well while men were able to vote
females weren't allowed
so you had people seeking women's rights because men already had those rights
you don't say "majoring in math is dumb because we should be seeking knowledge everywhere"
the comparison is showing how groups specialize and focus on one area for organization and for what they feel most passionately about
feminism is to seek equal rights that match that of males
If someone only majored in math without seeking other knowledge, that is pretty dumb. And majoring in math would be a part of seeking general knowledge. Besides, education is a pretty different thing than equal rights. In the end, all those movements that pertain to, say, just women or just minorities are getting us closer to having equal rights for all people. But they focus too much on one thing. If someone only studied math their whole life, they wouldn't be able to do anything with other branches of knowledge. If there are movements that only pertain to parts of humanity, then what about the other parts of humanity. If there was a movement that was for helping humans in general to get equal rights that would be a better, more moderate approach in my opinion.
it's merely a comparison
no where did I say education and equal rights are the same thing
if I compared apples to oranges
that wouldn't mean apples and oranges are the same thing
that's how comparisons work
and the focus of math majors is math
just like the focus of feminism is that
that doesn't mean they don't branch out
masculinism is another movement
where it is vice versa (men's rights)
this movement is lesser known mainly because women lack rights worldwide much more so than men ever have
it's to have a focus goal
all rights is too broad and hard to chew (animal, male, female, etc)
so it's separated into different groups for organization
and it serves as a checks and balance
if it was all one huge group
priority would still be a problem
and certain groups would get more attention than others
each organization has their main focus
the banana has spoken xD
I get what you're saying about how all groups should be equal. But having one massive Equal Rights for Everyone group is quite ambitious, especially considering how active the separated groups have been and how they've made relatively little progress in the last few years. By having the groups separated and distinctive, each can conquer more by having a more focused goal.
Yeah I guess maybe I had made this post when I was a bit bitter at some of the stupidity coming from modern feminism.
The OP's principle is right, nonetheless. The trouble with too much individualism among causes is that each one starts to vie for greater attention over the others, and it starts to adversely affect the population at large. Total idiot though he may be, Karl Pilkington wasn't far off the mark when he pointed out that there are A LOT more individual charities these days, and they all seem to go for you individually wanting pledges and donations. In London, you can't walk down the high street without being accosted by at least three or four different causes all after totally different things.
Equal rights as human beings IS the way we should be thinking, and that is what will achieve a real level of equality that is both realistic and sustainable. Equal status under the law, equal access to state healthcare, education and whatnot. That is a level of equality that countries should be endeavoring to achieve. A specific cause gets its way, which inevitably sparks an opposite cause trying to get the reverse done - case in point, Fox hunting in the UK.
As for Feminism, I just feel like the movement is doomed to become dominated by individualistic women who have their own agendas. Women who make choices in their lives, like the choice to be a stay-at-home mum, or who choose to be sex workers, for example, are becoming sidelined and demonized by the feminist movement, which in itself is becoming fractured and divided. Too many individual lobbies constantly fighting for self-interest does not make for a good environment.
Okay, so what's a better alternative? You and I both know that trying to rally the public to support a Rights For Everyone group would be an effort which would swiftly sink.
Don't think that's what I said, was it? I believe i'm advocating a platform that proffers all citizens the same rights, you know, like a constitution or legal system which we all abide by. That's equality that we can achieve, isn't it?
Given the inability of any individual group to achieve such things, I doubt it. Racism, homophobia, sexism, and stigmas against non-Christians are rampant in my state and many others. An amendment or federal intervention would be extremely negatively received by many people in such states, and this would work ineffectively.
You mean like it did when they introduced civil liberties for blacks? Yeah...I see nothing's changed at all on that score. I think you're being a little pessimistic.
Oh, and now blacks are treated equally? I think you're being a little blind.
And you are missing the point.
The guy above me has no clue what hes talking about. And equality is good for everyone, its the ultimate goal. I do believe each faction of equality has to usually fight its own battles though in order to gain recognition of their plight (ie feminism, gay pride movement, civil rights era) without all the parts of the whole equality probably wouldnt exist.
If equality is the ultimate goal, then we'll probably still be trying to achieve it when we reach our ultimate year of existence. The real issue is, at what point do we draw the line and agree we are equal? Some say that a society with both rich and poor is not equal. But if all the people of that society have the vote, a primary and secondary education, healthcare, access to welfare when they need it, are subject to thge same laws and have the same opportunity to get ahead in whatever way the law allows, that's equality, right?
Some would say yes (me included), others would say NO! Inequality can seep so deep down into every aspect of society, but in my view we have to know when to draw the line and admit that there will always be measures of inequality between people. It's unrealistic and probably impossible to achieve absolute equality as long as we're still human beings. Fundamental equality is achievable within a society. Same law, same rights, same opportunities. That's what we should be trying to achieve. Pretending that we're all exactly the same or will always be totally equal to one another in every way is a dream.
If everyone has the same opportunities it is equality but too often wealth affects that. Studies have been done that say that students in poverty have a higher learning gap in the summer bc they aren't exposed to same enriching stimuli as richer students. They don't go on vacations and see other cultures and go to museums etc like more privileged kids.
Why not go to museums? They're free in most places. And one doesn't need to spend a fortune to enjoy travel and holidays. I put myself through college overseas and still had money to travel. I earned it all myself. You can't just blame wealth on everything
I haven't been to a lot of museums but they've all cost money. And I'm talking below poverty kids who mosf likely wouldn't have a vacation in the first place or choose to go to a museum.
Go to London - all the museums in London are free. This is the case with many European countries too. I can't remember the last time I went to a museum and paid. On top of that, I have to say that without wanting to sound TOO sweeping and judgmental, there are scores of people out there claiming to have little or no money for this and that, and yet constantly have money for booze, cigarettes, sometimes even drugs. I'm afraid I have little pity for those among the poor who use their money for such things and then complain they are hard done by. I encountered enough in my home town when I was running my dads Pub and Hotel.
There will always be those who struggle and lead good lives in spite of their hardships. These people are awesome, and the world we are in now is more accessible than ever to them. The trouble is that many of them just don't know that.
In America it's all about making money so it makes sense that museums cost money here and not in Europe.
I agree, it's hard to feel sympathetic towards those who misuse their money.
Because Europe is not about making money? The fact that we are able to draw a line at museums that run as charities does not mean we are not about making money too. Don't forget, capitalism came from Europe.
I'm not saying that I'm just saying America doesn't care about anything BUT making money.
You seem to agree with the movement's general ideology (equal rights), so I wouldn't take it so personally. And things don't change overnight.
I feel that those whose fundamental rights are threatened should not be held responsible for protecting anyone's rights but their own, because they are in no position to do so, and they already have plenty on their plate being treated like dirt all the time.
Yes, ideally, we should seek equal rights for everyone, but when our own rights are threatened, we can't seek equal rights for anyone but ourselves. So if that's dumb, then I guess the basic limitations of human nature are dumb. Way to be anti-human.
One can seek equal rights for others and oneself.
Not always. If among our rights that are threatened is the right to do things which are necessary to the cause of protecting others' rights - such as voting, and making enough money to be healthy enough to be a good person - then we can only protect our own.
True. True. I guess I'm lacking empathy on this one.
Yes but we gotta go a little at a time. Getting a huge "rights for everyone" movement would likely fail.
You mean like the movements to give everyone outside the aristocracy in the UK (about 99% of the population) the vote during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries? Yeah....failure. And the right of all humans not to be tortured?
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the logic a couple hundred years ago had applied in modern day scenarios. Look, okay, yeah, I admit I didn't include everything, but it would be easier to get a "no torture" right through without adding anything else because the majority of people believe torture is bad, but a lot of people are racist, so if you make one law including both rights for all races and torture, some people are stubborn and will not vote for it because of the racial issue.
So...you're saying that if a no torture law was to be passed, it wouldn't be accepted if it included non-whites? That's funny because I think existing anti-torture laws are in fact non-segregational.
Oh my god can you even read? I said some people will not vote I never said it will not pass. I was using torture as an example since you did, but allow me to use an example that will be easier on your psyche.
Let's say there's a law to make gay marriage legal nationwide. You've got quite a few supporters for that, you might make it. If you add something onto that that people are not necessarily as fond of (it's called hijacker) for example a law legalizing marijuana nationwide, you've created one law dealing with both gay rights and marijuana. These are two separate deals that are controversial. Alone, these might pass eventually, because some people may love gays and hate marijuana, or vice versa. It's smarter to do it alone, that way you get the max amount of supporters for each. If you combine them, some people may vote against it, because it's too much. Is that comprehensive or do I need to dumb it down?
That's a great example actually. If I hadn't already disagreed with my own post before, this would have persuaded me.
OK, that's a crazy example...in what world would the legalization of marijuana get tagged onto gay marriage legislation? No offense, that's a terrible, and meaningless, example.
The point of my reply was to point out how ludicrous it sounds that there would be any serious opposition to segregated laws on things like torture. If anything, torture laws are proof that we DON'T have to individualize when it comes to fundamental rights.
I am done.
The OP is a little crass and the point is poorly expressed, but I agree with what he's trying to say (I think), at least from a Western perspective. A lot of movements begin with a highly noble and just cause, and eventually evolve into a different form that seems somewhat superfluous, even bullying and sinister. Trade Unions are another good example of this. You admired them in the 19th Century when they were battling a system that didn't even compensate them for losing limbs and used child labour, but by the 1970s when they're just holding the state hostage for more money, you don't like them as much.
I really feel like Feminism as a cause is going the same way. They continually say they fight for equality, but are they? The impression I get from a great number of feminists is that just wish to replace one form of discrimination with another. Is it equal to deny a man a job because you just another woman to keep your female numbers up? Is it equal for women to be able to slag men off in jest and be called heroes, but for men who do the same to women be called misogynist dinosaurs and pigs?
As far as I can see, the main issues that remain in male/female equality are disparity in salary, maternity leave issues and depictions in media (especially Hollywood). But there remains danger even in these areas that rather than an environment of equality, we just end up with one side holding the whip over the other. It's not a solution. Look at the world around us, and you see that Feminism from a western perspective has become an entirely decadent and superfluous movement (in my opinion, at least). We should all be focusing our energy on the world at large, protecting women who are abused, trafficked and oppressed in all manner of brutal and terrible ways. These are the women that any Feminist movement should be helping.
Good comments, and yes, you never hear them screaming and marching for the truly oppressed women. I have also found it ironic that none of them rise up in anger about how women are used as sex objects and toys in most Hollywood movies and in many rap/hip hop videos. They are regularly called "hoes" and "bitches" and they are always the ones catering to the rich men with all the bling bling. If they don't "twerk" or "strip" then they just aren't women now are they? Cash, cars, booze, drugs, and bling are what the women want and the men have it to give them. The men of course want ONE thing - that being to get in the sack asap! The message is loud and clear in both lyric and visual form. And yet I know of no feminist group rising up and denouncing this as belittling, stereotyping, or sexual objectification.
Women rise against this all the time. So many women wish to stop being objectified as sex toys and work to do this. However, they also want equal pay (I know, how crazy that a woman wants to earn $1 for every dollar that a man doing the exact same work earns), equal opportunities, etc. it's just harder to see the REAL oppressions as we get closer and closer to equality.
Can you give some recent hard fast stories about women groups rising up against everything I cited in my comments?
And I have absolutely NO problem with equal pay for equal work AND performance. If you are suggesting that we lower the bar JUST so women can compete and get that "same" or "equal" pay - now that is a whole other animal. We all know there are some things women will NEVER be equally good or proficient at, so they could never possibly deserve or warrant equal pay for those things [i.e. sports of any kind, and any job requiring stringent physical requirements]. Nobody is saying they can't do those things - but CAN they do them on an equal par with men? Of course not. Basketball, Baseball, Track, Football, Hockey, Golf, Bowling, Race car driving, Weight Lifting, Soccer, Gymnastics, Skiing, Snow Boarding, Boxing, Karate - Men excel and have faster and higher scores straight across the board. Men run faster, jump higher and farther, hit harder. This is why women are not ON the men's teams earning the same pay as they are.
And PUH LEASE do NOT tell me this is sexist, racist, or misogynistic. It is simply the obvious tried and proven obvious facts of nature and the difference between the sexes. Feminists hate the obvious truth - but oh well.
News flash- EVERYTHING in that entire comment is misogynist, sexist, etc
Your "News Flash" is not in the news. Instead of labeling my comment with mis-applied terminology, please demonstrate and show some intelligence on behalf of your gender by PROVING that "everything" I said was wrong. You can not refute what I said because it is all fact. Have you seriously never watched any professional sporting events? You must be living in the Dark Ages.
Spoken like a true selfish and angry feminist! You clearly have issues.
Now that is attractive.
Ok....this link does not at all go with the comment you linked it to. I said in the comment you linked to show a current example of women organizations speaking out against all the things I named in my comment. Please read it again.
Secondly, your link may show women soccer players having higher total goals BUT it does not allow for the FACT that those were women playing against women. Put those SAME women on the soccer field WITH and against the men.........and guess what? That number would not even be close. You might find a women's basketball team that had a higher game score than a men's score, but again, that is women playing against women. Put the best women's team together you can find against the best men's team, and it would be a disaster!
how do you know?
if you're talking about wrestling
It'd be one thing
but things like basketball, soccer, etc.
what is needed is skills, agility
IF the women were competing on the men's level, they would actually be on the men's teams. Please don't tell me you don't really KNOW that men over excel and achieve in all sports over women. That is not even debatable. I will let you prove it to yourself. Look up speeds in running, heights in jumping, amount of weights in weightlifting, hitting and kicking in boxing and karate, and on and on. There may be an occasional rare woman who excels, but overall and straight across the board, it has never been close.
It's still a very impressive feat regardless. The best women's team against the best men's team would not be a disaster in most sports with the exception of maybe american football because there are more men who play it and it is designed more for men.
Idk if you've heard of SlutWalks but they are very large organizations
I completely agree that denying a well-qualified man a job in order to reach a quota is ridiculous; however, women (of equal credentials of course) should also be highly considered and not ignored because of their gender.
Not sure why you even brought it up...it's not like anyone is arguing that they wouldn't.
I just really just simply agreeing with him. That's all I meant by it.
Don't think anyone on here would deny that.
Hey that happens in non-Muslim countries, too
doesn't that mean you disagree with your post now?
well I was waiting for the outline of your comments to become red
and it happened
so all is well again
The world won't explode! Yes!
I hate how women, blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Jews, etc. can have equality but not gays. Wether you agree with it or not we should all be equal
Realistically, none of those groups experience true equality.
Does anyone experience true equality? I mean as a group? True equality would go against the grain of human nature. It's not in our being to treat everyone exactly the same. We can work on being better to people and trying to stop our initial reflex judgments from influencing what we ACTUALLY do. That's what we get.
Does any individual experience true equality - whether belonging to a group or not? Isn't one of life's greatest lessons - "LIFE IS NOT FAIR?"
Fair and equal are really illusive terms to apply straight across the board. There is no way in the world that all kids in school can make straight "A's." Not all people will ever be good enough in a specialized sport to compete in the Olympics. How many people in this world will actually ever get the opportunity to run for or become President of the U.S.? The questions and list could go on indefinitely.
We should all strive for improvement and betterment for our world, but a blanket equality or fairness is unattainable. There will always be "smarter," "richer," "stronger," that will seek to rise to the top and either sway or control the masses.
Exactly true because if everyone were equals it would be similar in theory to communism which we all know is not efficient, positive, or fair and always fails because we aren't able to handle being equal.
I see it to be much like clones or robots. They are equal, the same, carbon copies, duplicates. We have always prided ourselves as people in saying that "variety is the spice of life" and "it takes all kinds to make the world go around." Those are basic qualities and elements in any home, town, state, country. Some people actually enjoy being a janitor or chimney sweep. Some love working on an assembly line doing the same menial task all day long. Others need much more variety, challenge, and adventure than that.
If we ever did achieve the mythical equality, we would be extremely disappointed once we were there.
Yeah, equality is a rather unlikely goal until we're all dead #equalrights
In the US at least, those groups may have equal laws but they still are not equal to the white christian male.
I'm. Gonna guess that this will be the most comment-filled post on amirite in a couple months if not already.
Why do you regret them?
I KNOW THE ANSWER
I RESENT THAT
Actually I regret this post.
I feel it's best to keep even my stupidest posts on here. Good for remembering how stupid and ignorant I was in the past and it keeps me wary of any stupid and ignorant things I may think now.
I love me some black comedy. What's the joke say?
Can you give me a word to search? I don't wanna go through 500 posts
Did I mention how stupid I was?
I don't think woman realize what the would lose if considered equal. I really put them on a pedestal.
The girl above me also has no clue. Equality will never be a possibility or realized in this world and when dealing with the human race. Greed, hatred, and those willing to use and abuse others to get what they want will always make equality impossible. Women will never be men and straights will never become homosexual. As long as there are "different" groups, people will focus on those differences. I am not saying I completely agree with this - BUT I am at least willing to call things in a realist way. Hell, we can't even stop bullying, and yet so many run around talking and dreaming about equality and world peace! And who is going to stop parents abusing their children, or governments from slaughtering innocent citizens?
Of course, I am sure you have all the answers and solutions.
To call something impossible isn't a realistic view of most things. I should know. I'm a realist.
It's absolutely realistic to acknowledge certain things as impossible. It's also reasonable and fair to do so. I think that such acknowledgment is a key step on the road to maturity. I accept that as one man, it is truly impossible for me to effect change in a place like China, a land rife with the need for change and reform. However, I don't acknowledge that changing China overall as an impossible goal. It has already changed beyond all recognition and in so many ways. You appear to look at every issue as a single entity with an answer we haven't yet found. This is not the case. There are certain things that have happened for time immemorial, and likely happen as a result of being an innate part of human nature, rather than an issue that has cropped up in the last century or so. We can make the world better for people, but we can't turn it into a utopia.
Then you KNOW many things are impossible. A realist admits the reality or improbability of something's occurrence. If you aren't admitting that, then you are something other than a realist. By definition, realists view or represent things as they REALLY are. Idealists view things as they could be or what one hopes they may become. With all of the people on this planet, there will NEVER be a single or collective point in time when all of them agree on a single topic - let alone numerous ones. If pointing that out for what it is makes me skeptical or supposedly "misinformed" as soberlikekesha put it, then so be it and oh well. Get over the fact of human nature and the way things really are and work in the real world. Some things will never change - period.
A realist knows possible outcomes too. For example, if a nuclear war killed all people but me, then everyone on the globe would be accepting (a better word, actually, is apathetic). It's not likely, but to say something is impossible isn't realistic.
Like Steinbeck said, when the wars end and the fires stop, we should really be worried because that will mean the people don't care anymore.
Mmmmm... Id rather have nonchalance than death and destruction.
Can you fly of your own volition and power without the assistance of any devices? Or how about space travel just by willing it? Can you swim to an unlimited depth without the assistance of air devices? Yes, John, some things really and truly are impossible - even allowing for possible outcomes. Put your thinking cap back on.
Funny how you call the other person condescending. Well, like I said in the other comment, to call MOST things impossible isn't realistic.
You seem to have a difficult time reading what I say and interpreting it correctly. I did not say MOST things are impossible - I said MANY. Read my comments. I named 3 for you very quickly and could go on and on and on if you'd like. Can you stand in front of a train going 100 mph and not get hurt or killed by its impact? Can you jump off the Empire State Building and live? Can you drink strychnine and live to tell your friends about the great experience? I am extremely realistic when I say there are many things that are impossible and that we can NEVER do. And that accounts for the outcome. If that is condescending in your book, then you are extremely narrow minded and unwilling to expand your horizons.
When I said "MOST things are impossible", I was correcting myself. Train going 100 mph, eh? You don't specify what it impacts. So possible outcomes are plausible due to ambiguity. I could put a huge mass of objects in front of the train so those objects hit me and cushion the impact. Empire State Building? Parachute. Strychnine? Never heard of it but... Drink an extremely small amount of it, vomit it back up.
I am done with you John! I did specify - YOU. Again, you are deliberately NOT reading what I have said. CAN YOU..........is in front of all 3 new examples.
Have a nice life John. I do not relish your inability to stay on track. Sorry.
Yeah, I'm showing possible ways for ME to survive all of those things so...
But you're changing the parameters of the scenario. he didn't say you get to block the train's path with other things, he didn't say you get a parachute, and as for strychnine, the lethal oral dose for humans can be as little as 30mg for an adult, and 15 for a child. I do believe you could better infer what freelancer is talking about without being such a smartass :-P
He didn't say I had to not use cushions or a parachute. Therefore, I can. Fine. No parachute? Extremely unlikely, but it just so happens that I built a slide. I still jumped off the building. No cushions? I stand in front of the train. Then I step to the side. I still stood in front of the train and did not get hurt or killed by its impact. I was well within the ambiguous parameters of his scenarios. You're narrowing it yourself. If you wanna provide better wording to challenge me, I welcome it. :P
Like I said, smartass. He, in good faith, acknowledged that you were intelligent enough to know what he meant, You are just being a bit snarky now trying to add and change elements in so that you get your way. Kinda childish. If you won't accept his point, just do it a bit more gracefully.
Finding loopholes doesn't make someone a smartass.
No, but then again this isn't a legal document, it's you trying to dodge a good point being made by someone else. Clearly his faith in you was misplaced.
If someone asks me if I can jump off a building and survive, I'm gonna say yes. Excuse me for telling the truth. He kept trying to tell me that "many" things are impossible even though I never said that not many things are impossible. He didn't provide any examples of things that are impossible. This isn't me dodging a good point. This is me trying to help him improve his argument for it was lacking. And again, it's not like I ever even said he was wrong.
"To call something impossible isn't a realistic view of most things."
"Then you KNOW many things are impossible."
These don't even conflict. So he was either rebutting a point he agreed with, or he was trying to say that over 50% of things are impossible. Not realistic. I believe he skipped the word "most" in the first sentence.
John: You are extremely narrow minded and one dimensional. You said in your comment that I did NOT provide any examples of things that are impossible. That comment is above, and I am reposting it here again so you will hopefully and actually READ it! You are ignoring common sense and simple basic logic, and still arguing like you know something. You should honestly know when to give up and quit making a complete ass of yourself. Here is the above comment AGAIN:
"You seem to have a difficult time reading what I say and interpreting it correctly. I did not say MOST things are impossible - I said MANY. Read my comments. I named 3 for you very quickly and could go on and on and on if you'd like. Can you stand in front of a train going 100 mph and not get hurt or killed by its impact? Can you jump off the Empire State Building and live? Can you drink strychnine and live to tell your friends about the great experience? I am extremely realistic when I say there are many things that are impossible and that we can NEVER do. And that accounts for the outcome. If that is condescending in your book, then you are extremely narrow minded and unwilling to expand your horizons."
I cited 3 specific examples - all 3 of which are impossible for YOU or anyone else to do. You took every one of my examples and twisted them to somehow find a way to make them possible. And I never said jump off of A BUILDING - I said the Empire State Building. Learn to read carefully please.
Since you believe many things are not impossible, here are a few more:
Can you stand flat footed and leap up on to the roof of a 3 story building?
Can you start flapping your arms without any aids of any kind and fly?
Can you run with human power alone 100 mph?
Can you go 2 whole weeks without one minute's worth of sleep [no stimulants allowed]?
Can you dive underwater to a depth of 2,000 feet without any underwater devices?
Can you cut your head off and live to tell about it?
You see, John, it is extremely easy to prove that there are many and plenty of things that a person CAN NOT DO. They really are IMPOSSIBLE. Sorry to burst your supposed realist bubble. Deal with it. It is called REALITY.
"You took every one of my examples and twisted them to somehow find a way to make them possible."
Seems like right there you realized that those things were possible. Your original examples had absolutely nothing to tell me I couldn't use other things to aid in completing any of the tasks.
Anyway, when did I ever say there aren't many things that are impossible? I'm fairly certain I NEVER said that. I don't even know why you are arguing for a point I already agree with. I also never said that you said most things are impossible.
"If someone asks me if I can jump off a building and survive, I'm gonna say yes."
Does that exclude the Empire State Building? No. I'm just expanding on your original "impossible" request. Any building. Lets not resort to insulting other's reading skills falsely. I swear you are the king of ad hominem.
Saying I'm narrow-minded when I clearly show how things you word as impossible aren't. I'm gonna guess that the ideas in your head are not being portrayed as well as they could in text. Your latter examples are much more detailed.
I'd get to them but I'm just gonna ask one question. What are you trying to prove? That things are impossible? I already agree. That very many things are impossible? Again, I agree. That most things are impossible? You already misunderstood one of my prior comments and said that you aren't trying to say that.
I had stopped dealing with you in this thread if you recall. I ONLY jumped back in to make a comment because of what you said to Tommy.
I already proved my point, so I needn't say anything further. I will take your latest comment as an apology and a concession. Thank you very much.
Thank you for not answering my question...
that's my thang
Never even heard you say that before. But I'll use it this one time.
it's even in reply to the same person
I did - you just refuse to see it.
"Refuse". Is that the word you use when someone may need the slightest bit of help to see something. I guess blind people refuse to see the cars when crossing the street. Seriously why can't you just make this take less of both of our times?
Well said from the person who is a realist and has no trouble with all things being possible.
Move on already...................
Seriously? I've made it blatantly clear that I don't think "all things are possible". But that last sentence, I think I will.
That's the second time you've misunderstood that. MANY is not the same as MOST. There is no implication of proportion, but rather just a large number. In this he is correct. It is not hard to reel off a string of things that would be impossible for you to achieve. He said many, he means many. Many things are indeed impossible. It's only a realistic view, there's no need to be so hostile towards it.
He didn't say you don't get a parachute, but he didn't say you get one either. Like I say, freelance gave you the benefit of an acknowledgement of your own ability to infer and not to snark. You turned that back on him....kinda lame in my opinion, but that's up to you I guess. He was giving YOU a chance to engage in meaningful discussion, but you just nitpicked. Lame.
What do you have against impossibility? Don't you regard the ability to accept impossibility as a sign of maturity and realism? Don't you think it's good that humanity can recognize its limits?
I'm fairly certain I'm not being hostile. Again, and for the last time, I already recognized that many things are impossible. Just because someone doesn't say you can do something doesn't mean you can't. I'm really trying to figure out where either of you get that I'm saying I don't think things are impossible... But I'm taking freespeech's last statement as what I'm gonna do.
You are sounding better all the time...........
And some people are simply IMPOSSIBLE to reason with or convince of realism!
I'm not even sure where we even disagreed other than those select few of "impossible" things you came up with.
You yelled at me for being arrogant yet you can't read this guys comments because your head is projecting too big of a shadow on your computer screen.
No, we wont have equality if people continue to think like you. We dont have to change genders or sexual orientation or race to be treated as equal as others. I didnt say it would be 100% all the time but we are a lot closer than a 100 years ago and we will be even closer in the future.
Where is your equality in talking to "people like me?" Your comments are completely condescending and arrogant. I just love your tolerance and fair approach to the world of ideas and differences.
With your first comment it shows how misinformed and completely oblivious to the plight of women and thinking that like leads to nothing but bad news. If someone says something wrong (ie sexist, racist, or homophobic) then it makes sense to say that that type of thinking is detrimental. if you cant get that, you should probably go somewhere and learn how to.
As far as I am concerned, every single thing you are saying about me and to me can be applied to your own logic and reasoning. I am highly informed and probably more well read on most topics than you are. I lived through the women's lib and feminist formative years, and saw what took place. Were you even born when those things occurred? It was not a "plight" for a woman in the '50's - '70's to stay home and be a "homemaker" and raise her children while her husband gladly went out to work and be the breadwinner for the family. I was raised in such a home, and it worked very well. Since I am a baby boomer, many (if not most) of us were raised in such households. Just because groups of disgruntled women rose up to challenge and change the "barefoot and pregnant" notion, does not make them any more "right" or intelligent than what had been occurring all along previous to their movements. That is where your own logic and shallow reasoning goes awry.
Your generation thinks you win arguments or discussions by throwing cheaply improperly used labels at something and that automatically makes you a winner and superior. Sad to say, NOTHING could be further from the truth. I am none of the labels you throw out, nor am I wrong. Just because I disagree with you or you with me, does not make me wrong. Your whole argument is built on the premise that because you SAY I am wrong, then I must be wrong. Why? Because you say I am! That is pure nonsense and extremely lazy thinking.
And since you are in to throwing out childish cheap shots to close your comments with - maybe you should sober up and bring some facts and credible sources to the table if you wish to prove that you are half as smart as you want me or the readers to think you are. I am not impressed or convinced!
Actually yes it was a plight otherwise there wouldnt have been a movement to change it. some women may enjoy being a stay at home mother but to regulate them to do only that because we are "unfit" to do anything else is a gross misjustice and it always has been. You saying otherwise, regardless of time period is showing a lack of understanding. So yes you are wrong and ive already given reasons why but its obvious you overlooked or more likely, just didnt care, and no amountof explanation points or twisted reasoning will change that.
So because a "movement" arises out of the masses, is proof that every woman felt plight and lesser than? I am not sure where you got that notion, but you are clearly and sadly mistaken. There are movements all across this country right now by various fringe or special interest groups that seek attention and changes to suit their group. Does that really and honestly mean the masses or majority of people feel exactly the way they do on those issues? Hardly. My mom was perfectly happy and content to stay at home, tend house and raise her 3 children. In fact, that was her (and countless thousands and thousands) of women's dreams and desires - to be a stay at home mom. No plight, no inequality, no unfit anything - a dream to be and do what they believed they were made to be and put here to do.
If your narrow scope of reasoning can not grasp such a concept, please do not pass your ignorance off on me as if I am somehow "wrong" or the enemy. There was no gross misjustice occurring. And if you will do your research and homework, you just might learn that more and more women today are realizing that while they have been out trying to compete with the men in the work place, their biological time clocks ticked away and put them in a position where they may have waited too long to have a child - something they still desperately realized was on their "to do" list.
Women are realizing that climbing the corporate ladder was not all it was cracked up to be, and are opting to leave big careers and high salaries TO STAY home, have children, and watch them grow up. After all, what is the point of having a child if you can't be around to watch and help them grow up? Even your challenged mind should be able to grasp that one!
I guess you missed the sentence right after that said not every women feels that way. nice reading comprehension. and wow some women today are leaving ceo jobs? that must mean all women want to stay home right? Where did you do your research, I want sources saying that women now hate working. this is all your ancedotal evidence based off your personal experiences and it means nothing without definitive proof that women no longer want to be in the workforce.
Sweeping comments on all sides are far from desirable. The feminist movement was about giving women equality and choice. The problem now as I perceive it (from a Western perspective) is that the louder voices in the feminist movement are now trying to define what being a successful woman is. Is it right that certain women are allowed to set an agenda for women everywhere as to what will constitute success for women in the future?
Talk about ADD! You are really out of your league on this one Kesh. Let me try one last time to explain something to you, even though I highly doubt it will be successful or meaningful.
I was the first person to enter a comment on this thread. I made a statement of opinion based on my broad knowledge of reading and life experience. I stay informed and up on most current issues. Ever since my first comment, YOU decided to jump in full force with your criticism that "The guy above me has no clue what hes talking about." I responded to that comment and another person (JohnJillky) joined the thread. I went back and forth with him for a bit, then you resurfaced with "No, we wont have equality if people continue to think like you." I challenged that comment with throwing people like yourself right back at you. I have simply mirrored you back to yourself so you could try to see that you were doing to me EXACTLY what you are blaming and accusing me of! But of course you conveniently fail to see your error.
You made several broad allegations against/about me - I am "misinformed, "oblivious to the plight of women, of having thinking that leads to "bad news," of saying something "wrong," that my type of thinking is "detrimental," that I should go somewhere and "learn how to," that I show a "lack of understanding," that "yes, you are wrong," and that I have "twisted reasoning." All of these comments are baseless and purely your convoluted opinion. You have no proof of those generalities, and yet you try to pass yourself as a superior intellect on the basis of what you are saying. Your words are somehow "right" just because you are typing them in opposition to mine!
Your most recent comment is the kicker of them all. YOU challenge me to produce sources and definitive proof to back up my original comment. The funniest part of it all is - you have not produced one shred of anything other than comments objecting to what I said! The way it works is - if YOU choose to disagree with my opinion that I first posted, then the burden of PROOF is on you to prove that I am wrong and you are right. You have not brought any sources or "definitive proof" to the table. All you have brought are your biased sniveling intolerances. And at least I did cite real life experience - far more than you have cited.
You are not looking to learn anything from/by all this. You are simply out to try and prove that you can out talk an older man - and that day will never happen. I could cite tons of research and articles to back up what I said, but it would all go over your head. After all, you are probably a feminist who has an axe to grind and a chip on her shoulder - thinking the world has been mean and unfair to you and your kind. But whatever you are or are not, I made an original comment to this post, and I stand by it 100%. It does not need your approval to stand as is or to be right.
Here is 1 link to get you started on YOUR research. I won't do your homework for you.
Your article from boston globe proves nothing. Why are you saying because a few women, or even a lot of women, are choosing to stay at home means that it's better for women to stay at home and not work in general? That makes no sense. Women can chose to do these things because women now have the right to chose...versus being forced. A lot of men chose to be stay at home dads in this day and age too, are you willing to say that it's better for men to not have jobs? That "they are finding out working sucks and it's better to just sit at home"? Are you willing to suggest that we eliminate the rights of men to work as you seem to want to do with women because some women are choosing to stay at home? I doubt you are.
Again, just as I plainly pointed out - you have provided no proof of anything you have said. You are an extremely opinionated bigot. Glad to know that you are exactly what you are trying to make me out to be. Great job.
Oh you want sources that saying horrible things about women such as "Now that women have their high paying careers and don't stay at home, many of them are wondering what the hell they got themselves in to. Things really weren't as bad as they were told when men were the bread winners and they got to stay at home." Really? Saying that women are in over their heads and prefer to sit at home having kids and doing all the housework or what not is what we REALLY want versus what we are saying isnt harmful? What world do you live in where that's not a detrimental state of mind? Plus you have said things that are opinions and anecdotal evidence which mean absolutely nothing. I dont care if you are 5 or 75, your personal "experiences" mean absolutely nothing when it comes to facts. Also you are the one making statements that women hate working, that women are worse off now then they are in the "olden days" ; when there are so many freaking studies and research done showing how much women couldn't do then and how much far we've come to having equal rights (I guess you forgot women couldn't even vote until the 60s and that society used to think that women were literally too stupid to hold jobs). So yes, if you are making statements that 'go against' the common facts of today (that telling women they can't work or that them not working is better for them than working, etc) then you have to provide proof. The burden of proof lies on you and not me because I am not making any statement that is an opinion. I am stating the facts. That saying things like you have been saying is harmful to the movement of women. Saying that women were better off not being able to work is not correct in any way shape or form. You may not like the way I'm saying it because it's obvious you don't like admitting when you're wrong but that doesnt matter. Facts are still facts whether or not you choose to believe in them.
Whatever! I will leave you to wallow in your misery and angst.
And there still was a misjustice, the fact you are arguing against that is mind boggling.
You are misunderstanding her. She's saying that at least some women must not have been happy doing that or else they wouldn't have rose up to fight for more.
I did NOT misunderstand at all. But plenty were happy staying home and still are - and she never conceded that point.
Yes that's true but you were saying that women were only happy doing that and she was telling you that some were not. And some were-no one is disagreeing with you there.
You raise a very good point here. Feminism is about choice, and having one group attempt to lump everyone together as one mind is both incorrect and totally unreasonable. Sober doesn't seem to know about the fact that many women who, over the years, have chosen to stay home and be homemakers are often sidelined, mocked and thought of as lesser by their female peers!
I am glad to see we can agree about something! And in the past few years, there has been a trend among high ranking female employees of giving up their careers to actually return home and stay home. Why? Because they realize they are missing out on being there for their kids and watching them grow up OR they actually want to start a family. When both dad and mom are not at home, the question must be asked: who the hell is actually raising the kids? If dad and mom don't get home until 6 or 7 pm, the kids have any homework or chores, need to be fed and bathed, and say in bed by 9:30 or 10:00pm so it can all start over by 6:00 am the next morning - please tell me where there is any family or quality time. And if there is only ONE parent, they generally have 2 or more jobs, so I don't know when they ever see their children.
I am not knocking the situations that are what they are (many out of necessity). But at the same time, if a society truly values the framework and sanctity of the nuclear family unit, then a premium has to be placed on that and sacrifices made to make it all work.
Motherhood is a high honor and raising children is not lesser than going out and having a career. In my opinion, that IS the deception and falsehood that the feminist movement sold to ALL women.
And it's not exclusive to the mums. More and more dads too want the same, and so find ways to be able to work from home, perhaps by starting a business of getting a lot more flexibility with time at work. The point you're making about societal problems and parents not being at home is a very true one. Honestly, it doesn't matter which parent does it, and now we see that level of equality more and more among families. A sexist view is that the man has to be the breadwinner and the woman the stay-at-home mum. An equal view is that one parent should work and the other stay home.
I don't think a nuclear family is necessary to society anymore. It doesn't need to be a mother and father and their biological children (the definition of a nuclear family) to be a happy, healthy family.
And yet has always been the foundation and backbone of any lasting society. When the nuclear family disintegrates, watch how the fabric of the nation does as well. We are witnessing it firsthand in America. Why do you think conservatives are so alarmed and up in arms?
There have been non-nuclear families for a very long time and only now is America "falling apart".
Are you telling me that civilizations and lasting societies have been commonly built upon non-nuclear families? Would you please cite sources and examples. You make lots of general statements but have no supporting examples to follow it with.
it's a need for family, not the nuclear family. sure there have been non-nuclear families for a very long time, but never such a lack of family that exists right now, that's what he's saying.
okay I think I was misunderstanding bc I was trying to say that it doesn't need to be nuclear to be a family.
yeah admitting when we're wrong is hard...
I was genuinely misunderstanding?
I think the real definition of nuclear family is just parents and kids together in one family. I don't think the definition makes gender distinction not really. It's as opposed to an extended family.
You are more correct than Kirsten. She obviously has a huge bias against men and family. These definitions are right from online dictionaries.
"a couple and their dependent children, regarded as a basic social unit."
: the part of a family that includes only the father, mother, and children
Full Definition of NUCLEAR FAMILY
: a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children"
That definition doesn't make room for the advent of same-sex parenting, but yeah the point about it being strictly a numbers thing is still made there.
Yes, I was not trying to get sidetracked by the sexist issue. I was sticking to the basics of what I fully know and understand. K.A. wants to challenge history that some of us actually lived through and know for certainty. Challenge away - but the fact remains that nuclear families have always been the basis for and backbone of nations. That was my over all point.
or at least, the family unit as general, nuclear or extended
I don't believe same sex parenting could or should fit that definition. New entities or family structures require NEW definitions. You can not lump the traditional nuclear family definition with whatever you wish to call a same sex family definition. If both parents are male, then obviously neither fits the standard definition of "mother" because neither gave birth to the children. One can assume a "motherly" role, but it will not make them a true mother in the strict definition. Comparatively, the same applies to both parents being female. Neither can truly be a "father" since neither of them provided the sperm necessary to unite with the female egg to produce or create the children.
I think we should leave the traditional nuclear family definition alone and as is, and come up with something specifically for the same sex family unit. Probably what I just said is sufficient - "same sex family."
I don't think that's a good idea, since it is already being proven that kids growing up in same-sex families are just the same, if not even better off, than kids growing up in heterosexual families. I read about a study done recently showing that overall, in fact, kids from same-sex marriages were both healthier and happier. Very interesting, but obviously not to be used to blanket define the whole world.
The definition of lots of "traditional" things has been changed continually over the centuries, including the prized term "marriage." The definition of family SHOULD be widened to include all families. If they are in fact the same thing, doing the same job and fulfilling the same function in society, then why change the definition?
I don't want to butt heads with you on this since I know your position. I allow for any and all differences you wish to have and pursue BUT do not think that every single new thing should fly under the traditional standard definitions. Words may change over time, but some words do not. Marriage has meant and been representative of a male/female union for centuries, if not millennia.
I have no problem with there being broader definitions for family, but to change a basic definition for a word like marriage is not the answer either. Where does it stop then? Will we want to say a male is no longer male? Why not call little "boys" female or "girls?" The whole gender issue is really blurring the lines and boundaries that many like myself grew up loving and respecting. And though we have no axes to grind with new things or new words, we do highly value what we grew up KNOWING, VALUING, and ASSOCIATING things with.
For example [this is not an attack or insult], I did not like when the homosexual community chose the word "gay" to define and associate with their group or sexual classification. That word was already in existence with a primary meaning of being joyful, happy, full of glee. Since they chose the word and are proud of it to define themselves, that is great for all of them. BUT, I will always and only see the word as the way it was always meant to be used. The word had a history and was used in lots of songs, poems, literature, etc. One of my favorite childhood cartoons was the Flinstones, and their theme song included "we'll have a gay old time."
I was shocked to look the word up in a dictionary recently, and learned that its primary definition has now been changed to reference a homosexual! You may view that as victory, success, progression, or change, but I view it as a blow to all things historical and traditional.
When the younger generation wants to change every thing that we older folks value and grew up with, can you not see how that translates as threat or even attack? We are not saying you can't have your new things - but come up with new words and new ways to show us that you don't want to take from us what was always ours.
Many who read this will accuse me of "rambling," but I am really trying to get across a deeply felt part of this whole issue. Older people are not against change, but we don't want some things changed just because it is "new" or "improved." Basically, I would kind of see it like this: Do your thing and have your thing, but leave our thing alone.
First, about the word "gay", I hate it too. I can't believe out of the richest vocabulary on the planet, that one ended up being the word of choice. I don't even like using it, and I'm freaking gay. My friends and I tend to use more slang terms from other languages like "spe" from Parisian French, and "tongzhi" from Chinese, which actually means comrade.
Anyway, yeah i hate that word too. As for marriage, it absolutely has not been defined as the same thing for that long. The only lasting definition of marriage that has endured everything is as an established legal union between two people. That's it. When you look at all the various things that have been changed about marriage and what it means...for example, in years past it was defined as an unbreakable sacred bond, and yet divorce is now quite a normal and accepted practice. It's absolutely normal for definitions of words to be more accommodating of new phenomena. It's actually what gives the English language its strength and lasting nature.
Don't forget that your generation also changed many things that the generations above you grew up with and treasured. It's rather simplistic to view the world as being one way until you turned 40 and then over the last 15 years it has been a completely different way. It wasn't MY generation that chose "gay" for instance, but rather yours. I believe it originated in New York during the 1950s and 1960s as a kind of code for gay men to identify each other.
Language has always been an evolving animal. In the view of many Elizabethan-era English nobles, the way you speak now would be an abhorrent insult to the glory of their perfect language (as they saw it). Just as those same Elizabethans would be viewed with scorn by their predecessors over their changing religious views and love of drama. Tradition is not made automatically worthy of preservation by the number of years it has existed and been observed. Traditions should reflect the times they endure into.
I agree somewhat, but feel you missed the message from my heart and the spirit of my overall point.
I really and truly am not trying to take you to task - I was merely trying to help you understand a perspective of an era or generation so you could see that somehow there should be a way to respect and revere previous legacy, while forging ahead with new approaches. You don't have to tear down or infringe upon the old necessarily to build or create something new. The beauty of many ancient architectural buildings is that fact that they have withstood the test of time as they are. There is a unique and obvious distinction from one era to another in most all walks or ways of life - building, music, clothing, and wording. We do not tear down historical landmarks just to bring in new or improved versions. Would you be in favor of tearing down the Sistine Chapel and all of its ancient splendor to replace it with pop art? Imagine the great loss.
Words and their legacy, in my opinion, are similar.
You are not accurate in your assessment of the word marriage or its historical definition. I just looked online at several dictionaries, and most of them still have the primary meaning of the union of a man and a woman. Some are starting to include the same sex aspect, but still, the typical and traditional definition has been, and in my opinion, always should be, man and woman. And NO, it has absolutely nothing to do with homophobia! There is a term that has been slaughtered beyond recognition.
Some things don't need fixing or re-making. The old saying "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" applies in the topic of marriage. The progression is logical and in line with the very course of nature. Male, Female, Boy, Girl, Man, Woman, Husband, Wife, Father, Mother.
In nature, MOST all of the animal kingdom demonstrates this natural progression of life and procreation. Two of a same species but of the opposite sex come together, copulate, and produce offspring. It simply IS the most basic form of survival. To deny or argue with this obvious fact seems almost silly or the thinking of a dolt.
I am NOT trying to insult you in any way, but I am amazed at how people are so willing to overlook the obvious that has been with us for how ever many years you believe the planet, animals and humans have existed. If evolving is one's argument for the drastic change that should occur on same sex relations, then I would ask for a strong evidence based proven model of this on a global scale. Have there always been "gay" people? Sure. Have they ever been the dominant or majority force in pattern of behavior or lifestyle within nature or among humans? Clearly not.
This is pulled from Wikipedia:
"The word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 CE. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife." The related word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition." ""
I was just reading several other history of marriage articles and without question, the historical record of most all civilizations on the planet were primarily and predominantly monogamous. For me, and a majority of heterosexual people on this planet, we will always and only view marriage as between male and female. Marriage in my opinion, does not need fixing or to be reinvented. It should be left as is. Anything else that same sex couples propose, should be new, fresh, original, creative, and distinct. If you wish to make a legacy, create and/or start one. Don't take someone else's and put a whole new connotation to it. Make history for all the positive reasons you wish to have others value.
I hope this all translates well and in good taste.
You continue to talk of marriage like it hasn't been changed ever until same-sex marriage came up. How about the rules on divorce? Adultery? How about interracial marriage? How about inter-faith marriages? Hell, even international marriage is a point of contention without race or anything else being an issue.
I don't understand the inclusion of monogamy in your argument...are you saying that committed same sex couples don't practise it? I've certainly never cheated on a boyfriend, nor would I.
Where I believe your argument falls down is in your belief that your view of marriage now is representative of all of history. A fleeting glance at how marriage rules, customs, traditions and whatnot have changed throughout the centuries would prove you wrong. Do you agree with divorce? How about a catholic marrying a protestant? Or Christian marrying a jew? How about a black man marrying a chinese woman? Not everyone agrees with these things, and I defy you to tell me who is certainly in a minority or majority in these views.
You still fail to say WHY same sex couples should have to come up with something new other than marriage. Why should they be distinct? A marriage should be formed between two people in a loving, committed relationship who want to cement a union legally to be recognized by the state. Isn't this a fair assessment? Why then should a whole new concept be brought forth to allow same-sex couples to do this. Don't make me get all Shylock on you with the whole "if you cut us, do we not bleed?" We are fundamentally the same as you, with one big difference. Why should that one difference separate me so much from what you enjoy as a citizen of a free country?
As for the nature arguments, homosexuality DOES occur in nature, and I can tell you right now that no human being chooses it (nor would they if they had the choice). The fact that heterosexuals are a majority does not give them the right to monopolize what are, in reality, legal rights. You astutely point out that such words have their roots OUTSIDE of the Christian faith, so why do Christians get to say what they mean? Doesn't the state have more right to say what marriage is?
Paragraph 1 - Remember, I specifically said I did not want to butt heads with you, and that I was ONLY trying to show some of the inner workings that go in to this whole debate. It is both sensitive and complex. The examples you cite as "changes" in marriage would have still predominantly involved heterosexual relations. Can you prove me clearly wrong on what I have said? There have always been issues come up within the marriage union that needed addressing, but the push to change its meaning to accommodate the "gay" community is relatively new and recent. Please acknowledge that you know this to be true.
Paragraph 2 - I made a typo on the monogamous - I was wondering why you said that I introduced that in to the argument, and that word should have been heterosexual. My apologies.
Paragraph 3 - You spun my argument as to how you wished it to read when starting this paragraph. What I have been presenting to you is not MY view of marriage or representation of all history. I merely am citing an overall solid fact of known history of humanity and civilizations. OVERALL and PREDOMINANTLY, relationships throughout history and in most societies have been based on male/female unions. The word marriage has by default and as standard common sense and observation been the joining of a male and female. You can say my argument falls apart here, but please prove me wrong with clear examples in history or civilizations that bucked or went against this pattern or tradition. I have had this debate with Logan on here (also gay), and he too does not like clear history or numbers used in the argument. But facts are facts. I gave you the point that gays have undoubtedly always existed, but they have never (to my knowledge) been the ones calling the shots or setting the values, traditions, morals, or customs. These things arise out of NECESSITY in accommodating the MASSES (the majority). No society has ever sought to accommodate or cater to the distinctions of the few. If you say I am wrong, again, please give me some solid examples where an entire society, civilization, or nation followed the lead of the minority group's wishes or demands. For example and to illustrate: If 5 people in a town of 500,000 people said they hated the fact that everyone wore clothes every day in public, and they disagreed and wanted it changed and even demanded such, are you telling me that all the masses should give up their view to accommodate the 5? If you say yes, then I would say you are being dishonest and disingenuous.
The example is only a crude representation to point attention to the issue at hand. Most societies throughout history have viewed homosexuality as "wrong" or "abnormal." I am not in any way looking to condemn you or point my finger at you. I have no personal axes to grind with you, but again history will bear this to be true and factual. Some civilizations and cultures made allowances FOR those who were gay, and others did not - ever. To this day there are cultures and societies that have outlawed the lifestyle and have severe consequences for anyone involved practicing such. You or I had nothing to do with the formation of any of this - it simply is what it is and the way it is. My pointing out the obvious should not make me "wrong," the "enemy," or less intelligent.
Again all your examples in paragraph 3 in no way come close to being the same as the same sex being together. Differences in ideologies, cultures, colors, or religions is still not the SAME as somebody saying it is normal and/or natural for same sexes to want to be together or to join together. I am not calling you a freak of nature either in saying any of this, but the study of human anatomy leads one to realize that the bodies of the opposite sexes are designed to FIT or JOIN together like a puzzle or glove. CAN 2 men or women join and find mutual pleasure and love? Obviously so. Does it fit the average, normal, clearly dominant examples in nature and humanity? Obviously no, it does not. Penis to vagina - natural match up. Penis to penis, penis to anus, vagina to vagina - not such a natural match up.
Paragraph 4 - I did say WHY and you understood. They should be distinct because they ARE distinct. Again look at nature or the masses of humanity. You say nature has examples of homosexuality, and I acknowledge that. But does nature have predominant examples and are they the RULE or NORM? No, they are not. They are the exceptions to the rule (which exist and are existent for every rule or law). Male lions seek out Lionesses to mate with. Male horses seek out Mares to mate with. I won't bore you with naming unlimited species that seek out their opposite to mate with. The female typically comes or goes in to heat, and the male becomes extremely aroused by such. I am not aware of any male that goes in to heat or that has a monthly cycle of ovulation as does the female. To argue with this clear obvious truthful observation and fact is borderline arrogance and willful ignorance.
History and hundreds of cultures and peoples BEFORE us have spoken and defined the term marriage. Why do you feel a small group in this country should now have the liberty and RIGHT to change that? Why should your way be held higher and above the way that most people have been doing it and wish it to continue being done? I realize that your group has turned this in to an "equality" issue, but is it really? And notice, I have deliberately left RELIGION out of MY argument - even though you tried to interject it in to yours.
If there were NO religions, do you honestly believe that homosexuality would have risen to the top of the evolutionary ladder? Again, nature itself would suggest otherwise. The inability to procreate alone would eliminate a species in one generation.
The thing to ask about any working MODEL of anything on a mass scale is this: If EVERYONE were to do it (something or anything), would it work? If the whole world were drug addicts, would it work? If everyone was an alcoholic, would it work? If everyone were a murderer, rapist, thief, etc., would it work? And with our topic - if the whole world were gay, would it work? You may be thinking yes, but in all reality and honesty, you should be saying no.
Yes, we are ALL fellow human beings. But our societies, governments, corporations, churches, states, families - have ALL decided things that are viewed as "acceptable" and "unacceptable." There are all kinds of laws in the books that many of us may personally not agree with or see eye to eye on. And we either decide to live in our context, or seek to change it. You are seeking change and I am not against change. Who should decide? I don't believe it should be the Supreme Court on any and every issue. I don't believe it should be the church. I don't believe it should be the state. I believe it should be the INDIVIDUAL. And I also believe that our sex lives should be kept in check within the confines and privacy of our homes - not played out in the public arena, by politicians, or by the media. What purpose is served by me being made aware of every single gay person that decides to go on national television and "come out." Why do I need to hear and know that? They will never hear from me what I am or what I do. Just today, I had to see on the cover of a tabloid magazine that Ellen D. is (or has) renewed her vows. I don't resent her for that, but quite frankly, I just don't give a rat's and it should not be public or national news.
Anyway, we can continue the back and forth if you wish. I know you are content in your lifestyle, and I am content for you. I don't believe every group should be running around trying to change every other group.
I'm afraid I won't accept the idea that if something is one way according to a majority it therefore has more merit, this breaks the 10 commandments of logic and reason. I also don't accept that because something has been one way for so long for so many people, it should therefore not be okay to change it. History teaches us that the world was always dominated by one superpower; that men usually dominated society and women were second-class; that the church had final say in most matters; that non-whites had less rights...why should we be looking to what history was saying all those years? There are so many things in history that we now know were both unreasonable, unfair and unjust. Marriage equality is one of those things. Same-sex relationships go far back into ancient times and across all cultures. The failure of these states to recognize these unions for so many centuries is not a reason to say now that we shouldn't be including them in the marriage question now.
Fair enough. We will see how it all plays out.
Just because that's the way it's been done in the past doesn't mean it's right.
Btw your original comment was grossly sexist and misninformed and once again proves you dont support the correct knowledge for equality to take place. it wont happen if people hold thoughts such as yours expressed and the only way to change opinions is with knowledge.
Thing is, sober, the world is more equal now than it ever has been in its current form. I think you're just not willing to draw the line at the realistic level of equality that we can expect to achieve. I think one problem with certain causes is that it fosters an almost irreversible sense of entitlement that becomes detrimental to a society. There are too many women in the world suffering that need the power of a feminist movement to help them, but so much feminist energy remains in the more decadent halls of western civilization instead.
I feel so fortunate to have you telling me why I am wrong and you are right. You have your labels down pat and the attitude to go with them. Way to go.
Feminists thought they were getting a raw deal and that men were superior and shown favoritism. Now that women have their high paying careers and don't stay at home, many of them are wondering what the hell they got themselves in to. Things really weren't as bad as they were told when men were the bread winners and they got to stay at home. Hell, even the Democrats are now using this argument to encourage women to stay home and have more family time with their kids. Free money from the government is fixing everything for everybody!
"Now that women have their high paying careers and don't stay at home, many of them are wondering what the hell they got themselves in to"
first of all,
numerous studies show that working moms are happier and healthier so I'm pretty sure women know what they got themselves into
they've gotten themselves into a tub of happiness and health
HOW DARE THEY DO THAT RIGHT?
"And yet, when examining the total population of mothers who stay at home with their children, these so-called “opt-out moms” make up a very small share (4%)."
If you care to look at the trend of working moms who are now opting to leave their careers to STAY HOME and be actual mothers, you will see that the tide has shifted. I have a post on here somewhere where I posted numerous links about this very issue.
And how could a working mother who is away from her own children the entire day be "happier and healthier?" Why are mothers so content to allow someone else to raise the most precious of all gifts they could ever have - THEIR CHILD!
And even IF the mother is happier being away from her child for whatever reason, do you honestly believe the child is happier and healthier?
Another bit of research you can do is to look in to something called the homeschooling movement. If you have not heard of it, it is HUGE in this country. This is where mothers proudly stay at home (in some cases the father) to actually school their own children (instead of sending them to formal schools). These children always excel and test at a higher average than children in public education. So there is a case to be made about stability and security that is gained by an actual parent staying home to raise and train their own children. After all, it worked back in the days of Washington and Lincoln, and there were plenty of brilliant people who came out of home schooling environments or even being self taught.
Are you saying that a mother who doesn't stay at home all day isn't being an "actual mother"?
Are you saying that just bringing a child in to the world is mothering? If so, then all sperm donor fathers are true dads.
Nope. Not "mothering" in the usual sense. I'm asking because of this statement...
"If you care to look at the trend of working moms who are now opting to leave their careers to STAY HOME and be actual mothers, you will see that the tide has shifted."
It seems as if you're saying that staying at home is what makes them actual mothers. I'm just making sure if that is or isn't the case.
Of course having a baby makes a woman a mother - but that does not mean she is BEING A MOTHER. Have you seriously not heard of mothers who are not around to raise their kids? What about alcoholic or druggie moms who stay gone for days on end and are not there to raise their kids? What about mothers who walk out on all the children and leave them all with dad - so she can pursue her career or an affair (this is happening more frequently)? What about moms who have a newborn and drop it off in a park, dumpster, or who knows where else to get rid of IT? Are they mothers? Are they mothering their child(ren)?
Feminists LOVE to bash a bio dad who is a "sperm donor" but who is never around to help raise the child. They want him to open his wallet and pay child support to be sure, but if he does not come around and help raise the child, he is not viewed as a "father." Please don't tell me this is not so. I KNOW better. So if a woman is never around to raise her child, and is always at work, at the gym, out late with the girls, or on and on..............are you telling me and going to seriously try to convince me she is being a Mother?
Two years ago on this site I posted a Mother's Day post telling people they were losers if they did not call their Mom and wish them a happy Mother's Day. You could not believe the heat and rage I got from that simple post. People told me they could not stand their mothers because they were never a mom to them. I never even thought of it that way until I read all the comments. I ended up pulling the post off. I never intended to upset people by it.
And why have children if nobody is going to be around to raise them? Is Daycare Mother? Is Pre-school Mother? Is a Babysitter Mother?
Don't you see what we have created in our society? If studies have proven that absent dads impact the outcome of children, then how much more so the absence of mothers?
You're taking this in the wrong direction. I don't think they are mothers. I'm trying to make sure you're not telling me that the mothers who go to work for 8-10 hours or so to pay so the kids have a good childhood not riddled with poverty, and still get home to raise the kids aren't mothers. Your comment with the phrase "actual mothers" seems to imply that mothers who aren't always home aren't "actual mothers". But I feel like I'm misunderstanding you.
I think we are both pushing only one side or extreme of the issue. It is very complicated and a much misunderstood topic. It is not a "one size fits all" issue to be sure.
That's for sure. I have a feeling we probably agree for the most part. I'm just gonna leave it at "mothers should be close with their kids".
I can agree and live with that...............
Women can juggle their own career, children, staying healthy, and their social life. It's about moderation. I know my brothers and I are older so we don't need care the same way a toddle might but my mom works out at 5 am before any of us are even awake. She only goes out with her friend once a month at most. She is very well respected in her workplace and she's also a great mom. She's around more than my father (partly because of her advanced degrees that my dad lacks and also her job (and I'm not meaning to knock my father at all, he works so hard for us but he has longer hours and occasionally goes to a friends house after work or on the weekends for an hour or two)).
I know this isn't for me, buuut it takes a village to raise a kid
it's good to broaden the kids horizons with other people than just the immediate family consistently
even at that young age
build them social skills
I agree but I'm confused on how that's related to my comment.
it's related because some wanna put all the responsibility on the mom
that's a lot of pressure to deal with
and to say a woman who works is not an actual mom
that's a hard blow
an unfair blow
It just seemed like you were trying to rebut a point I made. But I agree.
I thought what I said supported because I said it takes a village
meaning it's not all on the mom
Oh. I guess I'm interpreting incorrectly.
Well a lot of them work during school hours so their kids are fine.
Plus, the benefit of going out to school is gaining social skills. There's more skills to learn out there than purely academic.
The reason women are happier is because they get a taste of both worlds. They get to hold a role in and out the home, which allows for healthier sense of self.
A stay at home mom can be happy, too, but it has to be something she wants. If it's forced upon her, then, she's not gonna feel happy.
And like I said, the trend is only at 4% opting to stay at home. It's not that high.
So if a stay at home mom chooses that herself, you are saying she is not happy? Many WANT and DESIRE to do so. Mothering is the most sacred duty a woman could aspire to. What could possibly be more important in any society or family than the upbringing of our off spring?
And don't Muslim women stay at home to raise and train their children? I thought that was kind of standard practice.
I don't think you understood what I said.
Please reread my comment
or at least the last 2 paragraphs
there are Muslim working moms
there's variety in our group
like any other group
I did. I will have to find the post with the numerous links about this issue.
I don't think you did because I said
"A stay at home mom CAN be happy, too, but it has to be something she wants. If it's forced upon her, then, she's not gonna feel happy."
yet you reply saying "are you saying people who choose to stay at home aren't happy?"
LIKE WHAT? I didn't even say that
I said the complete opposite
you don't have to post links
I already read the link you posted below
as well as the comments
I'm merely presenting another position on this matter
Do you have any actual links about homeschooled kids doing better on tests? Are these standardize tests? I need more information before I can form an opinion on this one.
You have Google just like I do. This is common knowledge to many parents and educators. Have you ever wondered why so many educators and politicians send their own children to the BEST private schools they can find? Because they KNOW public education is seriously flawed.
Here is just one link to get you started. There are entire books on the subject if it interests you.
I couldn't resist........here is another solid one.
If you have a ton of time on your hands, jump full bore in to this one..................last one, I promise.
Like others have said, other skills come from attending school that are necessary for success in the real world (like social skills) that cannot he taught. The private schools in my area are honestly pathetic. They have very low test scores and the curriculum is lacking. I would know, I attend one for 6 years. People are under this misconception that private schools are elite and genius but that's just not always the case. I've gotten a much better education at public school than at private school. People that I went to private school with are seniors in high school taking rudimentary pre-algebra math, something I took in SIXTH GRADE.
And by the way, instead of sending their children to better schools, politicians should work on making the public school system better.
Politicians claim they have been making the public school system better. It is called throwing more and more money at and in to it year after year after year. Test scores go down, drop out rates increase, violence and pregnancies increase, and the broken system perpetuates itself.
If politicians were forced to send their children to the same schools they say are doing well, you can bet that something would get done. And that is one of the major problems with our elected officials. They are not held to the same standard that the rest of society is. They have created a double standard and they are insulated from what the real world is all about.
Idk if you've read anything about the public school recently or ever but they are ALWAYS taking money AWAY from schools.
That is a fabricated myth that you have swallowed. Do some research and you will discover that public education consistently receives MORE money every single year to operate. Also, the numbers have steadily increased per year for what it takes to have a child sitting in a classroom. It varies from state to state, but those are numbers you can check out as well. I am not trying to say because I am older that I am superior, but there are things I have already read, studied, lived through, and know because of my age and experiences.
This is not a put down to you in any way, and yet that is what I always get accused of doing just because I have been around the block a few more times than a younger person. If we both read 1 book a week throughout our lifetime, can you not agree that I am many many more books ahead of you simply by the number of years head start I have? It certainly does not mean that I know it all, but it does mean I likely have a broader and deeper base or resource to draw from. That is all.
I actually have done a TON of research on the education system and politics. Politicians take money from teachers and schools to finance their yachts and 6 houses and then blame it all on the schools.
I'm not saying either one of us knows more or less than the other. I may know than you in some areas whereas you COULD know more than me overall. That doesn't make one of us better than the other.
Another thing is, maybe you get accused of put downs bc of how you present your vast expansive superior knowledge.
If you have, you never provide a single link for me to view. In all of your opposition and challenges to my statements, you have not once cited a source of any kind. So that, in my definition, is what we call "speaking off the cuff."
Here is 1 link to thoroughly support my view. The dates are a bit older, but I can assure you, funding for education NEVER decreases - it goes up each and every year. The National Education Association (teacher's union) is the largest union in the U.S. There is no way they are going to accept LESS to continue educating the youth of America.
Democrats and liberals want you to THINK that the old people and children are not being taken care of when it comes to a dollar amount, but that is the "myth" I was referring to in my earlier comment. Actually, it is closer to a lie than a myth.
And I have NEVER ever said I am better than anyone else, and none of my comments are ever geared towards my goodness. I have no idea where you pulled that from.
All of my research was done on my school computer (which is not currently in my possession and was cleared of all data back in May) and I'm usually posting from my phone so while I may not have the data with me right now, you can easily find facts from a quick google search.
And whether you are aware of it or not, you often come off condescending, intentional or not.
You did not already read both of the links I sent to you all the way through.
You just like to argue for argument's sake.
Condescending or not, you are coming across like you know something - and I am challenging you to prove it. If you want to act like you know more than me, at least put some substance behind it. So far, you have provided absolutely nothing of substance or merit. Arguments and debates are based on information. Either give me something solid to look at or stop wasting our time.
I never said I did read them. I was just literally just explaining why I didn't have solid facts for you. You don't have to reply to my comments you know. No one is forcing you.
And vice versa......................
Now show me where Federal funding was cut (where government actually allocated less money to fund all of education) AND show me where teacher's salaries and university professors all received less income to do what they have been doing.
Okay so while it couldn't find what you asked (yet; I'm still on the search) I did find this which, while slightly off-topic, but only slightly, i do believe it is important for you (and others who think like you) to read.
This only shows that the writer believes teachers should receive higher salaries for their profession (which I agree whole heartedly). But it does not indicate that teacher's pay is decreasing every year. I made the point that there is a steady increase in educational expenses and teacher salary each year.
Even when I was a teacher, I could never figure out how I was educating "America's Future" and could barely pay my bills, while a guy could bounce a ball down a court, slam it through a metal hoop, and get paid several million per year for doing such!
It is very clear that our nation puts a higher premium on sports than it does the training and education of its youth.
I specifically said it was slightly irrelevant and not what you asked for but still a good read.
Agreed.....a good read.
http://www.nea.org/home/37941.htm (I realize this is from a teacher organization and a little outdated but the information still stands)
This one clearly shows a profession in decline - which happens in many industries or trades where a premium or high value is not placed on the product (the teacher). Anyone pursuing a trade or career has to weigh out the income potential before going in to it. If you know what you will make per year, and still choose to go in to that profession, how can there be a complaint about "low" wages. The annual teacher salary is still pretty good when compared to many other professions, but a far cry from what it actually should be. I learned while in that profession exactly what the articles point out - over worked, and severely underpaid for what is done and expected.
My 7 years were done in a private religious school, and I made about a third of what the public school teachers made. My first year teaching was 1990, and my salary was $13,400. I had a wife who stayed home with our 3rd & 5th grade boys, and she was pregnant with our third child. My last year teaching was 1997, and my salary was $19,700. By that time, I had our final number of 4 kids, and mom was still a stay at home mother. Needless to say, I know from experience what a labor of love is all about and what it means to sacrifice.
I was the only male teacher in the elementary school. All the female teachers were teaching as a second source of income for their house holds. I taught because I believed it was a good investment for the future, not because it was going to make me wealthy.
At least we agree on something.
Men have been perfectly okay with letting their wives do all of the parenting while they don't do a single thing in the realm of parenting for eons and when a woman wants to do the same it's some huge crime?
Now you are completely going where I did not. Who said crime or wrong or evil?
You are implying (and flat out saying) that women going into the workplace and spending less than 24/7 with their children is bad while men have been doing the same forever.
I never said or implied such. You are reading in to my comments. I have simply pointed out obvious concerns with and about the issue of having both parents working full time and nobody being HOME to raise or be with THEIR children.
Again, if they don't want to be home (or can't), then stop having children who specifically require care - which includes spending time with. If a responsible person can not care for something, then they should not take on the challenge or obligation of having it. Does that seriously NOT register with you? You seem to have a major problem with basic common sense and the obvious.
If women prefer to go to work and now be the breadwinner, then there are men who have no problem staying at home and raising the kids. That is happening in some situations.
But the fact remains: if children are brought in to the world, they must be raised and cared for. They can not be left to raise or train themselves - especially in the formative years. In years gone by, it was always the responsibility of the PARENTS to fulfill that role and duty. Today there is an assorted mix of approaches to the issue. Some have live in baby sitters, some have relatives (grand parents) fill in, some let the day care raise their children, and others still opt for a more traditional approach of one parent staying home to do the raising.
I am NOT a woman hater. That is the propaganda that has been fed to you by the feminist movement - all men are evil, bad, and the enemy.