The Obedient Wives Club

[Galien]

Hmmm....if by "equality" we mean equality of opportunity, then I can't get behind that kind of argument at all. Practically speaking, equality of opportunity is a flat fiction, and even theoretically speaking it is a pretty lame argument. What the hell is "opportunity" anyway? That's a pretty abstract and empty concept.

 

Is it flat fiction? Three hundred years ago I'm sure it was 'flat fiction' that women would have the vote. But they have it. Equality of opportunity is a valid idea, and a legitimate term to use in the debate. Society will need to make huge changes for it to happen, but it is the way we need to move.

 

Will a 12 year old girl sold into prostitution in Cambodia ever have the opportunity to get out of a life of poverty and exploitation the way I did? Probably not. I have the luxury of being born in a first world country that cares enough about the plight of powerless children to put things in place to help them get out of the cycle of poverty. She doesn't. There are many people in the world who don't want equality of opportunity. How will they feel superior if everyone gets an equal chance? Some of us believe that everyone deserves an equal chance, some don't. Remember, we are all equal, but some are more equal than others.

[LivingLife]

DL, we understand the bizarro concept of obedience and submission is fucked up and no one is disagreeing with that.

 

The muslims are pretty fucked up and not much we westerners can do for them unless they start standing up for themselves.

 

What other equality issues do you feel are lacking in the west in general?

[Noumena]

Why DeGaul....I do believe you have just been told off......by no less than an expert....

 

Sadly the only thing I am an expert on is being told what to think and how to think it by dickheads who thought they had all the answers. It would do some of the people on this site a lot of good to remember that not all of us waltzed out of the church without a backward glance and with our souls complete. Some of the people here, like myself, are traumatised and probably always will be to some extent. I have PTSD and probably will never recover completely from that. If you start telling me what I should think, and accuse me of being sick for not agreeing with you, I WILL come out swinging.

 

What I have learned from my journey through life, is that life is not a one size fits all affair, that none of us know everything, and that it is never okay to abuse power over anyone. Neither is it okay to put the boot into already traumatised people. I thought that was the specialty of christians, NOT ex-christians. If you are silly enough to do so, dont be suprised what comes out.

 

So you expect people to censor themselves and not express their own thoughts because they may be offensive to you and some other people? I expected you, as a fellow sufferer of PTSD, to already know that the world doesn't work that way. Nobody is going to walk on eggshells around you for fear of triggering you and it's unrealistic and unreasonable to expect them to do so. The sooner you accept that the better~~~for you AND everyone else. My husband was not telling YOU what to think.....he can't give two shits about what you think.....he was telling you what HE thinks. You don't like it. The end.

[Darklady]

Hmmm....if by "equality" we mean equality of opportunity, then I can't get behind that kind of argument at all. Practically speaking, equality of opportunity is a flat fiction, and even theoretically speaking it is a pretty lame argument. What the hell is "opportunity" anyway? That's a pretty abstract and empty concept.

 

Is it flat fiction? Three hundred years ago I'm sure it was 'flat fiction' that women would have the vote. But they have it. Equality of opportunity is a valid idea, and a legitimate term to use in the debate. Society will need to make huge changes for it to happen, but it is the way we need to move.

 

Will a 12 year old girl sold into prostitution in Cambodia ever have the opportunity to get out of a life of poverty and exploitation the way I did? Probably not. I have the luxury of being born in a first world country that cares enough about the plight of powerless children to put things in place to help them get out of the cycle of poverty. She doesn't. There are many people in the world who don't want equality of opportunity. How will they feel superior if everyone gets an equal chance? Some of us believe that everyone deserves an equal chance, some don't. Remember, we are all equal, but some are more equal than others.

you are right, many many children have no choice, all over the world. Some peole want that power over others, I am not saying this is easy, but its worth fighting for surely? Isn't it worth doing something about?

[Galien]

Why DeGaul....I do believe you have just been told off......by no less than an expert....

 

Sadly the only thing I am an expert on is being told what to think and how to think it by dickheads who thought they had all the answers. It would do some of the people on this site a lot of good to remember that not all of us waltzed out of the church without a backward glance and with our souls complete. Some of the people here, like myself, are traumatised and probably always will be to some extent. I have PTSD and probably will never recover completely from that. If you start telling me what I should think, and accuse me of being sick for not agreeing with you, I WILL come out swinging.

 

What I have learned from my journey through life, is that life is not a one size fits all affair, that none of us know everything, and that it is never okay to abuse power over anyone. Neither is it okay to put the boot into already traumatised people. I thought that was the specialty of christians, NOT ex-christians. If you are silly enough to do so, dont be suprised what comes out.

 

So you expect people to censor themselves and not express their own thoughts because they may be offensive to you and some other people? I expected you, as a fellow sufferer of PTSD, to already know that the world doesn't work that way. Nobody is going to walk on eggshells around you for fear of triggering you and it's unrealistic to expect them to do so. The sooner you accept that the better~~~for you AND everyone else. My husband was not telling YOU what to think.....he can't give two shits about what you think.....he was telling you what HE thinks. You don't like it. The end.

 

Fine, I think your husband is sick for sticking his nose in what goes on in other people's bedrooms and calling it sick because he doesn't agree with it. If both parties are of legal age in the country they live in, who the fuck is he to go around telling people they are sick. Mind your own damn business. There's an idea.

 

Say what you like, just don't be suprised by the consequences. I am sick and fucking tired of judgemental christians. You and your significant other come across like you are still one of them.

[Noumena]

Why DeGaul....I do believe you have just been told off......by no less than an expert....

 

Sadly the only thing I am an expert on is being told what to think and how to think it by dickheads who thought they had all the answers. It would do some of the people on this site a lot of good to remember that not all of us waltzed out of the church without a backward glance and with our souls complete. Some of the people here, like myself, are traumatised and probably always will be to some extent. I have PTSD and probably will never recover completely from that. If you start telling me what I should think, and accuse me of being sick for not agreeing with you, I WILL come out swinging.

 

What I have learned from my journey through life, is that life is not a one size fits all affair, that none of us know everything, and that it is never okay to abuse power over anyone. Neither is it okay to put the boot into already traumatised people. I thought that was the specialty of christians, NOT ex-christians. If you are silly enough to do so, dont be suprised what comes out.

 

So you expect people to censor themselves and not express their own thoughts because they may be offensive to you and some other people? I expected you, as a fellow sufferer of PTSD, to already know that the world doesn't work that way. Nobody is going to walk on eggshells around you for fear of triggering you and it's unrealistic to expect them to do so. The sooner you accept that the better~~~for you AND everyone else. My husband was not telling YOU what to think.....he can't give two shits about what you think.....he was telling you what HE thinks. You don't like it. The end.

 

Fine, I think your husband is sick for sticking his nose in what goes on in other people's bedrooms and calling it sick because he doesn't agree with it. If both parties are of legal age in the country they live in, who the fuck is he to go around telling people they are sick. Mind your own damn business. There's an idea.

 

Say what you like, just don't be suprised by the consequences. I am sick and fucking tired of judgemental christians. You and your significant other come across like you are still one of them.

 

I was commenting on Stryper's post. I could say that you stuck YOUR nose in my business, but I'm aware that anything I post in a thread is out there for anybody to pick apart, agree with, disagree with, respond too, or ignore. People can say what they want.... I find it kind of creepy strange that you only had words of wrath for me and DeGaul. You left out Ophelia and Stryper....hmmmm..

[LivingLife]

[Galien]

Why DeGaul....I do believe you have just been told off......by no less than an expert....

 

Sadly the only thing I am an expert on is being told what to think and how to think it by dickheads who thought they had all the answers. It would do some of the people on this site a lot of good to remember that not all of us waltzed out of the church without a backward glance and with our souls complete. Some of the people here, like myself, are traumatised and probably always will be to some extent. I have PTSD and probably will never recover completely from that. If you start telling me what I should think, and accuse me of being sick for not agreeing with you, I WILL come out swinging.

 

What I have learned from my journey through life, is that life is not a one size fits all affair, that none of us know everything, and that it is never okay to abuse power over anyone. Neither is it okay to put the boot into already traumatised people. I thought that was the specialty of christians, NOT ex-christians. If you are silly enough to do so, dont be suprised what comes out.

 

So you expect people to censor themselves and not express their own thoughts because they may be offensive to you and some other people? I expected you, as a fellow sufferer of PTSD, to already know that the world doesn't work that way. Nobody is going to walk on eggshells around you for fear of triggering you and it's unrealistic to expect them to do so. The sooner you accept that the better~~~for you AND everyone else. My husband was not telling YOU what to think.....he can't give two shits about what you think.....he was telling you what HE thinks. You don't like it. The end.

 

Fine, I think your husband is sick for sticking his nose in what goes on in other people's bedrooms and calling it sick because he doesn't agree with it. If both parties are of legal age in the country they live in, who the fuck is he to go around telling people they are sick. Mind your own damn business. There's an idea.

 

Say what you like, just don't be suprised by the consequences. I am sick and fucking tired of judgemental christians. You and your significant other come across like you are still one of them.

 

I was commenting on Stryper's post. I could say that you stuck YOUR nose in my business, but I'm aware that anything I post in a thread is out there for anybody to pick apart, agree with, disagree with, respond too, or ignore. People can say what they want.... I find it kind of creepy strange that you only had words of wrath for me and DeGaul. You left out Ophelia and Stryper....hmmmm..

 

That is because they aren't arrogant assholes. Look I get that most people are mindfucked by social mores and couldn't think for themselves if someone paid them. It seems to be worse in the good old U S of A where no one has an ounce of sexual desire before the age of 18 or the desire to drink alcohol before 21, and of course no one ever does. Try dealing with life the way it actually is, instead of using someone's 1950's ideals that no one in the real world has given a flying fuck about since at least 1970. People fuck, get over it.

[JadedAtheist]

Maybe it would be a good idea for some of y'all to put each other on ignore? It really seems like y'all can't help but get rub against each other the wrong way.

 

As for the rest of the discussion thus far: I'm all up for equality but I think it's hard to define what it is exactly. Do we mean being treated equally or leveling the playing field? If we treat women the same way we treat men, things like maternal leave go out the window. The bias (that I think for is deserved for the most part) towards women's favor in issues like custody of children, divorce, and the like go out the window too. Chivalry goes out the window as well. If the aim is to "level the playing field" I disagree with that too. I don't like the idea of unqualified people being taken on in universities or workplaces (no matter what race, religion or sex they may be) not because they are the most qualified but despite whatever their qualities are, that place needs to meet their "target".

 

Also, I pretty much agree with what DeGaul has been saying (though can't put it as eloquently). I also think that sometimes what we perceive as inequality isn't necessarily the case. A know a fundy couple who are complementarians. His wife submits to his authority, you know the trash, but, she gets anything her heart desires. He lives to provide for her. I really don't think she's drawn the short straw in being "obedient" to her husband. Anyways..

[VacuumFlux]

As for the rest of the discussion thus far: I'm all up for equality but I think it's hard to define what it is exactly. Do we mean being treated equally or leveling the playing field? If we treat women the same way we treat men, things like maternal leave go out the window.

 

I prefer the concept that equality means allowing men to be fathers in the same way we expect women to be mothers, and giving both parents the option of taking generous leave time when there's a baby.

 

The bias (that I think for is deserved for the most part) towards women's favor in issues like custody of children, divorce, and the like go out the window too.

 

I'm not sure how deserved it is. I know of way too many cases where custody is given to women who really shouldn't have it, even when there is a capable and willing father who could raise them much better. The assumption should be 50/50 unless there is evidence either way.

 

If the aim is to "level the playing field" I disagree with that too. I don't like the idea of unqualified people being taken on in universities or workplaces (no matter what race, religion or sex they may be) not because they are the most qualified but despite whatever their qualities are, that place needs to meet their "target".

 

True. The tricky part is when there is an institutionalized bias that prevents qualified candidates from being considered. The concept of quotas only makes sense when there is a sufficient supply of qualified people to fill the positions. But if you say "well then, let's drop the quotas and only hire people based on merit" too many people, having no accountability to actually judge on merit, will only hire white males (or only whites of either gender, or only males of any race, etc) and claim that they were the only qualified people so obviously it's not their fault, it's the fault of <insert minority of choice> who are just too lazy/too stupid/don't like that sort of thing. Affirmative action for blacks did make sense at one point in American history, and at one point it also made sense for women. I think we're getting to a point (though some places are closer to this point than others) where social pressure, discrimination lawsuits, and sexual harassment complaints (for women who do get hired but are then treated poorly) are better (though still imperfect) tools. Oh, and deal with sexual harassment and gender (and race) discrimination at the educational level; sometimes it's not the fault of the people hiring that there aren't qualified women and minorities, but rather it happens earlier in the career path.

 

tl;dr: There is a problem with gender/race imbalance in the workplace, but hiring quotas sometimes place the blame in the wrong location and may do more harm than good.

 

I also think that sometimes what we perceive as inequality isn't necessarily the case. A know a fundy couple who are complementarians. His wife submits to his authority, you know the trash, but, she gets anything her heart desires. He lives to provide for her. I really don't think she's drawn the short straw in being "obedient" to her husband. Anyways..

 

Nothing wrong with people being in a kinky D/s relationship, as long as there is informed consent. It just makes me laugh when (and I'm not saying the couple you know is like this, just that some people I know are like this) some fundies insist all relationships should work this way then condemn kinky people as perverts.

[stryper]

The point of my post is the at the very heart of this issue.

 

 

There is a double standard.

 

For centuries, it was the man in control of everything. Well mostly. The Taming of the Shrew clearly indicates there have always been strong women in the world. Jut the level of abuse it took to "tame" her should be obvious.

 

 

The pendulum has shifted. Take Strauss-Kahn. Given the man is a leach even by French standards, which is saying something. But the woman claims sexual assault and he is perp walked out of the hotel and basically assumed to be guilty by the press and public just on the woman's accusation. Now the case is in danger of falling apart because the woman credibility is in question. Her past actions have shown her to an opportunist and a liar. The far reaching international problems this case could cause have yet to really appear.

 

Take the Duke LaCrosse team. The case was eventually dropped because the accuser had accusations of rape as her M.O. to get attention or money.

 

I AM NOT SAYING ALL ACCUSATIONS OF RAPE OR SEXUAL ASSAULT ARE FAKE. Given the emotions in this thread, I thought I would make it clear.

 

 

What I am saying is men are constantly under the microscope. If CPS is called about sexual abuse and there is a man in the home, then guess who is most likely to get arrested. If the cops are called on a domestic dispute and there is a man or male teen above 16, guess who is going to jail. Most prosecutors will not pursue a case of female on male spousal abuse. Most cops won't believe a male teen if he says he was raped by an older female.

 

If ever it is a man accused of these things, he is arrested. Gets his name splashed all over the news as an EVIL man. Loses his job. Possible divorce and loss of right to kid. If he is later found innocent, nothing happens.

 

If a woman is accused of these things, then it is highly unlikely it would be pursued. Mary K Laterno made the news because it was shocking. Guess what its only shocking because the police in that one instantance didn't ignore it.

 

 

So scream to heavens all you about how unfairly women are treated. Feminist fundamentalism is just a toxic as christian fundamentalism. The reality is women are a more protected "class" then men. Hell black women have far better opportunities then black men because they are a "double minority".

 

I once had a Hispanic girlfriend who told me I was going to have to work harder and do better at almost everything because as a white male in this society, I don't get cut any slack, and nobody is going to help me.

[dichotomy]

I am quite happy to fight for equality so long as it is equality for everyone irrespective of gender, sexual orientation, age, ethnicity, religion etc.

 

And so long as my desire for their equality doesn't invade upon or suppress their autonomy and right to be either submissive or dominant (or whatever else) in a relationship where the other participant(s) are similarly comfortable with the situation.

 

Oh and what burnedout said!

[Noumena]

Why DeGaul....I do believe you have just been told off......by no less than an expert....

 

Sadly the only thing I am an expert on is being told what to think and how to think it by dickheads who thought they had all the answers. It would do some of the people on this site a lot of good to remember that not all of us waltzed out of the church without a backward glance and with our souls complete. Some of the people here, like myself, are traumatised and probably always will be to some extent. I have PTSD and probably will never recover completely from that. If you start telling me what I should think, and accuse me of being sick for not agreeing with you, I WILL come out swinging.

 

What I have learned from my journey through life, is that life is not a one size fits all affair, that none of us know everything, and that it is never okay to abuse power over anyone. Neither is it okay to put the boot into already traumatised people. I thought that was the specialty of christians, NOT ex-christians. If you are silly enough to do so, dont be suprised what comes out.

 

So you expect people to censor themselves and not express their own thoughts because they may be offensive to you and some other people? I expected you, as a fellow sufferer of PTSD, to already know that the world doesn't work that way. Nobody is going to walk on eggshells around you for fear of triggering you and it's unrealistic to expect them to do so. The sooner you accept that the better~~~for you AND everyone else. My husband was not telling YOU what to think.....he can't give two shits about what you think.....he was telling you what HE thinks. You don't like it. The end.

 

Fine, I think your husband is sick for sticking his nose in what goes on in other people's bedrooms and calling it sick because he doesn't agree with it. If both parties are of legal age in the country they live in, who the fuck is he to go around telling people they are sick. Mind your own damn business. There's an idea.

 

Say what you like, just don't be suprised by the consequences. I am sick and fucking tired of judgemental christians. You and your significant other come across like you are still one of them.

 

I was commenting on Stryper's post. I could say that you stuck YOUR nose in my business, but I'm aware that anything I post in a thread is out there for anybody to pick apart, agree with, disagree with, respond too, or ignore. People can say what they want.... I find it kind of creepy strange that you only had words of wrath for me and DeGaul. You left out Ophelia and Stryper....hmmmm..

 

That is because they aren't arrogant assholes. Look I get that most people are mindfucked by social mores and couldn't think for themselves if someone paid them. It seems to be worse in the good old U S of A where no one has an ounce of sexual desire before the age of 18 or the desire to drink alcohol before 21, and of course no one ever does. Try dealing with life the way it actually is, instead of using someone's 1950's ideals that no one in the real world has given a flying fuck about since at least 1970. People fuck, get over it.

 

And you are volatile and aggressive just like an abuser.....and kind of stalker~ish. You creep me out, Galien

 

You act like Australia doesn't have it's own set of standards. How do you suppose they came up with 16 to be the age of consent? So in the "Down Under" no one has an ounce of sexual desire before the age of 16? What the fuck is your problem? Sounds like you are just being petty. So the US have decided~~~~really just for the sake of making Galien pissy~~~~~that the age of consent is 18 NOT 16. Who the fuck cares.

 

http://www.ageofcons...m/australia.htm

[Noumena]

I am quite happy to fight for equality so long as it is equality for everyone irrespective of gender, sexual orientation, age, ethnicity, religion etc.

 

And so long as my desire for their equality doesn't invade upon or suppress their autonomy and right to be either submissive or dominant (or whatever else) in a relationship where the other participant(s) are similarly comfortable with the situation.

 

Oh and what burnedout said!

 

Exactly. I agree with dichotomy and Vacuum Flux.

[stryper]

Actually Noumea, The age of consent in the US is set by each State.

 

18 is generally accepted because of several reasons. It also IS the age of consent in many states but not all.

 

1) you can get drafted and enter the military and thus any other contractual obligation.

2) Federal law states that in all pornography actors must be at least 18yrs old.

 

 

http://www.webistry....an/consent.html

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....n_North_America

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....Legal_adulthood

 

Then so it would be legal for a 16yr old to have sex with someone over 18, in some States. As long as the relations did happen across state lines, the Fed would have no jurisdiction.

[Noumena]

Actually Noumea, The age of consent in the US is set by each State.

 

18 is generally accepted because of several reasons. It also IS the age of consent in many states but not all.

 

1) you can get drafted and enter the military and thus any other contractual obligation.

2) Federal law states that in all pornography actors must be at least 18yrs old.

 

 

http://www.webistry....an/consent.html

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....n_North_America

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....Legal_adulthood

 

Then so it would be legal for a 16yr old to have sex with someone over 18, in some States. As long as the relations did happen across state lines, the Fed would have no jurisdiction.

 

Cool. I didn't know any of that.

[Ro-bear]

Anyone who is 17 years old or younger is an idiot. Realistically speaking, the majority of people who are under 28 years of age are idiots, and a good chunk of those who make it to 30 and beyond are also idiots.

 

I was an idiot at 17. You were an idiot at 17. Everyone was an idiot at 17. A 17 year old is incapable of the perspective necessary to have anything non-idiotic to say about life, and even when a 17 year old does say something profound, it is primarily by accident.....not unlike 100,000 monkeys banging away at typewriters and producing Shakespeare.

 

So, 40 year old women lusting after a 17 year old is sick (at least in so far as I understand sick), and is probably an indicator that those aforementioned 40 year old women fall into the camp of "those who have made it over 30 and are still idiots".

 

DeGaul, I think this comment is riddled with overstatements. I have known mnay 17 year olds who were bright, had common sense, and were as wise as anyone could expect. They were worthy of being considered adults and having their opinions taken seriously. Of course they are outnumbered by the idiots. Also, I don't think a 40 year old thinking Bieber is hot is sick. Admitting it on Facebook is stupid, and if she wants to bang the little twerp that is borderline sick, but just thinking he is hot is no big deal. I am 52 years old, but that does not render me immune to the physical charms of much younger women; it simply means that there is no way I would ever succumb to them.

[Noumena]

Why DeGaul....I do believe you have just been told off......by no less than an expert....

 

Sadly the only thing I am an expert on is being told what to think and how to think it by dickheads who thought they had all the answers. It would do some of the people on this site a lot of good to remember that not all of us waltzed out of the church without a backward glance and with our souls complete. Some of the people here, like myself, are traumatised and probably always will be to some extent. I have PTSD and probably will never recover completely from that. If you start telling me what I should think, and accuse me of being sick for not agreeing with you, I WILL come out swinging.

 

What I have learned from my journey through life, is that life is not a one size fits all affair, that none of us know everything, and that it is never okay to abuse power over anyone. Neither is it okay to put the boot into already traumatised people. I thought that was the specialty of christians, NOT ex-christians. If you are silly enough to do so, dont be suprised what comes out.

 

So you expect people to censor themselves and not express their own thoughts because they may be offensive to you and some other people? I expected you, as a fellow sufferer of PTSD, to already know that the world doesn't work that way. Nobody is going to walk on eggshells around you for fear of triggering you and it's unrealistic to expect them to do so. The sooner you accept that the better~~~for you AND everyone else. My husband was not telling YOU what to think.....he can't give two shits about what you think.....he was telling you what HE thinks. You don't like it. The end.

 

Fine, I think your husband is sick for sticking his nose in what goes on in other people's bedrooms and calling it sick because he doesn't agree with it. If both parties are of legal age in the country they live in, who the fuck is he to go around telling people they are sick. Mind your own damn business. There's an idea.

 

Say what you like, just don't be suprised by the consequences. I am sick and fucking tired of judgemental christians. You and your significant other come across like you are still one of them.

 

I was commenting on Stryper's post. I could say that you stuck YOUR nose in my business, but I'm aware that anything I post in a thread is out there for anybody to pick apart, agree with, disagree with, respond too, or ignore. People can say what they want.... I find it kind of creepy strange that you only had words of wrath for me and DeGaul. You left out Ophelia and Stryper....hmmmm..

 

That is because they aren't arrogant assholes. Look I get that most people are mindfucked by social mores and couldn't think for themselves if someone paid them. It seems to be worse in the good old U S of A where no one has an ounce of sexual desire before the age of 18 or the desire to drink alcohol before 21, and of course no one ever does. Try dealing with life the way it actually is, instead of using someone's 1950's ideals that no one in the real world has given a flying fuck about since at least 1970. People fuck, get over it.

 

And you are volatile and aggressive just like an abuser.....and kind of stalker~ish. You creep me out, Galien

 

You act like Australian doesn't have it's own set of standards. How do you suppose they came up with 16 to be the age of consent? So in the "Down Under" no one has an ounce of sexual desire before the age of 16? What the fuck is your problem? Sounds like you are just being petty. So the US have decided~~~~really just for the sake of making Galien pissy~~~~~that the age of consent is 18 NOT 16. Who the fuck cares.

 

http://www.ageofcons...m/australia.htm

 

Noumena,

 

You would be amazed just how many catty and petty people are on here and they whine if they read anything that hurts their feeeeeeeeelings. They cannot handle a frank discussion and they take it all personally.

 

They may have been abused in their past, but they are not now but they still act as if they are. If they are, and they are adults, and they refuse to do something about it, like leave or call the police, etc., they would just rather whine and act helpless.

 

You are absolutely right. As a survivor, I know how hard it is to get past the "everyone is out to take advantage of me" kind of mentality. In military terms... I get butt hurt sometimes too, but I'm not helpless and I'd rather not whine.

[Darklady]

 

I'm all up for equality but I think it's hard to define what it is exactly. Do we mean being treated equally or leveling the playing field? If we treat women the same way we treat men, things like maternal leave go out the window. The bias (that I think for is deserved for the most part) towards women's favor in issues like custody of children, divorce, and the like go out the window too. Chivalry goes out the window as well. If the aim is to "level the playing field" I disagree with that too. I don't like the idea of unqualified people being taken on in universities or workplaces (no matter what race, religion or sex they may be) not because they are the most qualified but despite whatever their qualities are, that place needs to meet their "target".

 

 

Just a couple of points - One reason why we use the term 'equality of opportunity' because it does NOT mean taking on people who cannot do the work - the best person for the job should always be the maxim -

it means everyone should have the same opportunity in life (from the beginning of life) to be able to get the best education, health care, etc etc

I know this is a ideal, but the point it just because it is an ideal, why should we not make it happen?

 

IN NZ we have paternity leave = both partners have equal opportunity to take one years leave(unpaid) and still have their job at the end of that, paid leave is for three months and paid through the Tax system, and both parents can take that (ie the three months can be used up in the fist 6 weeks by both parents staying home, or one or the other for three months etc)

 

'Positive discrimination' is another subject, closely related to levelling the playing field -

The unlevel playing field starts at conception, babies of better off parents have better care, better chance to be born alive, (not especially talking abortion here) so from day one some children are on a very different playing field altogether,

 

now if you are a minority, you have just added a layer of difficulty to life - not that many people do not over come that - to be sure, many do, black, Or for NZ maori, women, the disabled, etc.

For example, if you are born into poverty, you have far greater chance of being disabled, to have poor education or to die young

 

The thread was specificity about the role of women in society ( middle east society)

Ask youself why no women has ever been head of the United nations, or president of the USA? Is it because there are no capable women?

Of course not, there are plenty, but there has been little opportunity for women to move into those roles. There will be many reasons why this is the case (and just as many excuses), but it does not change the fact that minorities are not represented as well as they should be in 'higher' offices, or in public life.

[Noumena]

Anyone who is 17 years old or younger is an idiot. Realistically speaking, the majority of people who are under 28 years of age are idiots, and a good chunk of those who make it to 30 and beyond are also idiots.

 

I was an idiot at 17. You were an idiot at 17. Everyone was an idiot at 17. A 17 year old is incapable of the perspective necessary to have anything non-idiotic to say about life, and even when a 17 year old does say something profound, it is primarily by accident.....not unlike 100,000 monkeys banging away at typewriters and producing Shakespeare.

 

So, 40 year old women lusting after a 17 year old is sick (at least in so far as I understand sick), and is probably an indicator that those aforementioned 40 year old women fall into the camp of "those who have made it over 30 and are still idiots".

 

DeGaul, I think this comment is riddled with overstatements. I have known mnay 17 year olds who were bright, had common sense, and were as wise as anyone could expect. They were worthy of being considered adults and having their opinions taken seriously. Of course they are outnumbered by the idiots. Also, I don't think a 40 year old thinking Bieber is hot is sick. Admitting it on Facebook is stupid, and if she wants to bang the little twerp that is borderline sick, but just thinking he is hot is no big deal. I am 52 years old, but that does not render me immune to the physical charms of much younger women; it simply means that there is no way I would ever succumb to them.

 

The person I was talking about IS sick. She confided in me that she molested a 7 year old little boy before. She needs help.

[Galien]

Bottom line is this, women get paid less than men for doing the same work, that in itself is the highest indicator of the contempt with which "society" holds women.

 

Some people have minds so closed you could not pry them open with a tire iron. Not everyone is thrilled to bits by the prospect of a partner of the same colour, within four years of their age, 2.5 children and a picket fence. People who do not exist in the fat part of the bell curve are not sick, they just think differently. Some men prefer older or younger women, some women prefer older or younger men. Why does that make them sick? Does that mean gays are sick too or people who like to fuck in furry costumes??

 

My anger here is about judging people. When I was nine and had a nasty minister jamming things in my vagina I didn't want there I was pretty annoyed about it. Later when I found out he had been abusing all the children there it was pretty safe to say he was sick. He was forcing himself on powerless people who didn't want it.

 

If my next door neighbour who is 35 is banging a 17 year old, what business is it of mine. Who the fuck do I think I am to go about the place judging him and running him down and saying he is sick? If they are happy, more power to them.

 

Sadly though most humans are so busy judging everyone else's behaviour and ignoring their own everyone will have something to say about it. I have to wonder why it never occurs to them to question why the fuck they think they have the right to stick their nose in other people's business in the first place? As far as I can tell it is all about feeling superior. How is that not idiotic?

[Galien]

Anyone who is 17 years old or younger is an idiot. Realistically speaking, the majority of people who are under 28 years of age are idiots, and a good chunk of those who make it to 30 and beyond are also idiots.

 

I was an idiot at 17. You were an idiot at 17. Everyone was an idiot at 17. A 17 year old is incapable of the perspective necessary to have anything non-idiotic to say about life, and even when a 17 year old does say something profound, it is primarily by accident.....not unlike 100,000 monkeys banging away at typewriters and producing Shakespeare.

 

So, 40 year old women lusting after a 17 year old is sick (at least in so far as I understand sick), and is probably an indicator that those aforementioned 40 year old women fall into the camp of "those who have made it over 30 and are still idiots".

 

DeGaul, I think this comment is riddled with overstatements. I have known mnay 17 year olds who were bright, had common sense, and were as wise as anyone could expect. They were worthy of being considered adults and having their opinions taken seriously. Of course they are outnumbered by the idiots. Also, I don't think a 40 year old thinking Bieber is hot is sick. Admitting it on Facebook is stupid, and if she wants to bang the little twerp that is borderline sick, but just thinking he is hot is no big deal. I am 52 years old, but that does not render me immune to the physical charms of much younger women; it simply means that there is no way I would ever succumb to them.

 

Yay, an honest man. Gotta love that.

[Deva]

If my next door neighbour who is 35 is banging a 17 year old, what business is it of mine. Who the fuck do I think I am to go about the place judging him and running him down and saying he is sick? If they are happy, more power to them.

 

Galien, I know you don't live in the US, but I have to step in and say this is disturbing. Where I live this is clearly against the law (the state of Florida) :

 

794.05 Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.—(1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

 

If I know about it and don't report it:

 

794.027 Duty to report sexual battery; penalties.—A person who observes the commission of the crime of sexual battery and who:(1) Has reasonable grounds to believe that he or she has observed the commission of a sexual battery;(2) Has the present ability to seek assistance for the victim or victims by immediately reporting such offense to a law enforcement officer;(3) Fails to seek such assistance;(4) Would not be exposed to any threat of physical violence for seeking such assistance;(5) Is not the husband, wife, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, or sister of the offender or victim, by consanguinity or affinity; and(6) Is not the victim of such sexual batteryis guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

 

 

 

A misdemeanor could mean a very hefty fine or prison time. Not saying the law is right all of the time, but it IS the law.

Granted, I am not going to interest myself ordinarily in what goes on at the neighbor's house. I can't really envision how I would be certain enough that something is going on (unless one of the parties told me) so that I would involve myself. But if I know FOR A FACT it was happening, I would consider it a very serious situation.

 

Beyond that, on a personal level, I would be quite disturbed, because the older party plainly has power over the younger party.

 

Galien, I think sometimes one needs to be concerned with what other people are doing. Not often, but sometimes.

I wasn't going to come back to this thread, but it has taken a very different turn.

 

 

[JadedAtheist]

Just a couple of points - One reason why we use the term 'equality of opportunity' because it does NOT mean taking on people who cannot do the work - the best person for the job should always be the maxim -

it means everyone should have the same opportunity in life (from the beginning of life) to be able to get the best education, health care, etc etc

I know this is a ideal, but the point it just because it is an ideal, why should we not make it happen?

 

IN NZ we have paternity leave = both partners have equal opportunity to take one years leave(unpaid) and still have their job at the end of that, paid leave is for three months and paid through the Tax system, and both parents can take that (ie the three months can be used up in the fist 6 weeks by both parents staying home, or one or the other for three months etc)

 

'Positive discrimination' is another subject, closely related to levelling the playing field -

The unlevel playing field starts at conception, babies of better off parents have better care, better chance to be born alive, (not especially talking abortion here) so from day one some children are on a very different playing field altogether,

 

now if you are a minority, you have just added a layer of difficulty to life - not that many people do not over come that - to be sure, many do, black, Or for NZ maori, women, the disabled, etc.

For example, if you are born into poverty, you have far greater chance of being disabled, to have poor education or to die young

 

The thread was specificity about the role of women in society ( middle east society)

Ask youself why no women has ever been head of the United nations, or president of the USA? Is it because there are no capable women?

Of course not, there are plenty, but there has been little opportunity for women to move into those roles. There will be many reasons why this is the case (and just as many excuses), but it does not change the fact that minorities are not represented as well as they should be in 'higher' offices, or in public life.

 

The head of my nation, and in the past yours and Britain has been a woman. Even in (somewhat) recent history, Hilary Clinton was taken as a serious political candidate. The fact of the matter is it's not that there's discrimination against women but the ratio of women interested in these roles is different. Maybe it's to do with gender roles ingrained in our minds or maybe its a personality thing or whatever but I think for the most part its a lack of interest that is responsible for today's disparity rather than discrimination. I'm all for equal opportunity and leveling the playing field if there's signs of discrimination but as of late I've seen enough times someone hired to meet a "quota", despite their inability to perform the role (funnily enough it's with getting more men in a role predominately filled with women).

 

I understand minorities have it hard because simply, I've had it hard. I know what it's like to not have a bed to sleep in, not to have a fridge to keep your food in, to not even have a chair to sit in or a table to eat your food on. These were/are luxuries for me. I lived almost the first half of my life without them. To this day I feel unco trying to use cutlery. Yet, because I live in Australia, I still had access to public schools, I still had a roof over my head and if I applied myself, I still could have finished school and gone to uni (which I'm currently doing). I guess where I'm coming from is that I'm the kind of person who takes ownership of my actions, I don't try to blame others or shift the blame. I take the responsibility. Now, if I can come from 'poverty' to where I am at now, and I'm not even that ambitious and motivated, anyone can do it and I won't accept excuses.

 

As for women in the middle east, I agree vast improvement is yet to be made and I'm all for people fighting for women's rights in those places.

[Galien]

Just a couple of points - One reason why we use the term 'equality of opportunity' because it does NOT mean taking on people who cannot do the work - the best person for the job should always be the maxim -

it means everyone should have the same opportunity in life (from the beginning of life) to be able to get the best education, health care, etc etc

I know this is a ideal, but the point it just because it is an ideal, why should we not make it happen?

 

IN NZ we have paternity leave = both partners have equal opportunity to take one years leave(unpaid) and still have their job at the end of that, paid leave is for three months and paid through the Tax system, and both parents can take that (ie the three months can be used up in the fist 6 weeks by both parents staying home, or one or the other for three months etc)

 

'Positive discrimination' is another subject, closely related to levelling the playing field -

The unlevel playing field starts at conception, babies of better off parents have better care, better chance to be born alive, (not especially talking abortion here) so from day one some children are on a very different playing field altogether,

 

now if you are a minority, you have just added a layer of difficulty to life - not that many people do not over come that - to be sure, many do, black, Or for NZ maori, women, the disabled, etc.

For example, if you are born into poverty, you have far greater chance of being disabled, to have poor education or to die young

 

The thread was specificity about the role of women in society ( middle east society)

Ask youself why no women has ever been head of the United nations, or president of the USA? Is it because there are no capable women?

Of course not, there are plenty, but there has been little opportunity for women to move into those roles. There will be many reasons why this is the case (and just as many excuses), but it does not change the fact that minorities are not represented as well as they should be in 'higher' offices, or in public life.

 

The head of my nation, and in the past yours and Britain has been a woman. Even in (somewhat) recent history, Hilary Clinton was taken as a serious political candidate. The fact of the matter is it's not that there's discrimination against women but the ratio of women interested in these roles is different. Maybe it's to do with gender roles ingrained in our minds or maybe its a personality thing or whatever but I think for the most part its a lack of interest that is responsible for today's disparity rather than discrimination. I'm all for equal opportunity and leveling the playing field if there's signs of discrimination but as of late I've seen enough times someone hired to meet a "quota", despite their inability to perform the role (funnily enough it's with getting more men in a role predominately filled with women).

 

I understand minorities have it hard because simply, I've had it hard. I know what it's like to not have a bed to sleep in, not to have a fridge to keep your food in, to not even have a chair to sit in or a table to eat your food on. These were/are luxuries for me. I lived almost the first half of my life without them. To this day I feel unco trying to use cutlery. Yet, because I live in Australia, I still had access to public schools, I still had a roof over my head and if I applied myself, I still could have finished school and gone to uni (which I'm currently doing). I guess where I'm coming from is that I'm the kind of person who takes ownership of my actions, I don't try to blame others or shift the blame. I take the responsibility. Now, if I can come from 'poverty' to where I am at now, and I'm not even that ambitious and motivated, anyone can do it and I won't accept excuses.

 

As for women in the middle east, I agree vast improvement is yet to be made and I'm all for people fighting for women's rights in those places.

 

I dragged myself out of a similar situation to you, but trust me not everyone is blessed with the internal resources we have. I have been blessed with natural defiance and resilience, a lot of people are crushed by defeat and they cannot recover from it. I will still be shaking my fist at the sky when they put me in the box, and I suspect you will too.