason to fire you... that way they can get around any discrimination lawsuits


Well the USA is behind the times when it comes to employment law.


Originally posted by kalisdad
and most of the links I posted show that the things you claim the modern movement (50's-present) are things that have been around for alot longer than that... the latest movement was all about 2 incomes.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by kalisdad]


Oh so women already had all the rights they demanded to gain? Then why did the movement ask for those things if they already had them? Oh right it's because they didn't really have them at all.



thats your perception... if they didnt have the right to the things you said, why was I able to show that they had been in the positions that you claimed they couldn't have?

women in military? goes back thousands of years
women in government? YOUR OWN QUEEN!
women at work? your right, how could they have had the first strike in 1824??


are you even reading the sources I am posting?



The movement's history has gone through three waves, beginning in the 18th century. The First-wave was oriented around the station of middle or upper-class white women, and involved suffrage and political equality. Second-wave feminism(1950-1980) attempted to further combat social and cultural inequalities. Third-wave(1990-present) feminism was a reaction to and continuation from the second-wave, taking a post-structuralist analysis of femininity to argue that there is in fact no all-encompassing single feminist idea. It set itself against essentialist definitions of femininity, which assume a universal female identity, instead emphasizing discursive power and the ambiguity of gender. Third-wave theory incorporates elements of queer theory, anti-racism, and other hallmarks of modern progressivism.


all I'm saying, is that the 2nd & 3rd movement in my opinion was just about taxation and greed on the part of the banking cartel

[edit on 15-6-2010 by kalisdad]

[edit on 15-6-2010 by kalisdad]

[edit on 15-6-2010 by kalisdad]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I don't really understand this "war of the sexes"-thing, neither do I understand the racial issues.

Damn if feels good to have had nice, balanced relationships. Many women/girls do indeed try to control you, but give 'em back. If they get psycho, tell 'em. If that doesn't work, dump 'em. It's very probable that a lot of women don't really respect guys who are totally henpecked. But I don't think they would respect guys who are total pigs.

I think the wimpiest thing a man could do is to complain about being under one's thumb.

That grocery store example really cracked me up.. I might very well call my GF to ask what she wants to eat. It's all about the attitude, not going "yes, dear.." all the time.

I don't know, I just don't find this subject problematic at all. Just don't take the #.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 


Citing the odd woman who went against the grain is not the same as all women being treated equally. Futher the queen example is ludicrous as a Monarchy is not voted in. No other woman could have simply stepped in and become queen and that isn't equal. Although no man could have simply stepped in either lol the point is the example is deeply flawed.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by Annee
Keeping up with the "Jones's" - is hardly a modern concept.

I'd say TV (invented by a man) & the increase of commercialism has a lot more to do with people not know the difference between - WANT and NEED.

I'm really not getting the connection that Women's Rights is responsible.


I never said womens rights were responsible for this i was replying to something else and you've gotten the wrong end of the stick, no worries confusion happens.




I don't think I was responding to you. I think it was something kalisdad said.

Did I address that to you? Or was I responding to something else?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by kalisdad
 


Citing the odd woman who went against the grain is not the same as all women being treated equally. Futher the queen example is ludicrous as a Monarchy is not voted in. No other woman could have simply stepped in and become queen and that isn't equal. Although no man could have simply stepped in either lol the point is the example is deeply flawed.


ok then...

1849 Elizabeth Blackwell receives her M.D. degree from the Medical Institution of Geneva, N.Y., becoming the first woman in the U.S. with a medical degree.

1853 Antoinette Blackwell becomes the first American woman to be ordained a minister in a recognized denomination (Congregational).

1864 Rebecca Lee Crumpler becomes the first black woman to receive an M.D. degree. She graduated from the New England Female Medical College.

1866 Lucy Hobbs becomes the first woman to graduate from dental school, the Ohio College of Dental Surgery.

1869 Arabella Mansfield is granted admission to practice law in Iowa, making her the first woman lawyer. A year later, Ada H. Kepley, of Illinois, graduates from the Union College of Law in Chicago. She is the first woman lawyer to graduate from a law school.

1872 Victoria Claflin Woodhull becomes the first woman presidential candidate in the United States when she is nominated by the National Radical Reformers.

1879 Belva Ann Lockwood becomes the first woman admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mary Baker Eddy establishes the Church of Christ, Scientist, becoming the first woman to found a major religion, Christian Science.

1885 Sarah E. Goode becomes the first African-American woman to receive a patent, for a bed that folded up into a cabinet. Goode, who owned a furniture store in Chicago, intended the bed to be used in apartments.

1887 Susanna Medora Salter becomes the first woman elected mayor of an American town, in Argonia, Kansas.

at what point are you going to realize that women have had the ability to do these things LONG before the 1950's movement...

www.infoplease.com...



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


This is just getting Sad... Really.


Men hold the most dangerous jobs on the planet...

BECAUSE THEY MUST BE DONE, AND WOMEN WILL NOT DO IT!




In fairness Edrick the most dangerous jobs often involve serious physical labour and men are more biologically suited to that.


Yes, men ARE better suited at the most dangerous Jobs... which is why men HAVE the most dsangerous jobs.

The Laws of supply and demand REQUIRE that jobs that less people want to Do, must be paid MORE...

Otherwise, everyone would just be a Waiter or Waitress... because it is the easiest job to do (maybe not THE easiest... but the point Remains)

Crappy Jobs PAY MORE MONEY.

Hence, Men Earn More than Women, because Men work HARDER than women.

Period.


So it seems unfair to criticise women because they don't do more of these jobs.


Because they don't do the jobs that are REQUIRED for the continued COHESION opf society?

It seems to me that those who suffer FOR society, should have a say IN society...

As opposed to the people who SOCIETY IS BUILT TO PROTECT, having a say in what protects them.

I Can't Believe I even need to say this....


You want women making the same ammount of money as men... but you concede that men MUST do the hardest, most dsangerous jobs that women are BIOLOGICALLY ill equipped to do.

You want women to have EQUAL SAY in Government affairs, but you don't see the need for them to DEFEND THE NATION.


While some women join the armed forces they often need to use equalizing measures during training to keep up with the men.


Yes, because they are BIOLOGICALLY ILL EQUIPPED for the *Role*.


You are saying that because women aren't required to fight for their country then they shouldn't be afforded the same rights.


Yes, that is correct...

We cant have two classes of people that are treated "Equally", if one half is forced into dangerous drugery and soldiering, while the other half is NOT.

You see.. that would be treating them as if they were *NOT EQUALS*


I find it VERY DIFFICULT to believe that you are not understanding this concept.


Well what about the disabled? The disabled are not required to fight for their country so does that mean they should give up their rights as well?


Are we talking about a "Minority" group?

OR perhapse we are talking about amputees... mutations?

What kind of disabled are we talking about?

Do we mandate the hiring of disabled? Or is that adequately covered under the Equal Oppertunity Employment Act?

Are the Disabled a Gender?

Are they a Race?

Frankly... I don't see why you felt the need to lift this strawman into the argument.


What about children... we don't require that they fight.... should we prohibit their choices as well?


If you say this isn't the same then i ask why not? Women are less physically suited to the work just as disabled people are less suited to it.


Your freedom is bought for you by men with guns... who protect you from other men with guns.


"Freedom is not free"... I am sure that you know this old Maxim.


Would you like it if we taxed you, and gave your money to a part time resteraunt employee?

You know, to make you two equal and all.


You seem to be arguing for Social Marxism.... where Equality is ENFORCED, as opposed to letting each reache their own potential.

You seem to be advocating that Burdons are placed upon some, to make them "Equal" with those who are less able.

Men must Fight in wars, in defense of their nation.

Women do not have this Responsibility.


What do you mean by "Equal"?

And why do you only scream "Equality NOW!" when faced with areas where women have less than men...

As opposed to screaming "EQUALITY NOW!" when you see that men are being marched to their deaths, and women are not.

Seriously....

-Edrick



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 


Lol at what point are you going to realise i am aware of these women (well some of them) but it proves very little as these are exceptions to the rule. Such women were often unpopular and many other women who were just as smart never got a chance because men stopped them.

You can argue all you like but the rights women fought for were rarely afforded to women and when it comes to stuff like voting they just were not allowed. In the UK women were granted the right to vote in 1918 (over 30's) and then 1928 (21 and over).



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
My view on all this is roll on getting rid of the female gender, and get humans to be 1 single gender.

I have no problem females wanting to be equal, that means one day we will have one single gender, and they will be gone, as most of there role will be replaced.

So let them have there time in the sun, one day it will be over for the female gender i reckon.

Personally i could not care less.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Well, there's your problem right there! Equality is a NATURAL right. We all have it NATURALLY. We needn't earn it. No one has to gift it to us. PRIVILEGES are earned.


And that is your problem... you don't understand the words that you are typing.

Equality is NOT natural, and If I need to explain this, I am going to get ANGRY.

VERY ANGRY.

EQUALITY IS NOT A RIGHT.


EQUALITY IS A CONDITION


You either ARE, or you ARE NOT Equal.


This is not something that someone can wave a pen and FORCE INTO BEING.


Equality DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS.


Why are you not grasping this?


And apparently, you don't know what "Rights" are either.


-Edrick



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Good topic - VERY conspiratorial if you really dig deep into it. Modern feminism is not at all akin to the original feminist movement. It was hijacked, like the Tea Party movement, to further a political agenda. Let's dig in:

First of all, dig through this site: National Organization of Women

Not all bad! Seems to be pretty up and up...

Digging deeper: N.O.W. Wiki Link

Still sounds a little noble to me! Nice job... so far!

Deeper yet: NOW Founder, Betty Freidan

Awwwwwww... she sounds like a sweet and genuinely concerned lady. She crusaded to repeal any and every abortion law. She was an avowed Marxist. She worked to promote the liberal agenda all the way to her death in 2006. She recognized, by the mid 1970s, that the path to equality meant that government had to run everything and men had to be emasculated to "Put them in their place." Such a sweet, sweet lady.


Then there's good old Gloria Steinem; A devout member of the Democratic Socialist Club of America, a political activist and a former employee of a "CIA funded" front group. She also employed the notion that the only way to achieve equality between genders was to emasculate men and grant unfetered power to the federal government.

Are we seeing a pattern yet? I could go on and on and on and on, but the topic, quite frankly, bores me to death! Dig a little. I've already given you access to a few of the links to get you started - go down that rabbit hole!

Parting thoughts... who would be AGAINST equality!? Anyone!?!? NO WAY! Of course women should enjoy equal protection under the law that men receive, in EVERY facet of life; compensation, hiring, discrimination etc... But let us also not lose sight of the fact that there are gender roles that have persisted for thousands upon thousands of years. Why? Because they work and service the needs for mankind to perpetuate and procreate. So, when discussing "Feminism" it is VERY important to understand WHICH feminism you are discussing; the traditional or the modern!? The modern feminism became pure political activism designed to help achieve a socialist political ideal. You need look no further than founders of this modern movement beginning in the mid to late '60s to see this for a fact.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
Good topic - VERY conspiratorial if you really dig deep into it. Modern feminism is not at all akin to the original feminist movement. It was hijacked, like the Tea Party movement, to further a political agenda. Let's dig in:

First of all, dig through this site: National Organization of Women

Not all bad! Seems to be pretty up and up...

Digging deeper: N.O.W. Wiki Link

Still sounds a little noble to me! Nice job... so far!

Deeper yet: NOW Founder, Betty Freidan

Awwwwwww... she sounds like a sweet and genuinely concerned lady. She crusaded to repeal any and every abortion law. She was an avowed Marxist. She worked to promote the liberal agenda all the way to her death in 2006. She recognized, by the mid 1970s, that the path to equality meant that government had to run everything and men had to be emasculated to "Put them in their place." Such a sweet, sweet lady.


Then there's good old Gloria Steinem; A devout member of the Democratic Socialist Club of America, a political activist and a former employee of a "CIA funded" front group. She also employed the notion that the only way to achieve equality between genders was to emasculate men and grant unfetered power to the federal government.

Are we seeing a pattern yet? I could go on and on and on and on, but the topic, quite frankly, bores me to death! Dig a little. I've already given you access to a few of the links to get you started - go down that rabbit hole!

Parting thoughts... who would be AGAINST equality!? Anyone!?!? NO WAY! Of course women should enjoy equal protection under the law that men receive, in EVERY facet of life; compensation, hiring, discrimination etc... But let us also not lose sight of the fact that there are gender roles that have persisted for thousands upon thousands of years. Why? Because they work and service the needs for mankind to perpetuate and procreate. So, when discussing "Feminism" it is VERY important to understand WHICH feminism you are discussing; the traditional or the modern!? The modern feminism became pure political activism designed to help achieve a socialist political ideal. You need look no further than founders of this modern movement beginning in the mid to late '60s to see this for a fact.


finallly, someone sees the light!!!

THE MODERN WOMEN'S MOVEMENT IS NOT ABOUT EQUALITY!

it's about $ and control(aka a political agenda)... plain and simple

[edit on 15-6-2010 by kalisdad]

[edit on 15-6-2010 by kalisdad]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
lol i still think its like i have been saying for years, its too get rid of females, so all you females have your day in the sun ruining males, as its just there to ruin you in reality.

It was just going to happen and two genders cannot really work in some sort of world where they want peace. The world needs one single gender.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick

Crappy Jobs PAY MORE MONEY.

Hence, Men Earn More than Women, because Men work HARDER than women.

Period.


Really? Because as far as i'm aware the best paying jobs are really not crappy. Bankers, surgeons, company CEO's etc. These seems like pretty decent jobs to me (other than a surgeon having to see people die of course).

Also i would love you to walk up to a farm labourer and tell him/her that crappy jobs pay more money.


Originally posted by Edrick
Because they don't do the jobs that are REQUIRED for the continued COHESION opf society?

It seems to me that those who suffer FOR society, should have a say IN society...

As opposed to the people who SOCIETY IS BUILT TO PROTECT, having a say in what protects them.

I Can't Believe I even need to say this....


Everyone should have a say in how society is built because everyone is a part of society. If you start picking and choosing which groups can and cannot voice their opinions and vote as they wish then you are on a very slippery slope to a dictatorship.


Originally posted by Edrick
You want women making the same ammount of money as men... but you concede that men MUST do the hardest, most dsangerous jobs that women are BIOLOGICALLY ill equipped to do.


I said i want women to make the same money if they do the same job. If they don't do the dangerous jobs then they won't get paid for them and so the comparison is pointless. If a woman does 40 hours a week in an office and a man does the same number of hours then they should be paid the same wage.


Originally posted by Edrick
You want women to have EQUAL SAY in Government affairs, but you don't see the need for them to DEFEND THE NATION.


I never said that, you do seem to read into things rather poorly. I said women are less suited to doing physical jobs like serving in the armed forces. However if a women can keep up with the men she should be allowed on the front line. Why would you want to punish a group of people because they are less physically able to defend the nation? This seems really strange.
If women everywhere actually promoted the idea of men going to war instead of the women then i would agree you have a point but i don't hear them saying that.



Originally posted by Edrick

Yes, that is correct...

We cant have two classes of people that are treated "Equally", if one half is forced into dangerous drugery and soldiering, while the other half is NOT.

You see.. that would be treating them as if they were *NOT EQUALS*


I find it VERY DIFFICULT to believe that you are not understanding this concept.


I understand it Edrick, a little better than you do. Forcing women to serve would simply lead to a weakened armed forces because as you have stated and i have agreed, women are less biologically suited to serving the role of a frontline soldier. It could easily be argued that forcing all women to serve could actually endanger more lives due to them being less able for the role.


Originally posted by Edrick

Are we talking about a "Minority" group?

OR perhapse we are talking about amputees... mutations?

What kind of disabled are we talking about?

Do we mandate the hiring of disabled? Or is that adequately covered under the Equal Oppertunity Employment Act?

Are the Disabled a Gender?

Are they a Race?

Frankly... I don't see why you felt the need to lift this strawman into the argument.


It's not a strawman Edrick. You hav stated that if you are not required to serve your country then you forfeit the right to vote and have a say. If a disabled adult is not required to serve then should they forfeit their right to vote? This really isn't a strawman Edrick it's a direct application of your argument applied to a different group of adults who are less able to perform the physical role of a member of the armed forces.




Originally posted by Edrick
What about children... we don't require that they fight.... should we prohibit their choices as well?


Children don't have a say in anything, they can't vote and so your point is invalid.


Originally posted by Edrick

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
If you say this isn't the same then i ask why not? Women are less physically suited to the work just as disabled people are less suited to it.


Your freedom is bought for you by men with guns... who protect you from other men with guns.


"Freedom is not free"... I am sure that you know this old Maxim.


Would you like it if we taxed you, and gave your money to a part time resteraunt employee?

You know, to make you two equal and all.


None of this was a reply to the point you quoted. You claim women are inferior and yet the women in this thread seem more able to answer questions directly. They are also able to reply without the caps lock on and without posts that are so poorly edited they are a struggle to read.


Originally posted by Edrick
You seem to be arguing for Social Marxism.... where Equality is ENFORCED, as opposed to letting each reache their own potential.



You seem to be advocating that Burdons are placed upon some, to make them "Equal" with those who are less able.

Men must Fight in wars, in defense of their nation.

Women do not have this Responsibility.


This is not what i am arguing at all and you once again seem to read what you hope is there. I am not saying everyone is equal in regards to their potential, for example i may be more academically superior to you and you may be more physically superior to me.

The equality i am arguing for is simply the rights to vote, be paid the same for the same amount of work, legal rights and all the basic human rights we hand out in society. Women can fight and some choose to fight, others realise they are not suited to the task.

Seriously Edrick why are you so intent on pushing people into a role they are ill equipped to deal with? How would this benefit society in any way at all?


Originally posted by Edrick
What do you mean by "Equal"?

And why do you only scream "Equality NOW!" when faced with areas where women have less than men...

As opposed to screaming "EQUALITY NOW!" when you see that men are being marched to their deaths, and women are not.

Seriously....

-Edrick


Well thing is Edrick i don't believe in forced service at all so i would fight for a mans right to not serve if he so wishes. Also you obviously haven't been reading the thread because in several posts i have lamented the fact men are discriminated against in child custody and divorce hearings.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
But let us also not lose sight of the fact that there are gender roles that have persisted for thousands upon thousands of years. Why? Because they work and service the needs for mankind to perpetuate and procreate.


Nice logic.

Using that, we can also say that bashing each other over the heads with rocks should be held to be superior as a means of waging war, because for thousands upon thousands of years it sufficed. Or that living in hovels should again become a norm because we did just fine for thousands of years without modern houses. Hell, you can make dancing around a fire to drive spirits out of sick people sound good using that logic.

Face it, even if those "roles" served a purpose, for a period of time, it does not mean it is desirable to continue along that path indefinitely. We dont really need to procreate to the degree we have been. We arent little bands of nomadic peoples in some hostile desert somewhere, (Israel) who need to outbreed the other guys to survive. That also doesnt mean we have to throw everything out all at once, but the "argument to tradition" or history, is silly when put in context.

Its ok to evolve.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by kalisdad
 


Lol at what point are you going to realise i am aware of these women (well some of them) but it proves very little as these are exceptions to the rule. Such women were often unpopular and many other women who were just as smart never got a chance because men stopped them.

At what point are you going to realize that it's the "exceptions to the rule" that make the difference? Do you honestly think that the feminists flailing around signs about how we're equal too are going to make a difference? It's the women who wouldn't take "no" or "you're not good enough" for an answer that make the difference. These women shouldn't be considered the exception, they should be the rule.

If you value your rights as a woman stand up for it. Yes, there are things that women can't physically handle compared to men - but don't sit there and say that we are an equal species without being willing to do the same work. I don't know how many women I work with a bunch of women who complain about how we should all be equal, and then gripe about how chivalry in the workplace is dead. ITS NOT DEAD we just burnt our bra's for the right to be treated equally in the work place.

As for Kalisdad, I have to say that its not difficult to see his point, dont understand why nobody is getting it. All he is saying is the women's ability to achieve higher goals has been around for centuries, women just weren't willing to stand up for themselves and those who were, were then considered the "odd ones out". I don't see how it's so far off to believe that the only reason women were allowed the same rights as men is because it means more taxable money for the government.

When it all comes down to it, there is no such thing as a basic HUMAN right, you have to earn it.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


Lol, get rid of females? Like exterminate us?

As for one gender, I dont think thats necessary. Males and females can get along just fine. Not everyone has their tighty whities in a bunch over women having greater social and economic equality in the world. Its like racism in the US. Its mostly gone, but the ones that linger are loud and draw so much attention to themselves that you would think it was still a huge problem.

A couple more generations and the whining will stop. About that. And then we will find something else to bicker about as a species.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Its ok to evolve.


the problem with that line of thought, is the fact that the human race is devolving.... due to technology, and other people perspective of things being forced down our throats... we are becoming stupider each generation, despite the means to raise our level of knowledge and intelligence



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join