And inlet, I may not agree with you on all fronts, but I think your perspective comes from a good place. This is an interesting topic, for sure.
(just didn't think it'd be so divisive!)
Thank you.
I didn't think it would be divisive either. In fact, I thought there's more here that we would all agree on, then would disagree. But, I guess I was wrong.
For your last paragraph, I still think that everyone has a choice. So what if society is pushing one direction? Who says we have to go with it? There are no rules except the ones we choose to follow. If we want true happiness, we have to make up our own rules and get off that status quo rules path.
I agree. But, it's easier said then done, unfortunately.
a subject that is very near and dear to alot of members hearts or memories. that's why there is so much emphasis in the responses.
I've read some that I agree with and some I strongly disagree, but alot of this is about perspective, experience and interpretation.
the role of any human being in this world should only be defined by that individual.
I think everyone benefited from the sexual revolution, it opened the door to the next level of interaction.
I think women are happier post sexual revolution.
amy
Amy The Great #74594
New Orleans LA 7/4/95 reschedule 9/17/95
Chicago IL 1998, 10/9/00, 06/18/03, 05/16/06, 05/17/06
08/23/09, 08/24/09, Lolla 08/05/07
Champaign IL 4/23/03
Grand Rapids MI VFC 10/03/04
Grand Rapids MI 19May06
Noblesville IN 05/07/10 Cleveland OH 05/09/10
PJ 20 2011
Baltimore MD, Charlottesville VA, Seattle WA 2013
St. Louis MO, Milwaukee WI 2014
Tampa FL, Chicago IL, Lexington KY 2016 Missoula MT 2018
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,428
Dude, just because the paper is of high quality doesn't mean all of its writers are great all the time. You've read this thread, I'm not the only one to fine the quality of writing in this article poor. If you want to think it's great (because you agree with its content), fine. I'm making an objective comment about the article, that its quality could have been a lot better. I find it strange that for a quality paper like WSJ with its readers being mostly male, that this article about women and the sexual revolution being in there. It does seem to be out of place, just like Brian said. You have to wonder why they ran it. There is a lot of psychology behind what and why mediums run the stories they do. That's a fact.
For your last paragraph, I still think that everyone has a choice. So what if society is pushing one direction? Who says we have to go with it? There are no rules except the ones we choose to follow. If we want true happiness, we have to make up our own rules and get off that status quo rules path.
Yes Jeanwah- several of us have questioned the quality of this article and for good reason. And I sort of made a joke about this article coming from WSJ but it really does seem odd to me. What is their motivation- an article on women's movement coming from a male oriented conservative paper? I think this is very much worth asking and looking at. To me, it certainly does not come across as supportive of women.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
My issue is that sometimes women want to stay home with their children, but it's more difficult nowadays (due to societal and financial pressures). I suppose you disagree with that. Good for you.
I understand where you're coming from (which throws your opinion of me attacking the article being based on the poster or source it came from).
It is more difficult, but if they truly want it (and I have myself and a few friends to prove this), they find ways to make it happen. Again, about choice, prior planning, prioritizing and living more simply. My story is one of job burn-out though and not from simply a desire to stay home. My situation was about balance and being able to be there for my daughter who has Down syndrome when she needs me to be. A 50 hr. per week job did not allow it.
Dude, just because the paper is of high quality doesn't mean all of its writers are great all the time. You've read this thread, I'm not the only one to fine the quality of writing in this article poor. If you want to think it's great (because you agree with its content), fine. I'm making an objective comment about the article, that its quality could have been a lot better. I find it strange that for a quality paper like WSJ with its readers being mostly male, that this article about women and the sexual revolution being in there. It does seem to be out of place, just like Brian said. You have to wonder why they ran it. There is a lot of psychology behind what and why mediums run the stories they do. That's a fact.
For your last paragraph, I still think that everyone has a choice. So what if society is pushing one direction? Who says we have to go with it? There are no rules except the ones we choose to follow. If we want true happiness, we have to make up our own rules and get off that status quo rules path.
Yes Jeanwah- several of us have questioned the quality of this article and for good reason. And I sort of made a joke about this article coming from WSJ but it really does seem odd to me. What is their motivation- an article on women's movement coming from a male oriented conservative paper? I think this is very much worth asking and looking at. To me,it certainly does not come across as supportive of women.
ok, let's just get to the point of inlets question first. the main question was are women happier post-sexual revolution (or the way the paper would even more patronizingly put it if they had their druthers "women's lib"). do women like that they can have a credit card without having a man to cosign for them? do women like that they have more equal opportunity to participate in sport, can get scholarship money, and practice on fields that are equal to male athletes? do women like that they now get paid 77 percent the salary men get for doing the same exact job vs. the 50 percent pre-sex revolution? overwhelmingly YES!
to top things off inlet you've argued quite a paradox here. you state that women are to blame for driving down real wages even though we've handed out far more logical conclusions for far more significant reasons wages have fallen. you've also argued that you don't like unions even though they would raise real wages. yet wouldn't strong unions and socialized health care policies potentially help combat the problems you are pointing out. for instance, women having to choose between staying at home or making money. in some countries you get 2 years of paid leave after having a child so that you can do both, and the husband gets one. That seems to be the best of both worlds no? Of course this would mean slowing the gears of neoliberal capitalism just a bit so that we could care for our kids, but it seems to have created a nice quality of life for everyone. This argument reminds me of that old George Carlin bit:
Have you noticed that most people who are against abortion you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place? Conservatives are physically unattractive and morally inconsistent. They're obsessed with fetuses from conception to nine months, but after that they have no interest in you. None. No day care, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothin'. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.
Once you leave the womb, conservatives don't care about you until you reach military age. Then you're just what they're looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.
it's a bullshit article and bullshit question. happiness can't be quantified. it's is a personal emotion based on a multitude of factors including varying almost hour-by-hour, day-to-day and year-to-year. it's not a clearly defined statistic that is available for comparison.
that being said no one can argue that women and girls today have many more opportunities and freedoms than they did in the past and that that is a good thing for women and girls.
ok, let's just get to the point of inlets question first. the main question was are women happier post-sexual revolution (or the way the paper would even more patronizingly put it if they had their druthers "women's lib"). do women like that they can have a credit card without having a man to cosign for them? do women like that they have more equal opportunity to participate in sport, can get scholarship money, and practice on fields that are equal to male athletes? do women like that they now get paid 77 percent the salary men get for doing the same exact job vs. the 50 percent pre-sex revolution? overwhelmingly YES!
to top things off inlet you've argued quite a paradox here. you state that women are to blame for driving down real wages even though we've handed out far more logical conclusions for far more significant reasons wages have fallen. you've also argued that you don't like unions even though they would raise real wages. yet wouldn't strong unions and socialized health care policies potentially help combat the problems you are pointing out. for instance, women having to choose between staying at home or making money. in some countries you get 2 years of paid leave after having a child so that you can do both, and the husband gets one. That seems to be the best of both worlds no? Of course this would mean slowing the gears of neoliberal capitalism just a bit so that we could care for our kids, but it seems to have created a nice quality of life for everyone. This argument reminds me of that old George Carlin bit:
Have you noticed that most people who are against abortion you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place? Conservatives are physically unattractive and morally inconsistent. They're obsessed with fetuses from conception to nine months, but after that they have no interest in you. None. No day care, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothin'. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.
Once you leave the womb, conservatives don't care about you until you reach military age. Then you're just what they're looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.
:roll: Not this again... The rest of your post seems like a incoherent rant...
I was pointing out that women make more now than they did in the past even though it still isn't equal, what's annoying about that? And does incoherent mean that it's something you don't want to understand? I didn't think what I put out was either ranty or incoherent.
I didn't think it would be divisive either. In fact, I thought there's more here that we would all agree on, then would disagree. But, I guess I was wrong.
I find it. Interesting that you find it surprising that this topic is divisive. Of course it's divisive... I find it surprising that so many men don't understand why women are so defensive towards men when it comes to issues like this. Women are members of a group of people who have been consistently abused, humiliated, degraded, and dismissed since the beginning of time, basically. I don't get how men can't grasp that concept. Of COURSE it's divisive when men start chiming in about whether or not women's new found levels of freedom and equality are 'good for them'. Are you kidding? It's practically like white men discussing whether or not the end of of slavery was good for the blacks. Those men could be the most anti-racist, slave-hating people in the world... but that ddoes't make the fact that they're even discussing it any less irritating to black people... as though it's even a question! And there is always the underlying fact that their history as the down-trodden and abused, be it personal history or cultural, is a direct result of the acts of the same types of people discussing the issue. Sorry guys... it's a knee jerk reaction (a totally justifiable one) for women to get their guard up when men start pontificating on this issue
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
ok, let's just get to the point of inlets question first. the main question was are women happier post-sexual revolution (or the way the paper would even more patronizingly put it if they had their druthers "women's lib"). do women like that they can have a credit card without having a man to cosign for them? do women like that they have more equal opportunity to participate in sport, can get scholarship money, and practice on fields that are equal to male athletes? do women like that they now get paid 77 percent the salary men get for doing the same exact job vs. the 50 percent pre-sex revolution? overwhelmingly YES!
to top things off inlet you've argued quite a paradox here. you state that women are to blame for driving down real wages even though we've handed out far more logical conclusions for far more significant reasons wages have fallen. you've also argued that you don't like unions even though they would raise real wages. yet wouldn't strong unions and socialized health care policies potentially help combat the problems you are pointing out. for instance, women having to choose between staying at home or making money. in some countries you get 2 years of paid leave after having a child so that you can do both, and the husband gets one. That seems to be the best of both worlds no? Of course this would mean slowing the gears of neoliberal capitalism just a bit so that we could care for our kids, but it seems to have created a nice quality of life for everyone. This argument reminds me of that old George Carlin bit:
Have you noticed that most people who are against abortion you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place? Conservatives are physically unattractive and morally inconsistent. They're obsessed with fetuses from conception to nine months, but after that they have no interest in you. None. No day care, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothin'. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.
Once you leave the womb, conservatives don't care about you until you reach military age. Then you're just what they're looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.
:roll: Not this again... The rest of your post seems like a incoherent rant...
ok, let's just get to the point of inlets question first. the main question was are women happier post-sexual revolution (or the way the paper would even more patronizingly put it if they had their druthers "women's lib"). do women like that they can have a credit card without having a man to cosign for them? do women like that they have more equal opportunity to participate in sport, can get scholarship money, and practice on fields that are equal to male athletes? do women like that they now get paid 77 percent the salary men get for doing the same exact job vs. the 50 percent pre-sex revolution? overwhelmingly YES!
to top things off inlet you've argued quite a paradox here. you state that women are to blame for driving down real wages even though we've handed out far more logical conclusions for far more significant reasons wages have fallen. you've also argued that you don't like unions even though they would raise real wages. yet wouldn't strong unions and socialized health care policies potentially help combat the problems you are pointing out. for instance, women having to choose between staying at home or making money. in some countries you get 2 years of paid leave after having a child so that you can do both, and the husband gets one. That seems to be the best of both worlds no? Of course this would mean slowing the gears of neoliberal capitalism just a bit so that we could care for our kids, but it seems to have created a nice quality of life for everyone. This argument reminds me of that old George Carlin bit:
Have you noticed that most people who are against abortion you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place? Conservatives are physically unattractive and morally inconsistent. They're obsessed with fetuses from conception to nine months, but after that they have no interest in you. None. No day care, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothin'. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.
Once you leave the womb, conservatives don't care about you until you reach military age. Then you're just what they're looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.
i would say there is a lot of truth to what you say but you won't get a lick of a response to any of the points because it is way too harsh for opposing views to swallow ... i'm usually the one who goes that way ...
I was pointing out that women make more now than they did in the past even though it still isn't equal, what's annoying about that? And does incoherent mean that it's something you don't want to understand? I didn't think what I put out was either ranty or incoherent.
Because it is EQUAL...
Women do make the exact same as men, as long as they have the same exact job title and hours.
If this were not the case then I am pretty sure all business would hire JUST women in every position to save money, right?
it's just kind of annoying that the OP whines for 20 posts* (edit) about not getting an answer to the article's thesis after most posters have all but decimated the article as lazy journalism at best. Especially when I actually take the time to explain why we really think the author missed the boat on this one, and have respondents pull a tiny bit out of my response, misrepresent it (I was actually using that number to demonstrate progress of some sort not be critical), and then completely disregard the fact that I gave the OP what he was asking for. Whatevs lazy articles lead to lazy debate I suppose.
I was pointing out that women make more now than they did in the past even though it still isn't equal, what's annoying about that? And does incoherent mean that it's something you don't want to understand? I didn't think what I put out was either ranty or incoherent.
Because it is EQUAL...
Women do make the exact same as men, as long as they have the same exact job title and hours.
If this were not the case then I am pretty sure all business would hire JUST women in every position to save money, right?
you would think that would be the case but it isn't...and it isn't equal even in academia women chairs at my school make less than male chairs, women profs make less than male profs, and so on. you know how i know this is true state universities have to publish this stuff - go ahead check it out.
I was pointing out that women make more now than they did in the past even though it still isn't equal, what's annoying about that? And does incoherent mean that it's something you don't want to understand? I didn't think what I put out was either ranty or incoherent.
Because it is EQUAL...
Women do make the exact same as men, as long as they have the same exact job title and hours.
If this were not the case then I am pretty sure all business would hire JUST women in every position to save money, right?
That's not true at all. If you really believe that, then you don't fully understand the issue.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
it's just kind of annoying that the OP whines for 20 pages about not getting an answer to the article's thesis after most posters have all but decimated the article as lazy journalism at best. Especially when I actually take the time to explain why we really think the author missed the boat on this one, and have respondents pull a tiny bit out of my response, misrepresent it (I was actually using that number to demonstrate progress of some sort not be critical), and then completely disregard the fact that I gave the OP what he was asking for. Whatevs lazy articles lead to lazy debate I suppose.
You critize the article because of laziness and yet you post something just as lazy to perpetuate the lie that men make more then women working the same exact job.
Your right it is a lazy debate when people respond emotionally instead of rationally...
This what I posted on page 4 to which no one answered.
feminists and it seems most people here, in my opinion seem to have a double-standard with regards to biological determinism.
This double-standard is of course not limited to femals/feminists. But, from one perspective, it is said(known) that homosexuality is biologically determined and not a choice, and the role of biologically is greatly highlighted.
From another perspective, when the biological differences, with psychological and behavioral implications, between men and women are highlighted via scientific research, they (feminists) deny that there are preferred roles for men and women, in order to blur the notion of genders. So basically, your saying that biology cannot be used to speak about gender roles.
So why is it that the biological implications seem to be highlighted in one case and neglected in another case?
it's just kind of annoying that the OP whines for 20 posts* (edit) about not getting an answer to the article's thesis after most posters have all but decimated the article as lazy journalism at best. Especially when I actually take the time to explain why we really think the author missed the boat on this one, and have respondents pull a tiny bit out of my response, misrepresent it (I was actually using that number to demonstrate progress of some sort not be critical), and then completely disregard the fact that I gave the OP what he was asking for. Whatevs lazy articles lead to lazy debate I suppose.
I'm not a conservative, but you used a quote from someone who called conservatives "ugly". Post like that are just weak and don't warrant a response.
Further, now you claim I'm whining for 20 posts. Really? I've been civil throughout, despite a couple posters (like yourself) trying to derail the thread into name-calling. Re-read the thread. Then re-read your own posts. Who's being lazy in this debate? And why does it need to be a debate at all? Why can't it be a discussion?
There's no winners or losers in this scenario. We can't change the past, and I don't think anyone is arguing for that anyhow.
I was pointing out that women make more now than they did in the past even though it still isn't equal, what's annoying about that? And does incoherent mean that it's something you don't want to understand? I didn't think what I put out was either ranty or incoherent.
Because it is EQUAL...
Women do make the exact same as men, as long as they have the same exact job title and hours.
If this were not the case then I am pretty sure all business would hire JUST women in every position to save money, right?
That's not true at all. If you really believe that, then you don't fully understand the issue.
Yes it is... you are welcome to provide any evidence showing that a woman and a man applying for the SAME job with the SAME hours would equal a different pay...
it's just kind of annoying that the OP whines for 20 posts* (edit) about not getting an answer to the article's thesis after most posters have all but decimated the article as lazy journalism at best. Especially when I actually take the time to explain why we really think the author missed the boat on this one, and have respondents pull a tiny bit out of my response, misrepresent it (I was actually using that number to demonstrate progress of some sort not be critical), and then completely disregard the fact that I gave the OP what he was asking for. Whatevs lazy articles lead to lazy debate I suppose.
thing is ... you are coming from this from an "intellectualized" stand point ... rooted in some social theory ... i can tell because i know many people who have studied this ... the whole issue goes beyond gender but encapsulates issues of race, religion, sexuality, etc ...
from my experience - i find that those concepts are very hard for many people to grasp because their perception of reality is based largely on social constructs and media biases ...
Because it is EQUAL...
Women do make the exact same as men, as long as they have the same exact job title and hours.
If this were not the case then I am pretty sure all business would hire JUST women in every position to save money, right?
That's not true at all. If you really believe that, then you don't fully understand the issue.
Yes it is... you are welcome to provide any evidence showing that a woman and a man applying for the SAME job with the SAME hours would equal a different pay...
You are completely deluded to think that men and women are paid equally, Blockhead.
I was pointing out that women make more now than they did in the past even though it still isn't equal, what's annoying about that? And does incoherent mean that it's something you don't want to understand? I didn't think what I put out was either ranty or incoherent.
Because it is EQUAL...
Women do make the exact same as men, as long as they have the same exact job title and hours.
If this were not the case then I am pretty sure all business would hire JUST women in every position to save money, right?
you would think that would be the case but it isn't...and it isn't equal even in academia women chairs at my school make less than male chairs, women profs make less than male profs, and so on. you know how i know this is true state universities have to publish this stuff - go ahead check it out.
Do they work they same ammount of hours, do they have equal experience, do you know which ones have asked for a raise and which ones havent, whos taking how much sick time...
Just looking at raw numbers tell you nothing... Except you seem to see that these numbers mean women are not equal...Maybe do some research before you come to such a bold conclusion...
Why would someone not get upset when you decide to speak for them?
Obviously, you like to put words in people's mouths. The whole "men work and women stay home" has not been said by me once in this thread. You said that. Why? Ask yourself.
I've said repetitively I think it's good that women have the choice to work. My issue is that sometimes women want to stay home with their children, but it's more difficult nowadays (due to societal and financial pressures). I suppose you disagree with that. Good for you.
fine I get it...your issue is that sometimes women want to stay home with their children but it's more difficult nowadays...
this is what I get when I ask myself
>which sounds like you feel only women can stay home to take care of children...you know since the man is out working...and I get the sense that you don't understand what you're trying to say...
Yes it is... you are welcome to provide any evidence showing that a woman and a man applying for the SAME job with the SAME hours would equal a different pay...
Dude. If all jobs were paid hourly or if all jobs were union and what not you'd be right. We're talking about salaried positions where the pay is negotiated like with high level admin positions. It is in these cases where women get paid less than men for the same level jobs. That 77% stat is an average. Where many jobs are equal pay, those jobs that aren't drag the number down to 77% average. Actually, the majority are equal pay. But not the HIGH PAYING JOBS, and that's where the discrepancy comes from (and is also a good sign of the deeper issues). This is a well-established statistic. There is no reason why any of us should be digging up the details to prove it to you just because you're deluded into thinking it's not true. It's like asking us to present all the facts to prove to you what the population of China is. There is no need for us to explain it to you. It's a fact.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
it's just kind of annoying that the OP whines for 20 posts* (edit) about not getting an answer to the article's thesis after most posters have all but decimated the article as lazy journalism at best. Especially when I actually take the time to explain why we really think the author missed the boat on this one, and have respondents pull a tiny bit out of my response, misrepresent it (I was actually using that number to demonstrate progress of some sort not be critical), and then completely disregard the fact that I gave the OP what he was asking for. Whatevs lazy articles lead to lazy debate I suppose.
I'm not a conservative, but you used a quote from someone who called conservatives "ugly". Post like that are just weak and don't warrant a response.
Further, now you claim I'm whining for 20 posts. Really? I've been civil throughout, despite a couple posters (like yourself) trying to derail the thread into name-calling. Re-read the thread. Then re-read your own posts. Who's being lazy in this debate? And why does it need to be a debate at all? Why can't it be a discussion?
There's no winners or losers in this scenario. We can't change the past, and I don't think anyone is arguing for that anyhow.
first you have been complaining for several posts that no one is responding to the question in the article. i have done it and you still keep dismissing my response. it needs to be a debate because we are subjectively discussing the logical merits of the article you presented. a discussion would merely be us writing based on our own opinions without trying to bring logic and reason into the thread.
i said this thread reminded me of a george carlin comedy bit - the key part being that many of our country's leaders defend the rights of the "unborn" but don't provide a context for them to be cared for after they are born via stripping social welfare policies. therefore more women and men have to work - even with a child.
i agree that the ugly comment was stupid, but it wasn't what i was getting at...just didn't want to be called on taking the quote out of context.
fine I get it...your issue is that sometimes women want to stay home with their children but it's more difficult nowadays...
this is what I get when I ask myself
>which sounds like you feel only women can stay home to take care of children...you know since the man is out working...
I understand perfectly well what I'm trying to say. I never said a man can't stay home instead of a woman. You seem like you're trying to say that for me - why I don't know. My point, is that as a couple, it's harder than it once was to have either (man or woman) stay home and care for their child/children because of societal and financial pressures.
Yes it is... you are welcome to provide any evidence showing that a woman and a man applying for the SAME job with the SAME hours would equal a different pay...
Dude. If all jobs were paid hourly or if all jobs were union and what not you'd be right. We're talking about salaried positions where the pay is negotiated like with high level admin positions. It is in these cases where women get paid less than men for the same level jobs. That 77% stat is an average. Where many jobs are equal pay, those jobs that aren't drag the number down to 77% average. Actually, the majority are equal pay. But not the HIGH PAYING JOBS, and that's where the discrepancy comes from (and is also a good sign of the deeper issues). This is a well-established statistic. There is no reason why any of us should be digging up the details to prove it to you just because you're deluded into thinking it's not true. It's like asking us to present all the facts to prove to you what the population of China is. There is no need for us to explain it to you. It's a fact.
Really... Its FACT?
Why don't you take the time and read this http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0435.pdf
"Womens Earnings" Work Patterns Explain the Differences between Men and Womens earnings.
IF you actually read this then you will see that if actually broken down per hour there is no noticeable pay gap.
You are welcome to post any sources to back your logic also...
Comments
Thank you.
I didn't think it would be divisive either. In fact, I thought there's more here that we would all agree on, then would disagree. But, I guess I was wrong.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I agree. But, it's easier said then done, unfortunately.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I've read some that I agree with and some I strongly disagree, but alot of this is about perspective, experience and interpretation.
the role of any human being in this world should only be defined by that individual.
I think everyone benefited from the sexual revolution, it opened the door to the next level of interaction.
I think women are happier post sexual revolution.
amy
New Orleans LA 7/4/95 reschedule 9/17/95
Chicago IL 1998, 10/9/00, 06/18/03, 05/16/06, 05/17/06
08/23/09, 08/24/09, Lolla 08/05/07
Champaign IL 4/23/03
Grand Rapids MI VFC 10/03/04
Grand Rapids MI 19May06
Noblesville IN 05/07/10 Cleveland OH 05/09/10
PJ 20 2011
Baltimore MD, Charlottesville VA, Seattle WA 2013
St. Louis MO, Milwaukee WI 2014
Tampa FL, Chicago IL, Lexington KY 2016
Missoula MT 2018
Yes Jeanwah- several of us have questioned the quality of this article and for good reason. And I sort of made a joke about this article coming from WSJ but it really does seem odd to me. What is their motivation- an article on women's movement coming from a male oriented conservative paper? I think this is very much worth asking and looking at. To me, it certainly does not come across as supportive of women.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I understand where you're coming from (which throws your opinion of me attacking the article being based on the poster or source it came from).
It is more difficult, but if they truly want it (and I have myself and a few friends to prove this), they find ways to make it happen. Again, about choice, prior planning, prioritizing and living more simply. My story is one of job burn-out though and not from simply a desire to stay home. My situation was about balance and being able to be there for my daughter who has Down syndrome when she needs me to be. A 50 hr. per week job did not allow it.
Exactly.
to top things off inlet you've argued quite a paradox here. you state that women are to blame for driving down real wages even though we've handed out far more logical conclusions for far more significant reasons wages have fallen. you've also argued that you don't like unions even though they would raise real wages. yet wouldn't strong unions and socialized health care policies potentially help combat the problems you are pointing out. for instance, women having to choose between staying at home or making money. in some countries you get 2 years of paid leave after having a child so that you can do both, and the husband gets one. That seems to be the best of both worlds no? Of course this would mean slowing the gears of neoliberal capitalism just a bit so that we could care for our kids, but it seems to have created a nice quality of life for everyone. This argument reminds me of that old George Carlin bit:
Have you noticed that most people who are against abortion you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place? Conservatives are physically unattractive and morally inconsistent. They're obsessed with fetuses from conception to nine months, but after that they have no interest in you. None. No day care, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothin'. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.
Once you leave the womb, conservatives don't care about you until you reach military age. Then you're just what they're looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.
that being said no one can argue that women and girls today have many more opportunities and freedoms than they did in the past and that that is a good thing for women and girls.
Completely agree.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
i would say there is a lot of truth to what you say but you won't get a lick of a response to any of the points because it is way too harsh for opposing views to swallow ... i'm usually the one who goes that way ...
Because it is EQUAL...
Women do make the exact same as men, as long as they have the same exact job title and hours.
If this were not the case then I am pretty sure all business would hire JUST women in every position to save money, right?
You critize the article because of laziness and yet you post something just as lazy to perpetuate the lie that men make more then women working the same exact job.
Your right it is a lazy debate when people respond emotionally instead of rationally...
This what I posted on page 4 to which no one answered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_determinism
feminists and it seems most people here, in my opinion seem to have a double-standard with regards to biological determinism.
This double-standard is of course not limited to femals/feminists. But, from one perspective, it is said(known) that homosexuality is biologically determined and not a choice, and the role of biologically is greatly highlighted.
From another perspective, when the biological differences, with psychological and behavioral implications, between men and women are highlighted via scientific research, they (feminists) deny that there are preferred roles for men and women, in order to blur the notion of genders. So basically, your saying that biology cannot be used to speak about gender roles.
So why is it that the biological implications seem to be highlighted in one case and neglected in another case?
I'm not a conservative, but you used a quote from someone who called conservatives "ugly". Post like that are just weak and don't warrant a response.
Further, now you claim I'm whining for 20 posts. Really? I've been civil throughout, despite a couple posters (like yourself) trying to derail the thread into name-calling. Re-read the thread. Then re-read your own posts. Who's being lazy in this debate? And why does it need to be a debate at all? Why can't it be a discussion?
There's no winners or losers in this scenario. We can't change the past, and I don't think anyone is arguing for that anyhow.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
thing is ... you are coming from this from an "intellectualized" stand point ... rooted in some social theory ... i can tell because i know many people who have studied this ... the whole issue goes beyond gender but encapsulates issues of race, religion, sexuality, etc ...
from my experience - i find that those concepts are very hard for many people to grasp because their perception of reality is based largely on social constructs and media biases ...
You are completely deluded to think that men and women are paid equally, Blockhead.
Just looking at raw numbers tell you nothing... Except you seem to see that these numbers mean women are not equal...Maybe do some research before you come to such a bold conclusion...
fine I get it...your issue is that sometimes women want to stay home with their children but it's more difficult nowadays...
this is what I get when I ask myself
>which sounds like you feel only women can stay home to take care of children...you know since the man is out working...and I get the sense that you don't understand what you're trying to say...
Dude. If all jobs were paid hourly or if all jobs were union and what not you'd be right. We're talking about salaried positions where the pay is negotiated like with high level admin positions. It is in these cases where women get paid less than men for the same level jobs. That 77% stat is an average. Where many jobs are equal pay, those jobs that aren't drag the number down to 77% average. Actually, the majority are equal pay. But not the HIGH PAYING JOBS, and that's where the discrepancy comes from (and is also a good sign of the deeper issues). This is a well-established statistic. There is no reason why any of us should be digging up the details to prove it to you just because you're deluded into thinking it's not true. It's like asking us to present all the facts to prove to you what the population of China is. There is no need for us to explain it to you. It's a fact.
i said this thread reminded me of a george carlin comedy bit - the key part being that many of our country's leaders defend the rights of the "unborn" but don't provide a context for them to be cared for after they are born via stripping social welfare policies. therefore more women and men have to work - even with a child.
i agree that the ugly comment was stupid, but it wasn't what i was getting at...just didn't want to be called on taking the quote out of context.
I understand perfectly well what I'm trying to say. I never said a man can't stay home instead of a woman. You seem like you're trying to say that for me - why I don't know. My point, is that as a couple, it's harder than it once was to have either (man or woman) stay home and care for their child/children because of societal and financial pressures.
I feel exactly the same about you. So, we're on the same page there.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
perhaps you should do the same ... all studies on pay equity have shown a wage gap ...
Why don't you take the time and read this http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0435.pdf
"Womens Earnings" Work Patterns Explain the Differences between Men and Womens earnings.
IF you actually read this then you will see that if actually broken down per hour there is no noticeable pay gap.
You are welcome to post any sources to back your logic also...