Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 18:43:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2015 15:32:43 GMT -5
Women shouldn't be working. Unless it's housework or having babies. Splitting firewood or vegetable gardening is OK as long it's during the daylight. Now shut off the computer, take off those shoes, and get back in the kitchen were you belong.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 18, 2015 16:59:42 GMT -5
all societies need kids, or they cease to be societies. is extinction a human choice? Look what happened to the Shakers. yeah. Easter Island is a choice. right.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 18, 2015 17:00:51 GMT -5
How so? Especially in light of the fact that mat leave can be taken by either parent? Because the perception will be that only the women will take it. Even now men can take 12 weeks unpaid, the amount that do are minuscule compared to women that do. if you think breast feeding is unimportant, then you have a point. otherwise, you really don't.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 18, 2015 18:03:28 GMT -5
if you think breast feeding is unimportant, then you have a point. otherwise, you really don't. Huh? What does breast feeding have to do with anything? really? what are we talking about here? i thought we were talking about maternity leave- no?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 18, 2015 18:08:16 GMT -5
really? what are we talking about here? So you are telling me that it's not possible to breast feed and work at the same time? Boy, if that's the case all those companies that installed lactation suites are going to be pissed and want their money back, since no one will use them. no, that is not what i was saying at all. what i was saying is that women have breasts, actually. but for the record, i have never heard of a lactation suite before this very instant.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Dec 18, 2015 19:52:03 GMT -5
I would argue that most truly economic Darwinists are more "the ends justify the means," and also more likely to participate in illegal activity in order to gain that rich and powerful persona. interesting. do you think economic Darwinists are more often conservatives? I doubt either party has a monopoly on economic Darwinists...a lot of people use illegal means of intimidation and outlets to gain power from all sorts of backgrounds.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Dec 18, 2015 19:54:37 GMT -5
With as poorly as some seem to think women are being treated (i.e. more likely to make less money, less access to medical care, etc), it's amazing how they seem to live longer than men on average. Of course that must mean that women aren't more likely to be in the lower socioeconomic classes since there have been studies that show that poor people don't live as long as wealthier people for a variety of reasons. I guess all this "mistreatment" must not be affecting that statistic very much and it must not be affecting the ability to go to college as women are outnumbering men by an expanding margin in college (even with calls that we need even more programs geared toward women to help them succeed). The programs themselves aren't bad, however, the arguments for them are one-sided and really have very little to nothing to do with equality. Two completely unrelated facts. Females tend to live longer than males across the board, in all societies and economic situations. It's a medical fact. There are biological reasons for this if you care to google them. It's also a fact that in our country working women have less maternity time off and have a harder time finding quality, affordable daycare than their European counterparts - but these two facts do not at all impact how long females will actually live. It's not like women have less food than men, or don't have access to medical care while men do - both things that might impact how long they live. They aren't unrelated at all unless you feel that economic hardships and other hardships placed on people who are truly discriminated against don't actually have any effect on life expectancies. I can google a lot of different things, including the many economist who would disagree with the gender wage gap; but it does make for good headlines for those with alternative motives trying to disguise them as "just wanting equal treatment."
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Dec 18, 2015 19:57:39 GMT -5
Have you heard about the glass ceiling? I work at a company with 800 plus employees. Almost everyone in the corporate office is a man, except the admins (all female). The people with the top ten salaries are all men (it's listed on our annual report). So - either men are just better at being executives, or women aren't often considered for executive positions, so they don't often get a taste of that fat executive pay. I would agree for middle management jobs, the scales are becoming more equal, but there is still a big void at the top, where the really sweet jobs are. I never said things were perfect or that women faced no discrimination whatsoever, just that the 78 cents talking point and the assertion that women are "funneled" into low paying positions to be false, or at least misleading. I agree that women are under represented in many executive positions, and I agree that there are likely some cultural biases at work. For example, women often go into lower paying professions, but are they low paying by virtue of the job, or by the fact women choose that job? I think it's hard to prove, but it's a possibility that the latter plays a role. In addition, I think women need to better negotiate pay, but I agree there is an unfair cultural bias against women being tough negotiators. But these kinds of things I don't think you can less ate. The "glass ceiling" also may have something to do with the number of women going to college and the types of degrees 20-30 years ago...as well as issues that were faced then that aren't necessarily the case now. There are more to statistics than just the numbers behind them; but we often as a whole get too lazy to try and figure out what those are and look for the easy and convenient answer that fits other motives instead.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 18, 2015 20:00:49 GMT -5
interesting. do you think economic Darwinists are more often conservatives? I doubt either party has a monopoly on economic Darwinists...a lot of people use illegal means of intimidation and outlets to gain power from all sorts of backgrounds. party? who said party? did you mean ideology? i think that you are mistaken. liberals are pretty much the opposite of Darwininsts, in my experience. they want to prop up every failing branch of the tree.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Dec 18, 2015 20:03:33 GMT -5
I doubt either party has a monopoly on economic Darwinists...a lot of people use illegal means of intimidation and outlets to gain power from all sorts of backgrounds. party? who said party? did you mean ideology? i think that you are mistaken. liberals are pretty much the opposite of Darwininsts, in my experience. they want to prop up every failing branch of the tree. So you think drug dealers from lower socioeconomic areas are more conservative? I'd argue that they are social Darwinist trying to get ahead by any means necessary and doing what is necessary to prevent any opposition. Other examples can easily be found. I think your idea of social Darwinism is a bit skewed if you don't believe liberals have their share of them; especially when it benefits them. So again, I'd say neither party or ideology has a monopoly on the subject.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 18, 2015 20:36:43 GMT -5
party? who said party? did you mean ideology? i think that you are mistaken. liberals are pretty much the opposite of Darwininsts, in my experience. they want to prop up every failing branch of the tree. So you think drug dealers from lower socioeconomic areas are more conservative? I'd argue that they are social Darwinist trying to get ahead by any means necessary and doing what is necessary to prevent any opposition. Other examples can easily be found. I think your idea of social Darwinism is a bit skewed if you don't believe liberals have their share of them; especially when it benefits them. So again, I'd say neither party or ideology has a monopoly on the subject. i don't actually believe in social Darwinism at all, truthfully. so i have a hard time imagining people who do. i offered you my opinion on the matter. feel free to reject it. edit: again, i never said party. i said conservatives.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Dec 19, 2015 10:50:25 GMT -5
So you think drug dealers from lower socioeconomic areas are more conservative? I'd argue that they are social Darwinist trying to get ahead by any means necessary and doing what is necessary to prevent any opposition. Other examples can easily be found. I think your idea of social Darwinism is a bit skewed if you don't believe liberals have their share of them; especially when it benefits them. So again, I'd say neither party or ideology has a monopoly on the subject. i don't actually believe in social Darwinism at all, truthfully. so i have a hard time imagining people who do. i offered you my opinion on the matter. feel free to reject it. edit: again, i never said party. i said conservatives. You asked if I felt people who do support it are more likely to be conservative or not, I simply told you I did not and gave an example as to why after said that you did not believe people who are more liberal would support it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 19, 2015 13:23:22 GMT -5
i don't actually believe in social Darwinism at all, truthfully. so i have a hard time imagining people who do. i offered you my opinion on the matter. feel free to reject it. edit: again, i never said party. i said conservatives. You asked if I felt people who do support it are more likely to be conservative or not, I simply told you I did not and gave an example as to why after said that you did not believe people who are more liberal would support it. thanks for the summation. do you believe in social Darwinism?
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Dec 19, 2015 17:55:33 GMT -5
You asked if I felt people who do support it are more likely to be conservative or not, I simply told you I did not and gave an example as to why after said that you did not believe people who are more liberal would support it. thanks for the summation. do you believe in social Darwinism? Do I think it exists? Yes. Do I think we should adhere completely to it? No.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 18:43:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2015 20:40:48 GMT -5
It is a requirement for the continuation of our race that many females get pregnant... It's not a requirement that any specific females get's pregnant. It's still a choice. precisely. but it is not a choice for SOCIETIES, unless you view extinction as a choice. that means that certain individuals will HAVE TO reproduce. who are they?The ones that CHOOSE to do so.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 18:43:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2015 20:45:18 GMT -5
general question: is being compelled to do the thing that the vast majority agrees is "right" unjust?Yes. Majority doesn't equal right or just. Look at the gay marriage issue... Majority for MANY years agreed that the "right" thing was to deny them equal rights... because their religion told them it was "right"... they were wrong, and it WAS unjust. i don't think this is correct. i think that the correct response is that: it can be either just, unjust, or neither. that just and "approved" are independent variables. the next question is: what is the alternative? if the majority can't dictate the rules of the game, who does? is it really preferable to, say, have a dictator do it? The words "being compelled" are what determined my answer to the question. If you agree with the majority, you won't have to be compelled to follow them. ETA: My apologies... I didn't answer your "the next question"... so here's my answer to that: The alternative is A Constitutional Democracy whereby the majority can't overrun the minority(ies). The alternative is to make laws that only affect (limit) choices that have direct impacts on others.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 19, 2015 22:31:16 GMT -5
thanks for the summation. do you believe in social Darwinism? Do I think it exists? Yes. Do I think we should adhere completely to it? No. i don't think it exists. i think it is a way that rapacious megalomaniacs pardon their greed, as if Darwin made them do it. but the truth is, they are making rational choices, not biological ones. and they are not more FIT than people who work their whole lives doing manual labor. in fact, in many cases, they are way less fit. it is nonsense. imo, of course.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 19, 2015 22:31:57 GMT -5
precisely. but it is not a choice for SOCIETIES, unless you view extinction as a choice. that means that certain individuals will HAVE TO reproduce. who are they?The ones that CHOOSE to do so. yes, the ones that choose to do so. who are they?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 18:43:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2015 22:35:37 GMT -5
The ones that CHOOSE to do so. yes, the ones that choose to do so. who are they? I thought the answer to that question was self evident... The ones that choose to do so are who they are.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,181
|
Post by Ava on Dec 19, 2015 22:59:30 GMT -5
I think their report is spot on.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 19, 2015 23:03:02 GMT -5
yes, the ones that choose to do so. who are they? I thought the answer to that question was self evident... The ones that choose to do so are who they are. right, and who would those be?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 19, 2015 23:03:59 GMT -5
I think their report is spot on. of course it is. but we are too busy being our narcissistic selves to ever think that we could POSSIBLY do anything wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 18:43:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2015 23:42:29 GMT -5
I thought the answer to that question was self evident... The ones that choose to do so are who they are. right, and who would those be? The ones that choose to do so.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 20, 2015 0:15:28 GMT -5
right, and who would those be? The ones that choose to do so. did you like Laurel and Hardy growing up?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 18:43:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2015 0:46:31 GMT -5
The ones that choose to do so. did you like Laurel and Hardy growing up? Not really... I was more into Abbott and Costello, myself...
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,181
|
Post by Ava on Dec 20, 2015 11:37:45 GMT -5
Hypothetically, that would be wrong, but in reality, that's not the case. Have you heard about the glass ceiling? I work at a company with 800 plus employees. Almost everyone in the corporate office is a man, except the admins (all female). The people with the top ten salaries are all men (it's listed on our annual report). So - either men are just better at being executives, or women aren't often considered for executive positions, so they don't often get a taste of that fat executive pay. I would agree for middle management jobs, the scales are becoming more equal, but there is still a big void at the top, where the really sweet jobs are. Exactly. There is a huge void. And you have to ask yourself why. Why women don't make it to the top? Why women get the jobs that pay 78 cents to a dollar? If that is not gender inequality, I don't know what it is.
Picture it this way. Suppose only 1 in every 100 CEOs is African American. That African American CEO is compensated as well as his or her peers. So you can say there is no discrimination. But if you take a second look you will see that African Americans systematically end with the lower paying jobs. That's racial inequality, I would say. How come they don't make it to the top?
There are reasons why women end up working the low-paid jobs. I don't know exactly what they are, but it's not coincidence. Personally I believe lacking access to maternity leave and affordable child care plays a huge role in this. It's not the only reason, but it contributes in keeping women down.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Dec 20, 2015 14:55:08 GMT -5
Have you heard about the glass ceiling? I work at a company with 800 plus employees. Almost everyone in the corporate office is a man, except the admins (all female). The people with the top ten salaries are all men (it's listed on our annual report). So - either men are just better at being executives, or women aren't often considered for executive positions, so they don't often get a taste of that fat executive pay. I would agree for middle management jobs, the scales are becoming more equal, but there is still a big void at the top, where the really sweet jobs are. Exactly. There is a huge void. And you have to ask yourself why. Why women don't make it to the top? Why women get the jobs that pay 78 cents to a dollar? If that is not gender inequality, I don't know what it is.
Picture it this way. Suppose only 1 in every 100 CEOs is African American. That African American CEO is compensated as well as his or her peers. So you can say there is no discrimination. But if you take a second look you will see that African Americans systematically end with the lower paying jobs. That's racial inequality, I would say. How come they don't make it to the top?
There are reasons why women end up working the low-paid jobs. I don't know exactly what they are, but it's not coincidence. Personally I believe lacking access to maternity leave and affordable child care plays a huge role in this. It's not the only reason, but it contributes in keeping women down.
First, women do make it to the top; but not as many as you would evidently like to make it to the top and women making 78 cents to a dollar is so full of flaws that one can't help to see the absolute bias it takes for any person to actually use that statistic. As far as the 2nd paragraph saying how AA systematically end with the lower paying jobs, education does factor into the types of jobs a person gets, and as far as more AA not making it to the CEO position...I realize this may be a complete shock to people, but 99.99% of everybody else doesn't make it to that position either. As for women ending up working lower-paid jobs, that will probably change even more than it already has over the years as more and more women go to college. As for the degrees they graduate with and the types of jobs they get with those degrees, it's pretty difficult to blame that one on society unless you mistakenly believe that women are not allowed to take the same classes and majors as men. Even in the same professions, we have over a 50% divorce rate with women still being a large portion of single parent families, so it is entirely possible that any person in that situation will value flexible work hours due to needing to child care; it also fails to mention that child care in general usually is limited to day shift hours, which is important in any profession because if a person (man or woman) has to leave earlier than co-workers, that does matter in the long run in terms or connections and getting recognized. Of course it's easier/lazier to just say it's primarily due to gender or racial bias.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Dec 20, 2015 14:55:42 GMT -5
I think their report is spot on. of course it is. but we are too busy being our narcissistic selves to ever think that we could POSSIBLY do anything wrong. Spot on? Really? Wow!
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 20, 2015 20:07:07 GMT -5
I doubt either party has a monopoly on economic Darwinists...a lot of people use illegal means of intimidation and outlets to gain power from all sorts of backgrounds. party? who said party? did you mean ideology? i think that you are mistaken. liberals are pretty much the opposite of Darwininsts, in my experience. they want to prop up every failing branch of the tree. Subsidizing failure is arguably a goal of social Darwinists as well. Breed dependence, withdraw support (and retreat to a safe distance), let the unwashed masses kill each other off, leaving only a worthy remnant.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 20, 2015 20:10:44 GMT -5
You'd think people would be all for encouraging women to stay in the workforce and move up since greater diversity increases thinking, problem solving, and profits. ... Just remember: these results absolutely don't apply when it comes to parenting.
|
|