NationStates Jolt Archive

And women get asked questions like "Do you plan to get married/have kids in the future?" because employers don't want to give them time off or pay maternity leave. All this goes on despite the fact that it is illegal. It's ridiculous.

I'll consider this as a joke, rather than an accurate comment on your view of the world, okay?

Its my experience of life.

Oh, and Im single and fed up with it. I constantly tell myself Im gonna be a slick bastard, but it just doesnt happen. I try to be the nice guy, as I wouldnt be able to live with myself any other way (try being the word, no one is perfect). But as far as being happy goes, I wouldnt reccomend it.

Such labels do describe us to some extent however. That I am "British" tells you I consider my home to be England. Its where I came from. It doesnt tell you any more than that though.

That's what I'm getting at. It might indicate, but only indicate that you have a regional accent. Otherwise, it doesn't tell me what books you've read, what you've studied, what you like, what you dislike, etc. Neither does calling me a woman, or saying that I'm white.

Oh and seriously it was a throwaway comment.

And as for us all being puter nerds. lol. Not quite.

And for your reference Zadd, you could just be a nice guy. Then you are safe from sex. Trust me here, actually treating a woman as an equal will not get you anywhere. You get respect and friends, but its perfect if you want to avoid any form of relationship.

That's not exactly true. My fiancee thinks of me as an equal. I think of him as an equal. I'm crazy about him, and he's not safe from sex because he treats me as an equal. He has my respect and my friendship, and my lust too. Of course, there's more to it than that. He likes the same books I like, and we like the same music, and movies, and we can talk for hours. He cooks amazing meals, and loves my cooking. We have points on which we differ, but I don't see him as unsexy because he respects me.

"women dont go for nice guys until they want someone to settle down with"

The words of one of my female friends. She's sh*t hot at psychology too.

I does explain everything.

Heh. Part of this is because we don't start out knowing the difference between the nice ones and the not so nice ones. We usually have to go through a lot of frogs before we meet a prince. When we find one, we try our best to keep him, and yes, settle down. Usually, though, they've been through their share of frog-ettes by then, too.

So it's like the thing you're looking for always being in the last place you look?

"Women don't go for nice guys until they're ready to settle down" actually means
"Women date a lot of losers but as soon as they find a nice guy they want to settle down".

explains a lot

Oh, and Im single and fed up with it. I constantly tell myself Im gonna be a slick bastard, but it just doesnt happen. I try to be the nice guy, as I wouldnt be able to live with myself any other way (try being the word, no one is perfect). But as far as being happy goes, I wouldnt reccomend it.

In the words of Seth Tobocman "you don't have to fuck people over to survive" - being a nice guy/girl is no barrier to being in relationships. Sure, a sense of danger or a bit of rebel chic might add an attractive/alluring edge to a person, but acting like a complete jerk is a very different thing.

In the words of Seth Tobocman "you don't have to fuck people over to survive" - being a nice guy/girl is no barrier to being in relationships. Sure, a sense of danger or a bit of rebel chic might add an attractive/alluring edge to a person, but acting like a complete jerk is a very different thing.

I'd be the first to admit that I've done a bit of both. I've fucked people over, because I was young, and self-centered, but at the same time, I've had a few people do it to me for the same reason. The instant you start caring about how another person feels, you begin to find people who care how you feel. Of course, it helps if you learn to communicate a bit. Nobody's a mind reader. Women are just people, as much as men are. There are infinite variations on the theme.

I think the girls Notquiteaplace is talking about just aren't interested in him sexually. He's barking up the wrong tree.

"women dont go for nice guys until they want someone to settle down with"
I'm not ready to settle down, but, I date a nice guy. Nice guys don't finish last; they just aren't heard until the asshole is through making the woman feel like a fool for dating him.

We usually have to go through a lot of frogs before we meet a prince.

Obviously enough, though, one person's frog is another person's prince, and vice-versa.

I'd be the first to admit that I've done a bit of both. I've fucked people over, because I was young, and self-centered, but at the same time, I've had a few people do it to me for the same reason. The instant you start caring about how another person feels, you begin to find people who care how you feel. Of course, it helps if you learn to communicate a bit. Nobody's a mind reader. Women are just people, as much as men are. There are infinite variations on the theme.

I think the girls Notquiteaplace is talking about just aren't interested in him sexually. He's barking up the wrong tree.

Would be nice if people were[ mind-readers. I hate having to tell someone anything personal. If I haven't told you something, it's most likely because I don't want you to know. Of course, when people ask (unless I've deemed the information irrelevant or too personal), they'll usually get an answer.

But then, if people were mind-readers, you'd all know my secrets. :eek:

Obviously enough, though, one person's frog is another person's prince, and vice-versa.

I look at a couple of ex's and wonder if they'll ever be anyone's prince. Maybe that's just me, though. Look, I'm growing up, so I wasn't hopeless after all. Perhaps there's hope for everyone, given enough time. ;)

I look at a couple of ex's and wonder if they'll ever be anyone's prince. Maybe that's just me, though. Look, I'm growing up, so I wasn't hopeless after all. Perhaps there's hope for everyone, given enough time. ;)

Meh...I gave up hope a while ago. I think I'm love with Joan of Arc.

Meh...I gave up hope a while ago. I think I'm love with Joan of Arc.

Pessimistically speaking, we can all find one consistent thing in all of our relationships. Ourselves. *cough*

Meh...I gave up hope a while ago. I think I'm love with Joan of Arc.

Heck. Any chance to quote something off the Songs of Love and Hate* LP:

"Well, I'm glad to hear you talk this way,
you know I've watched you riding every day
and something in me yearns to win
such a cold and lonesome heroine."
"And who are you?" she sternly spoke
to the one beneath the smoke.
"Why, I'm fire," he replied,
"And I love your solitude, I love your pride."

"Then fire, make your body cold,
I'm going to give you mine to hold,"
saying this she climbed inside
to be his one, to be his only bride.
And deep into his fiery heart
he took the dust of Joan of Arc,
and high above the wedding guests
he hung the ashes of her wedding dress.


It was either do that or offer RPP a couple of friendly warnings and words of advice about getting into relationships with girls that hear the voice of God speaking to them...


* Leonard Cohen's one, not the album named in its tribute by Godflesh.

Heh. That reminded me of one of my favorite songs. Another Leonard Cohen one. Dance Me to the End of Love. How appropriate.

Pessimistically speaking, we can all find one consistent thing in all of our relationships. Ourselves. *cough*

You assume I've ever had a relationship that wasn't platonic. ;)

Ah, I kid.

Actually my "wife" (for all intents and purposes, although no state has declared us bethrothed) has just left to complete two years of compulsory military service in her "home nation". There will not be party programming here for a while.

P.S. I hate having to tell you that. :D

Heh. That reminded me of one of my favorite songs. Another Leonard Cohen one. Dance Me to the End of Love. How appropriate.

Don't know that one. What LP?

Don't know that one. What LP?

Various Positions, from 1984.

I look at a couple of ex's and wonder if they'll ever be anyone's prince.

Well, I guess statistically, some frogs are just going to end up with other frogs. Them are the breaks.

Well, I guess statistically, some frogs are just going to end up with other frogs. Them are the breaks.

Why do I get the feeling that we are tainting the good reputation of frogs?

Well, I guess statistically, some frogs are just going to end up with other frogs. Them are the breaks.

I wonder how many sweet but dumb women will end up being trailed in their wakes before they find someone they deserve, and who deserves them.

Why do I get the feeling that we are tainting the good reputation of frogs?

You're right. Frogs aren't bad just because they're ugly. They're probably not even ugly to other frogs. I just couldn't say. It's this human tendency to associate good or bad looks with personality.

You're right. Frogs aren't bad just because they're ugly. They're probably not even ugly to other frogs. I just couldn't say. It's this human tendency to associate good or bad looks with personality.

Call me a frog, then, I'm ugly as sin. My better half is an Angel. Not even in comparison. The holy light shines from her face.

Why do I get the feeling that we are tainting the good reputation of frogs?

yeah, I had the same feeling, and thought maybe I should add a coda to that saying something like 'still, no frogs, no tadpole/frogspawn', but it seemed to just cloud the matter. Metaphorical frogs and metaphorical princes. When it comes to your actual frogs and your actual princes I'm on the side of the amphibians.*






* This is not a David Icke/lizard people reference.

yeah, I had the same feeling, and thought maybe I should add a coda to that saying something like 'still, no frogs, no tadpole/frogspawn', but it seemed to just cloud the matter. Metaphorical frogs and metaphorical princes. When it comes to your actual forgs and your actual princes I'm on the side of the amphibians.*






* This is not a David Icke/lizard people reference.

Well done for catching my drift! :D

* This is not a David Icke/lizard people reference.

HAH. I read his book. David Icke is entertaining, at any rate. The person who lent me the book, btw, took it seriously. :D

I don't like it on the news when it says '30 dead, including women and children' because the men who didn't want to fight are just as dead as the others.
That hardly seems equal to me.Aye, that annoys me too.

I belive that EVERYONE should be considered equal, regardless of gender, age (EVEN those younger than 18), race, or any other discriminating factor.I'd have to quibble with that regarding age. Folks mature mentally with age, particularly in the first couple of decades. And in some contexts (law), age is a reasonably (though far from perfect) stand-in for mental competance, and far easier to determine. Now on a discussion forum like this one things are different; what matters is about people is what they write, and there's no point in stereotyping from age.

It is because the word "feminism" has gained negative connotations that imply extremism, which is factually not true of the ideology.Unfortunately, opponents of feminism have been quite successful in misrepresenting it.

I'd be the first to admit that I've done a bit of both. I've fucked people over, because I was young, and self-centered, but at the same time, I've had a few people do it to me for the same reason. The instant you start caring about how another person feels, you begin to find people who care how you feel. Of course, it helps if you learn to communicate a bit. Nobody's a mind reader. Women are just people, as much as men are. There are infinite variations on the theme.

I think the girls Notquiteaplace is talking about just aren't interested in him sexually. He's barking up the wrong tree.

Look, I know Im ugly already. :(

Look, I know Im ugly already. :(

You don't look at the mantlepiece when you're poking the fire.

Problem is that my mantlepiece is obviously extremely boring.

I agree.

Is it possible to be a male feminist? Is that a contradiction of terms/self-degrading?

Main Entry: fem·i·nism
Pronunciation: 'fe-m&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

So yes, you can be a male feminist. Feminism does not mean promoting women's rights and interests OVER men's...it means promoting male and female equity (not equal as in exactly the same, rather equitable as in fair).

Look, I know Im ugly already. :(

Nobody called you ugly. I was talking about specific girls who simply aren't interested in you. It's statistically possible that there are nice ones who aren't. There are going to be nice ones that are, too. You just need to find them. They respond best to people who are nice to them. There's someone out there for everyone, believe it.

Aye, that annoys me too.

I belive that EVERYONE should be considered equal, regardless of gender, age (EVEN those younger than 18), race, or any other discriminating factor.

I'd have to quibble with that regarding age. Folks mature mentally with age, particularly in the first couple of decades. And in some contexts (law), age is a reasonably (though far from perfect) stand-in for mental competance, and far easier to determine. Now on a discussion forum like this one things are different; what matters is about people is what they write, and there's no point in stereotyping from age.

Unfortunately, opponents of feminism have been quite successful in misrepresenting it.

I find it hard to belive that when I happen to know (IRL) a multitude of really smart kids and a multitude of really dumb adults. Call me crazy, but I don't think it's fair for the smart kids to be considered legally inferior and subordinate to the dumb adults. That, and/or it really ticks me off to see people fighting so hard for women's rights when they treat children with the same discrimination they so vehemently hate.

PS: Hey! Frogs aren't ugly! I like frogs!

Then again, I like tarantulas too, so my animal standards can'tbe very high.

Although I do hate mosquitos... Who dosen't?

Yeah, I'm getting off topic, so I'll end this post now.

Well, as a German-American wife, mother, and Wiccan, who regards herself as somewhat intelligent, here's what I think.-->

For many years, at least in America and Europe, the ruling "class", so to say, has been the White Christian Anglo-Saxon Male. It, sadly, is human nature for people to fear, destroy, and/or subjugate what they cannot fully understand, or what is not like them. However, in the 20th and 21st centuries, there have been significant strides ahead to protect the rights of the minority races. The flaw, is only a couple of acts protected or granted some of these freedoms to women. Much of it also has to do with the teachings passed down from children learning about how relationships work from their parents. Since many, many, many years ago, couples were taught to believe (via the teachings of the Bible), that the woman is second to her husband. In fact, there is an infamous quote from a mother when teaching her newly married daughter about what to do when her new husband expected sex, was "Just close your eyes and think of England. He'll never notice." propagating the myth that "good" women didn't enjoy sex and "bad" women did. During those times, no woman who wanted a husband and family could be a "bad" woman. A husband and family were the ticket to the "good" woman's acceptance within society. When the 60's brought the sexual revolution, not only did women realize that there was more out there for them than just domestic duties, the men realized that they could no longer keep the women in the small place that they had been for so long, where their mothers were. This caused fear and uncertainty among the male gender. Men felt threatened by women's newfound freedoms, and the uncertainty that they may not be there to care for the men as their mothers before them had. Therefore, I feel that the recent misogynistic attitudes reflect that fear.

It, sadly, is human nature for people to fear, destroy, and/or subjugate what they cannot fully understand, or what is not like them.

I wouldn't agree that it is human nature. I'd say it is social conditioning, rather than human nature.

saying it is human nature implies it is the natural way to be, and that anyone not like that is acting unnaturally.

also, saying it is human nature, then pointing out bad stuff about males only, is saying that it is natural for all people to act this way, whether male or female, while pointing the finger firmly at males as the sole culprits.

of course, I come from a perspective of enjoying things that are different, and feel no need to understand everything, so I suppose I'm biased towards it not being natural to fear the different.

I don't think I was ever "taught" to appreciate diversity. I recall school as a place where you were encouraged to accept without questioning. I also recall thinking "this is bullcrap," and deciding that I would question anything I wasn't properly convinced of.

they could no longer keep the women in the small place that they had been for so long, where their mothers were. This caused fear and uncertainty among the male gender. Men felt threatened by women's newfound freedoms, and the uncertainty that they may not be there to care for the men as their mothers before them had. Therefore, I feel that the recent misogynistic attitudes reflect that fear.

I think this is one of the fundamental problems with several of the arguments presented here. They generalise. In my experience, the majority of guys I know respect and appreciate woman, and I have not observed any of them acting in any misogynistic way.

If the general trend is that males in general are becoming misogynistic, then why are all these guys advocates of equality for women, and expect women to be paid equally for equal work, and expect to be expected to help with child-raising, housework, cooking, etc, and do it happily?

if you want to eliminate generalised attitudes, it's best to start by not having them yourself. I can never generalise to say "such and such a group are like....." I can only say "some of group such and such are like...."
If I do generalise, I then have given up the right to attack other generalisations. so by saying "men felt threatened," you give up your right to complain about men who generalise about women.

oh yeah, in case you haven't guessed, I disagree with the "age determines maturity level" argument as well. for anyone who does agree with it, can you explain to me why someone who is 17 years and 364 days old is immature, but someone one day older is suddenly mature.

yes, I know it's a gradual process, and that the age limits are just arbitrary divisions so people don't actually have to spend time and effort evaluating an individual when they can just pigeonhole them without having to know anything about them. what I'm looking for is an explanation that isn't that stupid. an actual reason why we should judge people based on age.

and yes, I do know that you can't say a 2 year old has the maturity of a 20 year old (although some do, since some 20 year olds are such babies.) but I think the divisions are too arbitrary. anyone under 18 is considered a "kid" whose opinion is worthless because anyone under that age is clearly an idiot who knows nothing.

just remember how old Mozart was when he started composing. should such great music be disregarded as the work of an immature idiot? what about Arthur Rimbaud, or anyone else that did anything now considered great, before they were old enough to be considered mature enough in today's society to actually have anything worthwhile to say?

for reference, I am 32, almost 33, my friends range in age from 19 (she was sixteen when I met her, and her brother who is a year older, and at 17 was more mature than most 30 year olds I've met, certainly a boatload more mature than most 21 year olds I knew when I was 21, or know now for that matter) up to 50plus (I'm not much one for asking people's ages, so I don't necessarily know how old my friends are, even if I know when their birthdays are, and usually only know how old someone is if I am told.)

and while I am generally pretty mature, I am quite capable of actiing like a bratty asshole at times, so I know better than to take my initial impression of someone and brand them as being a paticular kind of person. I may have caught them on a bad day, or on a subject about which they have no rationality.

I am male, and feel in no way threatened by the fact that one of my female friends earns 3 times what I do for the same job (she has loads more experience than me, and deserves the higher pay based on that experience, but she does the same kind of work I do, just knows more than me about it.)

I have several other female friends who earn higher salaries than me, and they all deserve it as well. I also know some who are horribly underpaid for what they do, and it is not fair at all, and they know I feel that way, but I also know that if a guy had their jobs, the salaries would be the same (I've had some of the same jobs, and I got paid the same ridiculously low salaries.)

I don't often have a girlfriend, partially due to extreme shyness, but this still does not change my attitude towards women. nor did an experience with a woman who lied, manipulated, cheated, and generally screwed me over for her own amusement. that's her, not women in general.

I find it hard to belive that when I happen to know (IRL) a multitude of really smart kids and a multitude of really dumb adults. Call me crazy, but I don't think it's fair for the smart kids to be considered legally inferior and subordinate to the dumb adults. That, and/or it really ticks me off to see people fighting so hard for women's rights when they treat children with the same discrimination they so vehemently hate.

PS: Hey! Frogs aren't ugly! I like frogs!

Then again, I like tarantulas too, so my animal standards can'tbe very high.

Although I do hate mosquitos... Who dosen't?

Yeah, I'm getting off topic, so I'll end this post now.

I'd say that this is just a teenager feeling angsty, but here goes.

So you'd like to ditch your safety-net, huh? I'd be more than happy to oblige you. Then I'd promptly go about making you sorry you don't have it by taking you for all you've got and showing you that you're not as smart as you think you are. Don't ever underestimate the power of years and cunning. I only wish there were some kind of nice emulation that would show you the mistake you'd be making if you thought fit to remove it.

Don't think equality is a bed of roses, sweetheart. It ain't. The safety net is there to protect teenagers from themselves, as much as from anybody else. Don't equate it with the affairs of grown-ups. It's nothing like that in substance or in spirit.

I find it hard to belive that when I happen to know (IRL) a multitude of really smart kids and a multitude of really dumb adults. Call me crazy, but I don't think it's fair for the smart kids to be considered legally inferior and subordinate to the dumb adults. That, and/or it really ticks me off to see people fighting so hard for women's rights when they treat children with the same discrimination they so vehemently hate.

the problem is that young people who have yet to reach a certain age do not have the neurophysiological characteristic required for adult reasoning, no matter how smart they are. your brain isn't finished developing when you are born, and it certainly isn't done when you hit puberty, so it is actually physically impossible for a 12 year old to exercise what we consider adult reasoning.

now, perhaps adult reasoning shouldn't be a requirement for voting. god knows there are many adults who choose not to exercise the reasoning abilities they have. but i think the physical impossibility of children using such reasoning is part of the solid case to keep the voting age above 15 or so.

I'm pretty sure it does, because there was recently a scandal involving several large companies, including Merrill Lynch and sexism. Women were routinely harassed and are only paid roughly 2/3... This story was in the Sydney Morning Herald if you want to look into it. I'm assuming this took hours into account, and anyway, in full time professional jobs men and women generally work the same hours.

It's also worth taking a look at the list comparing the jobs women did in the past, and do today. There isn't much difference! Women are still trapped in this role created by society.

First let me qualify this by saying I do not agree myself with the reason I am about to give.
Second, the most common reason I have seen given, and though I disagree with it, I also understand it, is that women are more apt to have many health related issues...pregnancy chief among these. By this train of thought, there will be several times in a womans career where she will have to leave work for extended times, etc., amounting to, from a company standpoint, lost revenue and production, training replacements if the woman decides to take a leave of absence to raise her child, etc. Personally, I can see many of these excuses or reasons going away in the era of work from home, internet, etc. but it has been a reason I have heard discussed often.
Just my two cents.

Women like sex just as much as men. By saying they have the power and all that crap you are giving them power over you. And to you ladies your man hate is just as tired as the "women need to know there place". your no better then the people you are complaining about. Now get me a beer. :eek:

I've noticed that there are couple of slightly offensive threads that have popped up that basically have belittling comments about us. I think we ought to ban together and counter the enemy with out witty wisdom.

We are not whores, and just because we are liberated doesn't mean we are feminists. We are humans too; we were all created equal.


God the way you typed that was so sexy! I could really feel the anger. And I like it! :p

/slanders everyone on this thread, male or female. :p

First let me qualify this by saying I do not agree myself with the reason I am about to give.
Second, the most common reason I have seen given, and though I disagree with it, I also understand it, is that women are more apt to have many health related issues...pregnancy chief among these. By this train of thought, there will be several times in a womans career where she will have to leave work for extended times, etc., amounting to, from a company standpoint, lost revenue and production, training replacements if the woman decides to take a leave of absence to raise her child, etc. Personally, I can see many of these excuses or reasons going away in the era of work from home, internet, etc. but it has been a reason I have heard discussed often.
Just my two cents.
i think a business is right to invest less time and energy in female workers, because female workers have been shown to be something like 5 times more likely to leave their career when they have children; why should my company spend time and money training and advancing a female, when we could find an equally talented male who will be far less likely to drop his career when he has a family?

this is another reason why i resent most other women; i have to admit that employers would be totally justified in viewing me as a less desirable employee because i am female. i think dropping one's career for one's children is not only a stupid personal choice but also makes one automatically a worse mother than if one had remained in the work place, but i can't possibly communicate that to a potential employer in any way that they would be able to trust. i'm female, and therefore i am a potential liability to them when compared to my male collegues. the only way to overcome this is to become so talented and skilled that they cannot find a male with potential that equals mine...then it's worth taking the risk on me :).

i think a business is right to invest less time and energy in female workers, because female workers have been shown to be something like 5 times more likely to leave their career when they have children; why should my company spend time and money training and advancing a female, when we could find an equally talented male who will be far less likely to drop his career when he has a family?

this is another reason why i resent most other women; i have to admit that employers would be totally justified in viewing me as a less desirable employee because i am female. i think dropping one's career for one's children is not only a stupid personal choice but also makes one automatically a worse mother than if one had remained in the work place, but i can't possibly communicate that to a potential employer in any way that they would be able to trust. i'm female, and therefore i am a potential liability to them when compared to my male collegues. the only way to overcome this is to become so talented and skilled that they cannot find a male with potential that equals mine...then it's worth taking the risk on me :).

So the answer is to specialize? I think it bears consideration for any young woman thinking of going to college. Especially something fairly technical or obscure.

i think a business is right to invest less time and energy in female workers, because female workers have been shown to be something like 5 times more likely to leave their career when they have children; why should my company spend time and money training and advancing a female, when we could find an equally talented male who will be far less likely to drop his career when he has a family?

this is another reason why i resent most other women; i have to admit that employers would be totally justified in viewing me as a less desirable employee because i am female. i think dropping one's career for one's children is not only a stupid personal choice but also makes one automatically a worse mother than if one had remained in the work place, but i can't possibly communicate that to a potential employer in any way that they would be able to trust. i'm female, and therefore i am a potential liability to them when compared to my male collegues. the only way to overcome this is to become so talented and skilled that they cannot find a male with potential that equals mine...then it's worth taking the risk on me :).

You take a really pessimistic view of the way men see women, don't you? And how does staying at home to raise kids automatically count as bad motherhood?

why should my company spend time and money training and advancing a female, when we could find an equally talented male who will be far less likely to drop his career when he has a family?

Because women who have been given those opportunities (and given freedom to raise a family) by employers have been proven to show more company loyalty in the long term.

I'm all for a Scandinavian model of things- childcare at work etc.

Oh, and I think fathers should get equal paternity leave and such, so the burden can be split. And hopefully, when parenting becomes a shared responsibility, all this discrimination against women in the workforce will disappear. Well, one can dream.

I'm all for a Scandinavian model of things- childcare at work etc.

Oh, and I think fathers should get equal paternity leave and such, so the burden can be split. And hopefully, when parenting becomes a shared responsibility, all this discrimination against women in the workforce will disappear. Well, one can dream.

Fathers often do get (nearly) equal leave these days. Women still get paid far less for the same job, though, which I just don't get. It's illegal, for a start.

"Women like sex just as much as men. By saying they have the power and all that crap you are giving them power over you." I agree with that. I just withheld sex from my wife last night, she is in a much more compliant mood this evening, I will submit to her I think.-muhahahahahaha.

"And to you ladies your man hate is just as tired as the "women need to know there place".
I havnt read every page here, but for the most part I dont see "MAN HATE"-and I am admittedly sexist.

"Now get me a beer"
You're not very good with women are you?

I havent seen any man hate here. Well a little. But not much. And frankly it seems wrongly directed at man, as opposed to chauvenists, who I continue to protest are not men but children. They might be 55 but it doesnt mean they are grown up. lol

i think a business is right to invest less time and energy in female workers, because female workers have been shown to be something like 5 times more likely to leave their career when they have children; why should my company spend time and money training and advancing a female, when we could find an equally talented male who will be far less likely to drop his career when he has a family?

this is another reason why i resent most other women; i have to admit that employers would be totally justified in viewing me as a less desirable employee because i am female. i think dropping one's career for one's children is not only a stupid personal choice but also makes one automatically a worse mother than if one had remained in the work place, but i can't possibly communicate that to a potential employer in any way that they would be able to trust. i'm female, and therefore i am a potential liability to them when compared to my male collegues. the only way to overcome this is to become so talented and skilled that they cannot find a male with potential that equals mine...then it's worth taking the risk on me :).

in the modern world NO ONE stays that long in any one job. men and women both move on fairly quickly leaving that first employer to pay the cost of training that the next employer benefits from. what does it matter if they leave to raise their kids or to get a better job somewhere else?

staying home to raise your children is a personal choice that most women would love to have. not to say that MOST women would choose it, just that they want to feel they have the option.

I'd say that this is just a teenager feeling angsty, but here goes.

So you'd like to ditch your safety-net, huh? I'd be more than happy to oblige you. Then I'd promptly go about making you sorry you don't have it by taking you for all you've got and showing you that you're not as smart as you think you are. Don't ever underestimate the power of years and cunning. I only wish there were some kind of nice emulation that would show you the mistake you'd be making if you thought fit to remove it.

Don't think equality is a bed of roses, sweetheart. It ain't. The safety net is there to protect teenagers from themselves, as much as from anybody else. Don't equate it with the affairs of grown-ups. It's nothing like that in substance or in spirit.

FYI, I'm not a teenager, and anyone that knows my age IRL would agree. ;)

I go back to the point that some adults act like "children" who are unable to exercise "adult reasoning" (See George W. Bush), and some children who I find much more pleasant and intelligent than most adults. I think that's because adults seem to have a harder time accepting new ideas than childen PRECISELY BECAUSE their brain has stopped growing, and thus have a harder time accepting new information. (See again George W. Bush.)

Yes, MOST children are perfectly incompotent. But, just like we shouldn't treat ALL women based on the actions of one, there's no reason to treat the smart kids like all the dumb ones.

the problem is that young people who have yet to reach a certain age do not have the neurophysiological characteristic required for adult reasoning, no matter how smart they are. your brain isn't finished developing when you are born, and it certainly isn't done when you hit puberty, so it is actually physically impossible for a 12 year old to exercise what we consider adult reasoning.

now, perhaps adult reasoning shouldn't be a requirement for voting. god knows there are many adults who choose not to exercise the reasoning abilities they have. but i think the physical impossibility of children using such reasoning is part of the solid case to keep the voting age above 15 or so

First of all, if we used grammar as a measurement of intelligence like we do age, then you would end up even lower than a few of the "children" you hate so much.

And, as I said above, "adult reasoning" is more like, "inability to accept new ideas". Generally, children's brains are still forming, like you said, so it actually makes it EASIER for them to see the "big picture". Or is your idea of a responsible adult someone who belives one thing even if solid evidence of the opposite is two feet in front of their own nose?

(And yes, I do have several neurology books backing up this theory, but I can't remember any names right now.)

Now, if I'm correct, you probably won't change your mind no matter what evidence I put in front of you, because of the reasons I outlined earlier, so it's pointless arguing with you, but I enjoy debating, so I'll continue.

And yes, I am as smart as I think I am, probably more seeing as I have very low expectations for myself. :mad:

PS: If there are multiple spelling errors in this post, It's probably because it's hard to type with a broken finger.

PSS: Ahh, Scandenavia. [Useless Info]I'm half Scandinavian, you know.[\Useless Info]

First of all, if we used grammar as a measurement of intelligence like we do age, then you would end up even lower than a few of the "children" you hate so much.

honeybunny, i AM a child.


And, as I said above, "adult reasoning" is more like, "inability to accept new ideas". Generally, children's brains are still forming, like you said, so it actually makes it EASIER for them to see the "big picture". Or is your idea of a responsible adult someone who belives one thing even if solid evidence of the opposite is two feen in front of their own nose?

"adult reasoning" refering to development in the frontal cortex, connectivity that provides the ability for increased abstract comprehension and verbal processing, as well as some really fascinating connections to the lymbic system. again, i am not saying young people are stupid (though you seem to be providing evidence for the case that they lack ability to moderate their emotional responses at an adult level), i am simply making a factual statement about adolescent neuroscience. if you don't like the scientific facts, and are prepared to lash out at anybody who presents them, then why are you criticizing adults for "believing one thing even if solid evidence of the opposite is two feet in front of their own nose?"

you seem to really hate adults...why is that? you do realize you are going to grow up, don't you? i mean, Peter Pan complexes are so 1988.


(And yes, I do have several neurology books backing up this theory, but I can't remember any names right now.)

i hold a degree in neurobiology, and i am studying for my doctorate. i say this not to intimidate or brag, but simply to assure you that i know what i am talking about. the human brain is not a static organ, and it continues to grow throughout your young life. the hormonal changes of puberty do far more than produce secondary sex characteristics, they also change significant connections and networks in the human brain. a child who has not gone through puberty (or at least gotten to a certain point in puberty) cannot physically possess the same frontal connections as an adult.

now, as i said, HAVING these connections doesn't make one automatically USE them. there is an excellent case to be made, which you completely missed, for saying that adult reasoning capacity isn't required from ADULTS when voting, so it shouldn't be required from children. you could have argued your case using the facts, rather than lashing out and flinging childish insults about my grammar, but instead you lived up to everyone's low standard of adolescent behavior.


Now, if I'm correct, you probably won't change your mind no matter what evidence I put in front of you, because of the reasons I outlined earlier, so it's pointless arguling with you, but I enjoy debating, so I'll continue.

you have yet to provide any evidence. all you have done is make a wild speculation about my feelings, temperment, and intelligence, based on nothing more than a post that states the scientific realities of human development. if you wish to assume that my understanding of science is some kind of age-ism then that's your choice, but persecution delusions are as dull as Peter Pan complexes...couldn't you try for, maybe, a little more extreme paranoia? like, that all the adults are trying to fatten kids up to be eaten or something?


And yes, I am as smart as I think I am, probably more seeing as I have very low expectations for myself. :mad:

i'm glad you are confident in your intelligence. please apply it to this debate.


PS: If there are multible spelling errors in this post, It's probably because it's hard to type with a broken pinky finger.

ahhh, so my grammar is grounds for you to denounce my intelligence, but i am supposed to overlook your spelling because of a broken pinky? does your pinky tell you how to spell? ;)

So the answer is to specialize? I think it bears consideration for any young woman thinking of going to college. Especially something fairly technical or obscure.
not really specialization, just developing a skill or skills or education base that is very desirable to employers. specialization tends to come with that, but it doesn't have to. a female could also go the opposite rout by being so comprehensively educated that she covers more bases than competitors.

of course, this method of making oneself desirable to employers applies to all people. as my mom used to say, "be so good that they can't afford to ignore you." it just happens to especially apply to minorities or women who feel that they are viewed as less potentially valuable to employers; make yourself so damn good at what you do that they can't possibly afford not to hire you.

You take a really pessimistic view of the way men see women, don't you?

i said "employers." i made no specification that those employers need be male. you assumed that...interesting.


And how does staying at home to raise kids automatically count as bad motherhood?
i do not believe it is possible to parent effectively in modern culture if the parents give tacit approval to dependence. though i should ammend my statement to only necessarily apply to parents with healthy children; if a family has a disabled or special-needs child then the situation can be quite different, particularly if the family's financial situation doesn't provide for sufficient nursing care or whatever.

Because women who have been given those opportunities (and given freedom to raise a family) by employers have been proven to show more company loyalty in the long term.
okay. prove it. also, please prove that the increased loyalty of the female who is given additional benefits is worth more to a company than the loyalty of a male who does not require these benefits as a prerequisite for his loyalty.

in the modern world NO ONE stays that long in any one job. men and women both move on fairly quickly leaving that first employer to pay the cost of training that the next employer benefits from. what does it matter if they leave to raise their kids or to get a better job somewhere else?

statistics simply show that women leave jobs more often. it's just the numbers. any reasonable employer will see that yes, men do leave, but women are far more likely to do so...and the employer would be totally right for selecting the lesser of the two evils.


staying home to raise your children is a personal choice that most women would love to have. not to say that MOST women would choose it, just that they want to feel they have the option.
and i completely defend their right to have that option available, just as i support every human adult's right to eat McDonalds whenever they feel like buying it. however, i don't think either choice is healthy.

Well, I, personally, go out of my way to treat most women just like I treat men. You know...

'Make sure they don't get in the way, and once that's ensured leave them the hell alone. Destroy any who do get in the way. Cackle alarmingly.'

In fact, the only exceptions would be those girls who I like more than I like the average man, and my ex-girlfriend.

May she be turned orange of hue, and may her head fall off at an akward moment so it will be easier to feed to the turtles.

Well, you obviously can't treat all people equally no matter how hard you try, because your emotuions get in the way, and I think a guy would feel somewhat different emotions towards a girl he's just met than a guy he's just met.

All other things being equal, women and men are just as good at any given job. Unfortunately all other things are not equal.

As to the conversation about teenagers etc - well, speaking as one, i'd like to say that I don't trust myself to make rational decisions - especially while being jumped up and down on by pms, but also at any time in general.

It's a little thing called hormones. They cause emotions that aren't caused by any logical cause and effect chain, and thus skew your thinking. This is why I don't take drugs - I tend to say stupid things while under the influence of a random wash of chemicals, and that's just NATURAL ones - who knows what that stuff will do to me.

The thing is, as teenagers we spend an inordinate amount of time with our brains doused in the emotional equivalent of nitroglycerin, and matches are all too easy to find. I'm bloody well not making any permanant decisions whatsoever until I'm over 21.

FYI, I'm not a teenager, and anyone that knows my age IRL would agree. ;)

FYI means "For Your Information" That sentence imparted very little.

I go back to the point that some adults act like "children" who are unable to exercise "adult reasoning" (See George W. Bush), First, with his inferior intellect he is now running the free world, and you are?
Second, if you know a child with a vastly superior intellect-get them emancipated.

And some children who I find much more pleasant and intelligent than most adults. The point is it is what "You Find", I personally have not seen open minded teens-I meet many simple-minded teens who confuse one for the other. As well they confuse an adult’s blanket lack of acceptance of stupidity as close mindedness. For instance the reference to grammar, as if that was a measure of Intellectual skills needed to survive in the real world that simply was not used. The child-like idea of only recognizing ones own abilities as important, and lacking the ability to see ones own flaws-or better still inferiorities. I think that's because adults seem to have a harder time accepting new ideas than children PRECISELY BECAUSE their brain has stopped growing, and thus have a harder time accepting new information. (See again George W. Bush.) This is again a clear example of (regardless of your age) your clear lack of understanding of human psychological development
The mentioning of Bush as a playing of an emotional button on what is obviously a liberal group to gain some measure of agreement with a single portion of statement, thereby confusing the issue is...cute.

Yes, MOST children are perfectly incompotent. But, just like we shouldn't treat ALL women based on the actions of one, there's no reason to treat the smart kids like all the dumb ones. Intellect and Survivability are not one and the same.
Little Billy may have 195 IQ- and still be completely incapable of cooking mac&cheese, changing a tire, conducting himself in a social situation that requires some type of manners and humility, incapable of seeing when he is being "taken".
Experience is without a doubt the best teacher.
Only children argue against that fact.



First of all, if we used grammar as a measurement of intelligence like we do age, then you would end up even lower than a few of the "children" you hate so much. Did you stamp your feet and jump up and down when you wrote hate, I doubt anyone "HATES" children, we just can’t let you do whatever you please, you would hurt yourself.

And, as I said above, "adult reasoning" is more like, "inability to accept new ideas". [.quote] If you could give something a little more reliable then your opinion that would be...like... great. [QUOTE=Grigala]Generally, children's brains are still forming, like you said, so it actually makes it EASIER for them to see the "big picture". Which big picture is that? Geo politics? The mortgage? Health Care? What skill they have that will pay for their furthered excellence? How will they handle the world once this gift of magical kiddy super intelligence leaves them when they do grow up? What "Big Picture" I know I realized that there is no "Big Picture". Or is your idea of a responsible adult someone who believes one thing even if solid evidence of the opposite is two feen in front of their own nose? It is the solid evidence that is the problem; most children don’t know what solid evidence is.

(And yes, I do have several neurology books backing up this theory, but I can't remember any names right now.) Go grab one.

Now, if I'm correct, you probably won't change your mind no matter what evidence I put in front of you, because of the reasons I outlined earlier, so it's pointless arguling with you, but I enjoy debating, so I'll continue. Wrong, you must first however put up this evidence.

And yes, I am as smart as I think I am, probably more seeing as I have very low expectations for myself. :mad: I would venture to say no one is as smart as you think you are. Lower the expectations.

PS: If there are multible spelling errors in this post, It's probably because it's hard to type with a broken pinky finger. An experienced typist can type without one finger, I can type holding my baby.

PSS: Ahh, Scandenavia. [Useless Info]I'm half Scandinavian, you know.[\Useless Info]
This is the most interesting thing you have said.

Well, you obviously can't treat all people equally no matter how hard you try, because your emotuions get in the way, and I think a guy would feel somewhat different emotions towards a girl he's just met than a guy he's just met.

All other things being equal, women and men are just as good at any given job. Unfortunately all other things are not equal.

As to the conversation about teenagers etc - well, speaking as one, i'd like to say that I don't trust myself to make rational decisions - especially while being jumped up and down on by pms, but also at any time in general.

It's a little thing called hormones. They cause emotions that aren't caused by any logical cause and effect chain, and thus skew your thinking. This is why I don't take drugs - I tend to say stupid things while under the influence of a random wash of chemicals, and that's just NATURAL ones - who knows what that stuff will do to me.

The thing is, as teenagers we spend an inordinate amount of time with our brains doused in the emotional equivalent of nitroglycerin, and matches are all too easy to find. I'm bloody well not making any permanant decisions whatsoever until I'm over 21.

Actually, you can treat everyone equally. Check the second half of my sig, mate. As far as I'm concerned, the broad mass of humanity just exists to be used as tools for my own greater purpose, willingly or not. Women, Men... all the same.

Well, they all burn the same, at least. :cool: And you're forgetting that even if you do find a match, one party always says something wrong, and then there's a fight, and one of the parties goes off and becomes an empty shell with no thought other than revenge.

In fact, the only exceptions would be those girls who I like more than I like the average man, and my ex-girlfriend.

May she be turned orange of hue, and may her head fall off at an akward moment so it will be easier to feed to the turtles.
best. curse. ever.

hope you don't mind, but i am going to have to borrow that curse to visit upon my former advisor.

wow. a lot of people picked up on the spelling errors in post becuase of bad finger bit.

Thats really petty.

If i still had my faith in humanity Id lose it now, but I lost it to you people several pages ago.

If there are errors in this,its because I have no hand eye co ordination and am a crap typist.

And no, that doesnt affect my intellegence, Im just an uncoordinated mess.

That curse is amazing by the way.

FYI, I'm not a teenager, and anyone that knows my age IRL would agree. ;)

Yeah, right, and I'm 104.

I go back to the point that some adults act like "children" who are unable to exercise "adult reasoning" (See George W. Bush), and some children who I find much more pleasant and intelligent than most adults. I think that's because adults seem to have a harder time accepting new ideas than childen PRECISELY BECAUSE their brain has stopped growing, and thus have a harder time accepting new information. (See again George W. Bush.)

Kid, you're a kid. You are completely unable to comprehend how we think. Why don't you go play with your 'buds' where your brain could be put to better use?

Yes, MOST children are perfectly incompotent. But, just like we shouldn't treat ALL women based on the actions of one, there's no reason to treat the smart kids like all the dumb ones.

You're right, but you are one of the dumb ones, so we should treat you like one.

PS: If there are multiple spelling errors in this post, It's probably because it's hard to type with a broken finger.

If there are multiple spelling errors in this post, it's because I have a carrot in my mouth.

As if, Grigala.

FYI, I'm not a teenager, and anyone that knows my age IRL would agree. ;)
regardless of your physical age, your behavior shows that you are a child.


I go back to the point that some adults act like "children" who are unable to exercise "adult reasoning" (See George W. Bush), and some children who I find much more pleasant and intelligent than most adults. I think that's because adults seem to have a harder time accepting new ideas than childen PRECISELY BECAUSE their brain has stopped growing, and thus have a harder time accepting new information. (See again George W. Bush.)

actually, the adult brain is still changing and "growing" (though that's a bad term for it) throughout life.


Yes, MOST children are perfectly incompotent. But, just like we shouldn't treat ALL women based on the actions of one, there's no reason to treat the smart kids like all the dumb ones.

all women (with the exception of those with physical disabilities) are able to make adult judgments, should they choose to do so. no child under the age of about 12 is going to have the physical ability to exercise what we recognize as adult moral judgment. the comparison is not even remotely valid.

In the intrests if keeping this thread on-topic, I have relocated the "child" debate to a new thread:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7315593#post7315593

angst...