Post a response to this discussion thread
"Well...how can feminists convince women of anything, when it's all biological? Are you saying that women have a choice, and that they can choose not to do what comes biologically naturally to them? If so, we have some lovely parting gifts for you..."
"Women have the choice to TRY to transcend their biological proclivities, but they rarely, if ever, succeed. They end up feeling guilty about neglecting their kids because of work, or, if they choose not to have kids, they feel empty and incomplete. They also often avoid feeling guilty or empty by dumping their domestic responsibilities on others, such as taxpayers who have to fund daycare centers, and childless people who have to work overtime so that "career moms" can go home to be with their families. This may be acceptable to you, and it's certainly acceptable to feminists, but there are many people who think it's unfair, and rightly so."
I'm pretty sure that "feminist teachings" are not the main reason that most women work outside the home. There are countless ACTUAL factors that force or pursuade women to work outside the home, such as abject poverty, absent husbands/fathers, families with more expenses than one man's income can cover, etc. etc. etc. As I've said so many times before, there are many many women who are simply forced to work to take care of their families. If this isn't acceptable to YOU, why don't you suggest a solution to the problem, rather than belittling women for having to work? Would you rather fatherless families be on welfare? Women who truly CHOOSE to work when they don't have to are necessarily in situations where they don't have to support themselves. These women are not the women forcing taxpayers to pay for child care, since they have enough money or support that they could also truly choose to stay home. So if there are women out there that truly choose to work solely because they've been pursuaded by feminists to do so, they must be covering their own child care expenses. You're really not thinking this through, and this has to be the second or third time we've had this discussion.
"Right. Men going to war to crush fascism, building cities and advancing technology to improve the quality of life is all about impressing YOU and needing to see shiny things explode."
Nope. Not about impressing ME - impressing whatever woman in their lives needs impressing. To cite a personal example, however (one of many I can choose), I was at a party once where, in front of a group of ladies which included their significant others, two men loudly discussed in detail their plans to fill a television with gasoline and shoot at it until it exploded. This fascinating conversation lasted forty minutes. To cite nonpersonal examples, please examine the content of movies that many men both produce and enjoy - not your average chick flicks, obviously. Men are typically drawn to violence like moths to flame. Not all men, but enough to create war (and World War I, I believe, was begun over a certain lady), well-attended movies like "Mad Max - Beyond Thunderdome", and sports like rugby and football. Incidently, "advancing technology" rarely involves accidents where limbs are severed, unless Bill Gates has minions I don't know of that "discourage" competition.
"Well, childbirth IS a completely natural process that other animals go through without any drugs. That would seem to qualify it as perfectly normal."
Sure. Getting gored by a bull is also a "completely natural process", as is tearing a ligament, breaking a leg, or falling off a cliff trying to get away from the bull. I don't think I'd classify those situations as "normal" just because they're "natural." I would think that a man in those situations would appreciate some really good drugs, as would a woman during childbirth.
"Also, women can also get legs blown off by landmines (see "civilian casualties") and cut their hands off in metal shop (see "high school females taking shop class") - that's not at all intrinsic to males."
"Perhaps, but rarely. No matter though. That fact does nothing to discredit my point that men can endure any pain women can endure."
That wasn't your point, was it?
"And you still haven't explained the "testosterone factor" (you just made that up, didn't you?)"
No. Men have more testosterone, are therefore more competitive, and are therefore more focused on career, and obtaining dominance in the workplace. I think that's fairly standard science, and I'm sure it's in one of the articles you cited. For further proof, see your own statement below.
"All right, relax. Who cares?"
About my gender? I corrected an assumption you made about mine. You said you previously had no idea, and then asked if I was "hot". I guess YOU care.
You also did not answer my parallel questions as to whether or not you are actually male, and whether or not you are, in fact, a hottie. Touchy subject?
"Actually, if you recall, I DIDN'T ask you what you thought. In fact, I specifically requested that you keep your opinions to yourself. But in any case, I didn't write 'Rob's' article, and I really don't feel like responding to your few quibbles with it."
If you're not prepared to discuss your own cited articles, stop referring me to them.
"He posted it on the web for everyone to read, and provides his e-mail address for people such as yourself who have a problem with it and want to argue. Are you afraid of what he might say?"
No. I think he'd actually respond with intelligent commentary, which is more than I'm getting here. I just might try it.
"After all, you haven't been able to decisively defeat me, and I'm just a punk college student who doesn't even possess half of the knowledge he possesses."
Good one.
"What about the frigging Renaissance Man? I thought he was focused on his career, b/c of his testosterone level! Women don't have that pesky problem."
"Crafty. You turn my refutation of your claim into an attack on me, but it ain't gonna work sister. You said that women are inherently better than men at multitasking, and I showed you that that was a foolish, sweeping generalization."
Where did you do that?
"As to testosterone causing men to focus on their careers, that may be true, but it's not the point."
Well, it may not be your point, but you just admitted that you know exactly what I'm talking about when I say "testosterone factor". I can see why Bernstein used to call you names. I'll repeat mine - "intellectually lazy".
"The point is that men tend to venture out into the world while women remain domestic. I'm certain that both sexes are adept at multitasking within their particular domains."
I wasn't talking about multitasking within a particular domain - I'm talking about multitasking with respect to one's entire life. Choosing a career, focusing on that career, and ending that career with retirement is very one-sided, whereas having children, having to work or wanting to work to make more money, and running a household is more indicative of the ability to balance many things during the course of one's day, and the course of one's life.
"Lighten up you asshole. It was a joke."
Nice disposition, and a really good joke, I'm sure.
- TC
Post a response to this discussion thread