NationStates Jolt Archive

They're not equal. To say so is stupid. They deserve equal rights, but not treatment. Men should not be allowed to go on maternity leave, because they can't give birth. etc.

That and then there is a quite noticable difference between the female and male corpus callosum.

That and then there is a quite noticable difference between the female and male corpus callosum.
:D ;) Hey, watch your language. ;) :D

This seems kind of random for a topic... but I'd actually have to disagree in part. I do think men and women are equal in terms of being human and deserving dignity. Men and women were both created in the image of God. However, men and women have different roles.

the what?

This could have been a very interesting thread but i mean honestly... maternity leave??

pviously they don't merit the same treatment, men can't give birth, don't mensturate etc. to say they need thesame treatment is absurd. they do deserve equal rights, this is also obvious the are also human beings and despite hundreds of ears of attitude to the contrary they have the same wants and needs, also obvious if you stop and think about it. The problem is the confusion of rights and treatment. A woman denied a promotion is not necesarily being denied her rights and a woman who has a door opened for her even though she is quite capable of opening it herself is not necesarily being treated differently.

Now that I've thoroughly confused the issue feel free to discuss.

Corpus callosum : for those non-psychology/biology/medicine etc. people

This is the bundle of nerves attaching the two hemispheres of the brain together so they can communicate. You can get some interesting things happen if you cut it in treatment for severe epilepsy. I think it was Schachter and Singer who did a study on it but don't quote me.

How i it different in males vs. females?

They're not equal, women are better. *coming from a guy*

Men = feminine hygiene products.

Women = male hygiene products.

They definitely aren't equal! Both are humans, but purple and red are both colors. They aren't EQUAL however, purple has qualities red will never have and vice versa.

Most importantly if they were equal, one would be just as good as another. Male, female, you would never care whatsoever, at any time, which you were around or with. And that isn't really true for anyone.

They're not equal. To say so is stupid. They deserve equal rights, but not treatment. Men should not be allowed to go on maternity leave, because they can't give birth. etc.

Why not? Fathers should have the same right to stay at home with the baby as women do. They do where I live, anyway. (Actually, the families can themselves decide how to split the time, but let's not be bogged down by minutiae.)

How i it different in males vs. females?

http://medind.nic.in/imvw/imvw12099.html

http://aolsvc.health.webmd.aol.com/content/Article/104/107367.htm

Whether men and women are equal depends on what exactly you're talking about. They may not be physically equal, but this doesn't mean they can't be socially equal. Social equality is what matters anyway.

Men should not be allowed to go on maternity leave, because they can't give birth. etc.

I disagree. They can't give birth, but the father of the baby on the way should have the right to be there for emotional support of the soon to be mother.

"This study affords us neurobiological evidence that women may have a better brain capacity than men for actually 'censoring' their aggressive and anger responses."

Gur Ruben C., et. al. Possible Basis Found for the Cliché Depicting Men as More 'Hot-Headed' than Women. University of Pennsylvania. (2002-2003) University of Pennsylvania Health System [Internet] Press Releases.

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/sept02/Aggression.html

:p

Dude, I would have seriously gone insane from lack of sleep if my hubby had not taken PATERNITY leave when our second child was born.

What if the father is assisting the mother in her last few weeks of pregnancy (especially in the cases of triplets, quads, etc.) or even helping with the baby/babies after the birth?

Also, how does that make men and women unequal again? True, we're not the same, but that doesn't make us unequal...that's just genetics and nature.

I disagree. They can't give birth, but the father of the baby on the way should have the right to be there for emotional support of the soon to be mother.
Damned skippy
Paternity leave
and women do have biological differences (hormone levels, brain structures, other obvious bodily differences...) but they can be equal socially...and screw social roles...who the hell needs them...men and women should be able to do as they please without having to cross social barriers...ie, woman being a high powered CEO AND a mother....and a Father staying home taking care of and raising his kids primarily while the mom works...it is a team effort, people, not a pissing contest

This seems kind of random for a topic... but I'd actually have to disagree in part. I do think men and women are equal in terms of being human and deserving dignity. Men and women were both created in the image of God. However, men and women have different roles.
Like bringing home the bread and barefoot and pregnent? :p

men and women are equal BEFORE THE LAW. they are not identical

no 2 people are identical eh? even though they are have equal rights.

a man doesnt need maternity leave because he doesnt give birth but he might need paternity leave because he has a new baby.

They're not equal. To say so is stupid. They deserve equal rights, but not treatment. Men should not be allowed to go on maternity leave, because they can't give birth. etc.

And, ah no offence, but what may i ask was the point of that random outburst...?

Oh and i disagree with you, was that what you were looking for? ;)

Men should have the right to go on maternity leave even thought hey don't give birth. Men have just as many responsibilities to raising a new born baby as women. Besides, with the mother being at home all the time and the father at work, the mother will be put under a lot of stress and will need a father there to provide support.
Although since men don't go on maternity leave, and the women have to stay at home and look after the baby, women should be treated better than men socially. One thing I really hate about modern western society is women who abuse you for holding the door open for them. Since the women have to do all the hard work raising the child, the least us men can do to show our appreciation is to make womens lives more comfortable, whether it be holding a door open, giving up your seat or whatever.

granted until the adoption laws change child raising isn't really an issue for me...

but its paternity leave you moron and yes men should have it available to them

Let men do men things and women do women things. Bottom line.

Let men do men things and women do women things. Bottom line.

You stay out of this! :sniper:

You have equal and different mixed up. Women and men are different yes but we are equal.

Originally Posted by Santa-cruz
Men and women were both created in the image of God. However, men and women have different roles.

Fun fact: Jewish oral tradition states that the first being created was hermaphoditic (male and female) called Adam and Lilith. They were equal in all ways...the same. God split them and still they were equal. It was not until Adam pitched a fit and Litlith got up and left to dwell in the lands beyond Eden that God made half a human - woman only. This woman was created before Adam's eyes and he was disgusted by what we are beneath the skin. She was cast out. She never had a name. Finally, God created Eve out of Adam.

So, if we are created in the image of God, then men and women are equal because we came from one being that was split. :)

Let men do men things and women do women things. Bottom line.

Applause!

Fun fact: Jewish oral tradition states that the first being created was hermaphoditic (male and female) called Adam and Lilith. They were equal in all ways...the same. God split them and still they were equal. It was not until Adam pitched a fit and Litlith got up and left to dwell in the lands beyond Eden that God made half a human - woman only. This woman was created before Adam's eyes and he was disgusted by what we are beneath the skin. She was cast out. She never had a name. Finally, God created Eve out of Adam.

So, if we are created in the image of God, then men and women are equal because we came from one being that was split. :)[/QUOTE]wow that is really interesting and i have never heard that before

Applause!You two disgust me

Let men do men things and women do women things. Bottom line.

I have to ask, what are "men things" and how will I know if I inadvertently partake in a manly activity?

For that matter what are "women things?"

You two disgust me

Whys that?

Men should not be allowed to go on maternity leave, because they can't give birth. etc.
No, but they should be permitted to take parental leave, to aid the new mother in her recovery and to bond with the infant.

And really, fuck gender roles.

You stay out of this! :sniper:

How...concordant....it is that your username alludes to Communism.

I have to ask, what are "men things" and how will I know if I inadvertently partake in a manly activity?

For that matter what are "women things?"

Men| ploughing, tilling, hunting, killing, building, cooking, exploring, defending, attacking, inventing, thinking.

Women nurturing, growing, cleaning, cooking, comforting, defending, analysing, singing, ordering.

All as important as each other.

Whys that?

Because disillusion is more polite than reality.

Good article:
http://anus.com/zine/articles/error/

No, but they should be permitted to take parental leave, to aid the new mother in her recovery and to bond with the infant.

And really, fuck gender roles.

OMG what kind of man is that? Why dont you just sow some tits on him as well?

Men| ploughing, tilling, hunting, killing, building, cooking, exploring, defending, attacking, inventing, thinking.

Women nurturing, growing, cleaning, cooking, comforting, defending, analysing, singing, ordering.

All as important as each other.
Heh.

Again, take your perscribed gender roles and shove them.

Seriously, I'm not going to be a housewife doing absolutely nothing to contribut to society except through any offspring I may rear. Women aren't just here to be the caretakers of men and children, you do know, yet this is what you protrayed us as. Unthinking nannies. Good job.

Because disillusion is more polite than reality.

Good article:
http://anus.com/zine/articles/error/

pfft.

Men| ploughing, tilling, hunting, killing, building, cooking, exploring, defending, attacking, inventing, thinking.

Women nurturing, growing, cleaning, cooking, comforting, defending, analysing, singing, ordering.

All as important as each other.

Women can hunt, kill, build, defend, cook, attack, invent, think

Men can grow, clean, cook, comfort, defend, anyakyze, sing, and order things.

Being able to comfort is as difficultto women as men based on your raising. If you parents never taught you how it is just as difficult. If you parents didn't teach you as a male than that was just bad parenting and not an indicator of men being bad at it.

OMG what kind of man is that? Why dont you just sow some tits on him as well?
Why would you sew tits on him? It's important for the infant to bond with both parents, not just one. There's no better time to start than when the kid is just born.

Not to mention the fact that for some women, pregnancy and delivery are especially difficult and they may not be able to run at 100% right afterwards, so it is important for the father to be around to help her out with chores and the baby until she's recovered.

Men| ploughing, tilling, hunting, killing, building, cooking, exploring, defending, attacking, inventing, thinking.
Women nurturing, growing, cleaning, cooking, comforting, defending, analysing, singing, ordering.

Well, I'm screwed. Lets see, I can plough, but I don't have a garden, that takes out tilling. Don't want to hunt or kill, like to build, get lost a lot, defend when attacked and attack back, not very good at inventing, do like to think.

Hate nurturing, dislike children, hate to clean, like to bake, not much good at comfort, can't sing, and I'm lucky if I can order lunch.

Shit. Not manly or womanly. :p I demand a third gender!

pfft.

Reality is offensive. It harms the weaker mind that wants things to be magically easier. Why climb the tree when you can *pretend* the apple is in your hand?

You asked for the traditional roles so I gave them.
The reason why familys dont work anymore is because we have left these roles.

It's a beautiful denial of reality when people say men and women have the same level of aggresion (as a whole).

Reality is offensive. It harms the weaker mind that wants things to be magically easier. Why climb the tree when you can *pretend* the apple is in your hand?

You really have to get out of your head one day.

You asked for the traditional roles so I gave them.
The reason why familys dont work anymore is because we have left these roles.
If anything, more marriages fail when one partner insists on holding true to the demanded gender roles and the other is fed up with them.

If you get two people who say "screw you, gender roles" then they'll get on fine. If you get two people who ebrace them, well, you end up with a woman that I would pity.

You really have to get out of your head one day.

Thus the words of the wise are ignored to defend more polite fantasies.

Heh.

Again, take your perscribed gender roles and shove them.

Seriously, I'm not going to be a housewife doing absolutely nothing to contribut to society except through any offspring I may rear. Women aren't just here to be the caretakers of men and children, you do know, yet this is what you protrayed us as. Unthinking nannies. Good job.

lol ever wondered why you find traditional gender roles so offensive?
Because thats what your suited for sweetie.

Leave the hunting and tough stuff for us, and go tend the garden.

The reason why familys dont work anymore is because we have left these roles.

I was wondering when this would come out. Think of the modern family: mom, dad, 2.3 kids. Think of the traditional/historic family: mom, dad, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, neighboors. Large groups of people each responsible for raising and monitering the children.
I don't believe dad staying at home with junior is what has ruined our families, its the loss of communal parenting. "it takes a villiage to raise a child"
fun fact #2: during the 1950's America imported tons (litterally tons) of perscription 'happy pills' to keep the happy house wife sane.

[QUOTE=Dakini]If anything, more marriages fail when one partner insists on holding true to the demanded gender roles and the other is fed up with them.
Proof??

If you get two people who say "screw you, gender roles" then they'll get on fine. If you get two people who ebrace them, well, you end up with a woman that I would pity.

Great so I take it as your husband lies shaking from fear in bed you will be taking on the burglars right? Because you wouldnt want your husband to depart from his traditional role as protecter of the family, right?
My pity would lie here, with both of them for being so screwed up.

I was wondering when this would come out. Think of the modern family: mom, dad, 2.3 kids. Think of the traditional/historic family: mom, dad, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, neighboors. Large groups of people each responsible for raising and monitering the children.
I don't believe dad staying at home with junior is what has ruined our families, its the loss of communal parenting. "it takes a villiage to raise a child"
fun fact #2: during the 1950's America imported tons (litterally tons) of perscription 'happy pills' to keep the happy house wife sane.

Agreed, no woman should be left alone every day by herself, Im all for the large extended family too.

[QUOTE]
you wouldnt want your husband to depart from his traditional role .

Rigid roles kill society. If your society is completly inflexable as to what gender fulfills what rolls, that society will fail at the first gender inbalance. What happens when the men go off to war? What happens when mom dies in childbirth?

[QUOTE=Chewbaccula]

Rigid roles kill society. If your society is completly inflexable as to what gender fulfills what rolls, that society will fail at the first gender inbalance. What happens when the men go off to war? What happens when mom dies in childbirth?

Then the women will have to go to war while the men give birth to children.

lol ever wondered why you find traditional gender roles so offensive?
Because thats what your suited for sweetie.

Leave the hunting and tough stuff for us, and go tend the garden.

Gender rôles are a social construct. Gender is just a tool for control. :headbang:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/bsfield.jpg

while the men give birth to children.

Now there's a mental picture for you :D

How about a little hypothetical experiment before I toddle off to bed: Imagine if you will America next week if all of us were confined to our gender roles. What would become of the economy now that women bread winners have left the workplace? What would become of the fine arts now that men are no longer there?
I'm all verclempt. talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic: only countries with extremely high male populations can afford to eliminate over half of their population by crippling or excluding women. Discuss. :)

Gender rôles are a social construct. Gender is just a tool for control. :headbang:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/bsfield.jpg

Wrong, traditional roles were dictated to by reality, where as the modern ones are social engineering, gone wrong.

[QUOTE=Chewbaccula]
Rigid roles kill society. If your society is completly inflexable as to what gender fulfills what rolls, that society will fail at the first gender inbalance. What happens when the men go off to war? What happens when mom dies in childbirth?

Thats rubbish, we wouldnt have come this far if that was the case.

[QUOTE=Guadalupelerma]

Then the women will have to go to war while the men give birth to children.

Women arent warlike, they really arent, its nothing to do with gender roles, instinctively they hate violence.
If men gave birth to children, that would make them women.

Wrong, traditional roles were dictated to by reality, where as the modern ones are social engineering, gone wrong.

mmmm, point: traditional roles were dictated by BIOLOGY. Hunter gather societies cannot risk their breeders in long hunts (or have long range hunts hindered by pregger females) Ones societies morphed into agrarian modes biology no longer determined that role, but as far as warriors went you still can't afford to kill your breeders and physically a man can get stronger.
Modern society is in no way shape or form influenced by the need to hunt and gather food or fight off enemies through brute force. As a result those roles have become obsolete, not engineered.
Fun fact #3: want to find kick ass strong women, check out ancient Sparta. A weak woman bred week sons, so women RAN Sparta while the boys went off to play war :)

Your precious gender rôles gave us female genital mutilation. That speaks volumes about its usefulness if you ask me.

Wrong, traditional roles were dictated to by reality, where as the modern ones are social engineering, gone wrong.

Hardly. Gender rôles have always been imposed by society. Arguing otherwise makes about as much sense as arguing that the Soviet Union's laws against dissent were "dictated by reality", whatever that means.

Do you also plan on bringing back the traditional ideas of slavery and theocracy, too?

Thats rubbish, we wouldnt have come this far if that was the case.

because we no longer have rigid gender roles :p we change and adapt to suit our changing needs.

lol ever wondered why you find traditional gender roles so offensive?
Because thats what your suited for sweetie.

Leave the hunting and tough stuff for us, and go tend the garden.
How about I go solve some complex physics problems and let you sit here with your obvious inferiority complex. What is it about the fact that women can preform so called "manly" tasks as well or sometimes better than men that threatens you so?

Grrr... I didn't want the topic to turn into this! ugh!


:sniper:

[QUOTE=Chewbaccula
Women arent warlike, they really arent, its nothing to do with gender roles, instinctively they hate violence.
.[/QUOTE]

sorry, check up on the histroy of common folks. Bearing babies does not make us instictive fluffle adicts. Women can be just as blood thirsty and there will always be war happy women and peace loving men. Spartan women, historic amazons (not fluffy hollywood amazons, archeologists have found amazonian grave sights), molly pitcher, modern army gals and so on.

Great so I take it as your husband lies shaking from fear in bed you will be taking on the burglars right? Because you wouldnt want your husband to depart from his traditional role as protecter of the family, right?
My pity would lie here, with both of them for being so screwed up.
I think I would rather he grab the phone, call the cops and then proceed with a baseball bat or something to go after the attacker.

There's nothing I hate more in horror movies than when people screw themselves over because they don't call for backup before confronting the villian and then get themselves killed.

Furthermore, your statement is idiotic. I wouldn't want my hypothetical husband to be an idiot and run out after a guy who could have a gun or a knife without taking any precautions or hell, I wouldn't want him charging into a situation where help will be a long way coming.

Women arent warlike, they really arent, its nothing to do with gender roles, instinctively they hate violence.
If men gave birth to children, that would make them women.
Women aren't warlike and instincively hate violence, huh?

Now that's a rediculous statement if ever one was uttered.

Molly Pitcher was actually kinda girly... bad example, Guadi... :rolleyes:

mmmm, point: traditional roles were dictated by BIOLOGY. Hunter gather societies cannot risk their breeders in long hunts (or have long range hunts hindered by pregger females) Ones societies morphed into agrarian modes biology no longer determined that role, but as far as warriors went you still can't afford to kill your breeders and physically a man can get stronger.
Modern society is in no way shape or form influenced by the need to hunt and gather food or fight off enemies through brute force. As a result those roles have become obsolete, not engineered.
Fun fact #3: want to find kick ass strong women, check out ancient Sparta. A weak woman bred week sons, so women RAN Sparta while the boys went off to play war :)

I absolutely agree with you on that, which is why modern society is failing, our traditional roles have little place in it, it is therefore an artificial enviroment for familys to function properly in.
As for the roles becoming obsolete, these roles would return quickly if our civilisation collapsed.
Technology is a false construct for familys.
On Sparta, your kickass strong women still obeyed their husbands, which makes you wonder how scary these guys must have been.
Im sure not all the men went off to 'play war' as you so lightly put it, and lets face it when the men returned, your fearfull 'amazons' meekly handed back the reigns of power with little arguement it seems.

No... Amazons (of the Black Sea coast) were more or less equal to their men, I think. On a side note, some of them even cut of their left breast to fire their bows better...

I absolutely agree with you on that, which is why modern society is failing, our traditional roles have little place in it, it is therefore an artificial enviroment for familys to function properly in.

It's failing because women are no longer chattel? That's absurd, and not in a cool, existential theatre way, I mean it's just plain absurd.

Women aren't warlike and instincively hate violence, huh?

Now that's a rediculous statement if ever one was uttered.

Its quite true actually, your ridiculous for thinking its otherwise.
Check the crime reports one day.
Also check how much war, violence etc is caused by men in the world now, and before, compared to what women have contributed.
Your myth of women being just as violent and men in general is just that.

It's failing because women are no longer chattel? That's absurd, and not in a cool, existential theatre way, I mean it's just plain absurd.

Its failing because we arent replacing ourselves.
And yes I am talking about caucasian people only, well lets face it, thats what western civilisation is.

No... Amazons (of the Black Sea coast) were more or less equal to their men, I think. On a side note, some of them even cut of their left breast to fire their bows better...

The Amazons were a myth werent they?

Its quite true actually, your ridiculous for thinking its otherwise.
Check the crime reports one day.
Also check how much war, violence etc is caused by men in the world now, and before, compared to what women have contributed.
Your myth of women being just as violent and men in general is just that.

*pats the cute little troll on its head (but watches fingers)*


EDIT: Mutated Bass, is that you? Channeling?

The Amazons were a myth werent they?

A myth based on a real culture in Thrace.

The Amazons were a myth werent they?
No, they weren't. As someone mentioned, they've dug up graves of female warriors that seem to fit the greek description.

Its quite true actually, your ridiculous for thinking its otherwise.
Check the crime reports one day.
Also check how much war, violence etc is caused by men in the world now, and before, compared to what women have contributed.
Your myth of women being just as violent and men in general is just that.
I never said that statistically, women and men prepretrated the same amount of violent crimes.

It's just incredibly stupid and naive to paint every member of a gender with the same brush. Women have hunting instincts just as men do. What the hell do you think discount shopping is? Yeah, it doesn't involve killing anything, but the principle is similar.

Its failing because we arent replacing ourselves.
And yes I am talking about caucasian people only, well lets face it, thats what western civilisation is.
And what do you know, in families where men do a more equal share of the housework, women are more willing to try for more children.

So if all men are like you, then we will die off. If some realize that "Hey, I should help out around the house a bit, we both have jobs afterall..." then they end up with mroe offspring and look, you've already started on your way to losing the evolutionary race.

And yeah, this does seem like mutated bass again.

I never said that statistically, women and men prepretrated the same amount of violent crimes.

It's just incredibly stupid and naive to paint every member of a gender with the same brush. Women have hunting instincts just as men do. What the hell do you think discount shopping is? Yeah, it doesn't involve killing anything, but the principle is similar.

Statistics say alot Dakini.

Discount shopping is along way from bringing down a charging elephant Dakini.
Also Im not painting every member with the same brush, but were talking about what the average man and woman did , not an odd one every now and then. For you to pull the odd one out as proof that this then dictates to the rest of society as proof of general equality in this regard, is just plain silly.

No, they weren't. As someone mentioned, they've dug up graves of female warriors that seem to fit the greek description.

Source?

Ancient mankind wan't stupid... It wouldn't hunt a CHARGING ELEPHANT (mostly 'cause elephants didn't exist yet... lol...)

Although I would agree with Chewie a bit... In variou primate pecies, gender roles seem biological. For example, bonobos a a female-dominated species as a whole (and not violent), while chimps, very closely related to both us and bonobos, are a male-dominated species as a whole (and very violent).

Source?

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_amazon/index.html

And what do you know, in families where men do a more equal share of the housework, women are more willing to try for more children.
So if all men are like you, then we will die off. If some realize that "Hey, I should help out around the house a bit, we both have jobs afterall..." then they end up with mroe offspring and look, you've already started on your way to losing the evolutionary race.


Thats bullshit, women had no problem with large familys and doing housework in traditional times, they also got the kids to help out alot and didnt have to pay them either, not that they could.
Your quite lucky today, compared to the pre industrial era, you would have been doing everything by hand, now you have machines to do everything, and still you need help.
Also would you expect your husband to do an equal amount of housework as you if he has a heavy labour job through the day, and you like the majority of women dont?
If you do then I suggest you labour outdoors for a week, then subject yourself to being nagged at to do more work when you get home, by someone who has an easy physically sitting down job all day.

Thats bullshit, women had no problem with large familys and doing housework in traditional times, they also got the kids to help out alot and didnt have to pay them either, not that they could.
Your quite lucky today, compared to the pre industrial era, you would have been doing everything by hand, now you have machines to do everything, and still you need help.
Also would you expect your husband to do an equal amount of housework as you if he has a heavy labour job through the day, and you like the majority of women dont?
If you do then I suggest you labour outdoors for a week, then subject yourself to being nagged at to do more work when you get home, by someone who has an easy physically sitting down job all day.

So the measure of a person's contribution is the amount of shit they can lift/push/pull/etc.?

So the measure of a person's contribution is the amount of shit they can lift/push/pull/etc.?

Well its a good base to work off.

Ah gender inequality, ever heard the legend of King Arthur, its the classic measure of how a society treats its women, originally Guinever was never mentioned, the original myth has no guinevere at all. later myths included her as an after thought, at the time women were unimportant, little more than objects. still later nearing the victorian age Guinevere took on a more central role eventually becoming the central conflict when as a line of strong English queens kicks off she rides off with sir Lancelot. Now a Movie came out a few years back in which Guinevere is a macho warrior Princess who holds her own with the men. Not that thats bad in itself but the societal implications when we follow the progression are not good. In Short Western Society as we know it is pretty F*ed up. gender and race and countless other pointless factors are clouding the way we live, minorities and traditional low power groups are demanding superiority in the guise of equality, Fundamentalism is running rampant and violence is at an all time high. The Problem is not gender inequality or inequality of any kind, the problem is the way children are raised. Since the baby boom children have been raised to believe that they have power and are naturally better or equal to everyone, they have been raised on storiesof the civil rights movement and college demonstrations, Communism is a 'great evil' without ever really being discussed, very few Westerners actually know anything about any government but democracy and parliamentary, they have no real concept of any religion except christianity and either Judaism or Islamic (sometime neither) Americans are particularly ignorant of anything but the power of money and whining. When presented with a problem Americans will always either attempt to pay out of it or whine to the next rung up the ladder. Of course eastern cultures have their problems as well but westerners as a rule rarely learn about them and so western cultures repeat the problems and compund them with unique ones. Traditional gender roles (pre 1950's, the 50's ruined gender roles, for that matter so did the forties and the thirties, you have to go all the way back the 20's to get true traditional gender roles) are too far gone (80 years, several generations) and now society demands that every one be superior to everyone else, if some sociopolitical group isn't getting what they want, instead of balancing things the group gets an advantage. preferential treatment instead of equal treatment, it sickens me.

Sorry for the long rant but seriously, people are falling into the trap of thinking of gender inequality, racial inequality, religious inequality and political inequality as seperate issues when in reailty there are just the results of a dieing society, something needs to be done to revitalize society, in all seriousness we need a good war, something like the world wars which while monstrous fixed society for several decades, this time I think the cultural climate would allow most changes to stick. Save Socity, start a war!

So the measure of a person's contribution is the amount of shit they can lift/push/pull/etc.?Well its a good base to work off.

Stephen Hawking is definitely worthless. :rolleyes:

Stephen Hawking is definitely worthless. :rolleyes:

Clearly. And Hulk Hogan is all that is man.

Thats bullshit, women had no problem with large familys and doing housework in traditional times, they also got the kids to help out alot and didnt have to pay them either, not that they could.
Your quite lucky today, compared to the pre industrial era, you would have been doing everything by hand, now you have machines to do everything, and still you need help.
Also would you expect your husband to do an equal amount of housework as you if he has a heavy labour job through the day, and you like the majority of women dont?
If you do then I suggest you labour outdoors for a week, then subject yourself to being nagged at to do more work when you get home, by someone who has an easy physically sitting down job all day.
Why would my husband be working a manual labour job? Those jobs don't even pay well. It's more likely he'd have an office job or well, really a job that doesn't involve a lot of lifting. Like I would have a job that doesn't involve a lot of lifting as well. And since we've both returned home after 8 hours of work, it's only fair that we both do the housework.

Also, I have had manual labour jobs, what's your point? They're shitty jobs that I wouldn't want to do for the rest of my life, but if they help pay the tuition then they're ok when I can get them.

This seems kind of random for a topic... but I'd actually have to disagree in part. I do think men and women are equal in terms of being human and deserving dignity. Men and women were both created in the image of God. However, men and women have different roles.

:rolleyes: ugh...

How...concordant....it is that your username alludes to Communism.

Don't let the name fool you. I'm a cold hearted Capitalist.

The gender equality argument is one of my favourites. I believe Women and Men are equal, and yet have different roles. These roles can be overlapping, such as in parenting. The division between them can be blurred, as we have seen in many professional areas where women have demonstrated equal aptitude for careers that men have previously held monopoly over.

Traditionally feminism has been seen as adusting the scales, so that women are admitted to the same opportunities as men, and are afforded the same respect regardless of genitalia. However, traditionaly this has been a process of adjusting society to enable woman's freedom within a society founded on man's strengths. It's like trying to get blue furniture to match a red room. They don't match, but they're both essential. It's hard to live comfortably in an empty room, and it's ludicrous to have indoor furniture sitting exposed on a lawn.

Rather than asking ourselves how we can get women's agenda to work in a patriarchy, it would be more productive to ask how we can change the patriarchy, so that the weight of change is not solely upon women. Women have to define what they want, instead of passively accepting what patriachy will throw them.

Its quite true actually, your ridiculous for thinking its otherwise.
Check the crime reports one day.
Also check how much war, violence etc is caused by men in the world now, and before, compared to what women have contributed.
Your myth of women being just as violent and men in general is just that.

yeah, that may have something to do with the fact that, ever since males were babies, they've been given toy soldiers... then taught to play violent sports... etc

and females were given pink and dolls and told to look after them...

yeah, that may have something to do with the fact that, ever since males were babies, they've been given toy soldiers... then taught to play violent sports... etc

and females were given pink and dolls and told to look after them...

Don't worry. We're changing society to make males less violent. For example, we've taken wrestling and turned it into ballet.

mmmm, point: traditional roles were dictated by BIOLOGY. Hunter gather societies cannot risk their breeders in long hunts (or have long range hunts hindered by pregger females) Ones societies morphed into agrarian modes biology no longer determined that role, but as far as warriors went you still can't afford to kill your breeders and physically a man can get stronger.
Modern society is in no way shape or form influenced by the need to hunt and gather food or fight off enemies through brute force. As a result those roles have become obsolete, not engineered.
Fun fact #3: want to find kick ass strong women, check out ancient Sparta. A weak woman bred week sons, so women RAN Sparta while the boys went off to play war :)

I think you're refering to traditional roles being dictated by history not biology. Also you're refering to an entirely biased view based on no evidence whatsoever. Archaeological evidence does not show us who was hunting what. There are some theorists who argue it wa more a generational thing; young girls hunted with the guys and then stopped later in their life. There are so many different interpretations.

Some of you people just don't get it. Gender roles are DIFFERENT in different periods of time and different cultures. Therefore there is no such thing as "traditional" gender roles, even in Western society. A British source reports a farmer in the 1600s describing what he wanted in a wife: "A woman who will till the earth, grind the flour, eject vagabonds from the land, haggle in the market..." etc. When the price being payed for corn dropped in Cardiff, the farmers sent their wives to get a fair price "by any kind of force." They rioted and attacked the local magistrate and got the price raised.

This whole thing about guys needing to fill certain roles is stupid too. As long as you have the ballance, what does it matter which parent is being more "masculine"? I know a few house husbands and I know their children and I know that this has not confused their ideas of gender.

My answer is a bit complex as I don't believe in "human equality". Human-beings have deverse abilities and personalities. On one hand you have Steven Hawking and on the other you have Ed the villige idiot. That said there are several measurements outside of ability which display commonality.

1. Human beings are biochemicaly equal, which is to say that we are roughly made up of the same materials/chemical compositions and have a shaired body type (organs/bones)ect.

2. The Equality of Human Power, the fact that any human being is capable of harming or killing another human being through direct attack, duplicity, or mobilization of others. This is particulary true today in our modern society of mass-produced weaponry and mass-communication.

3. The shared existence as conscious beings living in anguish, alienated from the world, the Universe, and each other.

4. (possible, I'm not sure on this one yet) The shared wish for transendence and full-fillment, that is the temporary escape from the anguish and alienation of existence. Thus the possibility of a shared wish for purpose.

Concerning the subject of the equality of Men and Women, I would say on average women are superior to men. I say this because women have greater genetic variety and redundency (two X cromosomes) and studies have shown women on average to be healthier and live longer then men. Plus, mens bodies are ugily (that is brutish and nonsemetrical) and they have a greater tendency towards violence, particulary at a young age...

Strong men and weak men are not equal. To say so is stupid. They deserve equal rights, but not treatment. Weak men should not be allowed to lift beer barrels over their heads, because they're not strong enough, etc.

Men and women are different... live with it.

Molly Pitcher was actually kinda girly... bad example, Guadi... :rolleyes:

Yeah, that one was a cop out...it was late and I was sleepy. bad me! How about Queen Nitocris, Semiramis, Messalina, Agrippa, Empress Wu? Not nearly as girly :)

Some of you people just don't get it. Gender roles are DIFFERENT in different periods of time and different cultures. Therefore there is no such thing as "traditional" gender roles, even in Western society. A British source reports a farmer in the 1600s describing what he wanted in a wife: "A woman who will till the earth, grind the flour, eject vagabonds from the land, haggle in the market..." etc. When the price being payed for corn dropped in Cardiff, the farmers sent their wives to get a fair price "by any kind of force." They rioted and attacked the local magistrate and got the price raised.
excellent post!

these young men who have never known anything but working mothers are looking back to the housewife myths of the 1950s. they didnt work then and they sure wont work now.

its like thinking women are all "southern belles" when there were more women working out in the fields as slaves than there were pampered rich women in the plantation houses.

They're not equal. To say so is stupid. They deserve equal rights, but not treatment. Men should not be allowed to go on maternity leave, because they can't give birth. etc.

Actually, in the US, fathers can also get family leave when either a child is born or adopted. I believe he qualifies for up to 6 mos of leave at this time because a baby is NOT just the woman's responsibility in a family.

You asked for the traditional roles so I gave them.
The reason why familys dont work anymore is because we have left these roles.


Speak for yourself. There are plenty of families where both parents accept responsibility for all the chores around the house.

;) Don't forget that cooking is NOT merely the province of women -- the best chefs in the world are men.

Thats bullshit, women had no problem with large familys and doing housework in traditional times, they also got the kids to help out alot and didnt have to pay them either, not that they could.
Your quite lucky today, compared to the pre industrial era, you would have been doing everything by hand, now you have machines to do everything, and still you need help.

Dude, you really think "women had no problem with large families and doing housework in traditional times"? The leading cause of death for women was childbirth! I'd say that's one big damn problem that women had with large families!


Also would you expect your husband to do an equal amount of housework as you if he has a heavy labour job through the day, and you like the majority of women dont?

Why would I be with a man who was doing a manual labor job all day? I like smart boys! If my partner chooses to take a manual labor job despite being more than qualified for non-manual-labor jobs, then that's his choice and I am not going to let him slack off on his half of the housework just because he CHOOSES to be a grunt. Luckily, my current boytoy is not the caveman type you describe...


If you do then I suggest you labour outdoors for a week, then subject yourself to being nagged at to do more work when you get home, by someone who has an easy physically sitting down job all day.
Are you familiar with the stats showing that women who work also do more than twice as much housework as their husbands? I guess men are just too weak and sensitive to be expected to help around the house after work. They need to be coddled and babied because they are so very fragile, but women are tough enough to keep on truckin' all day long. Women are dedicated enough to care for the families they produce, while men just expect to kick up their feet and watch the game after work, right?

Dude, you are insulting guys far more than girls. You make men sound like mindless grunts with no dignity or internal strength.

Clearly. And Hulk Hogan is all that is man.

Well when the chips are down who would you rather have in your corner? Hulk Hogan or Steven Hawkings?
Men are meant to fight,if they dont at least try, then their just males I guess.

Well when the chips are down who would you rather have in your corner? Hulk Hogan or Steven Hawkings?

Stephen Hawkings.


Men are meant to fight,if they dont at least try, then their just males I guess.
I can fight for myself, thanks. I like that my boytoy is a black belt, and it's sexy as hell when he gets all growly and lifts heavy things, but he wouldn't have anything to do with me if I wasn't able to fend for myself. We both find strength attractive...and we both find brains even more so.

Well when the chips are down who would you rather have in your corner? Hulk Hogan or Steven Hawkings?
Men are meant to fight,if they dont at least try, then their just males I guess.

Hulk Hogan is a pussy. He's never been in a real fight.

[QUOTE=Bottle]Dude, you really think "women had no problem with large families and doing housework in traditional times"? The leading cause of death for women was childbirth! I'd say that's one big damn problem that women had with large families!

They would have laughed at the never ending whining done by the current crop of women over housework, large familys were necessary, because of the likelyhood of sickness, decimating a family.

Why would I be with a man who was doing a manual labor job all day? I like smart boys! If my partner chooses to take a manual labor job despite being more than qualified for non-manual-labor jobs, then that's his choice and I am not going to let him slack off on his half of the housework just because he CHOOSES to be a grunt. Luckily, my current boytoy is not the caveman type you describe...

So you seperate men who do manual work as dumb and men who dont do manual work as smart? Such an intelligent and well thought out observation! Theres all kinds of intelligence sweetie, see how well you go with a simple problem of fixing some plumbing in your house, before you start bragging about how big your brain is.
Intellectuals such as yourself would be rendered helpless without tradesmen and labourers, so get off your high horse and show a little respect for others, if you even know what that is, which I doupt.

Are you familiar with the stats showing that women who work also do more than twice as much housework as their husbands? I guess men are just too weak and sensitive to be expected to help around the house after work. They need to be coddled and babied because they are so very fragile, but women are tough enough to keep on truckin' all day long. Women are dedicated enough to care for the families they produce, while men just expect to kick up their feet and watch the game after work, right?

Women are tough enough?? Oh yeah such a hard day sitting on their bums in the office emailing their colleges all day, or talking non stop to their workmates instead of working. :rolleyes: You tough intellectual you, what the fuck would you ever know about hard work?
Its only women like you who brag about how much work women do, that are usually guilty of doing sweet FA.
Your just all talk.

Go and work in a factory or field, for afew weeks, do the grunt manual work you so despise in others, and actually raise a sweat for once in your soft little life, then go home and complain about housework, before you come on here with your sanctimonius shit, and brag about how hard you have it.
Women like you are nothing but frauds.


Dude, you are insulting guys far more than girls. You make men sound like mindless grunts with no dignity or internal strength.

Im insulting guys? What about your patronising little caveman cracks? Like that one just then! I take it you view women who work in the trades or labour as grunts with no dignity not worth talking to either?
Also try doing some dangerous manual work that cant be avoided before you start scarping about labourers lacking 'internal strength' guarentee you probably wouldnt even have a go, horrors, you could chip a nail!

Next time a trades man or woman comes to the door to fix something your incredible intellect has floundered on yet again, make sure you let them know how you feel about 'the hired help' actually they will probably pick it up from your snobby body language and arrogant tone of voice within seconds. :rolleyes:

Stephen Hawkings.
I can fight for myself, thanks. I like that my boytoy is a black belt, and it's sexy as hell when he gets all growly and lifts heavy things, but he wouldn't have anything to do with me if I wasn't able to fend for myself. We both find strength attractive...and we both find brains even more so.

Your a fucking idiot arent you? Have you ever actually even been in a serious fight? Has your growly 'toyboy'?
I know blackbelts too, and some of them are yet to even get in a street fight.

Hulk Hogan is a pussy. He's never been in a real fight.

And you know this how? :rolleyes:

[QUOTE]

They would have laughed at the never ending whining done by the current crop of women over housework, large familys were necessary, because of the likelyhood of sickness, decimating a family.



So you seperate men who do manual work as dumb and men who dont do manual work as smart? Such an intelligent and well thought out observation! Theres all kinds of intelligence sweetie, see how well you go with a simple problem of fixing some plumbing in your house, before you start bragging about how big your brain is.
Intellectuals such as yourself would be rendered helpless without tradesmen and labourers, so get off your high horse and show a little respect for others, if you even know what that is, which I doupt.



Women are tough enough?? Oh yeah such a hard day sitting on their bums in the office emailing their colleges all day, or talking non stop to their workmates instead of working. :rolleyes: You tough intellectual you, what the fuck would you ever know about hard work?
Its only women like you who brag about how much work women do, that are usually guilty of doing sweet FA.
Your just all talk.

Go and work in a factory or field, for afew weeks, do the grunt manual work you so despise in others, and actually raise a sweat for once in your soft little life, then go home and complain about housework, before you come on here with your sanctimonius shit, and brag about how hard you have it.
Women like you are nothing but frauds.




Im insulting guys? What about your patronising little caveman cracks? Like that one just then! I take it you view women who work in the trades or labour as grunts with no dignity not worth talking to either?
Also try doing some dangerous manual work that cant be avoided before you start scarping about labourers lacking 'internal strength' guarentee you probably wouldnt even have a go, horrors, you could chip a nail!

Next time a trades man or woman comes to the door to fix something your incredible intellect has floundered on yet again, make sure you let them know how you feel about 'the hired help' actually they will probably pick it up from your snobby body language and arrogant tone of voice within seconds. :rolleyes:

Are you Mutated Sea Bass? Or are you just channeling him?

Your a fucking idiot arent you? Have you ever actually even been in a serious fight? Has your growly 'toyboy'?
I know blackbelts too, and some of them are yet to even get in a street fight.

You are self-destructing again.

[QUOTE=Chewbaccula]

Are you Mutated Sea Bass? Or are you just channeling him?

No I'm your furry little sock puppet...

You are self-destructing again.

I call it how I see it.

They would have laughed at the never ending whining done by the current crop of women over housework, large familys were necessary, because of the likelyhood of sickness, decimating a family.

They wouldn't have laughed at anything. They were too busy dying in childbirth.


So you seperate men who do manual work as dumb and men who dont do manual work as smart? Such an intelligent and well thought out observation!

Read more carefully. Men who are ONLY able to get manual labor jobs are different from men who CHOOSE to have manual labor jobs. A man who is ONLY able to get a manual labor job is a pitiable creature, one who I wouldn't be dating in the first place. A man who CHOOSES to have a manual labor job has nobody to blame but himself, so I wouldn't cut him any special slack.


Theres all kinds of intelligence sweetie, see how well you go with a simple problem of fixing some plumbing in your house, before you start bragging about how big your brain is.

I fix my own plumbing, thanks. I also fix cars, build houses, and open jars. Next stereotype?


Intellectuals such as yourself would be rendered helpless without tradesmen and labourers, so get off your high horse and show a little respect for others, if you even know what that is, which I doupt.

Before you spout, you might want to find out who you are talking to. I have been a "manual laborer" for much of my life, having earned money by doing yardwork (yes, hard work), building houses, building sets for community theater groups (yes, that's with powertools, too), and helping with sand-bagging as a part of a volunteer emergency relief program. Just because I'm smart enough to not look forward to a brick-smashing career doesn't mean I have no clue about manual labor.


Women are tough enough?? Oh yeah such a hard day sitting on their bums in the office emailing their colleges all day, or talking non stop to their workmates instead of working. :rolleyes:

Ohhhhh, I get it. Forgive me, I thought you were having an actual discussion, not just venting your psychological issues on this forum. My bad.


You tough intellectual you, what the fuck would you ever know about hard work?

You're right, any shlub could be doing my job, because it's so very easy. Tell you what: you come in an build electrophysiology rigs, handle chemicals that will give you cancer if you look at them funny, and lug around 100-pound tanks of deadly explosive gasses all day. Oh, and while you are at it, finish my thesis for me? I'm sure you won't have a lick of trouble with explaining the role of gap junction communication in principle neurons of the developing vestibular nuclei, right? Because any lazy ass can do that.


Its only women like you who brag about how much work women do, that are usually guilty of doing sweet FA.
Your just all talk.

Again, you need to learn who you are talking to. I think the majority of discrimintion is the fault of women who are more inclined to suffer and be passive-aggressive than they are to show a little spine. I think women, as a rule, are willfully weak and ignorant. But I don't think it's because of their femaleness, I think it's because of the way they have been socialized. I don't think men are inherently more capable, more talented, more intelligent, or even more fit for physical labor than women, I think they simply are taught to apply themselves more effectively. Women can be just as useful and capable...if they apply themselves. I do.


Go and work in a factory or field, for afew weeks, do the grunt manual work you so despise in others, and actually raise a sweat for once in your soft little life, then go home and complain about housework, before you come on here with your sanctimonius shit, and brag about how hard you have it.

Done. You make a lot of assumptions, you know that? It makes you look pretty silly, since I've probably done more manual labor in my life than the average American male.


Women like you are nothing but frauds.

And boys like you are absolutely adorable :).


Im insulting guys? What about your patronising little caveman cracks? Like that one just then! I take it you view women who work in the trades or labour as grunts with no dignity not worth talking to either?

hy·per·bo·le Audio pronunciation of "hyperbole" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pûrb-l) n. A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.

Also try doing some dangerous manual work that cant be avoided before you start scarping about labourers lacking 'internal strength' guarentee you probably wouldnt even have a go, horrors, you could chip a nail!

Again, I have. I do every day, as a matter of fact. Yes, I do research, but in the course of my research I do a lot of dangerous, difficult, physically exhausting manual labor.
O

Next time a trades man or woman comes to the door to fix something your incredible intellect has floundered on yet again, make sure you let them know how you feel about 'the hired help' actually they will probably pick it up from your snobby body language and arrogant tone of voice within seconds. :rolleyes:
Nobody fixes anything in my place except me. If something breaks and I can't fix it then that's something I don't deserve to use. Any comforts in my life that I enjoy are things I learn to care for and repair. Don't you?

I'm all for segregating different funtions in society to be undertaken soley by men or women. But to tell the truth that's entirely due to two things. One, me being sick to death of hearing about workplace sexual harrasment lawsuits. Two, my crippling fear of having a female doctor.

Your a fucking idiot arent you? Have you ever actually even been in a serious fight? Has your growly 'toyboy'?
I know blackbelts too, and some of them are yet to even get in a street fight.

I've been mugged once and assaulted another time. I don't start physical fights, but I do respond if attacked. As for my boy, I honestly don't know if he's been in a "real fight." I don't much care. I know that he is capable of defending himself, just as he knows that I am, so his manly brawling history isn't really important to me. If he had started bragging to me about his fighting skills I would have known he was compensating for something...all boys who place undue emphasis on fighting are.

I'm all for segregating different funtions in society to be undertaken soley by men or women. But to tell the truth that's entirely due to two things. One, me being sick to death of hearing about workplace sexual harrasment lawsuits. Two, my crippling fear of having a female doctor.
Honest question: you say you have a crippling fear of having a female doctor, so does that mean you think women shouldn't be able to become doctors? Because lots of women only want women doctors, probably for the same reason you want men doctors...shouldn't there be both, so people can choose?

Fascinating...

As for the maternity leave... I have a friend who said he wants to do it. Taken the case that he and his GF will ever have kids he wants to spend as much time with theese kids as possible. I'd say it's the right of a father, he's also responsible for their existence, thus it's not bad to let him spend time with and take care of them.

I like that actually.

I'd say, some people here just don't want to take responsibility and thus want to leave the whole work with the kids to their wives. They come up with the weird and obsolete definition of "gender roles" just to hide the fact that they're merely lazy (or maybe they just want to take it as excuse to have an affair? "Wife's busy with the kids, time to fuck around").

Some men... pfff

Stereotypes are funny... take my father. He's a wonderful cook (I learned everything I know about cooking from him, though, who'll take over the restaurant? My little brother, I don't want it, it's not the field of work I'm interested in), but give him a hammer and he'd possibly hurt himself, or give him a broken down car and he'll look at it, then look at you and go "And? What am I supposed to do? Get a 10 ton weight and drop it on it?" (he can change tires, but anything that goes into the engine and everything else... forget it). Those are the tasks where my mother comes in. Kind of funny, he can out-cook her with his little finger, she's the one with the sense for the other things.

On that note *cheers at Bottle* you go girl!

Honest question: you say you have a crippling fear of having a female doctor, so does that mean you think women shouldn't be able to become doctors? Because lots of women only want women doctors, probably for the same reason you want men doctors...shouldn't there be both, so people can choose?

Women can have women doctors but only as long as they call it something completely different so that there's no confusion and accidental cross-pollination. Hell, if they really want they can have the doctors and we can have technicians.

Women can have women doctors but only as long as they call it something completely different so that there's no confusion and accidental cross-pollination. Hell, if they really want they can have the doctors and we can have technicians.
What about people like me, though? I'm female, but I feel most comfortable with male doctors. I'm not just saying this to be contrary...I think it's because I had a male pediatrician who was totally awesome, but I had a female dentist who was awful, so my young self associated men doctors with lollypops and happiness and female doctors with braces and scoldings about flossing. At any rate, I would always choose a male doctor over a female one (all other things being equal) so what would I do in your world?

there are exceptions to every rule. The point is that equality has been achieved, most people don't see it but then most people are politically and socially stupid. Go ahead, prove me wrong, say something that doesn't make you a political/social jackass, chances are you can't do it, I can only do it sometimes and its my theory! Every last one of you is battling against notions that you feel are held by your opponents, you aren't battling for sexual equality, nobody is, that fights over and won, disagree? look around you, find a person of the opposite sex who is worse off than you, for every one you find you will also find someone of the same sex thats worse off than you, same with better off, in any measure that counts the sexes are equal, but equal isn't good enough, men want dominance, women want dominance, so far I haven't read a single argument for equality, every argument has been for dominance

"Women are better than men"
"Men are better than women"
Men are pigs"
"Women are weak"
"Men are Awesome"
"Women are awesome"
If you want to argue equality fine, do it, if you want to argue dominance go right ahead, BUT DON'T ARGUE DOMINANCE AND CALL IT EQUALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

there are exceptions to every rule. The point is that equality has been achieved, most people don't see it but then most people are politically and socially stupid. Go ahead, prove me wrong, say something that doesn't make you a political/social jackass, chances are you can't do it, I can only do it sometimes and its my theory! Every last one of you is battling against notions that you feel are held by your opponents, you aren't battling for sexual equality, nobody is, that fights over and won, disagree? look around you, find a person of the opposite sex who is worse off than you, for every one you find you will also find someone of the same sex thats worse off than you, same with better off, in any measure that counts the sexes are equal, but equal isn't good enough, men want dominance, women want dominance, so far I haven't read a single argument for equality, every argument has been for dominance

"Women are better than men"
"Men are better than women"
Men are pigs"
"Women are weak"
"Men are Awesome"
"Women are awesome"
If you want to argue equality fine, do it, if you want to argue dominance go right ahead, BUT DON'T ARGUE DOMINANCE AND CALL IT EQUALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Every last one of you"? Read more carefully. Many of us are arguing that men and women have equal potential, and that neither should dominate...but I guess it's more fun to yell in CAPSLOCK, right?

What about people like me, though? I'm female, but I feel most comfortable with male doctors. I'm not just saying this to be contrary...I think it's because I had a male pediatrician who was totally awesome, but I had a female dentist who was awful, so my young self associated men doctors with lollypops and happiness and female doctors with braces and scoldings about flossing. At any rate, I would always choose a male doctor over a female one (all other things being equal) so what would I do in your world?

You would suffer. Suffer long and hard. Although had "My World" been in effect since birth you wouldn't know anything otherwise, thus reducing your suffering. But for now, suffer!

You would suffer. Suffer long and hard. Although had "My World" been in effect since birth you wouldn't know anything otherwise, thus reducing your suffering. But for now, suffer!
Fair enough :). Meanwhile, it is you who must suffer, long and hard, in our horribly egalitarian society!! MWA-HA-HA!!!

I, personally, like the current system; I think men and women should be free to choose whatever career they like, and that consumers and customers should be free to choose the doctor or dentist or landscape architect they like best. I happen to be very sexist in some of my choices, in that I tend to seek out male doctors and female barbers and such like that, but some people are more equality-minded than I.

Women can have women doctors but only as long as they call it something completely different so that there's no confusion and accidental cross-pollination. Hell, if they really want they can have the doctors and we can have technicians.

What's wrong with a female doctor, that's just another chick I get to show my tackle off too :)

*cough*flamebait*cough*

*cough*flamebait*cough*

If that was directed at me, you really reaching.

They wouldn't have laughed at anything. They were too busy dying in childbirth.
Read more carefully. Men who are ONLY able to get manual labor jobs are different from men who CHOOSE to have manual labor jobs. A man who is ONLY able to get a manual labor job is a pitiable creature, one who I wouldn't be dating in the first place. A man who CHOOSES to have a manual labor job has nobody to blame but himself, so I wouldn't cut him any special slack.
I fix my own plumbing, thanks. I also fix cars, build houses, and open jars. Next stereotype?
Before you spout, you might want to find out who you are talking to. I have been a "manual laborer" for much of my life, having earned money by doing yardwork (yes, hard work), building houses, building sets for community theater groups (yes, that's with powertools, too), and helping with sand-bagging as a part of a volunteer emergency relief program. Just because I'm smart enough to not look forward to a brick-smashing career doesn't mean I have no clue about manual labor.
Ohhhhh, I get it. Forgive me, I thought you were having an actual discussion, not just venting your psychological issues on this forum. My bad.
You're right, any shlub could be doing my job, because it's so very easy. Tell you what: you come in an build electrophysiology rigs, handle chemicals that will give you cancer if you look at them funny, and lug around 100-pound tanks of deadly explosive gasses all day. Oh, and while you are at it, finish my thesis for me? I'm sure you won't have a lick of trouble with explaining the role of gap junction communication in principle neurons of the developing vestibular nuclei, right? Because any lazy ass can do that.
Again, you need to learn who you are talking to. I think the majority of discrimintion is the fault of women who are more inclined to suffer and be passive-aggressive than they are to show a little spine. I think women, as a rule, are willfully weak and ignorant. But I don't think it's because of their femaleness, I think it's because of the way they have been socialized. I don't think men are inherently more capable, more talented, more intelligent, or even more fit for physical labor than women, I think they simply are taught to apply themselves more effectively. Women can be just as useful and capable...if they apply themselves. I do.
Done. You make a lot of assumptions, you know that? It makes you look pretty silly, since I've probably done more manual labor in my life than the average American male.
And boys like you are absolutely adorable :).
hy·per·bo·le Audio pronunciation of "hyperbole" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pûrb-l) n. A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
Again, I have. I do every day, as a matter of fact. Yes, I do research, but in the course of my research I do a lot of dangerous, difficult, physically exhausting manual labor.
fixes anything in my place except me. If something breaks and I can't fix it then that's something I don't deserve to use. Any comforts in my life that I enjoy are things I learn to care for and repair. Don't you?

Your so full of shit, anyone who has done the hard manual work you claim to have done, would never have such a low opinion of people who labour whether they have a choice in it or not, your pathetic. Further more you come across as an utter turd of a person in the way you look down on people who arent as qualified as you. Do you really expect people top believe you have accomplished all these things in life, where did you find the time to learn all this and spend half your life on the internet as well?
Anyone can lie on here, to try to win a point, but your only hurting yourself, like I said before, your nothing but a fraud.

I've been mugged once and assaulted another time. I don't start physical fights, but I do respond if attacked. As for my boy, I honestly don't know if he's been in a "real fight." I don't much care. I know that he is capable of defending himself, just as he knows that I am, so his manly brawling history isn't really important to me. If he had started bragging to me about his fighting skills I would have known he was compensating for something...all boys who place undue emphasis on fighting are.

Do you live your whole life with psychobabble?
You dont even know if your sextoy has been in a fight yet?
What do you call undue emphasis, the first time he mentions he was in a fight? For you to suggest then that hes compensating for something just for talking about it, shows your own insecurity. Will he attack me?
You call your partner a boy, showing the level of respect you really have for him.
You say you have never seen him in a fight, but your confident he can defend himself??
Sorry but your an idiot.

Your so full of shit, anyone who has done the hard manual work you claim to have done, would never have such a low opinion of people who labour whether they have a choice in it or not, your pathetic.


Bull. My father and grandfather are both carpenters. This summer, I began an apprenticeship under the local union, though I intend to go back to school, as, of all things, an English major. I'm fully capable of hard work, I've done it all my life (we build our own houses and horse stalls, after all).

One of the reasons I was hired was because, as the son of a carpenter, I was vastly more useful than the unskilled laborers (annoyingly, they get paid more...). Including a guy my dad had worked with several times in the last twenty years. Old guy. Has been in the trade longer than my dad had been alive. Nice guy, too. Hard worker. Worked hard enough to put two kids through college. But that's ALL he is. A hard worker. Replacable with anyone who has a work ethic. Another guy, also works very hard, is probably going to be let go for awhile, because, in ADDITION to the guy I replaced (some twit who nearly set the job on fire), I'm able to do THAT guy's job as well. I refuse to automatically respect people for whom I'm worth two of from day one, when they have mountains more experience than I do, especially when they have nothing else to compensate for their inability.

So yeah, you can do the work and still shake your head at the people who have no choice but to do it.

Now, the guys on the job who DO have a choice... I can respect them to some degree, if still not as equals thus far.


Further more you come across as an utter turd of a person in the way you look down on people who arent as qualified as you. Do you really expect people top believe you have accomplished all these things in life, where did you find the time to learn all this and spend half your life on the internet as well?


1) You sound like a communist. Some people are superior. Deal with it. It's only a bad thing when you start mistreating people because they're of lesser ability that it's a problem. Unless you think the average person with down's syndrome is your equal and should be treated as such.


Anyone can lie on here, to try to win a point, but your only hurting yourself, like I said before, your nothing but a fraud.

Guess what, Bucko. Women are in construction. All levels of it. Go look up some stats before you yap. Hell, our inspector is a woman. Her arms are bigger than mine, and I push flipping 250.

People should be judged based on ability, not on the stereotypical ability of their gender, race, or whatever else.

If a woman is a goddamned amazon, I'm sure as hell not going to say her only options in life are sewing and popping out kids.

Also, Bottle: if I didn't already have an amazing, mentally and physically gorgeous med student to cross the planet for.... mrowwwrr. :D

Do you live your whole life with psychobabble?
You dont even know if your sextoy has been in a fight yet?
What do you call undue emphasis, the first time he mentions he was in a fight? For you to suggest then that hes compensating for something just for talking about it, shows your own insecurity. Will he attack me?
You call your partner a boy, showing the level of respect you really have for him.
You say you have never seen him in a fight, but your confident he can defend himself??
Sorry but your an idiot.

A warrior who knows how to fight has no reason to prove it.

What kind of nitwit goes around starting fights to prove themselves who isn't trying to compensate?

I can beat up most people, but, personally, I prefer to occupy my time with putting money in my pocket and putting my tongue down throats instead of putting my fists in faces.

Your so full of shit, anyone who has done the hard manual work you claim to have done, would never have such a low opinion of people who labour whether they have a choice in it or not, your pathetic.

Um, ok, I guess you must know what I have and haven't done. You must also know what I do and don't think. Even though you aren't sharp enough to use the correct form of "you're," I'm sure you are able to see inside my head and read my thoughts and view my life history.

My low opinion is not of those who labor, but of those who have limited their lives to the point where all they can do is labor and then complain about having to labor. Some people choose manual work because they like it; I see no problem with that, nor do I hold those people in contempt. However, if those people go home and expect their husbands or wives to let them shirk their responsibilities to their family, then I think they are pathetic and weak and don't deserve much respect. You encourage the notion that real men work hard grunt jobs and therefore should be allowed to foist family and house work off on their wives...I encourage the notion that if a man starts a family he should be prepared to support it with more than just paychecks. Real men don't scoff at doing equal work around the home.


Further more you come across as an utter turd of a person in the way you look down on people who arent as qualified as you. Do you really expect people top believe you have accomplished all these things in life, where did you find the time to learn all this and spend half your life on the internet as well?

Hint: mocking people for being on the internet through your posts on an internet forum is a tiny bit silly.

Frankly, I don't care if random strangers believe I have accomplished things. I know what I have and haven't done, and you disbelieving me won't change my life (or my paychecks). Unlike yourself, I don't live my life according to what people might think of me. I don't need to brag about how many people I've beaten up. I don't need to follow traditional gender roles so other people will bow down before my "womanlyness."


Anyone can lie on here, to try to win a point, but your only hurting yourself, like I said before, your nothing but a fraud.
How am I hurting myself? I'm making you look like the dink you are, I'm getting to share my opinions (which is one of the main reasons I come here), and I'm enjoying your tantrum immensely. The only "hurt" I can possibly see is that you--an anti-intellectual traditionalist I will never meet--seem to believe I am "a fraud." Not to disappoint you, but that's not really going to keep me up at night. :)

Do you live your whole life with psychobabble?
I'm sorry, did I use words you aren't familiar with? I don't like to grunt monosyllabic responses to complex issues, so if I've lost you at some point you can feel free to point out the area you need clarified.


You dont even know if your sextoy has been in a fight yet?
What do you call undue emphasis, the first time he mentions he was in a fight?

Why would he mention it? He probably has, since most guys his age and from his background will have been, but I don't especially care. We don't spend our time telling each other how badass we are. We've got better things to do ;).


For you to suggest then that hes compensating for something just for talking about it, shows your own insecurity. Will he attack me?

Why would he attack you? You are clearly no threat to anybody.


You call your partner a boy, showing the level of respect you really have for him.

He calls me a girl, I call him a boy. We're young, and we view ourselves as young. Neither of us is insulted by being referred to with the terms for young persons of our respective genders.


You say you have never seen him in a fight, but your confident he can defend himself??
Sorry but your an idiot.
If you need to see somebody fight to get their measure then I recommend you stay safely in the suburbs, son. Where I come from you have to be able to judge a person's strength and ability from more than first-hand observation of their ass-whupping skills.

Creation stories - if you read the bible, there are two (yes, two!).

first you get the one we all hear, adam eve made from adam's rib, snake, apple, 7 days (but no ring), then it's all over and BOOM we get a second story with the jewish adam/lilith creature getting lonely and being split into two for company...

it's the same with the flood story, one version has 2 animals, one has 5 clean for sacrifice, 7 unclean for breeding/food. so if you read it right there are 2 sheep on the ark... and the first thing noah does getting off the ark is to sacrifice the ram o.O

but the bottom line is, biblical stories were made up to explain to people who couldn't understand things we understand today. they needed a story with a god in. they're like parables. they didn't happen, they're there to tell people how to live.

the way i see it, we're all equal but there are instances of inequality - the woman is more responsible for the child - I read a good argument on this very site: If the father gets drunk, does the baby suffer brain damage?
Does he have to be careful not to get into car crashes?
The mother is more responsible for the baby, and rights and responsibilities go hand in hand.

there are other things to consider - men are generally stronger and because of this men were the breadwinners in hunter/gatherer societies. this means they had more status and so traditionally are in charge. also means we sweat more ;) but this is just an idea from older societies. well, i could rant for hours about inequality, but i won't, people don't want to sleep all the time, so i'll sum up.

We are equal overall. we have some differences but really things even out quite well. I suck at sports but i'm a great logician. does this mean I'm better than a football player who sucks at algebra? no!

So you seperate men who do manual work as dumb and men who dont do manual work as smart? Such an intelligent and well thought out observation! Theres all kinds of intelligence sweetie, see how well you go with a simple problem of fixing some plumbing in your house, before you start bragging about how big your brain is.
Intellectuals such as yourself would be rendered helpless without tradesmen and labourers, so get off your high horse and show a little respect for others, if you even know what that is, which I doupt.
You know, there's such a thing as a book. Often, books are printed which contain information on how to do the plumbing, elecctric wiring et c. There is also the fact that most people have some experience doing something around the house whether it was gained from childhood or further down the line.
For instance, my dad is a research scientist he is currently drywalling our basement (well, he might be onto the floors right now) which he did after building a frame, wiring the place up and even moving some pipes around. How did he accomplish such manual labour, despite the fact that he's an intellectual? His father was a carpernter, though he also had a degree in engineering... and he also got a book about electrical wiring. He doesn't need the book anymore, he's done basements before.
And really, let's not get into the landscaping my parents have worked on together...
You seem to think that people can only do one thing.

Women are tough enough?? Oh yeah such a hard day sitting on their bums in the office emailing their colleges all day, or talking non stop to their workmates instead of working. :rolleyes: You tough intellectual you, what the fuck would you ever know about hard work?
Its only women like you who brag about how much work women do, that are usually guilty of doing sweet FA.
Your just all talk.

Go and work in a factory or field, for afew weeks, do the grunt manual work you so despise in others, and actually raise a sweat for once in your soft little life, then go home and complain about housework, before you come on here with your sanctimonius shit, and brag about how hard you have it.
Women like you are nothing but frauds.
I've done factory work. Last summer I did. I also worked at a catering company where I would have to lug equipment and 20 lbs of salads quite some distance. I worked 7 day weeks most of the summer in jobs that were pretty labour intensive, and you're saying that women can't handle any hard work.

Go and work in a factory or field, for afew weeks, do the grunt manual work you so despise in others, and actually raise a sweat for once in your soft little life, then go home and complain about housework, before you come on here with your sanctimonius shit, and brag about how hard you have it.
Women like you are nothing but frauds.

Next time a trades man or woman comes to the door to fix something your incredible intellect has floundered on yet again, make sure you let them know how you feel about 'the hired help' actually they will probably pick it up from your snobby body language and arrogant tone of voice within seconds. :rolleyes:
Now I remember you, you're the anti-intellectual who claims he went to uni, but was too good for it or something like that. Well, thanks for being an idiot and a poor representative for tradespersons everywhere.

I like women doctors.

Touch me.

Your a fucking idiot arent you? Have you ever actually even been in a serious fight? Has your growly 'toyboy'?
I know blackbelts too, and some of them are yet to even get in a street fight.


Flaming. STOP NOW. Official Warning.

Your so full of shit, anyone who has done the hard manual work you claim to have done, would never have such a low opinion of people who labour whether they have a choice in it or not, your pathetic. Further more you come across as an utter turd of a person in the way you look down on people who arent as qualified as you. Do you really expect people top believe you have accomplished all these things in life, where did you find the time to learn all this and spend half your life on the internet as well?
Anyone can lie on here, to try to win a point, but your only hurting yourself, like I said before, your nothing but a fraud.

That's quite enough. If you cannot be civil, you cannot post.
Seven day forumban.

If that was directed at me, you really reaching.
It wasn't.

I've debated this with people very often. Men and women are "equal" in some senses and "not equal" in others, just like all other living organisms compared to each other. What's important is only that men and women both deserve equal treatment as human beings. The fact that there are differences in their body size, shape, musculature, and brain function is obvious.

But is one "better" than the other, in total? I don't think so. They're just different. Anything more specific than that is just debateable. Whether you think mapping/spatial awareness are more important than the natural gift of nurturing, is a personal thing.

But men and maternity leave? I actually think they should be allowed it with certain restrictions. Yeah, they can't have babies, but that doesn't negate the fact that they have duties to their children just like the mother does. To say otherwise puts all the onus of raising a child on the woman, which isn't the way it's supposed to be. The restrictions I'd place would be that the man has to prove that his wife (or lover) has recently had a child and he shouldn't be able to get full maternity leave like a woman. Afterall, he hasn't carried the baby around and isn't recovering from that. But he should be able to work half-weeks to help take care of the child.

*worships Bottle* youve sad it all, and your sig rules to boot

That's quite enough. If you cannot be civil, you cannot post.
Seven day forumban.
Aw...:(

I know you are doing your part to maintain order and enforce the rules, but I am (selfishly) disappointed to know that fellow won't be back for a while. By the time he comes back, this little tet-a-tet of ours will have drifted off the edge of the forum abyss, and he won't have any chance to continue ranting at me. I know NS is a better place because of your moderating efforts, but sometimes the flaming is just so fun to watch...

*sigh* I'm still jonesing for some quality trollery. I'm gonna go pick a fight with some middle school kids.

*worships Bottle* youve sad it all, and your sig rules to boot
Well shucks and gosh golly! Thanks :).

But won't somebody take up my opponent's cause? I want to continue learning about how intellectuals can't fix cars, how smart people don't know anything about hard work, and how women just talk on the phone all day.

But won't somebody take up my opponent's cause? I want to continue learning about how intellectuals can't fix cars, how smart people don't know anything about hard work, and how women just talk on the phone all day.

I don't know if it's possible :p How about this...clears throat...
Woman! *smack on the ass* Go bake me a pie!

I think that was our beloved little mutated sea bass. It really comes out in the flames :)

Quote: Wooktop The mother is more responsible for the baby, and rights and responsibilities go hand in hand.

I'll grant the responsibility of if you choose to carry a baby to term, take care of it in utero. After the baby is free and clear it's joint responsibility time. My favorite is my hippie cousins friend who got estrogen injections so that he could produce milk and nurse the baby...yup guys, you've got all the right plumbing, just the wrong hormones :D
favorite thought of the day: "Men are pigs, but why keep kosher?"

Last night at the bar, some dad was standing with all his buds in the outdoor area resting his beer bottle on his infants head (he had one of those little belly carrier things) while mom sipped whine holding the toddler. Now that's quality.

They're not equal. To say so is stupid. They deserve equal rights, but not treatment. Men should not be allowed to go on maternity leave, because they can't give birth. etc.
While I think a woman should be given a bit extra leave for physical reasons I think that the father absolutely should be given parental leave around the birth of the child this is a new addition to his life as well and as a parent has a responsibility to make sure the mother and child are doing all right and support them through this change.

While I think a woman should be given a bit extra leave for physical reasons I think that the father absolutely should be given parental leave around the birth of the child this is a new addition to his life as well and as a parent has a responsibility to make sure the mother and child are doing all right and support them through this change.
I dunno. I think any person who is giving birth should be granted medical leave, since it's a major physical ordeal, but I don't think employers should be required to give time off for women OR men just so they can "spend time" with the new baby. If an employer wants to grant such time off then that's nice, but people should recognize that it's a privaledge, a perk, a bonus, not a given.

I don't know if it's possible :p How about this...clears throat...
Woman! *smack on the ass* Go bake me a pie!

I think that was our beloved little mutated sea bass. It really comes out in the flames :)
Ahhhhhh, much better!

But seriously, isn't there a single other person who agrees with my esteemed opponent? Surely, if he is as right as he feels, there will be others to voice similar criticisms. If all women are so obviously lazy, and all intellectuals so obviously helpless and weak, then surely there will be more brave Manly Men who will step forward to do battle.

Ahhhhhh, much better!

But seriously, isn't there a single other person who agrees with my esteemed opponent? Surely, if he is as right as he feels, there will be others to voice similar criticisms. If all women are so obviously lazy, and all intellectuals so obviously helpless and weak, then surely there will be more brave Manly Men who will step forward to do battle.
the manly men exist. They're all in the British army. well, they were until they got wasted by friendly fire.

I dunno. I think any person who is giving birth should be granted medical leave, since it's a major physical ordeal, but I don't think employers should be required to give time off for women OR men just so they can "spend time" with the new baby. If an employer wants to grant such time off then that's nice, but people should recognize that it's a privaledge, a perk, a bonus, not a given.
Well that’s why I had the extended part for the medical portion but I think they should be given SOME time off. Maybe not a massively long amount of time but some time to get settled and get living and financial and care arrangements set for their return to work

They're not equal. To say so is stupid. They deserve equal rights, but not treatment. Men should not be allowed to go on maternity leave, because they can't give birth. etc.
Men can't give birth, but that shouldn't disqualify them from Maternity Leave, which, in Canada is 32 weeks. Few women need that much recovery time. Make 2 weeks women-only Maternity leave, and the rest of it, Parental leave. Whoever stays home with the child, male or female, should get that leave.

Well that’s why I had the extended part for the medical portion but I think they should be given SOME time off. Maybe not a massively long amount of time but some time to get settled and get living and financial and care arrangements set for their return to work
I think it would be nice of an employer to offer such leave as a bonus, but I think it is unreasonable to require them to do so. Parents should have things planned out well before their infant arrives, and should have financial and care matters settled long before the baby is born...if they don't, then they are clearly not cut out for parenting anyhow, and probably should give the child to more responsible people so that it can have a better life.

I think it would be nice of an employer to offer such leave as a bonus, but I think it is unreasonable to require them to do so. Parents should have things planned out well before their infant arrives, and should have financial and care matters settled long before the baby is born...if they don't, then they are clearly not cut out for parenting anyhow, and probably should give the child to more responsible people so that it can have a better life.
I am sure there are some things you cant exactly plan for before hand (namely because of the variable time of the babies birth) ya got an estimated time but sometimes it does not follow your schedule

A few days to go in and arrange things such as daycare and what not would not be too much to ask I think

This is a major life change … while the bulk should be planed before hand a week or two for the father is hardly unreasonable (sometimes you need a few days off just to buy a car or a house … a baby is a lot bigger then either of those two things)

I am sure there are some things you cant exactly plan for before hand (namely because of the variable time of the babies birth) ya got an estimated time but sometimes it does not follow your schedule

A few days to go in and arrange things such as daycare and what not would not be too much to ask I think

This is a major life change … while the bulk should be planed before hand a week or two for the father is hardly unreasonable (sometimes you need a few days off just to buy a car or a house … a baby is a lot bigger then either of those two things)
A few days is one thing...but a few weeks? A month? A month and a half? That's what many people propose. I think employers certainly COULD offer that, and might attract better employees if they did, but I think it's totally unreasonable to require the employers to give that much time off.

Well shucks and gosh golly! Thanks :).

But won't somebody take up my opponent's cause? I want to continue learning about how intellectuals can't fix cars, how smart people don't know anything about hard work, and how women just talk on the phone all day.

If it helps... I'm something of an intellectual, and I can't fix cars!!!

If it helps... I'm something of an intellectual, and I can't fix cars!!!
A-ha! Well, there's the proof...because we have found a sort-of-intellectual who can't fix cars, we now can definitively say that all intellectuals are helpless morons who can't do anything besides sit around being eggheads. Case closed.

A few days is one thing...but a few weeks? A month? A month and a half? That's what many people propose. I think employers certainly COULD offer that, and might attract better employees if they did, but I think it's totally unreasonable to require the employers to give that much time off.
Personally a few weeks I think is enough … 1-2 to get settled with more up to the employer (not taking into account the woman’s medical leave)
I do not think that would be unreasonable to make sure they had the time to adjust

Personally a few weeks I think is enough … 1-2 to get settled with more up to the employer (not taking into account the woman’s medical leave)
I do not think that would be unreasonable to make sure they had the time to adjust
Meh. I still think it's wrong for people to expect or demand that kind of leave. But then, I think most people aren't fit to be parents, so I'm all for discouraging them in any way possible :).

"Men and women arn't equal."

Yep, women spell better.

I think different, in this case, can still be equal.

Meh. I still think it's wrong for people to expect or demand that kind of leave. But then, I think most people aren't fit to be parents, so I'm all for discouraging them in any way possible :).
It’s a hard time acclimatizing to a new kid … and the care that the child needs can be … extensive
Making sure they have a job at the end of 1 – 2 weeks (at least) I think should be fairly important

That and one of the two defiantly should get a longer time (so they can properly care for the child until it is ready for daycare)

(In America) FMLA ensures that each parent is able to take time off to care for a new child. To argue that the father is responsible only for going to work, bringing back a paycheck and saying "Hi Kid" is ludicrous. That's not a father, that's an employee.

Women aren't smarter than men, men aren't more capable than women. People should be free to choose the paths of their lives based on their own personal interests and abilities. To imply that women should stay home and raise children while men should "go work" does a great disservice to any woman who is unwilling or unable to conceive children.

Is it unnatural to be female and not want babies? Are you really prepared to make that argument?
**************************************
Your Rights
under the
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993:

The right to take leave under FMLA applies equally to male and female employees. A father, as well as a mother, can take family leave for the birth, adoption or foster care of a child.

If the newborn’s father works for a different employer, he has a separate right to take 12 weeks of FMLA leave over a twelve-month period, commencing the date the baby is born. If the father works for the same employer, the father and mother are limited to sharing a combined total of 12 weeks for the birth of the child.

http://www.sh.lsuhsc.edu/HR/HRM/Employee%20Relations/FMLA%20Pregnancy.htm

The time off is a necessity, not a luxury, as anyone who's had to be up to feed a kid every two hours will know. The first three months of a kids' life is EXTREMELY wearing, until they learn to sleep a good 5-6hrs each night.

I thought this was appropriate.

"Today, the real test of power is not the capacity to make war, but the capacity to prevent it."

-- Anne O'Hare McCormick, foreign correspondent for the New York Times

The time off is a necessity, not a luxury, as anyone who's had to be up to feed a kid every two hours will know. The first three months of a kids' life is EXTREMELY wearing, until they learn to sleep a good 5-6hrs each night.
No offense, but it can't possibly be a necessity because my parents did without it for two children. It sucks, sure, and I vividly remember doing my part with my brother (he's much much younger than I) and being bleary-eyed for about a year. But my family did without time off from work, so it is not a necessity. As I have said, I think it is great for employers to offer it, and at this point they probably can't afford NOT to (because all the best people will leave any place that doesn't offer paid leave), but I don't think they should be required to do so.

I'm a father who took two weeks of paternity leave earlier this year. It was very important for the following reasons:

1) Mom was worn out physically and recovering from the birth process. She needed care, and assistance with everyday tasks.
2) Neither of us were getting any sleep for the first couple weeks, meaning I would have been in no shape to work anyway.
3) "Maternal instincts" are just another old wives' tale. Mothers don't have an instinctive understanding of everything their babies communicate. They just know their children, and learn to intuitively interpret certain clues. The learning curve in the first weeks is impossibly steep, and having someone else around to help troubleshoot a wide variety of brand-new problems is very comforting, especially for first-time mothers.

My wife could have easily needed more time to recover had the baby been taken Caesarian, had some delivery complications, or more significant post-natal complications than she did. In which case, I would have needed a month or more leave to ensure she convalesced while the baby's needs were being met.

I know I don't even have to ask if any of you arguing against paternity leave have any experiences to share. It's fairly obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

No offense, but it can't possibly be a necessity because my parents did without it for two children. It sucks, sure, and I vividly remember doing my part with my brother (he's much much younger than I) and being bleary-eyed for about a year. But my family did without time off from work, so it is not a necessity. As I have said, I think it is great for employers to offer it, and at this point they probably can't afford NOT to (because all the best people will leave any place that doesn't offer paid leave), but I don't think they should be required to do so.
My grandparents did without innoculations, and they led healthy and productive lives, so I have to wonder why we bother. In fact, there was nothing worth considering as "medicine" in Western culture until about the 18th century, and still the population was booming. I don't know why we should require medical care.

My grandparents did without innoculations, and they led healthy and productive lives, so I have to wonder why we bother. In fact, there was nothing worth considering as "medicine" in Western culture until about the 18th century, and still the population was booming. I don't know why we should require medical care.
The difference is that my family hasn't been harmed by the experience. Nobody died, nobody lost their job, no kids grew up with attachment disorders...etc etc. In some ways I would even say my family was improved by the experience; I have much more respect for my parents, having witnessed how well they dealt with having a new baby and working, I feel closer to my brother, I know both my brother and I benefitted hugely from being in daycare from a young age...the list goes on.

From my experience, lacking parental leave means a period of discomfort with no lasting negative effects. I would say that living without innoculations doesn't really fit as an analogy. Living without innoculations = more people dying. Living without medicine = more people dying. Living without government-mandated parental leave is like living without breast augmentation surgery.

But the main point, which you are choosing to ignore, is that I think parental leave is a very NICE thing, and that it would be great if employers CHOOSE to offer it. I don't think it's a bad thing, even though I feel my life is somewhat better because my parents did without it. I simply think employers should be able to choose if they want to offer it, and then employees can choose if they want to work for a company that doesn't offer parental leave. I don't think it's reasonable to force the issue either way.

Bottle: Your proposition assumes a perfect world in which the supply of jobs is sufficient to broaden the available choices. This is not realistic for a lot of the population, the unskilled labor force in particular. Employers in those fields would never feel the need to offer paternal leave, and possibly wouldn't even offer maternal leave if it wasn't already forced onto them by law. That's because the unskilled labor pool is much larger than the demand, meaning the market overwhelmingly favors the employers. They have no business need to retain employees while they care for their families, and it costs them money if they do.

You're also assuming a perfect world in which major medical complications do not arise from pregnancy. Sometimes medical leave isn't "nice." Sometimes it's absolutely essential. And to ask someone in that situation to choose between the health of their family and their ability to provide for them is, in my opinion, a terrible injustice.

If an employer wants to grant such time off then that's nice, but people should recognize that it's a privaledge, a perk, a bonus, not a given.

I think it should be a given. Any smart employer will figure out that by allowing for a bonding process in the early days you are setting yourself up for a more productive worker. For allowing the establishment of good breastfeeding, your worker will take less carer's leave for sick kids.

It should be a given because workers aren't just mindless automotons. And even from a self-interst point-of-view, treating workers like automotons may be good for short term productivity but not for long-term.

What really fries my fish is when women press for equality but when it comes to the draft they want no part in it. The chivalry code is also in exhistance but women only want the benefits.

What really fries my fish is when women press for equality but when it comes to the draft they want no part in it. The chivalry code is also in exhistance but women only want the benefits.
Yeah too bad for most of the arguemnts I have heard it is MEN that have not wanted women in the draft ... they tend to whine about “urges to protect women”

In fact I have not heard from one woman on this board who would want the draft still covering only men if it was in place

My grandparents did without innoculations, and they led healthy and productive lives, so I have to wonder why we bother.

Interesting that you should bring up innoculations. I was going to use that point re: the "traditional gender roles as biologically based."

We as a species have evolved passed the basic biological imperative. If we break a bone, we heal faster and with less residual incapacitations. In most parts of the world we are no longer at such peril from things like polio and small-pox.

We aren't tied to the physiological imperative of walking since the invention of horse and cart, bicycle and motor car.

And we no longer need to be tied to the physiological based roles, roles which used to be important for the survival of teh species -- though there were **always** large numbers of people in society (more in some societies than others) who existed outside of these biologically-driven roles.

It is also why I am a vegetarian. As a species we have evolved passed the physiological neccessity for meat.

What really fries my fish is when women press for equality but when it comes to the draft they want no part in it. The chivalry code is also in exhistance but women only want the benefits.
I personally would not want myself in the military, but I would want the right to join it. If that means being drafted, well, tough, that's how it is. I'd be one sucky soldier, though, considering I believe war is pointless.

Bottle: Your proposition assumes a perfect world in which the supply of jobs is sufficient to broaden the available choices. This is not realistic for a lot of the population, the unskilled labor force in particular. Employers in those fields would never feel the need to offer paternal leave, and possibly wouldn't even offer maternal leave if it wasn't already forced onto them by law. That's because the unskilled labor pool is much larger than the demand, meaning the market overwhelmingly favors the employers. They have no business need to retain employees while they care for their families, and it costs them money if they do.

I believe that any person who is limited in the way you describe should not choose to have children. If they choose to do so, that's their problem.

You're also assuming a perfect world in which major medical complications do not arise from pregnancy. Sometimes medical leave isn't "nice." Sometimes it's absolutely essential. And to ask someone in that situation to choose between the health of their family and their ability to provide for them is, in my opinion, a terrible injustice.
No, actually YOU are assuming (incorrectly) that I haven't already made it very clear that I support MEDICAL leave. If medical complications arise they should be regarded just as any medical complication would.

My brother began have seizures when he was two months old, over a month after my parents' "paternal leave" period ended. My parents have never been rich, and we certainly needed both their incomes to continue to support the family (particularly with new medical bills). I am quite familiar with the strain that a new baby can bring to a working family, not to mention the strain of a new baby's serious medical problems, a growing young child's special needs as the result of a medical problem, and the difficulties that arise when BOTH parents in the family are diagnosed with serious chronic illnesses. If you choose to assume that I don't appreciate these difficulties, or that I underestimate their seriousness, then you will be making a pretty large error in your reasoning.

I think it should be a given. Any smart employer will figure out that by allowing for a bonding process in the early days you are setting yourself up for a more productive worker. For allowing the establishment of good breastfeeding, your worker will take less carer's leave for sick kids.

It should be a given because workers aren't just mindless automotons. And even from a self-interst point-of-view, treating workers like automotons may be good for short term productivity but not for long-term.
THAT'S WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING.

Employers probably should offer parental leave because it is in their best interests to do so. I believe they will be better off if they offer it. I simply don't think they should be required by law to do so.

What really fries my fish is when women press for equality but when it comes to the draft they want no part in it. The chivalry code is also in exhistance but women only want the benefits.
I press for equality and I oppose the draft. For all people.

THAT'S WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING.

Employers probably should offer parental leave because it is in their best interests to do so. I believe they will be better off if they offer it. I simply don't think they should be required by law to do so.
Agreed give women time off for the medical recovery but both parents should be given the same opportunity to take time off in the early days. Or are we saying it is a woman place to look after children? If we are why do we employ them? Modern society is trying to push for a father that participates, well let the laws support that!
I think it is Sweden that gives a family an amount of parenting leave to be divided as the family see fit, this can even be divied up to include grandparents!
Currently in the Uk a woman can have up to six months off and must be offered her old job back (more or less) a man on the other hand gets ten days, and they don't have to be paid! A very equal system.

Agreed give women time off for the medical recovery but both parents should be given the same opportunity to take time off in the early days. Or are we saying it is a woman place to look after children? If we are why do we employ them? Modern society is trying to push for a father that participates, well let the laws support that!
I think it is Sweden that gives a family an amount of parenting leave to be divided as the family see fit, this can even be divied up to include grandparents!
Currently in the Uk a woman can have up to six months off and must be offered her old job back (more or less) a man on the other hand gets ten days, and they don't have to be paid! A very equal system.
*Slaps forehead*

Ok, let me try this one more time.

I believe that it is in an employer's best interest to offer parental leave. PARENTAL LEAVE. For both mothers and fathers, for both gay couples and straight couples, for a birth or an adoption, for any family trying to adapt to a new child in the home. HOWEVER. I believe that employers should only be required BY LAW to provide medical leave for childbirth. I think they SHOULD provide more, I think it would be nicer and also better for the employer, but I don't believe they should be REQUIRED to do so BY LAW.

*Slaps forehead*

Ok, let me try this one more time.

I believe that it is in an employer's best interest to offer parental leave. PARENTAL LEAVE. For both mothers and fathers, for both gay couples and straight couples, for a birth or an adoption, for any family trying to adapt to a new child in the home. HOWEVER. I believe that employers should only be required BY LAW to provide medical leave for childbirth. I think they SHOULD provide more, I think it would be nicer and also better for the employer, but I don't believe they should be REQUIRED to do so BY LAW.
Ok get the jist. So the law should not allow women to take leave beyond a couple of weeks, but employers should be encouraged to allow parental leave for all parties?

Do you agree that if the law allows a women to take six months off to 'bond' that same time should be available to any parent regardless of gender or sexual orientation?

Ok get the jist. So the law should not allow women to take leave beyond a couple of weeks, but employers should be encouraged to allow parental leave for all parties?

Do you agree that if the law allows a women to take six months off to 'bond' that same time should be available to any parent regardless of gender or sexual orientation?
I don't believe the law should require employers to give women (or men) time off to "bond." I believe the law should ONLY require that employers give time off for medical reasons.

I don't believe the law should require employers to give women (or men) time off to "bond." I believe the law should ONLY require that employers give time off for medical reasons.
Ok, I don't agree with you but get your pont. But in the situation we live in, in the UK, do you agree that the law should not specify the sex of the parent taking the leave?

Ok, I don't agree with you but get your pont. But in the situation we live in, in the UK, do you agree that the law should not specify the sex of the parent taking the leave?
As I have said, I don't think the law should require such leave for either parent. However, if a law is going to be foolish and unjust then I suppose it should be equally foolish and equally unjust for all people...so if I had no other option I would support a law allowing parental leave to be used by both men and women equally. Particularly since male gay parents would be royally screwed by a women-only system.

What really fries my fish is when women press for equality but when it comes to the draft they want no part in it. The chivalry code is also in exhistance but women only want the benefits.

I expect some women DO oppose the draft... but, you know what? Some MEN oppose the draft, too.

Does that mean that men do not deserve equality?

I expect some women DO oppose the draft... but, you know what? Some MEN oppose the draft, too.

Does that mean that men do not deserve equality?
:fluffle: sheesh you are late with that one (lol read my response to that post) :) I think we both caps'd MEN too :)

:fluffle: sheesh you are late with that one (lol read my response to that post) :) I think we both caps'd MEN too :)

No, I think we are okay, this time. :D

I wasn't saying MEN opposed the female draft... although many do... I was talking about the many men who don't want MEN to get drafted, either.

Some people have this weird desire to not die bleeding in a desert somewhere...

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/conditions/04/24/heart.role.reversal/


Just sayin'

No, I think we are okay, this time. :D

I wasn't saying MEN opposed the female draft... although many do... I was talking about the many men who don't want MEN to get drafted, either.

Some people have this weird desire to not die bleeding in a desert somewhere...
Yeah I am not exactly FOR the draft as well … at least not in an offensive war (defensive I can see) but not where we start something

Yeah too bad for most of the arguemnts I have heard it is MEN that have not wanted women in the draft ... they tend to whine about “urges to protect women”

In fact I have not heard from one woman on this board who would want the draft still covering only men if it was in place
I don't think anyone wants any part in the draft.

And really, what's the point if your country won't even let women in combat roles, exactly? Isn't that generally what the draft is for? To get more people in combat roles...

I don't think anyone wants any part in the draft.

And really, what's the point if your country won't even let women in combat roles, exactly? Isn't that generally what the draft is for? To get more people in combat roles...

No. The majority of soldiers in the Army, for instance, are not in a combat role. They are support troops (only 1 in 12 has anything to do with combat).

If for some reason you wanted to keep women out of combat, you could keep the current limits on women in combat specialties (no women are currently allowed in the infantry, for instance). Then you could draft women to be supply clerks, etc., and send the men in those positions to the infantry.

However, having been in the infantry, and having seen many women who seem more than suitable for the job, I see no reason why men and women can't both serve in combat positions - provided that they both pass the same physical fitness requirements. There are men who can't, as you may already know. And there are some women who can.

If they're able to do the job, and are willing to do the job, I see no reason not to allow them to do the job. In modern history, women in infantry combat have done quite well.

No. The majority of soldiers in the Army, for instance, are not in a combat role. They are support troops (only 1 in 12 has anything to do with combat).

If for some reason you wanted to keep women out of combat, you could keep the current limits on women in combat specialties (no women are currently allowed in the infantry, for instance). Then you could draft women to be supply clerks, etc., and send the men in those positions to the infantry.

However, having been in the infantry, and having seen many women who seem more than suitable for the job, I see no reason why men and women can't both serve in combat positions - provided that they both pass the same physical fitness requirements. There are men who can't, as you may already know. And there are some women who can.

If they're able to do the job, and are willing to do the job, I see no reason not to allow them to do the job. In modern history, women in infantry combat have done quite well.
I never said that it was a good thing to keep women out of combat roles, it's pretty stupid and discriminatory, but if you're drafting because you need more peopel to fight your war, you're not exactly looking for people in non-combat roles.

I never said that it was a good thing to keep women out of combat roles, it's pretty stupid and discriminatory, but if you're drafting because you need more peopel to fight your war, you're not exactly looking for people in non-combat roles.

The problem is that if you want to add 1 person to the combat role, you have to add 11 or 12 to the non-combat roles.

That's where most draftees end up.

BTW, you may be interested to know that it's a myth that the majority of Vietnam Veterans were drafted. Something over 80 percent were volunteers - and most volunteered for more than one tour.

Yeah I am not exactly FOR the draft as well … at least not in an offensive war (defensive I can see) but not where we start something

Defensive war becomes less a matter of 'draft', I think.. and more a matter of protecting your own... so, yes - I can agree with you.

The 'original poster' seemed to think that women rejecting the idea of a draft was somehow indicative of a check against equality.

I was just illustrating that lots of men aren't THAT fond of the draft, either.

The problem is that if you want to add 1 person to the combat role, you have to add 11 or 12 to the non-combat roles.

That's where most draftees end up.

BTW, you may be interested to know that it's a myth that the majority of Vietnam Veterans were drafted. Something over 80 percent were volunteers - and most volunteered for more than one tour.
uh... I have no idea what your vietnam bit has to do with anything.

And the thing is that no one wants the draft, that's the point of the draft. If they wanted it, they would volunteer. And there also aren't enough men who are supportive of women being included in the draft, so it won't happen for some time.

I don't believe that a draft is in the making, nor do I think that the Pentagon wants one (they have a bad taste in their mouth for the quality of troops who don't volunteer). In fact, a fair number of Army schools are designed with one purpose in mind - to make the quitters quit. The Army doesn't want people in service who quit or don't want to be there. Far better to have fewer people of known reliability than a few extras who don't care.

That aside, I fail to see why women should be excluded from any real job - or paid less for the same job.

Jobs should be based on ability and merit - not on anything else.

Defensive war becomes less a matter of 'draft', I think.. and more a matter of protecting your own... so, yes - I can agree with you.

The 'original poster' seemed to think that women rejecting the idea of a draft was somehow indicative of a check against equality.

I was just illustrating that lots of men aren't THAT fond of the draft, either.exacty :) and I agree :p

I'm no way in favor of the draft. I strongly oppose the draft. Just say "No".

Was I clear enough?

But, if the draft is instituted, it's morally offensive to only draft men. If we're going to draft men, we gotta draft women. A woman can't have or wish for all of the rights and privileges if she doesn't also have all the same responsibilities. Nor can a woman ever fully be "equal" if things expected of men are not expected of her. I'm no equal if I get equal pay for equal work in these jobs but am by sheer accident of conception excluded from other potential jobs. (Barring "jobs" based on obvious biology. A woman can't be a male model or a sperm donor...)

Let's hope it never comes to that again, though.

because of the draft, there are different amounts of equalness in men and women. The men are called to fight, women are not. That doesnt mean they cant enlist, nor does it mean that they are inferior. It simply means that men are usually more up to the army and such than a woman would be. Its not because, once again, women arent as good, but because they are raised to believe different things then, say, a man would. Men are raised on violence and toughness a lot more than a woman, so in a way they have already been "trained" to fight. Really the only difference between man and woman is physical. A woman can still beat the crap out of a man, but overall in the general population that wont happen so much.

because of the draft, there are different amounts of equalness in men and women. The men are called to fight, women are not. That doesnt mean they cant enlist, nor does it mean that they are inferior. It simply means that men are usually more up to the army and such than a woman would be. Its not because, once again, women arent as good, but because they are raised to believe different things then, say, a man would. Men are raised on violence and toughness a lot more than a woman, so in a way they have already been "trained" to fight. Really the only difference between man and woman is physical. A woman can still beat the crap out of a man, but overall in the general population that wont happen so much.
Not an excuse … averages in general population in NO WAY means we cant draft women and drop the ones that don’t past muster
We already do that for the men.

I believe that any person who is limited in the way you describe should not choose to have children. If they choose to do so, that's their problem.
Poor people will have children whether you want them to or not. The question is whether you think it's ethical to punish the children for the poor planning of their parents.

No, actually YOU are assuming (incorrectly) that I haven't already made it very clear that I support MEDICAL leave. If medical complications arise they should be regarded just as any medical complication would.
Is not paternal leave simply a specialized type of medical leave? It's a fair assumption that if you're against one, you're against the other. Lots of employers don't give medical leave so the employee can take care of a sick family member. They require the employee be the sick one.

My brother began have seizures when he was two months old, over a month after my parents' "paternal leave" period ended. My parents have never been rich, and we certainly needed both their incomes to continue to support the family (particularly with new medical bills). I am quite familiar with the strain that a new baby can bring to a working family, not to mention the strain of a new baby's serious medical problems, a growing young child's special needs as the result of a medical problem, and the difficulties that arise when BOTH parents in the family are diagnosed with serious chronic illnesses. If you choose to assume that I don't appreciate these difficulties, or that I underestimate their seriousness, then you will be making a pretty large error in your reasoning.
Given your understanding of the potential hardships, I'm left to wonder why you're taking the position you have.

I disagree. They can't give birth, but the father of the baby on the way should have the right to be there for emotional support of the soon to be mother.

A guy that takes maternity leave is a panzy. A panzy at the expense of others usually. Be a man go to work. Stay up all night with the kid and go to work the next day. Men have done it for thousands of years.

The powderpuff dream of sensitive men who feel the same as their wives and share the early developmental experiences with their children at their employer's expense is selfishly the opposite of what a reliable breadwinner should be.

If a husband and wife saves the money so that he can take off work at his expense I have no problem with him. More power to him. He has sacrificed to make his own way.

A guy that takes maternity leave is a panzy. A panzy at the expense of others usually. Be a man go to work. Stay up all night with the kid and go to work the next day. Men have done it for thousands of years.

The powderpuff dream of sensitive men who feel the same as their wives and share the early developmental experiences with their children at their employer's expense is selfishly the opposite of what a reliable breadwinner should be.

If a husband and wife saves the money so that he can take off work at his expense I have no problem with him. More power to him. He has sacrificed to make his own way.
And why should it be the woman who is left home taking care of the kid at first? Why can not the father do this and mother go back to work?

Is everyone talking about paid or unpaid medical leave?

And why should it be the woman who is left home taking care of the kid at first? Why can not the father do this and mother go back to work?

Men and women are different. Women raise children better than men. If you are a follower of creationism, God said women are to do it. If you are a follower of evolution, the female of the species raise offspring. It works try it. It's sad when people force their children to accept second best to make their political point. Men are not as good at it.

Men and women are different. Women raise children better than men. If you are a follower of creationism, God said women are to do it. If you are a follower of evolution, the female of the species raise offspring. It works try it. It's sad when people force their children to accept second best to make their political point. Men are not as good at it.
Who said I would do it to make a political point … personally I have meet many fathers that are absolutely wonderful at raising their kid. There is nothing that says that all mothers are necessarily better then their male counterpart (even if it was a statistical fact that does not apply to ALL couples)
And secondly what if the wife makes more money then the man? the decision to let the mother go back to work could be in the best interest of the family as a whole.

In a rational situation the wife is better. Some cases the men may be better, that's because they have wives who are lousy mothers who don't want to be trapped in the house with a screaming kid when they could be successful at work.

Buying more stuff doesn't facilitate a better childhood.

In a rational situation the wife is better. Some cases the men may be better, that's because they have wives who are lousy mothers who don't want to be trapped in the house with a screaming kid when they could be successful at work.

Buying more stuff doesn't facilitate a better childhood.
Of course rather then the man being good at something the mother just must be bad it it :rolleyes:

If you are a follower of creationism, God said women are to do it.

Where? Chapter, verse. I'd really like to know -- because I'm pretty sure that I've never read anywhere in my bible where God says "Women should stay home and take care of babies while the husbands go to the office."

Where? Chapter, verse. I'd really like to know -- because I'm pretty sure that I've never read anywhere in my bible where God says "Women should stay home and take care of babies while the husbands go to the office."
I know there are a few versus on subservience to men but they are kind of ambiguous (also refers to women as men’s property as well)

Several verses in the New Testament refer to the husband being the head of the family.

Several references in the Old Testament imply that women are little more than property -- but in the same chapters issue other edicts which modern Christians no longer follow. Picking and choosing is, to my mind, a dangerous propsition.

Even Paul's admonition to the women to be silent in church is both liberal and revolutionary. Paul was making the presumption that the women were present, something no Jewish temple would have even allowed. Additionally, he was admonishing particular women who were causing trouble, not the gender as a whole.

I'm tired of sexist bigots attempting to use the Bible and my religion (Christianity) as the backup for their offensive beliefs and social practices.

I'm coming out guns-blazing. :sniper: (Particularly funny because I'm all for very strict gun controls.)

Several verses in the New Testament refer to the husband being the head of the family.

Several references in the Old Testament imply that women are little more than property -- but in the same chapters issue other edicts which modern Christians no longer follow. Picking and choosing is, to my mind, a dangerous propsition.

Even Paul's admonition to the women to be silent in church is both liberal and revolutionary. Paul was making the presumption that the women were present, something no Jewish temple would have even allowed. Additionally, he was admonishing particular women who were causing trouble, not the gender as a whole.

I'm tired of sexist bigots attempting to use the Bible and my religion (Christianity) as the backup for their offensive beliefs and social practices.

I'm coming out guns-blazing. :sniper: (Particularly funny because I'm all for very strict gun controls.)

Go for it lol (and I was just saying it to say it not my belief)

I … am not a Christian lol

Hulk Hogan is a pussy. He's never been in a real fight.


Yeah, that's a bad example of a "real man".

Richard Marcinko would be a better one.

Men and women are different. Women raise children better than men. If you are a follower of creationism, God said women are to do it. If you are a follower of evolution, the female of the species raise offspring. It works try it. It's sad when people force their children to accept second best to make their political point. Men are not as good at it.
That is an insult to fathers everywhere. A man can do just as good a job at raising a child as a woman. In some cases, the man does a better job at raising the kids than the woman.
And also, the female of the species doesn't always raise the offspring in nature. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

I think it's important to have mom and dad around. I've seen what happens to some (not all) girls who grew up without fathers and it's not pretty. The boys I dated that lived with moms and no dads were no fun either. My dh and I try hard to make sure our kids (son and daughter) get time with him since he works all day and I stay home with them.

Quote: Wooktop The mother is more responsible for the baby, and rights and responsibilities go hand in hand.

I'll grant the responsibility of if you choose to carry a baby to term, take care of it in utero. After the baby is free and clear it's joint responsibility time. My favorite is my hippie cousins friend who got estrogen injections so that he could produce milk and nurse the baby...yup guys, you've got all the right plumbing, just the wrong hormones :D
favorite thought of the day: "Men are pigs, but why keep kosher?"

Last night at the bar, some dad was standing with all his buds in the outdoor area resting his beer bottle on his infants head (he had one of those little belly carrier things) while mom sipped whine holding the toddler. Now that's quality.

Rofl.

Just laughing at the picture in my head.

I feel for the kids.

Several verses in the New Testament refer to the husband being the head of the family.

Several references in the Old Testament imply that women are little more than property -- but in the same chapters issue other edicts which modern Christians no longer follow. Picking and choosing is, to my mind, a dangerous propsition.

check these out:

Amos 4:1
Hear this word, you cows of Bashan on Mount Samaria,
you women who oppress the poor and crush the needy
and say to your husbands, "Bring us some drinks!"

(lol)
----------------------------

Ephesians 5:22-33

Wives and Husbands

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
-----------------------------------------------------------

more:

1 Peter 3:1-7

Wives and Husbands

Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

Poor people will have children whether you want them to or not. The question is whether you think it's ethical to punish the children for the poor planning of their parents.

I don't think it would be us punishing the children at all. I think the parents would bear 100% of the blame for any ill effects their children experience. I also don't feel it is ethical to force other citizens to carry the weight of other people's families, so I feel that the government should not be in the business of cleaning up after such lapses in judgment by selfish individuals who put their personal desire to breed ahead of their childrens' needs.

Is not paternal leave simply a specialized type of medical leave? It's a fair assumption that if you're against one, you're against the other. Lots of employers don't give medical leave so the employee can take care of a sick family member. They require the employee be the sick one.

I'm sorry, there must have been miscommunication. I thought we were talking about medical leave for the individual experiencing the medical problems. I support that. I don't support government-enforced leave for people who have a family member experiencing medical problems. That's up to the employer.


Given your understanding of the potential hardships, I'm left to wonder why you're taking the position you have.
It is precisely because of the hardships my family has endured that I hold my position. Because my parents were responsible, capable, honorable people, we did not need to demand that the government force employers to deal with any bad decisions by our family. My parents ensured that they could care for children BEFORE they had the kids, and that our family was prepared for even the worst-case scenarios. I believe anybody who cares for their family would do no less, and people who choose not to care properly for the families they make don't deserve an ounce of help from any of us.

I also don't feel it is ethical to force other citizens to carry the weight of other people's families.
I hate seeing parents wandering around with too many kids. Yuck. I had this great idea once of creating some way of steralizing everyone except children currently in the womb. They would be the 'woombie generation'. The dramatic decline of population would be great. But alas, I lack the knowlege of chemical and genetic manipulation.

as for women being natural mothers...no...oh god no... I refuse to spawn. which is a shame because I have got great childbearing hips. babies and balancing laundry baskets, that's all their good for.

check these out:

Amos 4:1
Hear this word, you cows of Bashan on Mount Samaria,
you women who oppress the poor and crush the needy
and say to your husbands, "Bring us some drinks!"

(lol)
----------------------------

Ephesians 5:22-33

Wives and Husbands

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
-----------------------------------------------------------

more:

1 Peter 3:1-7

Wives and Husbands

Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.


Not one of them says that A) the wife is the natural childrearer, or B) that the wife must stay home while the husband works. Even by the most literal interpretation, it only says that those things are true IF the husband says them. I'll not bother to explain why literal interpretation doesn't necessarily serve. It's not relevant to this discussion.

(Note: By literal interpretation, I must only stay home to raise my children while my husband works outside the home if HE says so. I need not do that if someone else's husband says to. I must only answer to my own husband. Again, literal translation in a vacuum doesn't serve here, but that's not the point of this discussion.)

****************
Oh Guadalupelerma, I don't intend to breed either. It's quite a shame, really. I've certainly been endowed by nature with those same hips.

check these out:

Amos 4:1
Hear this word, you cows of Bashan on Mount Samaria,
you women who oppress the poor and crush the needy
and say to your husbands, "Bring us some drinks!"

(lol)
----------------------------

Ephesians 5:22-33

Wives and Husbands

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
-----------------------------------------------------------

more:

1 Peter 3:1-7

Wives and Husbands

Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.
All the more reason my morals tell me that god did not design some if not all of the bible

Um...I think I agree with you, but I would like to say in general everyone is not equal. Yes, hate me, society say's we are equal...

Um...I think I agree with you, but I would like to say in general everyone is not equal. Yes, hate me, society say's we are equal...
There are biological differences ... that does not mean we should create silly social differences

There are biological differences ... that does not mean we should create silly social differences

Sorry, wasn't being sexist, all I was saying was that people in general (not men and women) are not equal. Don't mind me I'm just saying that society tells us we are all equal (not between men and women) from birth but if that were the case nothing in our world would be done. eg. for all you army people, how would a general command an army if they were all equal? Discluding respect...

They're not equal.

You're right, we chicks have much better orgasms than you guys do...pity you're so worthless and bumbling at giving us said orgasms..... :D

You're right, we chicks have much better orgasms than you guys do...pity you're so worthless and bumbling at giving us said orgasms..... :D

Um...you've experienced one from a man's point of view? It's possible...

Living without government-mandated parental leave is like living without breast augmentation surgery.


Yes, but could you really call that "living"? ;)






"Poor people will have children whether you want them to or not. The question is whether you think it's ethical to punish the children for the poor planning of their parents."



"I don't think it would be us punishing the children at all. I think the parents would bear 100% of the blame for any ill effects their children experience. I also don't feel it is ethical to force other citizens to carry the weight of other people's families, so I feel that the government should not be in the business of cleaning up after such lapses in judgment by selfish individuals who put their personal desire to breed ahead of their childrens' needs."


I understand that you think the parents should be blamed for the problems the children experience as a result of their parents' poor planning. I do not intend to suggest anyone else should be blamed. However, in this case it seems to me that the children themselves have done no wrong (though that also does not change your stance of not helping them). I personally think we all have a moral obligation to help victims, but I am aware that there are many taxpayers who do not share my belief, and therefore should not be forced to pay taxes to fund my morals.

Instead, I'd like to take this on from a more pragmatic standpoint: I think it might benefit our society greatly to clean up just these types of messes, and since corporations are not in the business (at least not broadly) of bettering our society, it seems to me that the burden falls on the government.

Would you support a system, run by taxpayer money, that would help out disadvantaged children if a) it could be done while minimizing the help it gives to the unsatisfactory parents and b) minimize the wastefulness that is often associated with government programs? Would you instead only back this type of program if it were a voluntary-donation charity organization rather than tax-funded?

It seems to me that it would be in our best interest to support such a program because it has the potential to reduce crime, raise the nations productivity, and take some of the burden off of our nation's health care, mental health care, criminal justice, prison, and other social service systems. Hell, it's possible it might even pay for itself that way.

Are you hardline against spending tax money to support others even if it benefits the society?

And are you hardline against spending taxpayer money to help others just because they need help and are in no way responsible for their own predicament? Do you believe that these children should be left to pay for their parents' mistakes? If so, is that any different from thinking that we should not use taxpayer money to help victims of crimes like rape and murder? Is that any different from saying that taxpayer money shouldn't fund hospitals because it's not our fault someone else got hurt?

Though I don't always agree with you, bottle, I do find your opinions to generally be well-reasoned, and would appreciate your thoughts on this.

Why not? Fathers should have the same right to stay at home with the baby as women do. They do where I live, anyway. (Actually, the families can themselves decide how to split the time, but let's not be bogged down by minutiae.)Everyone has a right to stay home whenever they want to. If somebody's dragging people out of their houses and forcing them to do something, they're infringing on that right.

If anything, more marriages fail when one partner insists on holding true to the demanded gender roles and the other is fed up with them.

If you get two people who say "screw you, gender roles" then they'll get on fine. If you get two people who ebrace them, well, you end up with a woman that I would pity.You're nuts. Whether or not a couple embraces traditional gender roles does not determine the success of their marriage.

all people are equal, some are just more equal than others..hehe


I think the man should be allowed to take a paternity leave, if he wants to.. it is ok to make they pay for a baby they don't want, but not ok to allow them to go home and take care of a baby they Do want....jeez


And I also believe that some gender roles should be maintained. I don't mind my boyfriend opening doors for me or paying for both of us when we're out etc. And women should stay away from typical things that belong to men, likte the army and bodybuilding..cus that's just nasty.

Where I come from the government has taken this whole man and women should be treated equally business too far. They're forcing major corporations to hire women and put them in their boardrooms. Not because they're qualified, but because they're women. I know I wouldn't feel very welcome if I didn't knew wether someone had hired me because I was qualified for the job and they wanted me to work there, or because they simply had to. Companies who don't have 40% women in their managment will get disbanded by the government..pretty sick,eh?

The Equal Status Concil is even thinking about lowering the requirements for the Police's Special Forces so more women can get in. They have obviously forgotten that SF is supposed to save lives in times of danger and the people in the Special Force need to be able to handle the situation. Hence the requirements. If you can't meet the requirements you arent' fit for the Special Force..doesn't matter then if you're a man or a woman.

Yes, but could you really call that "living"? ;)

Well, for some people it would be more difficult than for others...:)


I understand that you think the parents should be blamed for the problems the children experience as a result of their parents' poor planning. I do not intend to suggest anyone else should be blamed. However, in this case it seems to me that the children themselves have done no wrong (though that also does not change your stance of not helping them). I personally think we all have a moral obligation to help victims, but I am aware that there are many taxpayers who do not share my belief, and therefore should not be forced to pay taxes to fund my morals.

If parents cannot provide a sufficient minimum level of support for their children then the children should be taken away and given to a family that can provide for them. Otherwise, it's not the government's business (or yours, or mine) if the parents make some bad choices that decrease their childrens' quality of life. If the children are true victims then they should be removed from the unsafe home, but if the parents are simply making choices that handicap their kids' futures then that's up to them...parents make such choices all the time.


Instead, I'd like to take this on from a more pragmatic standpoint: I think it might benefit our society greatly to clean up just these types of messes, and since corporations are not in the business (at least not broadly) of bettering our society, it seems to me that the burden falls on the government.

I agree that it might benefit society to do this, and that corporations probably won't do so (unless it suddenly becomes profitable for them), but I don't see how that leaves only the government. I see the private citizens as the natural source for such aid.


Would you support a system, run by taxpayer money, that would help out disadvantaged children if a) it could be done while minimizing the help it gives to the unsatisfactory parents and b) minimize the wastefulness that is often associated with government programs? Would you instead only back this type of program if it were a voluntary-donation charity organization rather than tax-funded?

I think your two qualifiers are damn near impossible to acheive, frankly, but even if they were I would prefer the charity option. I would like a system like the one you describe far more than any current program, and I would support it if the only options were our current muckups or your idea for child "welfare." (I know welfare is a dirty word these days, but I don't mean it as such.)

It seems to me that it would be in our best interest to support such a program because it has the potential to reduce crime, raise the nations productivity, and take some of the burden off of our nation's health care, mental health care, criminal justice, prison, and other social service systems. Hell, it's possible it might even pay for itself that way.

It absolutely would be in our best interests to do so, in my opinion. However, it is still our responsibility as INDIVIDUALS to recognize that and take the appropriate steps. I don't believe the government should be concerning itself with anything other than minimal efforts required to ensure the maximal possible liberty for each citizen. We can't all be perfectly free, not if we intend to co-exists, but we can atleast stop expecting the government to take care of social problems for us.


Are you hardline against spending tax money to support others even if it benefits the society?

I think it would benefit society far more if individuals started taking responsibility instead of asking the government to throw money at the problems. In this case, that means both the parents who are dropping the ball, and the well-minded individuals (like yourself) who think something needs to be done.


And are you hardline against spending taxpayer money to help others just because they need help and are in no way responsible for their own predicament? Do you believe that these children should be left to pay for their parents' mistakes?

Children already are left to pay for their parents' mistakes. If a parent chooses to rear his child with radical racist ideology, that will greatly handicap that child in today's world. If a parent chooses to teach her child that he must never, ever go to a doctor because God will heal him, that could be a horrible detriment in the child's life, even to the point of premature death. We allow parents to make bad, dangerous, objectively irresponsible choices with their kids. We allow parents to do many things that aren't in their child's best interests. If parents choose not to ensure their own financial stability, and if they choose to gamble their kids' future, then they have the freedom to do that.


If so, is that any different from thinking that we should not use taxpayer money to help victims of crimes like rape and murder?

I believe the government's job is to ensure maximal possible liberty for all citizens. This means enforcing laws that prohibit us from taking away each others' liberties. A rapist or murderer does not have the freedom to rape or murder, because those are liberties we must sacrifice to live in a society with other humans. If we use taxpayer money to help rape and murder victims by catching and punishing their attackers, that is part of the government's job, because the government must enforce the laws or they are worthless.

As for helping the victims with more long term support, I believe that is the province for charities and private citizens as well. In our current system it is more than reasonable for the government to help pay for such programs (because our government already goes so far beyond my ideal system, and at least these programs have some merit in principle), but in my ideal system the government would not be involved.


Though I don't always agree with you, bottle, I do find your opinions to generally be well-reasoned, and would appreciate your thoughts on this.
That's the best thing anybody can say to me...after all, if you agreed with me all the time, what fun could we have? :)

You're nuts. Whether or not a couple embraces traditional gender roles does not determine the success of their marriage.
That’s not what she was saying … she WAS saying that usually have trouble if the couples have differing views on gender rolls then each other

How did the entire world come to believe that garbage?

I know peacefull men (everyone knows some mummys-boy who COULDNT hurt a fly)
And i know violent women- there out there otherwise why are there maximum security womens prisons?
I tell you why, my friend christine would beat the guards to death and walk out, if there wasnt steel bars, then concrete, then razorwire, then patrolls with dogs and guns
I fear no man, and very few women, but she can SMASH a man twice her weight, ive seen her.
If a guy spends his childhood playing with dolls and makeing cupcakes, then of course he will end up phisicalley weaker.
And if you all had your daughters out helping you work from the time they can follow you (like we do our sons) then they WILL grow up stronger.
If any women care to dissagree try this- take up kickboxing, do some weights, and get your hubby another beer as he watches T.V.
It wont take too long, maybe a year or two, and he will have nothing over you.

Its all about training

P.S. before you say anything, my friend christine is a beautifull blond goddess, wares a dress, and is not a dyke. She is perfectly feminine, she is just from a long line of millitary men who didnt baby her for being female

You're right, we chicks have much better orgasms than you guys do...pity you're so worthless and bumbling at giving us said orgasms..... :D
Oh and how do you know yours are better?

I've debated this with people very often. Men and women are "equal" in some senses and "not equal" in others, just like all other living organisms compared to each other. What's important is only that men and women both deserve equal treatment as human beings. The fact that there are differences in their body size, shape, musculature, and brain function is obvious.

But is one "better" than the other, in total? I don't think so. They're just different. Anything more specific than that is just debateable. Whether you think mapping/spatial awareness are more important than the natural gift of nurturing, is a personal thing.

But men and maternity leave? I actually think they should be allowed it with certain restrictions. Yeah, they can't have babies, but that doesn't negate the fact that they have duties to their children just like the mother does. To say otherwise puts all the onus of raising a child on the woman, which isn't the way it's supposed to be. The restrictions I'd place would be that the man has to prove that his wife (or lover) has recently had a child and he shouldn't be able to get full maternity leave like a woman. Afterall, he hasn't carried the baby around and isn't recovering from that. But he should be able to work half-weeks to help take care of the child.Taking time off from work should be between the employee and the employer. Laws mandating maternity/paternity leave are terrible. No employer has a moral obligation to retain employees who need to take time off. Such laws actually reduce the value of having female employees which leads to relatively lower wages. They also help make it virtually impossible for pregnant women to get hired anywhere. Even if employers were required to give new fathers the same length of time for paternity leave, that wouldn't cause their value as employees to match that of women, because fewer would actually take paternity leave.

Sorry but your an idiot.
The definition of irony.

Taking time off from work should be between the employee and the employer. Laws mandating maternity/paternity leave are terrible. No employer has a moral obligation to retain employees who need to take time off. Such laws actually reduce the value of having female employees which leads to relatively lower wages. They also help make it virtually impossible for pregnant women to get hired anywhere. Even if employers were required to give new fathers the same length of time for paternity leave, that wouldn't cause their value as employees to match that of women, because fewer would actually take paternity leave.
Wow, somebody who agrees with me!

Taking time off from work should be between the employee and the employer. Laws mandating maternity/paternity leave are terrible. No employer has a moral obligation to retain employees who need to take time off. Such laws actually reduce the value of having female employees which leads to relatively lower wages. They also help make it virtually impossible for pregnant women to get hired anywhere. Even if employers were required to give new fathers the same length of time for paternity leave, that wouldn't cause their value as employees to match that of women, because fewer would actually take paternity leave.

What exactly is your solution then? No mandated Maternity leave, so women are back to taking two weeks off to recovery (if they can swing that and actually keep their job), and pack their kids off immediately to daycare?

Unemployed pregnant women rarely go out looking for jobs in order to get Mat leave because you have to work at a job for a certain amount of time to be eligible for Maternity leave and benefits in the first place, and rarely could you squeeze that time in unless you know THE DAY you conceive. (Had I had my first child even a day early, I would not have qualified for any Mat benefits....talk about not planning properly!)

The only change I think needs to be made, would be to allow fathers to take the unused portion of Maternity leave if they were the one who was going to stay home. Both partners can take leave at the same time...but the leave is still only (in Canada) 52 weeks in total. Not each. So you could conceivably have mom and dad stay home for 20 weeks together (totalling 40 out of 52), but mom would be entitled to an extra 12 on top of that, which dad wouldn't.

Instead of Maternity/Parental leave, it should just be plain Parental leave. It is rarely a great hardship for a company to hire a temp, and frankly, many people get their start when they fill in for a man or woman on leave. Companies are not required to pay added benefits (though many do, that is their CHOICE).

Where? Chapter, verse. I'd really like to know -- because I'm pretty sure that I've never read anywhere in my bible where God says "Women should stay home and take care of babies while the husbands go to the office."

I'm really not going to bother. It's too elementary. Study it yourself.

I'm really not going to bother. It's too elementary. Study it yourself.
Sorry but that is a common cop out … you made the affirmative statement you have to prove it.

If it is so elementary let us know where it says it because I must have missed that one

Sorry but that is a common cop out … you made the affirmative statement you have to prove it.

If it is so elementary let us know where it says it because I must have missed that one


Would have been easier to say “no where” or “I don’t know”

I'm really not going to bother. It's too elementary. Study it yourself.
If it's so elementary, shouldn't you have chapter and verse at your ready fingertips?

I don't know why I bother to ask...I could care less if this was emblazoned in big red letters on the COVER of the bible...(being atheist and all)... :p

I don't believe the law should require employers to give women (or men) time off to "bond." I believe the law should ONLY require that employers give time off for medical reasons.Why even that?

What exactly is your solution then? No mandated Maternity leave, so women are back to taking two weeks off to recovery (if they can swing that and actually keep their job), and pack their kids off immediately to daycare?

Or they become valued employees and their employer grants them more leave because they are worth it. Or they self employ. Or they get a job with an employer that chooses to extend parental leave to all employees. Or any of a hundred other possible solutions. What's the problem with expecting women and men to recognize sacrifices will have to be made if they choose to have kids? It's not the government's job, nor an employer's, to ensure that people have an easy time with starting a new family...that's for the parents to plan, to account for, and to deal with.


Unemployed pregnant women rarely go out looking for jobs in order to get Mat leave because you have to work at a job for a certain amount of time to be eligible for Maternity leave and benefits in the first place, and rarely could you squeeze that time in unless you know THE DAY you conceive. (Had I had my first child even a day early, I would not have qualified for any Mat benefits....talk about not planning properly!)

Unemployed pregnant women probably shouldn't be having babies. If they can't support a baby, they shouldn't have one, and if they don't have a stable source of income then they shouldn't be starting a family. They definitely shouldn't be expecting other people to pay for their bad choices, if they choose to have a baby before they are able to support themselves and the child.


The only change I think needs to be made, would be to allow fathers to take the unused portion of Maternity leave if they were the one who was going to stay home. Both partners can take leave at the same time...but the leave is still only (in Canada) 52 weeks in total. Not each. So you could conceivably have mom and dad stay home for 20 weeks together (totalling 40 out of 52), but mom would be entitled to an extra 12 on top of that, which dad wouldn't.

Instead of Maternity/Parental leave, it should just be plain Parental leave. It is rarely a great hardship for a company to hire a temp, and frankly, many people get their start when they fill in for a man or woman on leave. Companies are not required to pay added benefits (though many do, that is their CHOICE).
Well, on this we just disagree, then. No employer should be FORCED to give the kind of leave you describe, in my opinion, though it would be nice if they did so.

Why even that?
I'm starting to think I might not even support that much, when it comes to pregnancy. In other cases, like if an employee is in a car wreck and needs recovery time, I think it's fair to expect the employer to give them a reasonable period to get back to work before they fire the injured worker. Whether or not that leave should be with or without pay is a whole other mess, but I do think that employers should be forbidden to summarily dismiss somebody who misses work because they came down with botulism or something.

Now, pregnancy is a bit different because it is something that an individual (usually) chooses to undertake. Nobody goes out looking to contract botulism, but maternity leave is sought by women who (almost always) have choosen to have a baby. The reason I still support leave for pregnancy is that women currently do not have absolute freedom of access to abortion. If they did, at any time and for any reason, then I would no longer support requiring employers to give medical leave for pregnancy because women who carried to term would be doing so completely by choice. Right now, women don't have complete freedom of choice, and thus I believe employers shouldn't have complete freedom of choice either.

Well, on this we just disagree, then. No employer should be FORCED to give the kind of leave you describe, in my opinion, though it would be nice if they did so.

My father ran several companies, and despite no laws requiring it, was quite generous with leave and benefits - for new parents, disabled people who required continuous therapy, etc.

He also went out of his way to hire deaf, blind, and disabled people.

He told me that in a world where treating people well is voluntary, if you go out of your way to treat people well, they will be loyal beyond your imagination.

And he was right. They loved him, and they worked hard for him - writing software and making his company a success.

I haven't worked anywhere else where "the boss" was so well liked and adored.

So perhaps, making it mandatory is a bad idea.

Well, on this we just disagree, then. No employer should be FORCED to give the kind of leave you describe, in my opinion, though it would be nice if they did so.
Why exactly? What harm do you think this causes to the employer?

I'm starting to think I might not even support that much, when it comes to pregnancy. In other cases, like if an employee is in a car wreck and needs recovery time, I think it's fair to expect the employer to give them a reasonable period to get back to work before they fire the injured worker. Whether or not that leave should be with or without pay is a whole other mess, but I do think that employers should be forbidden to summarily dismiss somebody who misses work because they came down with botulism or something.

Let's say that abortion was available. Would you still say, "Women CHOOSE to be pregnant, so any birth-related medical problems are THEIR problems?" Hey, worker *X* CHOOSES to drive, he should know that there is a high risk of a collision-related injury, so why cover him and not the pregnant woman?

You don't know if you are going to have medical issues (other than clearly defined genetic ones) until you have a child. My mom had terrible complications...so did all my aunts. And yet my pregnancies were a breeze, and I needed very little recovery time. It's not something you can really predict.

Why exactly? What harm do you think this causes to the employer?
Cost and inconvenience. Some employers may feel it doesn't cause them any particular harm, since they may be easily able to get temps or fill in for somebody who takes leave, but other employers may feel it is a significant problem. I know it is where I work.

As I have said, I think it will be in the best interests of most employers to offer this kind of leave, because I think the benefits will outweigh the cost by a significant margin. However, I believe it should be up to the employer to decide that, and then up to employees if they want to work for a company or organization that does not offer parental leave. I don't think it's the government's business to regulate these things.