Girls VS Boys the most sexually charged topic yet!
#62
Posted 11 February 2005 - 09:45 PM
Excuse me? You're joking, right?
There's no "gravy train". People have to fight for their rights. Women have been fighting for hundreds of years, and so have racial minorities; anyone who thinks the fight's over, for either party, is sorely mistaken.
So excuse me for not shutting up and getting back in the kitchen while I wait for my "gravy train". Somehow I feel it would be counterproductive.
#63
Posted 11 February 2005 - 09:52 PM
As for the top management thing, remember that the whole womans rights thing only started 40-50 years ago and the Militant (un)Equalitist showed up during the early 90s. When you change the fabric of Society you need alittle time for the threads to settle (crappy analagy but it works).
So you're saying that so long as there is a worse alternative, then there's no harm, no foul -- so long as there's abuse of women in the middle east, or as long as minorities don't have an equal share in the US, there's no point in complaining about anything else? Or are you saying that men can't care about an unequal condition for women because they aren't women, nor should they be expected to? Or are you saying that by magic or societal change or whatever, women's rights will be equal one day, and that whining about problems that occur now is counterproductive?
I don't actually know what you're saying, but I do know that the idea of waiting for society to "come around" to accepting social change never got anybody anywhere.
#65
Posted 11 February 2005 - 10:33 PM
Notice the I in that statement. Sorry, I have a bad time at trying to put my sick, twisted thoughts into words.
I was just pissed when Madam started spouting off the middle eastern problems. Those are the Arab's being total assholes, not men in general. I am sick of feeling guilty for the US not kicking the Talaban's ass more effectively, And tired of people using said 'Worse Circumstance' as a 'HA You Can't Rebuttle Without Looking Like A Heartless Basterd' point.
And no, there is no more fighting any more, you don't see protest in the streets or boycotts of busses, today you can't fight effectively for your cause. Today the only solution I see (and everybody else should see) is to be better then the tosspots that look better than you. So if your complaining that women arn't getting 'The Big Old Boss' type jobs then complain that the WallStreet Women arn't pulling their weight at your next Feminist Agenda Commity (Everybody has an agenda these days, so don't say that doesn't exist). Sorry, Women has to work it's ass of to get to the top of the racial food chain.
I was trying (horribly) making a point women has to learn how the buisness office/outside the kitchen world works and that usualy takes a generation or two to take full effect. Damn my lack of Charisma
Next time on Chefelf.com: Kirby makes a futile attempt to defend his defence that defended his original post.
- Tagline for Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter
You've read it, you can't un-read it. Stay tooned for more
TALES OF INTEREST.
I like to be part of the crowd so I want to say that Icey is the best guy ever
#66
Posted 11 February 2005 - 10:47 PM
Next time on Chefelf.com: Kirby makes a futile attempt to defend his defence that defended his original post.
I could complain about "joke" posts that offer no indication as to what the joke is or where it is or where it begins or ends, but I think I do that too.
Still, it seems like now you are saying that women don't get ahead in business because they don't know how it works, which I'd disagree with; women are just as well educated as men are. I would surmise that the underrepresentation of women in upper level positions is largely due to both discrimination/double standards (traits that are seen as admirable in men, like a no-nonsense attitude, are seen as ruthless and bitchy in women) and to career losses resulting from maternity leave and so forth (certainly considerable, although it doesn't explain why childless women don't succeed).
Also, while women's and racial minorities' fights for rights are comparable in many ways, they are not totally parallel, and they are certainly not in opposition to each other. You sometimes seem to imply that women have to wait because other people are busy getting their rights now, but there's no reason why both causes can't evolve simultaneously--especially since there are a lot of people who are BOTH women and racial minorities.
It's weird to be talking about "the fight for rights" like its the 60s or the 20s or the 1870s or something. Things are far from perfect and more advancements must be made on both fronts. But I don't want to get people into the 1960s mindset, because a lot has changed since then.
#67
Posted 11 February 2005 - 11:25 PM
I always felt that Minority/Women rights always had to wait in a line because people don't have the attention span or focus to change all the steriotypes to something totaly differant. I guess Im wrong.
Wait, when did this become a fight over equality? Rewind. Done.
Men are better because we have long dongs.
- Tagline for Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter
You've read it, you can't un-read it. Stay tooned for more
TALES OF INTEREST.
I like to be part of the crowd so I want to say that Icey is the best guy ever
#68
Posted 11 February 2005 - 11:53 PM
Hey, I was careful to say I figured men and women make babies TOGETHER. I guess we're still living in 1952 or something, since no one seems to agree. So, ok, women are truly innocent of the whole process, and despite the so-called sexual revolution, men GET women pregnant and then run. That is how it works, and so men SHOULD owe women nearly $100000 per child if they do this terrible thing to them.
Ok, snippy shit aside. I'll say it again.
I am not talking about couples with kids, where the man decides he's through and decides to leave. That is what child support is for. He entered into a long-term arrangement, and wants to buy his way out. Fine. He can fuck off, but he knows he has to pay. I am talking about the couple that starts dating and doing stuff where no long-term commitment is in place. Pregnancy happens, and from that moment on, a situation where every decision had been mutual turns completely to one where the man has zero authority. The woman can literally say "I never want to see you again; you will need to fight in court for the right to see your child; I want child support."
Laura, I agree that going through an abortion or a pregnancy is a big deal; why wouldn't I? But I'm not sure what you're saying when you suggest that a man should owe a woman child support just because she doesn't want an abortion. You say it on the grounds that an abortion would be an ordeal, and then suggest that he owes the money because pregnancy and child-rearing is an ordeal as well. Like our grandmothers probably said, you shouldn't be having sex.
Perhaps men and women should be having a talk before they have sex for the first time, about what might happen if pregnancy occurs. Of course: even with a written contract, she can change her mind, have the child, demand full custody and child support. This is legally acceptable, and not uncommon (the "contract" is generally verbal).
Way I see it, in the no-commitment situation above, it is the woman's decision whether she wants a child and all that entails. It should also be the man's decision. He should have the option to say "I don't want this." If she wants to have the child, he did her a favour. If she wants an abortion, he can't force her to have the child, and I know this because some men have tried.
Having children in a long-term relationship is like signing a contract. You know you're committed. Having children from a short-term accident is like going to a job interview, deciding you don't want the job, and then learning that the moment you walked in the door you signed a 20-year contract.
I know, boo hoo. No one here knows anyone who has been entrapped int child support, so you figure a system that is open for it isn't a big deal. Many of my friends work in family law; I can guarantee you it's going on.
--------------
MC: I have to call you on the plight of women in the third world argument. I CAN complain that things aren't different here, and at the same time be sorry that things aren't different there. Jesus, you'd be a fun dinner date:
"Hey, there's a hair in my soup! Gross! I'm telling the waitress."
"You don't have a right to be upset about hair in your soup; women are being murdered in Saudi Arabia just for having sex out of wedlock!"
Yeah; check please.
And PS: My CEO is a woman, and one of the most powerful people in business in North America. I don't know any men in the TOP position in their companies, since I don't work for those companies. But I'm sure there are a lot more men doing it than women. That isn't an argument that it's impossible. Yes, I know all about the "Glass ceiling," and it's pretty amazing people are still talking about it after only about 30 years of women in the corporate workplace. Someone here once said something about how women often bow out to have babies, and it kills the track. Well, sure. You can't have two careers. Not a lot of career women with part-time career dads, where the dad takes on the family responsibilities, yes. But the system is such that it's allowed, it's not frowned on, it's possible. My complaints above are about a system where the alternatives I metioned are NOT possible. So your counter-argument doesn't change my mind.
#69
Posted 12 February 2005 - 02:06 AM
"You don't have a right to be upset about hair in your soup; women are being murdered in Saudi Arabia just for having sex out of wedlock!"
Yeah; check please.
First the american history x post now this. You're cracking me up tonight!
#70
Posted 12 February 2005 - 05:10 AM
1. My description of situation of women in middle east referred to the general tone of the replies of the male part of the posters, which I felt (maybe wrongly) is that “ok., you were discriminated for generations, but you are not discriminated any longer and you just take revenge now by claiming alimony and palimony, dumping us when we want love for life and screwing around, and taking our progeny from us and not allowing us to have babies”. As I said, I really cannot argue with that , because that referrs to situation of women in western countries, and I really don’t know anything about it. But I went and checked, acc to your suggestion.
2. The situation with children that Civ describes, that men have no say in reproduction. My question to you is, then how would you like to have it? You cannot change biology. And on the more careful reading of your point I discovered this little thing :
“And since as aa SPECIES, all we can do is eat and reproduce, women hold all the cards in both arenas: they decide when the reproduction happens, and they get to legally ask for money when it's done, and dump the guy. In fact, it makes the most economic sense to dump the guy, and find another guy, since then you vcan go to three incomes instead of two”
“Eat and reproduce and women hold all the cards in both arenas” – Well, no Civ, you are mixing cause and effect. If women hold cards in both now it is because of the legal system. Originally, it was only the man who was able to provide food, beacuse women had to invest their time and resources in a child. Which , naturally, led to many single mothers, being just carelessly dumped by men, because they COULD get away with it and just go and produce more babies elsewhere. Now come on, it was hardly fair. So the legal system was changed, and if it is now subject to abuse, would you go back to the “good all days” when men had all the power?
3. And if you think that everything changed in men’s perception of woman’s abilities, check out Kirby’s posts, among others the following:
„I always felt that Minority/Women rights always had to wait in a line because people don't have the attention span or focus to change all the steriotypes to something totaly differant.”
Now, what sort of stereotypes Kirby has in mind? That girls have cooties? No, not really – he says, basically, that women are dumb, because they have just left the kitchen and don’t know how business works:
„I was trying (horribly) making a point women has to learn how the buisness office/outside the kitchen world works and that usualy takes a generation or two to take full effect.”
You see, I can inferr from this that despite all the lip service paid to equal rights, some men still think that women are dumb. Correct me if I am wrong.
So, sorry Kirby. I know many men who are not Arabs and still are assholes for treating women like shit, just because the system lets them get away with it.
#71
Posted 12 February 2005 - 10:21 AM
Back up; I said that there's no way in hell a man should be telling women what to do with her body. I didn't touch the issue of child support at all.
However, while we're on the subject: Paying child support is an ordeal, huh?
This post has been edited by Laura: 12 February 2005 - 10:22 AM
#73
Posted 12 February 2005 - 01:26 PM
I haven't even touched the scenario where a woman initiates the divorce and then sues for child support. Like, say, if she has a new boyfriend. Because let's face it, these scenarios are always seen in terms of bad men impregnating women and then leaving, but legally it doesn't matter how it played out.
Anyway, for the record, here is the post containing your reaction to my original statement that men had no reproductive rights, and yet were considered legally responsible for the thing they had NO SAY in:
Reproduction is, yes, one area where men and women are inherently, biologically unequal. However, if you're saying that women have the advantage, you should seriously reconsider your position. Pregnancy and childbirth are no cakewalk, and neither is an abortion. It's just not a decision one person can make for another, and if men could get pregnant, they'd definitely want to make the decision for themselves as well.
I think my reaction to that was reasonable; if you disagree then maybe I misunderstood your point.
Corvax:
I put it to you that in the latter statement you are doing the very thing you (rightly) accuse some posters of doing in the former statement; that is, justifying the present in teerms of "righting" the past. I agree that the "old way" was bad, but iirc, divorce was far worse for women in the old days, for the obvious reasons, and in polite society a man who left the mother of his children was, to quote Queen Bess herself, "a fucking cad." So no, I don't want to return to the "old days;" I am actually advocating freedom from a legal system defined by those old days. Having children and raising them alone is not such a big deal now as it once once. But it's a big deal for a guy whose first sexual experience at 16 left him penniless until his late thirties, paying child support to the happily-married mother of the children the new husband doesn't want him to see. Nice to know too that even though he sacrificed college to make his payments, his kids call him a cocksucker for having to declare bankruptcy when his jobs at Wal-Mart and the gas station just weren't good enough to make the $350 a month the court ordered on top of his rent and everything else.
I know, boo hoo, he got her pregnant, she had no choice, he left her all alone in a heartless world, a scorned woman with no means of survival apart from his monthly payout. Are you really buying that argument?
And yes, M, of course I think you're fun. That "secret crush" ain't for nothing!
#74
Posted 12 February 2005 - 07:48 PM
look, i don't know what's happenning in the rest of the world... i DO care, but it's a little out of my duristiction. my coments are based soley on my experiences, i am making nothing up...
i'm really sorry that men treated women shabily in the past and still do in some parts of the world... but being a male doesn't automatically make me an overadvantaged tyrant who has to be treated like a war criminal....
i am not an enemy to women, you know me, i'm the nice guy at the party who makes you laugh for 6 hours before you get busy making out with the drunken lout who'll treat you like crap...
i'm the guy who sits through aruments about living in a 'male dominated' society from local female friends who have better paying jobs than i.
i'm the guy who gets dumped for being less attractive than a 'better option' only to be later asked for advice when that girl discovers her current boyfriend is cheating on her...
i'm sorrry that emotional trechery is in any way a worse crime than asking a girl to make some tea (even though i never have)...
i'm sorry i have to sit through girl after girl, between jerk boyfriends, asking me why she can never find a guy who fits into a long list of descriptions that basically descripes every single* guy i know, myself especially!!!
EDIT: *"Every single" as in each unattached, not each and every.
i'm sorry it's expected of males to always compliment ugly girls so they don't think they're ugly, while girls can openly insult guys because of course we have no feelings...
and finnally, the whole 50s thing, which i was trying to avoid...
but here's some food for thought, and the blame can go either way...
and this isn't an argument that i want to start, it's just a funny thought i had...
but in the 1950s one man could have a wife, 2-3 kids, a big house, two cars (one would be his wifes of course), and afford to give every part of that list all it needed on sigle 9-5 job wage...
now everyone works (even the kids, these days) two wagers is barley enough to support one kid, a small flat, and shitbox lemon of a car, and everybody hates each other...
the whole men women argument is just a smokescreene perpetuated by those in controll to stop us from realizing we're all getting screwed.
This post has been edited by barend: 12 February 2005 - 10:42 PM
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
#75
Posted 13 February 2005 - 07:11 AM
I know, boo hoo, he got her pregnant, she had no choice, he left her all alone in a heartless world, a scorned woman with no means of survival apart from his monthly payout. Are you really buying that argument?
Civ- I think I did write that I consider the system of child support you describe as prone to being abused. Yes, the situation you describe is absurd and grossly unfair (if it really is like that). But do you think that the abuse of the system is a „woman’s thing”. That is, if it were men who traditionally looked after children and stayed at home and the whole legal system would be grossly discriminating in favour of men – woudn’t they abuse the system just as much as women do these days? It is the SYSTEM that is to blame, not the inherent propensity of women to cheat on poor guys.
i'm the guy who gets dumped for being less attractive than a 'better option' only to be later asked for advice when that girl discovers her current boyfriend is cheating on her...
i'm sorrry that emotional trechery is in any way a worse crime than asking a girl to make some tea (even though i never have)...
i'm sorry i have to sit through girl after girl, between jerk boyfriends, asking me why she can never find a guy who fits into a long list of descriptions that basically descripes every single* guy i know, myself especially!!!
i'm sorry it's expected of males to always compliment ugly girls so they don't think they're ugly, while girls can openly insult guys because of course we have no feelings...
Barend... It is quite scary but if you replace guys with girls and vice versa you’ve just described me at various past stages of my life.
(apart from tea making, that is). So maybe it has nothing to do with gender but general attitude to life and everything.
Maybe... maybe you should stop looking for your „soulmate” among Kate Hudson lookalikes (or whoever your beauty ideal is). I find it hard to believe that each and every average girl in Australia behaves that way.
Uhm, nice to hear that. I thought you went off me completely.