• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Women voting, bad idea?

Women voting, bad idea?

  • women voting is a terrible idea

    Votes: 13 14.3%

  • women voting is fine with me

    Votes: 78 85.7%
  • Total voters
    91
All I can say is WTF? And FU to the 7 people who voted no. DBs! :roll:
 
NitroHangover said:
I heard a statistic on the radio a month or two ago (no, not conservative talk radio, btw, in case anyone was wondering) saying that simultaneously, while job markets for men are shrinking, and job markets for women are opening up wider and becoming more and more monopolized by women, while women are making more money and men are making less, that at the same time the percentage of women who say that it is very important to them that their potential husband make more money than they do is also skyrocketing. It's unbelievable. I swear, in so many ways, women as a group have become like a real world, human manifestation of the phrase "have their cake and eat it too".

Sure, I have no doubt that in polls and stuff, women say they are perfectly comfortable with men being "househusbands" and bringing in no money as a contribution. I don't think they're lying, either. I think they are perfectly comfortable with it on a philosophical and ideological level... for other, hypothetical couples. Just not in their life. Not for a man they marry. Maybe we are heading that way and a couple generations from now we'll get there, but right now I just don't see it, in the real world. I have never in my life seen a well-off, professional woman marrying a man who makes ten bucks an hour, or doesn't work at all. On the other hand, I have certainly seen plenty of the reverse and no one questions it at all.

Before anyone jumps on me btw, I am aware that I'm speaking in broad generalizations. I'm sure many people know a couple or two who embody the reverse of what was once the norm. But sometimes in discussions like these, generalities are what counts, because by and large that's what is happening.
Click to expand...

I think it would be interesting to know what it did to men, when in the 19th century the textile industry became a mass employer, then replaced all the men with women (and children) to reduce operating costs. We may be in the same situation today, only in broad economic terms, instead of industry specifics. I am sure that women studies curricula don't consider such family aspects, especially not when their "enemy", the men of the families are involved, but it would be very interesting to apply it to today's situation.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
I can't find anything relating to that claim that women want men who make more than they do in increasing numbers.

But, if it's true, I could believe it, for one very simple reason.

Women out-pacing men in education and the work force is a very recent phenomena. So recent that all of these women grew up in a society where men were still thought of as bread winners.

Economics can change overnight, but gender bigotry lasts for a lifetime unless the person makes a conscious effort to change it within themselves.

I can tell you that for myself, I've dated guys all over the map, including those who either make less than me or have higher expenses (thus effectively having less money). It really doesn't bother me, personally, even in a cohabitation situation. I just expect them to contribute in some other way.

Would I be in a committed relationship with a capable man who was persistently unemployed and stayed home? Probably not, but it's not because he's a man. It's because I'm childfree, so it's not like there will ever be kids to take care of. Domestic stuff is definitely work, but it's not 8 hours a day work if you don't have kids so there's no justification for him deciding to just not work. Also, I am very career oriented and I think I would have trouble relating to someone who had no career ambitions at all.

It doesn't matter to me what he's making. What matters to me is that he cares about something. If what he cares about pays beans, that's fine.
Click to expand...

The word AND in your statement is sooo telling. You are within 6 sigmas of our modern life statistics. So, let me ask this question. Why is it important that what the man cares about is outside the house? Do I gather that the underlying premise is a basic truth about women, that they have some sort of a need to limit the time that their men can interact with them? I know a few CEO's, and one specifically had this problem big time. When he for once took a 2 weeks off, his wife kicked him out of their house, so he had to spend all that time in exile at the golf course. (I had an excellent time with him there, BUT I sooo wouldn't wanna be in his shoes. What options are there for him to make his wife love him? Zero, the generic women's time limit applies.)
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I don't follow you here - have their cake and eat it, too? Is there something wrong with wanting to be successful as a couple? Aside from what Smoke already said (that there are no statistics to back up your claim that women want their husbands to make more money) - women, as a group, are so diverse it's not even funny. Just like men. Not all men fill the stereotypical power-grabbing CEO world empire male niche.
Click to expand...

I would like to respectfully disagree, to the core, here. It may not be direct cash that women need for a turn-on, but it is some sort of a status in the environment, that women absolutely demand for a man to achieve or inherit, before they talk to him. Sexist or not, there is no such thing against women. A woman is welcome always, even if she has nothing going for her, maybe with the exception of her physical health.

Aunt Spiker said:
Now - there' a huge difference between having a partner that isn't employed at all - and having a partner that just brings in less than you do. My Dad brings in significantly less than my mother does - they're perfectly fine. Because when you're a couple it's not just *his income* and *her income* as separate entities. It's *our* income - *household* income.

Of course - *my* household income is significant right now but I don't earn it actively. I'm a sahm (stay at home mom) - well - college mom, now. And I don't bring in the money, sure. But without me being a stay at home mom for all these years we wouldn't have been able to make a decent life for ourselves. We bought a shackle of a house and I've improved it. We've saved thousands every year on gas and childcare because I don't need to drive to work and put the kids in a care program of some type after school. . . .so on - so forth. I can spend an entire day coupon clipping and shopping for the bargain saving further money. My husband earns the money and I spend as little as possible - as wisely as possible.

It's not like I'm a bump on a log here - and if I was employed - a lot of this, like the kitchen, wouldn't be getting done. And a stay at home dad is the same thing.

Of course - a 'homemaker' is slightly different in my view. I stay home because of the child-issue, mainly. . . if I don't ever get a job - I'd be a homemaker. . .and that is something I have a problem with. Children and some other full time activity (like home renovations) are the main things I'd support for a homemaker - but if they don't have a reason *not* to work I see nothing standing in their way of fulltime employment.

No one wants to take care of someone when that other is doing nothing with their time. . . it doesn't take much to shift into being a lazy bum. Male or female - doesn't matter. If you aren't working you better be doing something worthy of support.

My goal for myself is to get through college - and at some point earn enough to where my husband doesn't have to work if he does't want to. He's older than me - worn out from his health issues and years in the military. He's a wonderful husband - supportive of my many endeavors, even the ones that didn't work out and chewed up a lot of money in the process of my failure - and I feel like he's earned a real break without having to worry about the bills.

But I can attest from personal experience that stay at home dads are fabulous - better than I was. They're moer active, outgoing, and don't whine about chores. I can tell you I still delay the laundry for as long as possible and maybe it'll be next week when I finally get around to folding it - because I hate that ****. However, I've know 7 stay at home dads (temporary - sure - because they were unemployed for a stretch of time - but sahds none the less) and they were great. The house was always clean, everything was always done, the kids had trips to the zoo and everything else. They really approached it like a job - whether they enjoyed it or not didn't seem to matter at all. . . and they did truly enjoy spending time with their kids. My brother in law was phenomenal. He took a cooking class during his time as a sahd and my sister would come home to international cuisine every night. Meanwhile - it took me 2 years to remodel the kids entire bathroom. LOL It probably would have taken him 2 months.
Click to expand...

You have an attitude that would make any man the luckiest husband on Earth. (Really! :) )

Generally speaking however, aren't the words highlighted the most telling foundations that describe every woman's judgemental attitude about men, in a sexist way, which is ultimately what is responsibe for introducing sexism into all job markets and the entire economy and politics? I am not against sexism, but in broad terms, we need to admit that it originates in women, and men are only reactive to it. Otherwise, when men get attracted to women for her looks and words alone, why can't women get attracted to men for his looks and words alone? Oh yeah, we men didn't start this.
 
Peter King said:
7. women might have liked my post because they too had the same idea as I had, the somewhat sarcastic view that "if" anyone has the right to loose the right to vote, why not men? And as said before, I do not want to loose their voting rights but if there has to be made a choice then why not men?

and finally:
9. Yes women have to stand up, but not to validate your need of for reassurance ;) (just kidding) but they have to stand up for their rights.
Click to expand...

Yes, IF ... and women are the last ones who realize that the idea of voting is a public stunt ... it is a good thing that it is a stunt only though. Look what it did to the entire society. Thanks to that, we live now in a world where nothing matters except money. Money was always the most important thing in the world, I guess, but it is only since the introduction of public voting rights, that money has become the ONLY important thing. It is only our American Electoral College, that reminds us about a world long gone, where we actually were people.
 
ecofarm said:
She's pro felon voting rights?



There are illegal citizens?
Click to expand...

Wow, that was stretching it. Pro felon rights? Really? That's what you got from this? And there is no such thing as an illegal citizen. Illegal residents, yes.
 
Pinkie said:
Go to hell, if you actually believe that mitigates the bile of her remarks, ksu.
Click to expand...

Well, the point was that you guys denigrated her for something she did not say. I gave you the full quote.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Wow, that was stretching it. Pro felon rights? Really? That's what you got from this?
Click to expand...

Is there really something else to get? I was having fun.
 
ab9924 said:
Yes, IF ... and women are the last ones who realize that the idea of voting is a public stunt ... it is a good thing that it is a stunt only though. Look what it did to the entire society. Thanks to that, we live now in a world where nothing matters except money. Money was always the most important thing in the world, I guess, but it is only since the introduction of public voting rights, that money has become the ONLY important thing. It is only our American Electoral College, that reminds us about a world long gone, where we actually were people.
Click to expand...

but that the entire political system in the US has gone haywire has nothing to do with women (or men for that matter). It is the problem that a political system drafted for a population of 4 million of only a relatively small part of the population was allowed to vote (white men with land or wealth in most states). The US is way too large for the electoral system it has now. That is the real reason IMHO that the US electoral system has gone nuts with money and special interests.
 
Peter King said:
but that the entire political system in the US has gone haywire has nothing to do with women (or men for that matter). It is the problem that a political system drafted for a population of 4 million of only a relatively small part of the population was allowed to vote (white men with land or wealth in most states). The US is way too large for the electoral system it has now. That is the real reason IMHO that the US electoral system has gone nuts with money and special interests.
Click to expand...

I agree, this is nothing to do with women/men. The entire idea of 1 vote per citizen is flawd. But even if you don't go into such an extreme as today's voting legislations, it is still deadly. Popular representative democracy has destroyed every society that practised it, from the inside out, including the very first one in ancient Athens. Interesting though, that history has produced voting structures that are more fair and more stable, but in the usual indoctrinations of public schooling, everyone is manipulated away from the thought of those.
 
Peter King said:
3. I have realistic views about how some men are dumb, beer swilling, violent people with a cavemen attitude towards women
4. not all men are that kind of insensitive Neanderthal men but as long as there is a view in society that what these men are doing is not so terrible they will not have to do a thing to change their attitude. There are still plenty of enablers who do not think that what these men are doing is that bad, and those enablers are both genders IMHO.
6. women do not have to prove anything. Sure there are women with warped views of men, I met a lady once who refused to cook meals for her sons because she was not their house slave. But during my 10 years plus working at a hard rock bar (not the famous one but a regular one) I have met many men with cavemen attitudes to women. A lot of these views were about the place of women in society but even more where about where women are in their relationships and what their rights and duties to them were.
8. of course some women are anti-men. And some have the right to be that. There are hundreds and hundreds of battered women shelters in the US because some men do not think women are anything more than punching bags. And I know, that is just a small number of men and most men would never ever raise their hands to their spouse/loved one, it still happens on a daily basis. And more than that. Doctor Phil had a show with men and women who were having problems, a lot of these problems had to do with these men having a terrible attitude towards women's rights in their marriage and the equality between men and women.
Click to expand...
All of this, is basically a bunch of excuses trying to justify why you, and certain other segments of society (including large numbers of women) hold bigoted, prejudiced views about men. None of it changes the fact that your original statement in this thread made a bunch of blanket, sexist statements about men in general, and presented a case for why men were less deserving of the right to vote than women. You didn't say SOME men. You didn't say "a minority of 'neanderthal men' think, behave, and vote like this blablabla...". You said "MEN think, behave, and vote like this...". So at least have the decency to admit that what you were doing was sexist stereotyping, based on a small segment of men in society who victimize women to some degree.

This is no different than people who hold racist views about black people because they interpret a minority segment of the black population, who commit crimes, as representative of all black people.

This is no different than people who hold bigoted views on all Muslims because they view a minority segment of Muslims, who are terrorists and fanatics, as representative of all Muslims.

This is no different than people who make sexist statements about women because they view a minority segment of women, who use and manipulate men for money, as representative of all women.

The fact that there are scattered men out there who are scumbags doesn't make it right for you to paint me, my father, my friends, and other men with the same brush. It is simple, fundamental sexism to do so. Just cop to it and let's move on.
7. women might have liked my post because they too had the same idea as I had, the somewhat sarcastic view that "if" anyone has the right to loose the right to vote, why not men? And as said before, I do not want to loose their voting rights but if there has to be made a choice then why not men?
5. my first statement was to a point sarcasm, when I said "if anyone has to loose their right to vote it is men because.....". But that does not mean that I want men to loose their right to vote or think they should loose that right. My issue with the first statement as to why women should not be allowed to vote (generalizing all women by this woman's twisted view on women in general) is that "if" anyone at all has to loose their right to vote it should not be women but that men might be much more "on the block" by past behavior to loose this right (again, I do not think they should).
Click to expand...
Dude. There was no IF involved in the OP. There was no "one or the other, men or women, ONE of them should not be allowed to vote" proposition presented in the OP. Again, you are the only one in this thread who made it an either/or question. You are the only one who used the OP as an excuse to go off on a separate, sexist tangent about men.

The idiot in the OP made a bunch of simple, sexist statements about women based on stereotypes, and used those sexist views as a case (which was apparently also sarcastic) for why women shouldn't be allowed to vote. You condemn this, yes? But then you went on, out of nowhere, to do the exact same thing, only for men. To use your own words with the sexes reversed: "generalizing all men by this man's twisted view on men in general". THAT is what you did. Exactly what she did. And beyond that, you are STILL attempting to justify this twisted view on men, and you are STILL insisting that men are LESS deserving of the right to vote than women are because of your generalizations. Whether or not you actually want men to literally be banned from voting is besides the point. The OP lady wasn't serious either. The point is that she WAS serious about her stupid, bigoted reasoning for making that sarcastic suggestion, and so are you.
 
@ Smoke and Spiker,

I tried searching on the website for the local radio show I heard where they were discussing that study, but I couldn't find it, and I don't remember what their source on it was. I remember the conversation because they went on and on about it for at least a good half an hour, but I admit it is possible that maybe I'm remembering the actual finding of the study slightly wrong in some way, since I can't find it.

Anyway, there's really no way for me to argue anything you guys have said because to do so I would have to premise my arguments on something I can't back up by showing the study. Sorry I brought it up.
 
NitroHangover said:
All of this, is basically a bunch of excuses trying to justify why you, and certain other segments of society (including large numbers of women) hold bigoted, prejudiced views about men. None of it changes the fact that your original statement in this thread made a bunch of blanket, sexist statements about men in general, and presented a case for why men were less deserving of the right to vote than women. You didn't say SOME men. You didn't say "a minority of 'neanderthal men' think, behave, and vote like this blablabla...". You said "MEN think, behave, and vote like this...". So at least have the decency to admit that what you were doing was sexist stereotyping, based on a small segment of men in society who victimize women to some degree.

This is no different than people who hold racist views about black people because they interpret a minority segment of the black population, who commit crimes, as representative of all black people.

This is no different than people who hold bigoted views on all Muslims because they view a minority segment of Muslims, who are terrorists and fanatics, as representative of all Muslims.

This is no different than people who make sexist statements about women because they view a minority segment of women, who use and manipulate men for money, as representative of all women.

The fact that there are scattered men out there who are scumbags doesn't make it right for you to paint me, my father, my friends, and other men with the same brush. It is simple, fundamental sexism to do so. Just cop to it and let's move on.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I am not sorry about anything I wrote in my first post here, I might have used a fair degree of sarcasm but in my story there was and is a hint of the truth, not about men not being able to vote but that some men are not that nice a person.

So yes, I must be so evil for even saying that there are stupid men out there who have attitudes to women that are more fit to the dark ages and before than in our time. I am also evil for saying that some men are drunken idiots who have a tendency to use violence as a means to push their point of view home on some other man or woman.

And I am sorry if this is going to hurt any more male fragile egos, but it is not bigoted if one tells the truth that a part of menkind (no, not a spelling error this time ;)) are exactly the way I described them. I would hope their numbers have reduced significantly in the past decades but these kinds of men still exist. In western democracies laws, education, womens liberalization and male growth have reduced the number of men like that to a small minority there, but in some countries they male asshole syndrome is still alive and kicking in a big way. You might find that bigoted but I do not care that you feel that way. You have your point of view I have mine.

Also, I did not say that every man is like that. You are trying to pull a general discussion into your personal realm and I am not going to play that game with you, sorry, not going to go there. This is the world wide web and if we were not allowed to say something for fear that someone gets offended because they take it personally when there was never anything that was said to them personally, well, then we might as well stop all discussion forums because then everyone would take offense at every opinion.

NitroHangover said:
Dude. There was no IF involved in the OP. There was no "one or the other, men or women, ONE of them should not be allowed to vote" proposition presented in the OP. Again, you are the only one in this thread who made it an either/or question. You are the only one who used the OP as an excuse to go off on a separate, sexist tangent about men.

The idiot in the OP made a bunch of simple, sexist statements about women based on stereotypes, and used those sexist views as a case (which was apparently also sarcastic) for why women shouldn't be allowed to vote. You condemn this, yes? But then you went on, out of nowhere, to do the exact same thing, only for men. To use your own words with the sexes reversed: "generalizing all men by this man's twisted view on men in general". THAT is what you did. Exactly what she did. And beyond that, you are STILL attempting to justify this twisted view on men, and you are STILL insisting that men are LESS deserving of the right to vote than women are because of your generalizations. Whether or not you actually want men to literally be banned from voting is besides the point. The OP lady wasn't serious either. The point is that she WAS serious about her stupid, bigoted reasoning for making that sarcastic suggestion, and so are you.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but the OP was about a tea party stupid person who said (without sarcasm unfortunately):

Lane: Our country might have been better off if it was still just men voting. There is nothing worse than a bunch of mean, hateful women. They are diabolical in how than can skewer a person. I do not see that in men. The whole time I worked, I'd much rather have a male boss than a female boss. Double-minded, you never can trust them.

Because women have the right to vote, I am active, because I want to make sure there is some sanity for women in the political world.
Click to expand...

The tea party person who said this made all kinds of generalizations as to why woman should not be allowed to vote and I, equally generalizing, wrote sarcastically that if truth be told menkind have deserved loosing that right more than womenkind. You keep on complaining that I did this out of the blue, but guess what, this is a discussion forum and people post their opinions, and that is exactly what I did. You might find that out of nowhere but when the discussion is how people feel about excluding women from voting because they of who they are as women then it is IMHO perfectly natural to wonder what makes men so special that we should be allowed to vote and women are not. Men are not better than women, that was my point.
 
Peter King said:
So yes, I must be so evil for even saying that there are stupid men out there who have attitudes to women that are more fit to the dark ages and before than in our time. I am also evil for saying that some men are drunken idiots who have a tendency to use violence as a means to push their point of view home on some other man or woman.
Click to expand...
No, only bigoted for translating those things into a view of men in general, when you and I both know that the vast majority of men, especially in this day and age, are not like that.
You might find that bigoted but I do not care that you feel that way. You have your point of view I have mine.
Click to expand...
Congratulations then. I'm sorry that you view yourself and people like you in such a negative, bigoted way. Have fun, though.
Also, I did not say that every man is like that.
Click to expand...
You did, actually. If you don't think that you did in that original statement, then why are you all of a sudden using qualifying words like "SOME men", "MANY men", "CERTAIN men", etc? You're full of ****, friend.
I am sorry, but the OP was about a tea party stupid person who said (without sarcasm unfortunately):
Click to expand...
And in a subsequent post another poster showed us the FULL quote, where it was revealed that she WAS in fact being sarcastic about believing that women should literally lose the right to vote. Nevertheless, she is STILL sexist because she obviously does believe the stereotypes she used as reasoning. As do you. There is no difference between what she said and what you said.
The tea party person who said this made all kinds of generalizations as to why woman should not be allowed to vote and I, equally generalizing, wrote sarcastically that if truth be told menkind have deserved loosing that right more than womenkind. You keep on complaining that I did this out of the blue, but guess what, this is a discussion forum and people post their opinions, and that is exactly what I did. You might find that out of nowhere but when the discussion is how people feel about excluding women from voting because they of who they are as women then it is IMHO perfectly natural to wonder what makes men so special that we should be allowed to vote and women are not. Men are not better than women, that was my point.
Click to expand...
No, the point you were clearly making, and plainly stated, even in THIS post, is that men are worse than women.
 
Not reading the thread.

But I have long maintained that the cultural problems we have today would be eliminated if women could not vote.

Until women, as a majority, can vote based on intellect instead of emotion, we will have a dysfunctional government trying to implement a 'caring' society by legislative and executive and judicial fiat. It will never happen, because politicians are among the worst people to try and implement a 'perfect' society.

The only way we can approach perfection in society (and never get there) is to EVOLVE towards it by the combined commons sense of the nation at large.

Perfection can not be defined, but we will recognize it when we see it. And it will never be achieved by dramatic peals to emotional voters from mendacious politicians.

Just my opinion - my wife and daughter and granddaughters don't like me to say it - but I still believe it and patiently explain to them why I think it.

If you are not my wife or daughter or granddaughter, I feel no obligation to explain further.

:peace
 
NitroHangover said:
No, only bigoted for translating those things into a view of men in general, when you and I both know that the vast majority of men, especially in this day and age, are not like that.
Click to expand...

Nice way of letting out the part of my story where I say that men in our part of the world are only in a minority like the men I described, but even though they are in a minority there are still millions of them around.

NitroHangover said:
Congratulations then. I'm sorry that you view yourself and people like you in such a negative, bigoted way. Have fun, though.
Click to expand...

No, my point of view about some men is not negative or bigoted but realistic. Most men in our part of the world are good decent men but a large group of men on this planet are not like that. That is not bigoted but a realistic view on menkind on our planet.

NitroHangover said:
You did, actually. If you don't think that you did in that original statement, then why are you all of a sudden using qualifying words like "SOME men", "MANY men", "CERTAIN men", etc? You're full of ****, friend.
Click to expand...

My dear, never heard of exaggerating? Or sarcasm in responding to a generalizing point of view about women?

I have explained why I wrote what and because of why I wrote it that way, and if you are not willing or unable to understand that, then so be it. Live long and prosper, friend.

NitroHangover said:
And in a subsequent post another poster showed us the FULL quote, where it was revealed that she WAS in fact being sarcastic about believing that women should literally lose the right to vote. Nevertheless, she is STILL sexist because she obviously does believe the stereotypes she used as reasoning. As do you. There is no difference between what she said and what you said.
Click to expand...

Well, I have not read every post in this thread, I have other things to do (like sleep).

NitroHangover said:
No, the point you were clearly making, and plainly stated, even in THIS post, is that men are worse than women.
Click to expand...

No, the point I was making is that some men are idiotic morons who drink, rape, kill and are totally disrespectful of women. Last time I checked the number of women who drink, rape, kill and totally disrespect men are in no way as high as men that do stuff like that. Now does that make menkind worse than womenkind, NO, but men are also not better than women. Which is what I said at the end of my previous post.
 
Rokkitsci said:
Not reading the thread.

But I have long maintained that the cultural problems we have today would be eliminated if women could not vote.

Until women, as a majority, can vote based on intellect instead of emotion, we will have a dysfunctional government trying to implement a 'caring' society by legislative and executive and judicial fiat. It will never happen, because politicians are among the worst people to try and implement a 'perfect' society.

The only way we can approach perfection in society (and never get there) is to EVOLVE towards it by the combined commons sense of the nation at large.

Perfection can not be defined, but we will recognize it when we see it. And it will never be achieved by dramatic peals to emotional voters from mendacious politicians.

Just my opinion - my wife and daughter and granddaughters don't like me to say it - but I still believe it and patiently explain to them why I think it.

If you are not my wife or daughter or granddaughter, I feel no obligation to explain further.

:peace
Click to expand...

There simply has to be a massive disconnect between a person and the real world when they somehow believe that men are emotionless automotons that always vote logically and intelligently.
 
NitroHangover said:
@ Smoke and Spiker,

I tried searching on the website for the local radio show I heard where they were discussing that study, but I couldn't find it, and I don't remember what their source on it was. I remember the conversation because they went on and on about it for at least a good half an hour, but I admit it is possible that maybe I'm remembering the actual finding of the study slightly wrong in some way, since I can't find it.

Anyway, there's really no way for me to argue anything you guys have said because to do so I would have to premise my arguments on something I can't back up by showing the study. Sorry I brought it up.
Click to expand...

Well - a problem with studies and research is that the findings are only as accurate and thorough as the test method. . . because i they were *all* accurate - we just need to off ourselves because we're really ****ed up and psychotic. LOL - I've read so many different research papers and reports that directly conflict - it's stressful!

So - just like polls - take it with a grain of salt. When it comes to doing research I tend to read the initial report - any connections they suggest (other findings, etc) - and read up on the individuals involved and learn about their method - and so on . . . it's amazing what you find that's questionable.

I remember reading a same-sex parenting study that seemed promising but it turned out that only 1/2 of their subjects were in same-sex relationships with children and the others were not. That cut the subject pool down to maybe 20 . . . not enough to do a study with. Everyone else, I thought, needed to just be tossed out. And others had interesting - or questionable methodology. Some do personal-studies where the individual comes in and is interviewed. Others do phone interviews - and others have their surveys on websites and never meet their subjects nor can they even verify their subjects are even of said needed study-category (like single without kids, for example).

Lengthy papers abound - and a lot are full of ****.
 
I'm much more concerned with the wisdom of allowing men the vote.
 
ab9924 said:
The word AND in your statement is sooo telling. You are within 6 sigmas of our modern life statistics. So, let me ask this question. Why is it important that what the man cares about is outside the house? Do I gather that the underlying premise is a basic truth about women, that they have some sort of a need to limit the time that their men can interact with them? I know a few CEO's, and one specifically had this problem big time. When he for once took a 2 weeks off, his wife kicked him out of their house, so he had to spend all that time in exile at the golf course. (I had an excellent time with him there, BUT I sooo wouldn't wanna be in his shoes. What options are there for him to make his wife love him? Zero, the generic women's time limit applies.)
Click to expand...

Apparently you don't understand the word "and." If a man is engaged in something productive and paid that he enjoys doing from home, he is employed.
 
clownboy said:
I'm much more concerned with the wisdom of allowing men the vote.
Click to expand...

I don't know - my husband's pretty cool. I think he's good. . . so I'll support the right to allow him to be a well rounded citizen.

Now - if only this next election soldiers on deployment would actually have their votes counted.
 
ab9924 said:
I would like to respectfully disagree, to the core, here. It may not be direct cash that women need for a turn-on, but it is some sort of a status in the environment, that women absolutely demand for a man to achieve or inherit, before they talk to him. Sexist or not, there is no such thing against women. A woman is welcome always, even if she has nothing going for her, maybe with the exception of her physical health.
Click to expand...

Yeah - well I definitely I don't need my husband's money for a 'turn-on' - when we married we were dirt poor and if we end up dirt poor again I'd be just fine - I'd still want to be with him. :shrug: Maybe some women are like that (wanting status if not direct money) - I don't know how many would be like that (and I'm sure some men are like that, too) - but I'm not like that. I didn't remotely care about what he did for a living - his family fortune (that I didn't even know about in the beginning) and all of that - I just wanted to be with him because he thrilled me every time we were together in his ****ty little truck that didn't even have AC.

You have an attitude that would make any man the luckiest husband on Earth. (Really! :) )

Generally speaking however, aren't the words highlighted the most telling foundations that describe every woman's judgemental attitude about men, in a sexist way, which is ultimately what is responsibe for introducing sexism into all job markets and the entire economy and politics? I am not against sexism, but in broad terms, we need to admit that it originates in women, and men are only reactive to it. Otherwise, when men get attracted to women for her looks and words alone, why can't women get attracted to men for his looks and words alone? Oh yeah, we men didn't start this.
Click to expand...

No one - male or female - should be a bum. Just being married to someone who can support you doesn't mean you've earned the right to do nothing. And by nothing I really mean nothing - no chores, no home improvement, no finances, no dinner. . . .that's nothing - sitting around and playing video games, sleeping, reading - if the person's time is occupied by hobbies and nothing more they've established they're a bum.

In a household there is always something that needs to be done - and if you're not employed it's your job to do those things. You don't have to like it - but you still have to do it. It's highly rude and unfair to the employed spouse if they wear their selves out all day while you twiddle your thumbs.

Someone who has time and accomplishes diddly squat is a leech. . . and that doesn't matter if it's man or woman - or even adult children living at home. (or adult offspring, whatever you want to call them).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom