Should man rule over women for women’s own good?

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

The sexist boundary was crossed within this decade. The females that it would pertain to are only freshmen in high school. They have to go to college first.

What line of work are you in? or do you work at all?

Nonsense. Madame Curie made it into the sciences and won two Nobels. If there was the drive, females could get into the field of sciences. It mainly takes money for the college and no fear of hard work.

Women have been allowed into college areas of science, physics, and engineering for a long long time. I even shared an office with a Black Chicago woman with a degree in Physics that she got in the 1950s. Even Black Females got into sciences with no problems.

The only issue is women chose to do the easy things and they have this need to become the center of attention in most cases. Very few females have the drive for hard work, and a very few like Curie and others made the grade and it remains a very few.

Which leaves you blowing smoke and nonsense.

reply to post by MagnumOpus


what line of work are you in?

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

what line of work are you in?

You need to stop working on personal information issues. Deal with the discussions, and don't even verge close to personal attack methods.

Originally posted by MagnumOpus

Originally posted by smyleegrl
To respond to the female engineer question:

One of my childhood friends has a phd in engineering. She works for Boeing in the aviation design area.

My 21 year old cousin just graduated with a 4.0 in a double major: chemical and mechanical engineering. She's now overseas in Japan

Women are in the technical fields, my friend. You just have to look.

Lets take a look at the statistics on just the engineering graduates.

en.wikipedia.org...

only 11% of the engineering workforce in 2003 were women.

It would appear that women just cannot handle engineering, else there would be an equal proportion of male and female graduates.

It also matters if they get jobs and if they stay in the jobs or go home to play Mom.

It also matters if they take up the difficult and demaning research and development type positions or house keeping and very easy Civil Engineering jobs.

So, explain why, with all the incentives females have to get into these harder and well paying jobs, they don't take off with the opportunity and we see equal numbers of male and female?

The problem usually is that one doesn't get to play in the more difficult engineering studies.

Also examine what they do, as females, moving into the corperate positions, like Sales.


Lets also do another type measure of looking at the Nobel ratios of male to female:

chartsbin.com...

The ratio of women significant in sciences is about 2 percent.

All the doors have been wide open to women to enter sciences for a long time.

edit on 29-5-2012 by MagnumOpus because: The signs of abstention from the difficult subjects

Oh my friend. Don't you know? Correlation does not imply causality.
The sceinces have been the providence of men for generations. Do you really think its that easy for a woman to break into that inner sanctum? Do you really suppose men wouldn't feel threatened by this, and do everything possible to prevent it? For there to be the same amount of female engineers doesn't just require females who have engineering degrees. It also requires the men to let go of the status quo, step out of their comfort zone, and allow the women the chance.

I love your generalization of all women as lazy, only willing to do the easy work. I submit to you that the average woman with a family and a job works a lot harder than her male counterpart; not only does she work at her place of employment, she also (most likely) is in charge of running the house and caring for the children.

I noticed you completely ignored my other post. Was that intentional or an oversight?

Originally posted by smyleegrl

Oh my friend. Don't you know? Correlation does not imply causality.
The sceinces have been the providence of men for generations. Do you really think its that easy for a woman to break into that inner sanctum? Do you really suppose men wouldn't feel threatened by this, and do everything possible to prevent it? For there to be the same amount of female engineers doesn't just require females who have engineering degrees. It also requires the men to let go of the status quo, step out of their comfort zone, and allow the women the chance.

I love your generalization of all women as lazy, only willing to do the easy work. I submit to you that the average woman with a family and a job works a lot harder than her male counterpart; not only does she work at her place of employment, she also (most likely) is in charge of running the house and caring for the children.

I noticed you completely ignored my other post. Was that intentional or an oversight?

What you might like to portray as males doing in the females wanting into science is more about basic genetics.
Most every business likes to have committed workers that they invest time and effort in and have reasonable assurance they will be long term and a good investment.

This usually doesn't work well with female employees in the sciences as the ole biological clock starts ticking, then they gotta have kids, then they gotta quit work, and so on. Women chose not to be long term in the sciences.

Very few women ignore their clock. And all businesses know that clock exists.

So, now it is back to the traditional role of women, cast in the times of Biblical days noticed the very same natural order.

Don't try to blame the males for problems with the female's genitic make up that causes the issue. Just look at all the school slots taken up by the females that pass the course work only to work a few years and quit to go back to follow that biological clock.

Where you managed to stay somewhat near the theme, I have commented. When you went well off the theme, silence, to push back into the realm for religion and men rule over women for own good. Your claim for "completely ignored" is simply untrue. Try reading and you will discover, the on topic areas were not ignored.

Originally posted by MagnumOpus

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

what line of work are you in?

You need to stop working on personal information issues. Deal with the discussions, and don't even verge close to personal attack methods.

ohhhh I understand, you're afraid that we'll all realize what you really are. Got it

Originally posted by MagnumOpus


What you might like to portray as males doing in the females wanting into science is more about basic genetics.
Most every business likes to have committed workers that they invest time and effort in and have reasonable assurance they will be long term and a good investment.

This usually doesn't work well with female employees in the sciences as the ole biological clock starts ticking, then they gotta have kids, then they gotta quit work, and so on. Women chose not to be long term in the sciences.

Very few women ignore their clock. And all businesses know that clock exists.

So, now it is back to the traditional role of women, cast in the times of Biblical days noticed the very same natural order.

Don't try to blame the males for problems with the female's genitic make up that causes the issue. Just look at all the school slots taken up by the females that pass the course work only to work a few years and quit to go back to follow that biological clock.

Where you managed to stay somewhat near the theme, I have commented. When you went well off the theme, silence, to push back into the realm for religion and men rule over women for own good. Your claim for "completely ignored" is simply untrue. Try reading and you will discover, the on topic areas were not ignored.

edit on 30-5-2012 by MagnumOpus because: One can always spot the femanist agenda, because all their faults have to be blamed on the male.

Are you like some kind of fiction writer that slipped through a time hole from the 1920's or something?? That's about the only way your ideas can be explained other than being a sexist bigot and surely that isn't the case...

What you might like to portray as males doing in the females wanting into science is more about basic genetics.
Most every business likes to have committed workers that they invest time and effort in and have reasonable assurance they will be long term and a good investment.

This usually doesn't work well with female employees in the sciences as the ole biological clock starts ticking, then they gotta have kids, then they gotta quit work, and so on. Women chose not to be long term in the sciences.

Some women do decide to stay home and raise their children. Kudos to them if they are able to do so. But other women, such as myself, choose to return to the work force after giving birth. You are generalizing again. That's no good.

Where you managed to stay somewhat near the theme, I have commented. When you went well off the theme, silence, to push back into the realm for religion and men rule over women for own good. Your claim for "completely ignored" is simply untrue. Try reading and you will discover, the on topic areas were not ignored.

edit on 30-5-2012 by MagnumOpus because: One can always spot the femanist agenda, because all their faults have to be blamed on the male.

My entire post was on topic, friend. Perhaps you chose to ignore the parts that you couldn't answer?
I am not a feminist, by the way. Although there is so doubt about the definition of that word. In my viewpoint, a feminist wants to be "better" than men. I don't. I don't believe one sex is superior to the other, but that both bring a harmony to the plate.

As to blaming all faults on the male, if you look at the historical information, that shoe fits.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


You know, this debate is focusing on generalilzations and wide characterizations. There's little attempt to address legitimate questions, except with a sweeping remark such as "women are lazy" or what have you.

Methinks I smell a troll....

Originally posted by smyleegrl


My entire post was on topic, friend.

OK, explain how the issues of Black Slavery that you got into is a religion theme that falls into mans rule of women for women's own good.

Originally posted by MagnumOpus

Originally posted by smyleegrl


My entire post was on topic, friend.

OK, explain how the issues of Black Slavery that you got into is a religion theme that falls into mans rule of women for women's own good.

It was an analogy. The same logic employed by white slave owners (ie, blacks were inferior, incapable, and needed to be looked after) can be clearly seen in the attitude of those who believe women are inferior, incapable, and need a man to look after her.

Despite what you might think, I'm not a feminist. I do support equal rights and opportunities for women, but I don't agree with the notions of some that women are superior to men. Nor do I believe men are superior to women.

I'm currently agnostic, but before I was a Christian and even earned my undergrad degree in theology. The hatred (yes, I mean hatred) for women I encountered during my studies completely turned me off religion. On the one hand, there were men stating that God gave them the rule over women...and in the same breath claiming that beating women to make them obey was perfectly okay. I don't buy that.

Men and women are different. Generally speaking, men are stronger physically than women. Men tend to be more prone to physical confrontation (testosterone) and physical aggression, whereas women tend to be the nurturers in the family. These are gross generalizations of course. I know men who are as gentle as lambs and are wonderfully nurturing. And I know women who could give a trained Navy Seal a run for his money.

The point I am trying to make is that neither sex is "better" than the other, and that neither sex should hold dominion over the other. That's it. That's the entire point.

Originally posted by smyleegrl
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

You know, this debate is focusing on generalilzations and wide characterizations. There's little attempt to address legitimate questions, except with a sweeping remark such as "women are lazy" or what have you.

More attempts at name calling, I see. And tossing in false statements.

When there are trends in societies these trends get noticed as generalizations that fit.

Just because you have two cousins that made it through engineering school isn't statistically significant against the whole. You want to speak to the few special cases setting the theme for all, which isn't the generic case.

Even when we look at issues like Women's Athletics, we find that women can't compete with men as they get flat run over. So, Womens sports is women against women. Females don't have the strength issues that males have. So, they make special areas. That is genetic and lots of Bible themes follow same observations.

But, in the case for a Police person female these same issues of strength apply, as part of the job is wrestling down drunks and taking on males. But, the population can't be categorized like womens sports, so then when the female police has to take down a drunk it takes two other police cars to come take the guy down and cuff him, and the whole police department wastes time and manpower to accomodate the weaker sex. It is called inefficient. Basically, the female can't do the job.

It gets down to the issue that women typically don't have interests in many areas that males work with. Most of the females know they can talk some male into doing those things for them. Most females can't change a tire because they can't turn the lug wrench. Most can't change their oil, can't change plugs, don't even want to think about getting dirty and oily. That is just lazy. Plus, just not wanting to learn is lazy. Learning in the engineering fields is work also, and very few females get into doing the work to get there, which can also be termed lazy.

All these generalizations go to prove the point is statistically significant. And so significant that the characterizations are widely accepted, which I use to make the point. Like points are Accepted even as Bible stories show the same characteristics all linked back to genetics, DNA, and the weaker sex theme. All you rail about is the deal god and creation dealt the females.

So, females can't blame their own genetics----so it must be the males fault appears to be the thinking and the females are victims because they didn't get the male's strengths and their not resisting hard work.

Originally posted by smyleegrl
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

You know, this debate is focusing on generalilzations and wide characterizations. There's little attempt to address legitimate questions, except with a sweeping remark such as "women are lazy" or what have you.

Methinks I smell a troll....

I agree... they really need to take the wifi out from under the bridges, it causes so many problems for all of us

Originally posted by MagnumOpus

Originally posted by smyleegrl


My entire post was on topic, friend.

OK, explain how the issues of Black Slavery that you got into is a religion theme that falls into mans rule of women for women's own good.

probably has something to do with some egotistical bigot thinking they should rule over ANYONE else "for their own good".

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
.

But, in the case for a Police person female these same issues of strength apply, as part of the job is wrestling down drunks and taking on males.

So you support police brutality as opposed to being keepers of the peace...how interesting

Soooooo this is a joke thread right?

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by MagnumOpus

Originally posted by smyleegrl


My entire post was on topic, friend.

OK, explain how the issues of Black Slavery that you got into is a religion theme that falls into mans rule of women for women's own good.

probably has something to do with some egotistical bigot thinking they should rule over ANYONE else "for their own good".

Exactly the point and one that is ignored.

Originally posted by Suspiria
Soooooo this is a joke thread right?

Unfortunantely, no....

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by MagnumOpus

Originally posted by smyleegrl


My entire post was on topic, friend.

OK, explain how the issues of Black Slavery that you got into is a religion theme that falls into mans rule of women for women's own good.

probably has something to do with some egotistical bigot thinking they should rule over ANYONE else "for their own good".

Explain how Black Slavery is on topic for this theme. Song and dance isn't an explanation.

Originally posted by Suspiria
Soooooo this is a joke thread right?

unfortunately, some of the psychos actually believe it...very, very sad