What is wrong with this picture?

[mrniceguy148]

Hey, I know how to solve this problem! How about the men stay home and take care of the kids and the women go out and work? Back to one-income family for ya! Wouldn't that be swell? .

Hey! Now we're getting someplace! If feminist actually want to push for this then it's perfectly fine with me! All I know is that there's just not enough decent good jobs to go around. Therefore, all I'm really hoping to see again in my lifetime is only one big income per family so we can spread our limited resorces as evenly as possible among as many people as possible. Hey, the guys were the sole bradwinners for several generations so now it's the women's turn! Fine! Really though; how many women do youi know who'd actually let us get away this shit?

The thing that I'd really like to see ended is the deal where one family has two huge incomes (male doctor marries female CPA) while the rest of us lowly two income working stiffs get squat (read: janitor marries cleaning maid)! Yea! Right! Real eglatatian. How about female CPA marries male janitor? You know you'll never see that one because women are the ones who are most materialistic. Tell me honestly now! Would you marry a janitor if you had a law degree?

I never heard of Gloria and I really don't care what she had to say. I am not for "women" working, I'm for any human being that wants to being able to make the most out of their life. If you want to go back to one-income families, why do you assume it is the woman that should stay home? Why can't partners decide amongst themselves who should stay home? And what if you don't have a partner, what if you want to be independent, or what if cookiecutter Brady Bunch families aren't your cup of tea? That's why I don't approach two or one income families from the angle of having more money, that's such a capitalist, consumerist concept. If things like big houses, cars, color TVs, and pools is how you measure happiness and life satisfaction I feel sorry for you. Some people have individual dreams and want something meaningful in life - surely you understand that is a desire that both men and women are capable of. I myself would rather know I'm free to be whatever I want (as long as I'm able) instead of live in some kind of ignorant bliss. Be it men in the workforce, women in the workforce, gays in the workforce, non-Caucasians in the workforce - none of it has failed, and is improving every day.

I get it now! You're an ivory tower liberal who's never worked a day in your life. When you're on your own then you'll understand the value of big houses and cars. You seem like someone who's had everything handed to you. I should be so lucky! You've obviously never learned the value of a dollar.....

BTW, Gloria Steinum was a high profile feminist dimwit of the 1960's and '70's.
I had her picture printed on my dart board!

Like I alluded to earlier, the American middle class standard of living has been in freefall since 1973, and it continues to decline with no end in sight. As of right now it takes two incomes per household to equal the purchacing power of one income a generation ago. You could probably get the the same facts as I'm telling you right off the internet. Much, but not all, of this problem is due to both a labor glut and a depressed wage scale caused by too many women in the workforce.

As far as I know we've never had any laws on the books denying women the right to work. Although, up until the mid 1970's most women just chose to stay home with the kids so their husbands could have the available jobs. That's just good family cooperation and high community standards. Both of which have been completely trashed by feminist and today's women. When a women is accepted into places with limited openings like the Citadel, medical school or Harvard it means that a guy (i.e.,.. breadwinner) is forced to take less. That's why I say feminism isn't about equality. It's really about tearing down men and making a mockery of the family, child rearing and all that other really "meaningful non-capitalist stuff that you seem to care so much about. Why does the feminist definition of "meaningful" always have to translate into a women taking some poor guys job? Can't you find "meaningful" by taking a class, joining a church group, doing volunteer work, taking up a martial art, going to your kid's soccor game,.etc.,...?

Also, if you feminist really care about the blacks half as much as you say that you do, then why are you still taking jobs that could otherwise go to them? I'll tell you why! Feminists are only out for feminists and to hell with everybody else!

Where are you getting this "job satisfaction" garbage? Gloria Steinum's big lie in the 1970's was about giving women the choice to do meaningful work. However, today's reality is most women are forced to work in boring jobs for lousy pay. That's liberation for you! The socialist big lie is always followed by the skimpy pay-off! And just think, a generation ago these women would have been home with their kids instead of being bored shitless at McJobs!

Oh, ok, I guess there's many ways to interpret quotes like "All I'm saying is that society would be a healthier place if all these women were thrown out of their jobs and replaced by men. Why? Because we'll have no trouble at all finding men who can do the job much better." and "Oh that men could be left alone to be men and women would just go back to being women........." and "Driving them out seems to be our only hope of ever putting an end to this "women in the military" experiment once and for all.", etc...

Who's "we," exactly? The women who were restricted to being housewives, secretaries, teachers, and nurses? The other minorities who could hardly land a job, let alone a decent one? Does "better" and "more prosperous" mean the blind wastefulness of natural resources that we're paying for now? I guess you must mean "Caucasian males" by "we," cause, hate to break it to ya, but everybody else wasn't too happy. It's not just women that have infiltrated decent jobs in the past years, it's also every other minority, male and female. Combine that with other nations becoming more prosperous, and poorer countries asserting their rights and refusing to be exploited, and you've got a hell lot more to blame for the oppression of the Caucasian male than just "women." What's wrong? Can't handle good ol' capitalist competition?

There's a great book written by Robert Ringer called "Restoring the American Dream". Read the chapters about "natural law" and "government regulation" and you'll see the error in these statements. "The Road to Serfdom" by H.A. Hayak (sp?) is another eye opener. Of course, anything by Ross Perot would set you straight on foreign trade issues.

Honey, you really need to read more. The fact of the matter is that few, if any, women would have ever been allowed in the Citadel, Harvard or medical school if the people running those institutions hadn't been forced to accept women by some branch of government. That's not capitalism dear! Also, capitalism sucks for everyone when the market (e.g.,.the labor market) becomes saturated. Remember your Economics 101?

And tops it off with sweeping apocalyptic statements that don't hold water when compared to the smooth egalitarian progression of other countries.

Again, youi really need to study your history more before shooting your mouth off. Just study some of the great financial collapses caused by massive government debt. The German financial collapse after WWI led to the rise of Hitler. The Russian financial disaster a few years earlier brought in Lenin and the Communists. The same thing happened in many countries in South America during the 1980's. Argentina being just one example. The fact remains that our own federal government tells us that they will go broke in about 2025. What will actually happen at that point, and what the outcome might be, is anyone's guess. However, one thing's for sure: Your gender bending feminist egalitarian utopia will be put to the ultimate test. When the time comes, I just hope that you girls can figure out some way of saving us.

Take care,

Mr. Niceguy

[Mulan]

Hey! Now we're getting someplace! If feminist actually want to push for this then it's perfectly fine with me! All I know is that there's just not enough decent good jobs to go around.

Actually that paragraph was sarcasm that making men stay home and only women going out to work is just as rediculous as the women staying home and only men going out to work. Anybody that wants to should be able to go out and compete for jobs with equal opportunity. Just because there aren't enough "decent jobs" to go around doesn't mean it's the men that should get them; also, men still have the majority of decent jobs for now anyway. And besides, this kind of statement is like saying Gore lost because Nader was running. No, Gore had the same opportunity to win as Bush or Nader, it's just didn't get enough state votes. There's just more people competing for jobs, and may the most qualified person get them (I'm against affirmitive action).

The thing that I'd really like to see ended is the deal where one family has two huge incomes (male doctor marries female CPA) while the rest of us lowly two income working stiffs get squat (read: janitor marries cleaning maid)! Yea! Right! Real eglatatian. How about female CPA marries male janitor? You know you'll never see that one because women are the ones who are most materialistic. Tell me honestly now! Would you marry a janitor if you had a law degree?

Females are not intrinsically more materialistic than men. It is again a product of a society that programs them to be dependent on a financially successful male, no matter how irrational it sounds. And, if you put the question that way... I'd marry a janitor in a heartbeat if I was truly compatible with them on a personal level. Rich airheads are a huge turnoff for me, so I am much more attracted to males below my income level. I don't let guys pay for my dinners,a nd I don't expect them to buy me expensive crap. All things are 50/50, although I preffer to pay more than the guy - buy him a video game, pay for his hotel room, etc.

I get it now! You're an ivory tower liberal who's never worked a day in your life. When you're on your own then you'll understand the value of big houses and cars. You seem like someone who's had everything handed to you. I should be so lucky! You've obviously never learned the value of a dollar.....

Hmm everything handed to me... you mean like societal collapse and a civil war? I'm from a 2nd world country, foo'. I grew up in the desert with no air conditioning, one car for the entire family (not nuclear family... I mean kids parents, grandparents, the whole deal), a black & white TV that you had to turn on with a lever, and a school system that told me to stop excelling in athletics cause I'm making the boys look bad! VCRs were a mystical, magical thing that nobody was allowed to have and we would secretly go to our richer friends' house who managed to smuggle one in from the US to watch Pinnoccio!

Then the break up of the Soviet Union happened (I lived in Azerbaijan, it actually started there), there were riots in the streets, people were getting killed, etc... we filed for refugee status and got out of the country while we still could. Lived in Vienna, Austria and Rome, Italy for a while, then moved to NYC. Lived in a tiny apartment with cockroaches in Brooklyn. When my family finally could afford a VCR I cried for joy because that was like the pinnacle of achievement for me. I still thought it was magic to be able to watch Little Mermaid whenever I want, or to tape and play back a TV program. Now I live in the Midwest in a nice neighborhood and have two jobs. My family came from having nothing to live the way it does now... remember that before you make any more assumptions about me. Value of the dollar my ass.

BTW, Gloria Steinum was a high profile feminist dimwit of the 1960's and '70's.

As I said before, I don't care who Gloria Steinum was. My opinions are my own.

Like I alluded to earlier, the American middle class standard of living has been in freefall since 1973, and it continues to decline with no end in sight. As of right now it takes two incomes per household to equal the purchacing power of one income a generation ago. You could probably get the the same facts as I'm telling you right off the internet. Much, but not all, of this problem is due to both a labor glut and a depressed wage scale caused by too many women in the workforce.

Should I copy paste my previous statement? Bah. The reason "standard of living" has declined (and hardly "with no end in sight") is due to changes in the global economy, rising standard of living in other countries, growing refusal of poor countries to be exploited for cheap labor, more competition from other countries, scarcity of resources (that were being used up like there's no tomorrow between 1950's-70's), growing gap between the rich and poor, and yes, even more people in the workforce! White people, black people, brown people, red people, yellow people, green people of both sexes. There is more competition now than there used to be. To blame it on "women" is idiotic.

As far as I know we've never had any laws on the books denying women the right to work. Although, up until the mid 1970's most women just chose to stay home with the kids so their husbands could have the available jobs. That's just good family cooperation and high community standards. Both of which have been completely trashed by feminist and today's women.

No, it's that nobody would hire them to prestigious jobs during the 1970's because most of the employers were males who held stereotypical beliefs about their abilities. Most women had no choice but to stay home with the kids so their husbands could go to work... that was the only practical, viable way to survive. Just because something is written down, doesn't mean it is practiced. Writing down a law does not erase people's beliefs and prejudices. That was the basis for affirmative action. Now, I am against affirmative action, and believe it is an insult to the abilities of all so-called "minorities," but there was a time when it was necessary because minorities were simply not being hired and passed up for white males with lower qualifications due to discrimination. That time has passed, however.

When a women is accepted into places with limited openings like the Citadel, medical school or Harvard it means that a guy (i.e.,.. breadwinner) is forced to take less. That's why I say feminism isn't about equality. It's really about tearing down men and making a mockery of the family, child rearing and all that other really "meaningful non-capitalist stuff that you seem to care so much about.

Women as a group are now scoring higher grades in schools and going to college at a higher rate than men as a group. More often than not, they are more qualified for entrance into medical school, Harvard, and yes, even the Citadel, than some men. If they are not qualified, they should not be accepted... same goes for the men. That is equality. I am against affirmative action. Men do not deserve any positions by virtue of being men, and the same goes for women. A woman is not obligated to bear or raise children, and she can choose to be the "breadwinner" instead of the man, although ideally both could and often do earn a respectable name for themselves outside the home. How is that a mockery of men or the family? What if you don't have a family, don't want a family?

Why does the feminist definition of "meaningful" always have to translate into a women taking some poor guys job? Can't you find "meaningful" by taking a class, joining a church group, doing volunteer work, taking up a martial art, going to your kid's soccor game,.etc.,...?

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding... Those things are all well and good, but some people find meaning in competition, in the business world, by saving someone's life, contributing to cutting-edge scientific research, or getting involved in politics to make a difference in their world. Hard as it is for you to believe, some people find time to both hold a decent job and do extra activities.

Also, if you feminist really care about the blacks half as much as you say that you do, then why are you still taking jobs that could otherwise go to them? I'll tell you why! Feminists are only out for feminists and to hell with everybody else!

I wonder what a black woman would think of your statement... "Feminists" come in all colors. *pats you on the head* Why don't you ask a black person why they're taking jobs or college spots away from whites? Do they only care about black people? Are they doing this on purpose? Maybe they're actually more qualified than a given white person? Cut the damn "women are taking everybody's jobs" crap! It's rediculous and irrational! Who is everybody anyway? Last I checked women make up half of the human species.

Where are you getting this "job satisfaction" garbage? Gloria Steinum's big lie in the 1970's was about giving women the choice to do meaningful work. However, today's reality is most women are forced to work in boring jobs for lousy pay. That's liberation for you! The socialist big lie is always followed by the skimpy pay-off! And just think, a generation ago these women would have been home with their kids instead of being bored shitless at McJobs!

I never mentioned job satisfaction. I said I'm for all human beings having equal opportunity to do with their life whatever they want so long as they are capable of it. As I said previously, I preffer knowing that I have this freedom and be responsible for my own choices rather than live in ignorant bliss. Frankly, I don't care much about job satisfaction. I don't plan on having kids, and would much rather live on some mountaintop in Tibet as a Buddhist nun. But I'm here now and am fine with having two boring McJobs that allow me to be in control of my own life. Also, what the hell does socialism have to do with any of this?

The fact remains that our own federal government tells us that they will go broke in about 2025. What will actually happen at that point, and what the outcome might be, is anyone's guess. However, one thing's for sure: Your gender bending feminist egalitarian utopia will be put to the ultimate test. When the time comes, I just hope that you girls can figure out some way of saving us.

I wouldn't hold my breath for the economic collapse. WTF is a gender bending feminist egalitarian utopia? Nobody's looking for a utopia, just equality between all human beings and equal opportunity to pursue one's dreams and express themselves. It's basic human rights. Gender is a cultural construct, while sex is the physical body of a person. Yes, ideas about gender shall be bent and society's view of both male and female potentials will be revised... but women will remain women, and men will remain men.

Now to be obsessed with objects and think of everything in $$ and cents, isnt good, but when you think that luxary items dont make life easier and more enjoyable you are fooling yourself. MrNiceGuy is right you havent learned the value of the dollar, and on the subject of materialism women are usually more materialistic than men. Tell you what if aspiring for items that you have is oh so capatilist, then why dont you give away all your money and then see how your political perspective changes.

Actually the whole capitalist consumerism comment was meant to be sarcasm, meant to jab at mrniceguy148's constant refferal to socialism and feminism in completely nonsensical ways. Luxury items do make life easier, but it is still true that the USA is obsessed with material gain more than perhaps any other country on this planet. USA is the largest and most wasteful consumer of resources on Earth, even if you take into account disparity in population size. There are many countries that pay higher taxes than the US, have less material possessions on average than the US, and are less consumerist than the US, yet their life satisfaction is a lot higher than the US.

The general population of the US, however, is geared toward acquiring more and more money, more and more stuff, more and more everything. The majority is restless and can't seem to be satisfied... because with such a mentality, nothing will ever be enough, even if you're the richest person on the planet. Eventually, tho, you come to the realization that you can't eat money, and that your priorities have been backwards. If less people wasted resources through obsessive consumerism, there would be more resources to go around.

Now, I have been poor, and I have been upper middle class, and I can honestly say I would rather be poorer than I am now. Not dirt poor... just poor enough so that I can appreciate what I have with the same enthusiasm as I did when I got that first VCR, and be able to afford living essentials (bills for an apartment, groceries, etc). Being rich might be fun for some people, but I liked my mentality and life satisfaction when I was poorer... it really allows you to set your priorities straight. I notice that being rich makes you (me?) lazy, selfish, arrogant, take things for granted, and restless. That's why instead of getting into the "more and more everything" mindset, I sit down and be honest with myself about what I really need or what I really want, and that becomes my goal. If I exceed it, great, but as long as I reach it, I'd be happy.

[Tom Yum]

Now, I have been poor, and I have been upper middle class, and I can honestly say I would rather be poorer than I am now. Not dirt poor... just poor enough so that I can appreciate what I have with the same enthusiasm as I did when I got that first VCR, and be able to afford living essentials (bills for an apartment, groceries, etc). Being rich might be fun for some people, but I liked my mentality and life satisfaction when I was poorer... it really allows you to set your priorities straight. I notice that being rich makes you (me?) lazy, selfish, arrogant, take things for granted, and restless. That's why instead of getting into the "more and more everything" mindset, I sit down and be honest with myself about what I really need or what I really want, and that becomes my goal. If I exceed it, great, but as long as I reach it, I'd be happy.

Anyone that came from the former eastern block knows the value of a dollar and the value of being industrious and not being wastefull. You've hit on some great points.

I can imagine that being a woman from that region means that you've had to be even more determined, clever and detailed than the average American woman - I'm not stroking, merely stating this from my experience and kinships with people from your native region (Azerbaijan, Estonia, Bulgaria...)

[Mulan]

Ugh, did you miss the entire point on purpose?

Well you know what, why dont you move to one of these countries if you like that sort of thing.

Moving out wouldn't solve anything. US excessive consumerism affects the entire world. But as I said, I was being sarcastic. I don't really care if other people are obsessive with it and make their lives misrable. I choose not to fall into that trap and I can do that anywhere I live. No matter how many imaginary border lines you draw, we all exist on one planet, and whatever one country does affects all the others. And no, the economy of the less consumerist countries isn't doomed to failing and is remaining quite stable. That's why you're having so many US citizens moving to Canada now.

Yes many people in the us are obsessed with money and there are many that are restless. But many arent, yes we all want something that we can afford but many of us arent driven to become filthy rich. You wanted stuff then (VCR) and you want stuff now, just more of it because you have more.

If you feel you know the difference between what you need and what you want, and don't fall into the obsessive consumerism trap, then I applaud you. But being obsessed with higher income over personal freedom is dangerous, imo... and that is what I feel mrniceguy148 is suggesting. Oh, sorry, he'd still have personal freedom... just the "women" won't. I mean, what the hell am I defending here exactly? Am I seriously being asked to defend the right of women to work and have equal opportunity to compete with men?? My sincerest apologies if such a basic human right is causing any inconvenience to males, but the exact same argument was brought up when non-Caucasian males wanted a piece of the pie, and I'll give you the same answer... too bad, deal with it.

Yes, Yes, Yes i completely agree sell that minivan, or SUV, those mean nasty gas guzzlers, as a matter of fact use a sythe to cut your lawn. Down with petrochemicals. Bring cloth bags to the store so you dont have to kill trees, of indirectly consume, nuclear, coal, and oil power, in processing the recycled paper, although recycled paper does have a % of new paper. As a matter of fact plastic bags, they no good too they are a petroproduct which as we all know are EVIL...etc, etc...

I care about the Earth. If you believe these issues don't concern you, then I have to wonder what planet you think you're living on. But I am not one to tell others what to do, I just do my part the best I can. In the end, we all have to sleep in the bed we made... or however the saying goes.

Well you know what i can help you acheive your goal of becoming poorer, just give me some of your money. Then you'll be poorer and we'll both be happy, even though your goal was to get richer and more material possesions (VCR) and you've exceded it and you arent happy. Or you could quit one of your jobs. Or if just about everything in the US completely disgusts you, you can go back to where you came from. That way you'll be poor, and you can have the same "life-satisfaction" and not be lazy, selfish, arrogant.

Hey, you gotta try both sides if you want to know what works for you. I like material possessions just fine, so long as they're in moderation and I feel that I earned them. Excess of both wealth and poverty isn't healthy, and I walk the middle path. I have my own plans of how to become poorer and be happier, and it involves moving out of state. I never said the US disgusts me. And besides, if I don't like something, I don't run away from it... I do something about it. It so happens this country has a nifty system to accomodate that, and perhaps I could even strive to be a catalyst for that change.

But i think (just my 2 cents) if you seariously examine the way things when you had less, you're happier with more. Mabey i'm wrong but i doubt it.

I think it's for each individual to decide.

Anyone that came from the former eastern block knows the value of a dollar and the value of being industrious and not being wastefull. You've hit on some great points.

Thanks ^_^

[Tom Yum]

Mabey there are countries with higher taxes than us but their economy is doomed to fail as is ours, because of taxes, and excessive regulation, along with other factors.
Well you know what, why dont you move to one of these countries if you like that sort of thing.

http://www.info.gov.hk/info/tax.htm

Hongkong has the lowest personal income tax rate in the world (flat tax @ 15.5%). You pay 0 taxes on capital gains, dividends or interest income. Laissez faire economy.

Despite this, you don't see many opportunistic Americans moving to Hong Kong. I suppose we like the comforts of home enough that we're willing to pay for it in taxes.

[mrniceguy148]

If you feel you know the difference between what you need and what you want, and don't fall into the obsessive consumerism trap, then I applaud you. But being obsessed with higher income over personal freedom is dangerous, imo... and that is what I feel mrniceguy148 is suggesting. Oh, sorry, he'd still have personal freedom... just the "women" won't. I mean, what the hell am I defending here exactly? Am I seriously being asked to defend the right of women to work and have equal opportunity to compete with men?? My sincerest apologies if such a basic human right is causing any inconvenience to males, but the exact same argument was brought up when non-Caucasian males wanted a piece of the pie, and I'll give you the same answer... too bad, deal with it.

Hi Mulan,

Not being from this country, and maybe not being old enough to have read all of our history in a non-revisionist comtext, maybe you are confused about the kind and degree of ferrdom that our founding fathers intended this nation to be built on.

First, let me say that slavery, and the subsequent descrimination of the black race was a national embarrassment and an abomination. It certainly wasn't Christian.

In fact, our founding fathers never intended this nation to be the gluttonous, self centered, immorral, money grubbing grab bag of consumerism that our nation has become today. In fact our greed, our gluttonsy, and our total collapse of the family unit is a direct result of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society, and both were a big departure from anything our founding fathers would have ever approved of. In fact FDR was the father of US socialism and LBJ was the father of the US practice of budgetary shortfalls and the gender bending social engeneering that is poisoning our society and eroding our economic base today. In fact, it's big government's heavy hand that is responsble for force feeding women into the work force in defiance of the will of the majority of it's citizenry at that time. That, my dear, is socialism and that's the sin that has made your socialist utopias like Canada, Sweden, Denmark and France a bunch of impotent, over taxed, eglatarian basket cases.

Actually, our nation was origionally created to be a free society tempered by Christian Morality. If you read some of the writings by Benjamin Franklyn you'll find that he warns that our democracy will fall into despotism if the people are not morally strong enough to self regulate themselves with integraty. Our economic freedom was granted by the federal government but our social norms were to be defined by the Christian Church without any involvement form government forces. This system of small government, tempered by Christian restraint, was the driving force that enabled out country to become the world's leading super power by the end of WWII. And, yes, one of the byproducts of this mix of lezze fare government and Cristian social temperance was that women, non-land owners and blacks were denied the vote. Obviously, our founding father never intended for every Tom, Dick and Harriet to have a say in government because they knew that an excess of democracy (too many voters with too many different and opposing opinions) would eventually bring our system of government to it's knees.

The fact of the matter is that The Bible contains all of life's truths. Maybe other religious works contain those same thruths, but the Bible was the US model. As a result, through history, and spicifically throught the industrial age, those nations who have most closely followed the Bible's teachings (The US and the UK) have experienced the greatest prosperity while those nations who have rejected Biblical teaching (Russia, China, etc.,..) have created the greatest anount of hardship and misrey for their people.

The fact of the matter is that today's self-centered feminism is anti-Christian and feminism, along with other immoral modern social and governmential excesses are the reasons why our standard of loving has been on a steady decline over the passed 34 years and it's also a big factor in family break-up that forces most women into "wage slavery".

You have made some strong arguments here, but in God's and nature's plan you are still dead wrong, and because we've been suckered into falling for this type convoluted logic, our people are seeing the systematic destruction of our, once proud nation. Ideas like yours are simply a cancer that can only lead to the same Third World living conditions that your parents rescued you from.

Therefore, women can demand their rights all they want. The fact of the matter is that women have always been allowed to work if they needed to. However, earlier generations labeled these women "hags" and "spinsters" to discourage such practices.

I understand that, with the proper training, any moron (man or women) can do 95% of the jobs out there; so more competion just leads to lower wages. Therefore, the issue isn't who's most qualified for the job, but who'd be the best fit for the job based on society's needs. I submit to you that the best fit for any high paying career oriented position always has been, and always will be, a man.

Aside from gender specific occupations such as construction, the military, police work and firefighting, etc.,...I believe that a women can do most jobs as good as a man. However, we now have so many qualified men and women in this country that we now suffer from a condition called "under-employment. The issue isn't who can do the job better. The only issue now is; do we follow God's plan for prosperity, or do we continue to follow the failed pagan and feminized form of socialism that has already proven to be disasterous on both economic and social levels? It's called the "culture war"!

Hope that this clears up any misunderstanding?

Take care,

Mr. Niceguy

[Bjjexpertise@be]

I have this strange urge to say the following. Why are a majority of women pro-choice?
I don't understand this.

[Thai Bri]

This whole thread seems to be (at leas by some) an intellectually based attempt to prove something that all the experience tells us in not true - i.e. that women are just as able as men in fighting arts....and those that are not are merely brainwashed by an unfair society.

I'm all for equality, but let's live in the world as it is, rather than as we would like to pretend it is.

[Mulan]

I dont know and i'm not sure but it does supprise me that you remember having cockroaches in the appartment and mention that but not, ants, other bugs, mice and rats. It also supprises me that in an appartment building with a cockroach problem you forget to mention slumlords, unworking toilets. I dont know enough about Azerbaijan, but i did know a kid from slovakia and he did complain about somethings overhear but nearly as bad as you did, because where he came from. Just makes me wonder, because now things were so much better for him he didnt bitch. Something else that make me wonder is that you pay more than guys...Sounds like you are much more well off than them.

Those two paragraphs were not meant to be my full biography. I suppose I could write a book, but that's not what this forum's for and it hardly even relates to the topic. I just wrote an overview to give people an idea of where I'm coming from. It was not complaining, just stating facts. And the apartment in Brooklyn did have cockroaches and other bugs, but it did not have a slumlord or non-working toilets. I'm used to living in close proximity with other people, so I didn't notice the stresses of the apartment building. And yes, I am typically more well off than the guys I choose to date. I thought I made it clear that I'm attracted to poorer guys. I know about USSR's environmental policy, and I don't like it... what does that have to do with anything?

mrniecgeguy148, I know my history and I refuse to debate with somebody who bases their argument off Christianity. One irrelevant correction tho... it was 2nd world, not 3rd world.

This whole thread seems to be (at leas by some) an intellectually based attempt to prove something that all the experience tells us in not true - i.e. that women are just as able as men in fighting arts....and those that are not are merely brainwashed by an unfair society.

There's really nothing new I can say about this that I didn't say before. From my experience, and from the experience of many other girls I know, untrained females are able to beat many guys similar to their size. Also, from historic experience, there were plenty of respected female martial arts masters, plenty of women who fought alongside men in combat, etc. I agree that most male and female bodies are different, but perhaps that suggests that they used different fighting strategies. Basically, I propose that female fighting ability is similar to that of a lightweight male (can be read as: average pro MT fighter ). Except that a majority of males try to go for what they percieve to be male strengths (brute force, height, weight), whereas females can focus their training on evasion, throws, leverege, redirection of force, sheer technique. I have noticed that in UCF, it is not uncommon to see guys win over guys that outweigh them by 100 pounds or more using the right techniques.

[CruciformSword]

Knaves...

Not being from this country, and maybe not being old enough to have read all of our history in a non-revisionist comtext, maybe you are confused about the kind and degree of ferrdom that our founding fathers intended this nation to be built on.

Hi, I’m from this country (The US of A, for clearification), and know quite a bit about its history.

First, let me say that slavery, and the subsequent discrimination of the black race was a national embarrassment and an abomination. It certainly wasn't Christian.

Duh.

In fact, our founding fathers never intended this nation to be the gluttonous, self centered, immorral, money grubbing grab bag of consumerism that our nation has become today. In fact our greed, our gluttonsy, and our total collapse of the family unit is a direct result of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society, and both were a big departure from anything our founding fathers would have ever approved of. In fact FDR was the father of US socialism and LBJ was the father of the US practice of budgetary shortfalls and the gender bending social engeneering that is poisoning our society and eroding our economic base today. In fact, it's big government's heavy hand that is responsble for force feeding women into the work force in defiance of the will of the majority of it's citizenry at that time. That, my dear, is socialism and that's the sin that has made your socialist utopias like Canada, Sweden, Denmark and France a bunch of impotent, over taxed, eglatarian basket cases.

Trust me, they would have liked totalitarian dictatorship a lot less, and that was what everyone else went into at the time.

Actually, our nation was origionally created to be a free society tempered by Christian Morality. If you read some of the writings by Benjamin Franklyn you'll find that he warns that our democracy will fall into despotism if the people are not morally strong enough to self regulate themselves with integraty. Our economic freedom was granted by the federal government but our social norms were to be defined by the Christian Church without any involvement form government forces. This system of small government, tempered by Christian restraint, was the driving force that enabled out country to become the world's leading super power by the end of WWII. And, yes, one of the byproducts of this mix of lezze fare government and Cristian social temperance was that women, non-land owners and blacks were denied the vote. Obviously, our founding father never intended for every Tom, Dick and Harriet to have a say in government because they knew that an excess of democracy (too many voters with too many different and opposing opinions) would eventually bring our system of government to it's knees.

We’re taking morality advice from a man with 58 mistresses and have ‘too much democracy’? How do you have ‘too much democracy’? ‘Oh, I’ve had too much democracy today! I had better listen to those old Hitler speeches…”

The fact of the matter is that The Bible contains all of life's truths. Maybe other religious works contain those same thruths, but the Bible was the US model. As a result, through history, and spicifically throught the industrial age, those nations who have most closely followed the Bible's teachings (The US and the UK) have experienced the greatest prosperity while those nations who have rejected Biblical teaching (Russia, China, etc.,..) have created the greatest anount of hardship and misrey for their people.

Or maybe they have a democracy deficiency? Too much Stalin in their diet…

The fact of the matter is that today's self-centered feminism is anti-Christian and feminism, along with other immoral modern social and governmential excesses are the reasons why our standard of loving has been on a steady decline over the passed 34 years and it's also a big factor in family break-up that forces most women into "wage slavery".

I might point out that we had great economic growth under a liberal president, and serious economic downturns under two god-fearing (silly term0 conservative ones. I think it has more to do with jobs going overseas, so we have too many people and not enough jobs to go around, no matter who fills them.

You have made some strong arguments here, but in God's and nature's plan you are still dead wrong, and because we've been suckered into falling for this type convoluted logic, our people are seeing the systematic destruction of our, once proud nation. Ideas like yours are simply a cancer that can only lead to the same Third World living conditions that your parents rescued you from.

Um, God made Eve Adam’s equal, and typically, nature makes the female tougher and longer-lived then the male. Somehow I doubt that a group of tougher longer-lived people are going to destroy our ‘once proud nation’ and isn’t pride one of the seven deadly sins, by the way?

Therefore, women can demand their rights all they want. The fact of the matter is that women have always been allowed to work if they needed to. However, earlier generations labeled these women "hags" and "spinsters" to discourage such practices.

So, what, St. Joan of Arc should have told God “I’m a girl, I can’t do what you want me to, I have to stay at home barefoot and pregnant, not save the kingdom of France!”?

I understand that, with the proper training, any moron (man or women) can do 95% of the jobs out there; so more competion just leads to lower wages. Therefore, the issue isn't who's most qualified for the job, but who'd be the best fit for the job based on society's needs. I submit to you that the best fit for any high paying career-oriented position always has been, and always will be, a man.

Actually, it’s been proven that women deal with stress better then men do.

Aside from gender specific occupations such as construction, the military, police work and firefighting, etc.,...I believe that a women can do most jobs as good as a man. However, we now have so many qualified men and women in this country that we now suffer from a condition called "under-employment. The issue isn't who can do the job better. The only issue now is; do we follow God's plan for prosperity, or do we continue to follow the failed pagan and feminized form of socialism that has already proven to be disastrous on both economic and social levels? It's called the "culture war"!

Ok, one, how is a worldview that is a by-product of the Victorian Era ‘God’s plan’? I fail to see how forcing women into the home will stop jobs from fleeing overseas, with the consent of our ‘moral’ President Bush, to nations where women and children are forced to work in sweatshops all day for little or no pay.

[Mulan]

Well it just seams that as though things dont add up, if in fact expierenced all these horridable things that you'd mentioned why would you possibly considder being told not to excell stressful? Hmmph there were cockroaches and other bugs, was there a large ammount? You were used to living in close proximity to other people, so you didnt find it stressful, well does that mean that you had a small house in the former soviet republic. It would seam logical that one would think so. Now if mention living in a "tiny" appartement in NYC in a the list of bad things you expierenced, how come you didnt say something like; I went from one tiny dwelling to another? It also sounds odd that you considder living in a small appartment negative and yet you said that you were used to living in close proximity with others.

No, no, no. Like I said, I wasn't complaining, I was stating the facts of what I experienced. I didn't state those things to imply they were negative. I was just pointing out that I'm not some rich person that had things handed to them. I actually experienced the living conditions of being poor. Yes, I lived in a small apartment in the Soviet Union in close proximity to other people. And I did not live in a nuclear family, I lived together with my parents and grandparents. I didn't find it stressful, however it would be considered poor living conditions by US middle class standards. I didn't go from one tiny dwelling to another. I did go through three apartments while living in NYC, but my family moved from poor to better living conditions in a fairly steady progression. Sure it'd be nice to have a VCR in Azerbaijan, but I didn't really think in those terms. I just thought "cool, these other people have a VRC and I can go to their house and watch it!" I never dreamed I'd be able to have a VCR.

The only thing I genuinely remember being peeved about at the time was the differential treatment of boys and girls in gym class. Here's a basic example. When we had races, they didn't line you up perpendicular to the street so everybody started from the same distance away from the finish line. No, for some bizzare twisted logic, they lined you parallel the street: tallest boys to shortest boys, then behind them tallest girls to shortest girls. And I'd keep thinking to myself, "this is bullshit!" But even though I was towards the back, I'd run hard and cross the finishing line first or third anyway. Teachers actually told me "stop running like that, you're making the boys feel bad about themselves."

[CruciformSword]

Thai Bri, you are 100% correct.

Anyways i do find it odd that a new user joined this very day, and only posted 1 post, the one of this thread. CuneaformSword or something like that. Its also just unusual that somebody joins this very day and starts commenting just hours after Mulan and is from the same country that Mulan comes from. Well my oh my, it just must be a small world. And this pearson has the same perspective as Mulan and attacks her archnemisis. Well i guess stranger things that animated women with bouncing boobs do happen around hear.

You know its also puzzling that this user spoke as though she's a typical american girl.

Hear's a link for the CunearformSword's profile:
http://www.defend.net/deluxeforums/m...hp?userid=8716

**** you very much, I'm a GUY asshole, from the Good ol' US of Muther fucking A! And in fact, the only forgine nation I can trace my roots back to is Ireland, and there back to the 2nd Century, though with some guesswork, back to the time of Ceasar. As far as going after Mulan's adversary goes, this guy had it comming. I don't hang out on this sort of board, usually, but I was crusing along and a friend of mine said 'you have to read THIS' and I cruised over and read, got pissed off and signed up to post just to cut him down a notch.

BTW: Do you even know what a cruciform sword is? Let alone the meaning or significance of the words of my signature....

[Thai Bri]

No, no, no. Like I said, I wasn't complaining, I was stating the facts of what I experienced. I didn't state those things to imply they were negative. I was just pointing out that I'm not some rich person that had things handed to them. I actually experienced the living conditions of being poor. Yes, I lived in a small apartment in the Soviet Union in close proximity to other people. And I did not live in a nuclear family, I lived together with my parents and grandparents. I didn't find it stressful, however it would be considered poor living conditions by US middle class standards. I didn't go from one tiny dwelling to another. I did go through three apartments while living in NYC, but my family moved from poor to better living conditions in a fairly steady progression. Sure it'd be nice to have a VCR in Azerbaijan, but I didn't really think in those terms. I just thought "cool, these other people have a VRC and I can go to their house and watch it!" I never dreamed I'd be able to have a VCR.

The only thing I genuinely remember being peeved about at the time was the differential treatment of boys and girls in gym class. Here's a basic example. When we had races, they didn't line you up perpendicular to the street so everybody started from the same distance away from the finish line. No, for some bizzare twisted logic, they lined you parallel the street: tallest boys to shortest boys, then behind them tallest girls to shortest girls. And I'd keep thinking to myself, "this is bullshit!" But even though I was towards the back, I'd run hard and cross the finishing line first or third anyway. Teachers actually told me "stop running like that, you're making the boys feel bad about themselves."

Don't fret. In many ways we adjust the starting line of all kinds of things so that men finish last. They call it "Equal Opportunities" for some unknown reason.

Its like "Gender Norming" in the Army. In physical tests the women get more points than the men for the same performance. So they don't ave to work as hard to pass. Is the enemy supposed to take this into accoutn when in battle????

Anyway, its gone full circle now. Women have campaigned to get into combat roles and, when succesful, they have started to sue as they have got injured........

Sorry Mulan. You look like a lovely person. But women have positive discrimination blazing an easier path for them through life. You whingeing on about what a hard time you have just adds salt to the wounds!

[Mulan]

Don't fret. In many ways we adjust the starting line of all kinds of things so that men finish last. They call it "Equal Opportunities" for some unknown reason.

Its like "Gender Norming" in the Army. In physical tests the women get more points than the men for the same performance. So they don't ave to work as hard to pass. Is the enemy supposed to take this into accoutn when in battle????

Hehe, I think this was covered one or two pages ago. I am against affirmative action and against lowering standards to accomodate women. Everybody should meet the same standards and follow the same rules. While it is true that more untrained men might meet these standards than untrained women, it does not take away from the fact that there are many women who do meet these standards, and they should not be shut out just because they are women. Trained women would be even more capable. Also, while I fully acknowledge the importance of being strong enough to drag a wounded partner's body out of a danger area, and all the other physical requirements, it is also important to remember that guns and weapons are the "great equalizer" and women can use them as well as the guys in ground combat. Be they a man or a woman, if they're caught on the ground without a weapon, they're SOL most of the time.

I agree that some things being pushed right now by "minorities" are going too far and creating reverse discrimination, but I am against these practices, and believe it is possible to work towards true equal opportunity without excluding anyone based on race, gender, sexual prefference, or religion alone. I think the inequality trend will pass and I think people nowadays are starting to see its biases.

[CruciformSword]

I dunno. I can tell you from experiance that a bullet cares not who fires it. And since this is an era of assualt weapons and RPGs, women would be just as capable in the arts of war, in my opinion. I know some tough women, who are at least the equals of men, and serve in the army. If you want to tell Staff Sgt Ronda that being a woman makes her too weak to figh, I want tickets to watch her bend you into a pretzel.

Also, as far as gender norming, I don't really agree with it, save on the hight/weight requirement, since, on average, women are shorter then me (with a lower center of gravity, which, last I checked, can be a serious advantage in combat.).