[Shinqui]

	Originally Posted by Mozzes To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What is it about this issue that makes so many people spit fire?

Well, to be fair, it really comes down to sexual repression, specificaly toward women, which can then be taken even farther to concern itself with female repression or oppression in general.

Seeing as we have many fierce, intellectual women on this website (as we should), I doubt there is any way that this could be discussed without fire.

As it stands though, said women are being far tamer than they have reason to be. Men kill each other over less.

Peace

[Chain]

	Originally Posted by Indubitably To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	PS: Oh yeah, and guys, mechanical advantage is your friend too. If she doesn't have one, you should. There is no such thing as a woman who is too satisfied with sex.

I've met many more men than women that want it more than their partner. Hell, if that were the case, I'd be happier than I am now.

	Originally Posted by Anreader To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't believe in monogamy, I just believe children should only exist in marriage. THe social institution is still the presumed ideal. What you do after you get hitched is your business. As a matter of fact its all your business. This is just what I believe. And I know I have a cultural bias.

I agree with that, but it has nothing to do with cultures or morals. Going through a divorce, rather than a break up would have been a lot easier to go through. Without marriage, there are several things, at least in MD, that you can't do anything about.

[Chain]

	Originally Posted by Mozzes To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What is it about this issue that makes so many people spit fire?

I think it's probably one of the following two:

1. One side subconsciously takes it as an attack.
2. The other thinks that everyone who's moral standards aren't the same as theirs ought to be irradicated.

Either way, purposefully rattling fema-nazi cages provides hours of quality entertainment. It's amazing what hard-core followers of an emotional rather than logical ideal will come up with when under fire.





Chain added to this post, 11 minutes and 6 seconds later...

Originally Posted by Kymbirleigh To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

OKay, now I'm curious... So people believe that children should only exist in a marriage... What if a single man or single woman that is stable financially and has love to give to a child adopts or is artificially inseminated (women here, obviously)? Is that wrong? I know what you meant by your statements. I'm just hoping that you weren't implying that a single person shouldn't be allowed to adopt just because they aren't married.

Cool by me. My thing is, it just would've been easier for me to sort things out with my daughter's mom if we had been married. I see the marriage thing as more of a "wiser approach than nothing," than a "should."

[Lucid]

Originally Posted by Chain To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think it's probably one of the following two: 1. One side subconsciously takes it as an attack. 2. The other thinks that everyone who's moral standards aren't the same as theirs ought to be irradicated. Either way, purposefully rattling fema-nazi cages provides hours of quality entertainment. It's amazing what hard-core followers of an emotional rather than logical ideal will come up with when under fire.

Yeah.... because keeping women sexually and socially oppressed is totally logical. And any woman who thinks she should have equal civil and sexual liberties to men are obviously hard core feminazis.

Also, if one side wants the other side eradicated, then it is, actually, an attack.

Incidentally, do you enjoy 'rattling the cages' of all representatives of a group which is treated unequally, or is it just women?

For example, men are treated unequally in the court system with regard to parenting rights, child support, etc. Are the ones who are upset about this unequal treatement the hardcore followers of an emotional rather than a logical ideal? Do you rattle their cages as well?

[Chain]

Originally Posted by Lucid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yeah.... because keeping women sexually and socially oppressed is totally logical. And any woman who thinks she should have equal civil and sexual liberties to men are obviously hard core feminazis. Also, if one side wants the other side eradicated, then it is, actually, an attack. Incidentally, do you enjoy 'rattling the cages' of all representatives of a group which is treated unequally, or is it just women? For example, men are treated unequally in the court system with regard to parenting rights, child support, etc. Are the ones who are upset about this unequal treatement the hardcore followers of an emotional rather than a logical ideal? Do you rattle their cages as well?

You mis-interpreted again. There's a big difference between "wanting things equal between men and women" and fema-nazi.

I enjoy rattling the cages of emotionally-charged, narrow-minded idiots. I don't care what their charge is. And no, I have not intentionally rattled any cages on this site. Nor do I forsee having to anytime soon.

While I could sit here and spout all kinds of garbage about how women ought to be and why... How about I try this approach: I actually support what the feminist movement was meant to be, equal rights, equal treatment, and equal responsibility. I support being able to live your life as you see fit.

What I don't support, is the narrow-minded view that some have, that women should get all these perks without taking the additional responsibility. Examples: Some women wanted in the military because they are "just as strong as men," yet I don't see any of them fighting to have their expectations set as high as men's are. Most women whine about getting treated as sex objects; but don't complain about getting discounts at the automotive store for the shirt they're wearing, or their meals paid for on dates... The people who's cages I kick on this topic want it all. They want independance and chivalry; they want rights and priveledges, but not the responsibilities.

IMO, as I see it, nowadays, it's pretty equal once you look at the big picture. Sure, it's not when you look at any specific detail, but women aren't on the losing end of everything. Society is kinda getting down to the point where women are going to start fighting each other: Those that don't want to give certain things up, and those that want every little detail to be equal.

Note: That last paragraph is an observation, not a judgement on which way things ought to be.

[Lucid]

Originally Posted by Chain To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You mis-interpreted again. There's a big difference between "wanting things equal between men and women" and fema-nazi. I enjoy rattling the cages of emotionally-charged, narrow-minded idiots. I don't care what their charge is. And no, I have not intentionally rattled any cages on this site. Nor do I forsee having to anytime soon. While I could sit here and spout all kinds of garbage about how women ought to be and why... How about I try this approach: I actually support what the feminist movement was meant to be, equal rights, equal treatment, and equal responsibility. I support being able to live your life as you see fit. What I don't support, is the narrow-minded view that some have, that women should get all these perks without taking the additional responsibility. Examples: Some women wanted in the military because they are "just as strong as men," yet I don't see any of them fighting to have their expectations set as high as men's are. Most women whine about getting treated as sex objects; but don't complain about getting discounts at the automotive store for the shirt they're wearing, or their meals paid for on dates... The people who's cages I kick on this topic want it all. They want independance and chivalry; they want rights and priveledges, but not the responsibilities. IMO, as I see it, nowadays, it's pretty equal once you look at the big picture. Sure, it's not when you look at any specific detail, but women aren't on the losing end of everything. Society is kinda getting down to the point where women are going to start fighting each other: Those that don't want to give certain things up, and those that want every little detail to be equal. Note: That last paragraph is an observation, not a judgement on which way things ought to be.

Feminism is probably a topic for a different thread, and in fact, has been covered in several threads already. However, I think it might be useful for you to step back and look at your previous post and see how it may have come off.
Also, I think the reason you see it as mostly equal is because you're not a female. Most of the 'perks' you describe are pretty inconsequential when compared to what women give up for them or what women are denied whether they get discounts at the auto parts store or not. (something that might happen, but which I've never seen).
Not that men don't get the shit end of the stick sometimes, too.
I understand that these misunderstandings (if that's what they are) are frustrating to you, but if you don't want to have them you should perhaps use more forethought when posting. It certainly happens to all of us, but seriously, saying "It's fun to rattle the cages of irrational feminazis" in response to "why do people get so upset about this topic?" is probably going to be taken as anti-feminist every time.

[Henry]

	Originally Posted by Lucid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Feminism is probably a topic for a different thread, and in fact, has been covered in several threads already.

Fail mind control.

However, I think it might be useful for you to step back and look at your previous post and see how it may have come off. Also, I think the reason you see it as mostly equal is because you're not a female. Most of the 'perks' you describe are pretty inconsequential when compared to what women give up for them or what women are denied whether they get discounts at the auto parts store or not. (something that might happen, but which I've never seen).

What do you feel women "give up" for parts at the auto store?

I understand that these misunderstandings (if that's what they are) are frustrating to you, but if you don't want to have them you should perhaps use more forethought when posting. It certainly happens to all of us, but seriously, saying "It's fun to rattle the cages of irrational feminazis" in response to "why do people get so upset about this topic?" is probably going to be taken as anti-feminist every time.

I'm not anti-feminism, but I am anti-bullshit, and what he said has merit; many feminists want all the privledges associated with traditional masculine roles, but want them without many of the corresponding responsibilites.

[Lucid]

	Originally Posted by Henry To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Fail mind control.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Are you trying to say that I'm attempting mind control by suggesting that a discussion about feminism take place in a thread devoted to feminism rather than a thread devoted to the ethics of having numerous sexual partners? Because I'd say that's a logic fail.

	Originally Posted by Henry To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What do you feel women "give up" for parts at the auto store?

How about this? I'll trade you: you can have the discount at the auto parts store and I'll take career advancement, higher pay, greater respect and being taken seriously. Deal? Because I'm perfectly happy paying full price for auto parts. And honestly, what happens more often (in my experience) is that when I go for new break pads they try to put the completely unnecessary $10 a package 'break gel' in my bag and just charge me for it, as if it's something necessary for break pads. They do this because they think I don't know any better. So I don't know exactly what 'discount' he's talking about.
My point is that, yes, women do enjoy some perks. However, they're not nearly as meaningful, valuable or satisfying as many of the perks men enjoy.

	Originally Posted by Henry To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not anti-feminism, but I am anti-bullshit, and what he said has merit; many feminists want all the privledges associated with traditional masculine roles, but want them without many of the corresponding responsibilites.

I'm not saying that's not true; There are some women like that. Just as there are some men who want women to go back to being 2nd class citizens. They're a loud minority and I certainly wouldn't judge all men on what those men have to say. Just as you shouldn't judge all feminists on what some of the less logical crazies say.

I'm actually a little confused about how you're getting anything to contradict that out of my post.

[Harmony]

How about the girl that got the discount at the auto parts store because she went in there greasy from working on the car herself, or got the discount for shooting the shit with the sales guy about the Super Bowl? There are times when it has nothing to do with what you wear...but your personality and the things you enjoy.

And I have seen some guys that will flirt with a girl to get a discount as well. Everything can be turned around for the other sex.

[Chain]

Originally Posted by Lucid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Feminism is probably a topic for a different thread, and in fact, has been covered in several threads already. However, I think it might be useful for you to step back and look at your previous post and see how it may have come off. Also, I think the reason you see it as mostly equal is because you're not a female. Most of the 'perks' you describe are pretty inconsequential when compared to what women give up for them or what women are denied whether they get discounts at the auto parts store or not. (something that might happen, but which I've never seen). Not that men don't get the shit end of the stick sometimes, too. I understand that these misunderstandings (if that's what they are) are frustrating to you, but if you don't want to have them you should perhaps use more forethought when posting. It certainly happens to all of us, but seriously, saying "It's fun to rattle the cages of irrational feminazis" in response to "why do people get so upset about this topic?" is probably going to be taken as anti-feminist every time.

I need to start remembering y'all get upset when threads go off-topic. I didn't mean for this to go this way, giving an example of how my beliefs were contrary to the assumption was the only way I knew to get my point across.

I can see that. However, I thought you'd have known better after that last thread we went back and forth in.

Originally Posted by Lucid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

How about this? I'll trade you: you can have the discount at the auto parts store and I'll take career advancement, higher pay, greater respect and being taken seriously. Deal? Because I'm perfectly happy paying full price for auto parts. And honestly, what happens more often (in my experience) is that when I go for new break pads they try to put the completely unnecessary $10 a package 'break gel' in my bag and just charge me for it, as if it's something necessary for break pads.They do this because they think I don't know any better. So I don't know exactly what 'discount' he's talking about. My point is that, yes, women do enjoy some perks. However, they're not nearly as meaningful, valuable or satisfying as many of the perks men enjoy.

That's the kind of crap I get.

I used to send an ex-gf to the parts store on purpose. I've also known several guys that worked parts counters and they've said that both scenarios happen all the time.

It's natural to think the grass is always greener on the other side. People take normal "perks" for granted, that's part of being human. Depending on the person depends on what they value, but it's also hard to value something you've never had to fight for or do without.

Originally Posted by Kymbirleigh To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

How about the girl that got the discount at the auto parts store because she went in there greasy from working on the car herself, or got the discount for shooting the shit with the sales guy about the Super Bowl? There are times when it has nothing to do with what you wear...but your personality and the things you enjoy. And I have seen some guys that will flirt with a girl to get a discount as well. Everything can be turned around for the other sex.

If it was guy doing those things, he wouldn't have gotten it.

When was the last time a guy got out of a speeding ticket by being cute and flirtatious? Flirting with a girl to get something in the business world is almost a sure-fire way to insure that you won't get it.

[Harmony]

	Originally Posted by Chain To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If it was guy doing those things, he wouldn't have gotten it. When was the last time a guy got out of a speeding ticket by being cute and flirtatious? Flirting with a girl to get something in the business world is almost a sure-fire way to insure that you won't get it.

Really? Because I can't count how many times I've seen a guy cut another guy a discount for that exact same thing. I've also seen guys that just totally take advantage of a girl because they think she doesn't know better.

Actually, I do know a guy that got out of a speeding ticket by flirting. And got a date out of the deal.

[Anreader]

	Many feminists want all the privledges associated with traditional masculine roles, but want them without many of the corresponding responsibilites.

What responsibilities are these exactly?

[Lucid]

	Originally Posted by Chain To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I need to start remembering y'all get upset when threads go off-topic. I didn't mean for this to go this way, giving an example of how my beliefs were contrary to the assumption was the only way I knew to get my point across. I can see that. However, I thought you'd have known better after that last thread we went back and forth in.

No... I don't know you well enough yet to be able to know your mind. And people often post things that seem to be in conflict with other things they've posted in the past.

Originally Posted by Chain To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That's the kind of crap I get. I used to send an ex-gf to the parts store on purpose. I've also known several guys that worked parts counters and they've said that both scenarios happen all the time. It's natural to think the grass is always greener on the other side. People take normal "perks" for granted, that's part of being human. Depending on the person depends on what they value, but it's also hard to value something you've never had to fight for or do without.

Yes, that's what I'm saying to a point. But again, I'd rather be paid more and have grater capacity for advancement in my career than have people open doors for me or let me into clubs easier. But, I certainly won't deny that men are discriminated against in some ways too (please see my example re courts and parenting issues). It sucks for everyone and we should all work to change it.

However, both you and Henry seem to be assuming that women actually get the rights and responsibilities in question. While there are some laws in place and things are generally much better than they were, say 30 years ago, we're a long way from being treated equally. Laws can only do so much and solve certain kinds of issues. Mostly what the laws seem to do is give people a reason to say that sexism is dead and that women should shut up about equal rights.

	Originally Posted by Chain To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	When was the last time a guy got out of a speeding ticket by being cute and flirtatious? Flirting with a girl to get something in the business world is almost a sure-fire way to insure that you won't get it.

I've never gotten out of a speeding ticket ever. If I'm going to be oppressed, underpaid and marginalized I at least want to get out of a speeding ticket or two on the merit of having breasts.

That's a joke, btw.

[Chain]

	Originally Posted by Lucid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No... I don't know you well enough yet to be able to know your mind. And people often post things that seem to be in conflict with other things they've posted in the past.

Good point. Agreed.

	Originally Posted by Lucid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, that's what I'm saying to a point. But again, I'd rather be paid more and have grater capacity for advancement in my career than have people open doors for me or let me into clubs easier. But, I certainly won't deny that men are discriminated against in some ways too (please see my example re courts and parenting issues). It sucks for everyone and we should all work to change it.

I wasn't arguing you, or even most women, I was arguing some women.

And I know about the courts all too well. I have primary custody of my little one; and I'd have loved to punch the Master of the court on more than one occasion.

Originally Posted by Lucid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

However, both you and Henry seem to be assuming that women actually get the rights and responsibilities in question. While there are some laws in place and things are generally much better than they were, say 30 years ago, we're a long way from being treated equally. Laws can only do so much and solve certain kinds of issues. Mostly what the laws seem to do is give people a reason to say that sexism is dead and that women should shut up about equal rights.

I don't assume that at all. In a lot of ways and in a lot of places things are still beyond FUBAR no matter what the law says. The law says they can't discriminate against "XYZ" so they call it "experience," either too little or too much. I've seen it happen.

That said, it seems that you're getting hung up on a few specific issues because of your obstacles you've had to deal with rather than looking at the big picture which is what I was referring to.

	Originally Posted by Lucid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've never gotten out of a speeding ticket ever. If I'm going to be oppressed, underpaid and marginalized I at least want to get out of a speeding ticket or two on the merit of having breasts. That's a joke, btw.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Lucid]

Originally Posted by Chain To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Good point. Agreed. I wasn't arguing you, or even most women, I was arguing some women. And I know about the courts all too well. I have primary custody of my little one; and I'd have loved to punch the Master of the court on more than one occasion. I don't assume that at all. In a lot of ways and in a lot of places things are still beyond FUBAR no matter what the law says. The law says they can't discriminate against "XYZ" so they call it "experience," either too little or too much. I've seen it happen. That said, it seems that you're getting hung up on a few specific issues because of your obstacles you've had to deal with rather than looking at the big picture which is what I was referring to. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Oh.. by the last post I was pretty sure we were in agreement, I just wanted to flesh out what I was saying that I thought was being misunderstood but wasn't really. And also I like to hear myself talk. Common INTJ trait... I hope you'll forgive me.

I agree both with your big picture assessment of things but will note that the specific issues are (obviously) part of the big picture and things that matter to me a lot because they're things I deal with a lot. Different specific issues will probably matter to you. That's as it should be.

Anyway, we are now (hilariously) arguing with eachother about a point we agree on.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Sinequanon]

	Originally Posted by Henry To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What do you feel women "give up" for parts at the auto store?

Generally, forcing those in the minority (in power, in this case, I know there are numerically more women) to defend why they should get equal rights has not led to much progress. It also doesn't tend to be the default attitude of progressive people, no matter how often they say words like "equality."

[Henry]

	Originally Posted by Sinequanon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Generally, forcing those in the minority (in power, in this case, I know there are numerically more women) to defend why they should get equal rights has not led to much progress. It also doesn't tend to be the default attitude of progressive people, no matter how often they say words like "equality."

Subtle BURN for disagreeing with the bullshit that comes from many feminists. Of course I'm totally deserving of it for not spouting the party line. The feminists are worse than Mormons on groupthink a lot of the time, and you just proved my point.

Who said anything about equal rights? I'm not disputing that women should have the same opportunities or rights. I am saying that they shouldn't be given "minority set aside" positions, I am saying that with sexual freedom comes exposure to criticism, I am saying that you shouldn't bitch about career advancement if you're going to take 4 fat maternity leaves and disproportionately go into low-wage professions like teaching.

But back to secret burns and groupthink...

[Sinequanon]

Originally Posted by Henry To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Subtle BURN for disagreeing with the bullshit that comes from many feminists. Of course I'm totally deserving of it for not spouting the party line. The feminists are worse than Mormons on groupthink a lot of the time, and you just proved my point. Who said anything about equal rights? I'm not disputing that women should have the same opportunities or rights. I am saying that they shouldn't be given "minority set aside" positions, I am saying that with sexual freedom comes exposure to criticism, I am saying that you shouldn't bitch about career advancement if you're going to take 4 fat maternity leaves and disproportionately go into low-wage professions like teaching. But back to secret burns and groupthink...

I think my general line of argument with people on this board has been "It's more complicated than that." Some people tend to recite rhetoric from rote, or remember keywords and buzzwords that make their point.

To wit: I really doubt any of the things you've mentioned are elements anyone would call "original thought." Yet, the ideology you've bought into allows you to call it forth while believing it's completely the product of individual, careful consideration, and confining the opinions of others to the realm of "groupthink."

More to the point: I'm not a feminist, for many reasons. I have trouble associating with an ideology I feel at its core promotes the hatred of men, just as I have problems with the dominant patriarchy. If you're really about equality (which you don't seem to be, by your own admission), then ultimately you'd have to reject both in some way to come to some accord between them. I don't fault feminists, though, because taking a hardline against tens of thousands of years of historic discrimination is understandable (just at the level of affecting people who actually aren't harming you is where we start disagreeing, but this is a more subtle point than the ideology is capable of addressing, which is why it needs to be rejected).

Why you immediately jumped to "minority set asides," "4 fat maternity leaves" and women's propensity for joining "low paying jobs like teaching" is beyond me. I understand why, statistically, women are paid less than men. I don't think that accounts for the entire disproportion, however. There is a large pool of anecdotal evidence that women are typically paid less for the same work, as well. Do you see what I'm saying here? Because it's subtle and I know (from arguing with you prior - by the way, what happened to you in the illegal immigrant debate? You just disappeared. How queer) that subtlety needs to be hammered home: I reject the feminist notion of 75c on the dollar (due to factors such as, as you said, inequality in the jobs men and women choose, and maternity leave affecting career advancement, along with other factors), but I believe that doesn't account for the full inequality.

Maybe a good question to start asking would be why we undervalue jobs like teaching (which you threw out with no small amount of disdain) and social work in our markets? I know the free market controls the price of a lot of jobs, but teaching is done primarily in the public sector. So we set the price on it. Why are we short-changing our educators? When we short change our educators, we short change our children, as well. Is it maybe because part of the stigma attached to has to do with it's being a "feminized" profession, not worthy of being funded adequately? I think so. It's not nearly all of the problem, but it's definitely some of it. Maybe if we pumped funding into it, and made it attractive, we'd get some men in the profession too, and our education system wouldn't be in the toilet, rite?? (See, I told you I'm not a feminist. I'm actually a raging chauvenist. I'm all for the rights of chauves.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)

Even more to the point: I'm saying both sides are wrong. I'm right. Stop (futilely) arguing with me and listen to me and we'll get somewhere in this world.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


*drags thread back on topic*

Teachers should have sex with as many partners as they want.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Henry]

	Originally Posted by Sinequanon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think my general line of argument with people on this board has been "It's more complicated than that." Some people tend to recite rhetoric from rote, or remember keywords and buzzwords that make their point.

"Generally, forcing those in the minority (in power, in this case, I know there are numerically more women) to defend why they should get equal rights has not led to much progress. It also doesn't tend to be the default attitude of progressive people, no matter how often they say words like "equality."

Caution: use of the terms "minority" "power" "should get equal rights" "progress" "default attitude" "profressive people" "equality" mixed with a false argument followed immediately by an invective against people who use buzzwords may make you appear hypocritical.

But I'm probably sexist for saying that, right?

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by Henry To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not anti-feminism, but I am anti-bullshit, and what he said has merit; many feminists want all the privledges associated with traditional masculine roles, but want them without many of the corresponding responsibilites.

Perhaps I am not understanding this statement correctly. I have heard arguments of this nature before, when I was younger. They were generally made by parents or adults in authority to the minor children they were in charge of. What does this have to do with adult women?





firebee added to this post, 1 minutes and 44 seconds later...

And regards teaching -- to be brief, people learn best when they are young. The education of young people should not be a low-pay, low-prestige position with a shaky claim on professionalism. The reason it is is partly because we could get away with it when there was no other career option for intelligent women.

[Sinequanon]

	Originally Posted by firebee To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And regards teaching -- to be brief, people learn best when they are young. The education of young people should not be a low-pay, low-prestige position with a shaky claim on professionalism. The reason it is is partly because we could get away with it when there was no other career option for intelligent women.

I agree. I also have a friend who is heavily (monetarily) invested in dropout recovery, a position which doesn't pay much but absolutely requires a lot of post-college education at great expense. Yet the job she does could literally save lives, and definitely positively impact the course of society.

It must be nice to be able to talk about teachers with such disdain. I know I would have to have some pretty rosy-smelling shit to get away with that.

[Henry]

	Originally Posted by firebee To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Perhaps I am not understanding this statement correctly. I have heard arguments of this nature before, when I was younger. They were generally made by parents or adults in authority to the minor children they were in charge of. What does this have to do with adult women?

...

That's another nice slur there, and another completely false argument.

My point was, if you want a great career, be prepared to sacrifice for it. Don't bitch about being left behind in pay and advancement when you're taking a 6 month maternity leave every other year. Don't whine about unequal incomes when you disproportionately go into careers that give you 3-4 months off per year.





Henry added to this post, 1 minutes and 8 seconds later...

Originally Posted by Sinequanon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I agree. I also have a friend who is heavily (monetarily) invested in dropout recovery, a position which doesn't pay much but absolutely requires a lot of post-college education at great expense. Yet the job she does could literally save lives, and definitely positively impact the course of society. It must be nice to be able to talk about teachers with such disdain. I know I would have to have some pretty rosy-smelling shit to get away with that.

And another personal attack because I hold opinions you do not like.

Caution: use of the terms "minority" "power" "should get equal rights" "progress" "default attitude" "profressive people" "equality" mixed with a false argument followed immediately by an invective against people who use buzzwords may make you appear hypocritical.

But I'm probably sexist for saying that, right?

	And regards teaching -- to be brief, people learn best when they are young. The education of young people should not be a low-pay, low-prestige position with a shaky claim on professionalism. The reason it is is partly because we could get away with it when there was no other career option for intelligent women

If you say so. I'm all about upping pay for people who work 8-9 months out of the year.

[Sinequanon]

	Originally Posted by Henry To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And another personal attack because I hold opinions you do not like.

You literally called me a douchebag. I said you spoke with disdain of teachers. Quit it with the overly emotional reactions and hyperbole. Discuss the issues. I'm keeping this short so you'll read it.

Edit:

	Caution: use of the terms "minority" "power" "should get equal rights" "progress" "default attitude" "profressive people" "equality" mixed with a false argument followed immediately by an invective against people who use buzzwords may make you appear hypocritical.

a.) We're talking about minorities (women)
b.) Feminism is about power. (Specifically addressing the inequality women and male feminists see)
c.) Do you disagree that women should get equal rights?
d.) I never said "profressive."
e.) How can an argument that you didn't read be false? Either you read it and couldn't refute it, so you decided to flame me and pretend you didn't read it, or you didn't read it. At least stay logically consistent if you're going to lie and weasel out of a debate.

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by Henry To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	... That's another nice slur there, and another completely false argument. My point was, if you want a great career, be prepared to sacrifice for it. Don't bitch about being left behind in pay and advancement when you're taking a 6 month maternity leave every other year. Don't whine about unequal incomes when you disproportionately go into careers that give you 3-4 months off per year.

I do not see here an explanation of how adult women do not deserve certain privileges because they are unwilling to take on the corresponding responsibilities. I also do not see any explanation of why a childless electrical engineer should care about maternity leave or about the schedules of teachers. Please do inform me.

	Originally Posted by Henry To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But I'm probably sexist for saying that, right?

No, you'd likely be sexist anyway, even independent of your annoying attitude. Are you ready to support your statements yet?

[Henry]

	Originally Posted by Sinequanon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Correct. And the reason you can't possibly know whether my buzzwords substituted for an argument was that you, by your own admission, didn't read the post to which you responded.

Correct. I initially responded to post A. Post A was filled with empty buzzwords. You indicated in Post C that my post, Post B, was filled with buzzwords and empty arguments and was simplistic. Which was hypocrisy. Which doesn't exactly aid your credibility or readability. You now add (questionable) qualification to the buzzwords, but its still hypocrisy because you were still making unqualified arguments while criticizing others for allegedly doing the same.

a.) We're talking about minorities (women) b.) Feminism is about power. (Specifically addressing the inequality women and male feminists see) c.) Do you disagree that women should get equal rights? d.) I never said "profressive." e.) How can an argument that you didn't read be false? Either you read it and couldn't refute it, so you decided to flame me and pretend you didn't read it, or you didn't read it. At least stay logically consistent if you're going to lie and weasel out of a debate

A false argument is when someone claims that the opposing party made an argument they didn't make. Which is precisely what you did in posts A and posts C. L2grasp basic concepts.

	I do not see here an explanation of how adult women do not deserve certain privileges because they are unwilling to take on the corresponding responsibilities. I also do not see any explanation of why a childless electrical engineer should care about maternity leave or about the schedules of teachers. Please do inform me.

Another false argument. Never argued anywhere that unequal pay for the same work is appropriate.

My statement regarding rights and responsibilities is that if you want a great career, be prepared to work for it, go into careers where you can get what you want, and don't externalize your problems. Just saying "this isn't an argument" isn't a response.

	No, you'd likely be sexist anyway, even independent of your annoying attitude. Are you ready to support your statements yet?

And another personal comment! Is an admin going to step in at some point?