Allegro.cc - Online Community
Post Reply

Allegro.cc Forums » Allegro.cc Comments » Thread locks too soon

rss feed Print
Thread locks too soon
bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

From your own article:

Yes, exactly, women are choosing their own path, based on what they consider good reasons. It's other people, such as yourself apparently, condescendingly telling these girls they're wrong to have made their own choice.

It doesn't mean that there's something wrong with our programs, and that we need to try even harder (as if that's possible) to encourage women into STEM. The study apparently concluded that if governments still aim to increase the numbers of women in STEM perhaps they can focus their efforts on the women that might more easily be persuaded to do it because they're already good at it and enjoy it. That said, it doesn't say that we should. Ultimately, the women obviously choose something else that interests them more.

For example, maybe they wanted to get married or have children. Ultimately, women still have some choices when it comes to working at all. If they can find a good husband to provide they might not even need to work, or might only need to work part-time.. That frees them up to do things that they'd rather do, like socialize with friends, shop shop shop, and spend time with their children. Who are you to tell them that's wrong?

They want solar and wind power, but they don't care how many birds die as they're literally burnt out of the air by solar panels, and smashed into pieces by wind farms...

It sounds like it isn't solar panels that are burning birds out of the sky, but a specific solar plant that uses a series of mirrors to focus the Sun's energy onto a boiler... And when the birds fly into those focused beams they apparently vaporize. Which would be damn cool to see, but is pretty sad (albeit, probably pretty painless if a killzone crosses the light anyway).

Normal solar panels wouldn't have that affect. And according to the spokesperson for the company, the impact on the bird population is minimal according to "scientists". Certainly though, we should try to do better. But your comments make it sound like it's more harmful than the alternatives of burning coal or oil... And that seems unlikely.

As for wind farms killing birds, I know that it's a problem, but I don't know how severe. According to a glimpse at Wikipedia, that is also considered a minimal impact. So while it's certainly an unintended consequence and something that we want to try to address, it's probably still a much less harmful force than all of the numbers of ways that the burning of fossil fuels harms the environment.

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

@polybios

> Singular they is the use in English of the pronoun they or its inflected or derivative forms, them, their, theirs, and themselves (or themself), as an epicene (gender-neutral) singular pronoun. It typically occurs with an antecedent of indeterminate gender, as in sentences such as:

> The singular they had emerged by the 14th century, about a century after plural they. It has been commonly employed in everyday English ever since then, though it has been the target of criticism since the late 19th century. Its use in formal English has become more common with the trend toward gender-neutral language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

I sound like a broken record.

'It' refers to objects, not humans.

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

I'm pretty sure the doctors are the people ending breast cancer.

They've been holding various telethons, marathons... whatever-thons since I was a child to cure cancer. I have yet to see a single form of cancer that has been cured.

There's even evidence the cancer screening doesn't do any good and some of it, can actually do more harm.

video

There is a solution to prevent cancer, but nobody wants to hear it.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

bamccaig said:

Yes, exactly, women are choosing their own path, based on what they consider good reasons. It's other people, such as yourself apparently, condescendingly telling these girls they're wrong to have made their own choice.

Yes, but what's important is WHY they're choosing not to go into STEM. We've established they're both smart enough, and that at least some of them enjoy STEM to a great degree, yet they're still choosing a different path.

bamccaig said:

For example, maybe they wanted to get married or have children. Ultimately, women still have some choices when it comes to working at all. If they can find a good husband to provide they might not even need to work, or might only need to work part-time.. That frees them up to do things that they'd rather do, like socialize with friends, shop shop shop, and spend time with their children. Who are you to tell them that's wrong?

Do you ever listen to the words that come out of your mouth? Take a sociology course for Christ's sake. Then come back with all your brainwashed misogynistic bs and try again.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Yes, but what's important is WHY they're choosing not to go into STEM. We've established they're both smart enough, and that at least some of them enjoy STEM to a great degree, yet they're still choosing a different path.

I'm not sure we've established they're smart enough. We've established that they had high grades in high school classes, but that wouldn't factor in how difficult it was to do. Did it come naturally, or did they work their asses off to do it? Were the teachers grading them evenly, or giving them a grade boost? And most of all, how do we know they enjoyed it? I'm not sure where they got this information from. Maybe they sent out surveys? I missed that in the article.

There's a good chance that some of them are just self-conscious, and don't think that they can do it. That said, it's a healthy way to feel. It's expensive to get a post-secondary education, and it's a big risk to attempt it if you aren't confident in your abilities. Perhaps if we all agreed that college/university should be publicly funded (and perhaps big American schools should also lower their rates, ffs) then girls (and more boys!) would be able to give it a try without burying their family under a second mortgage...

Of course, there's always community/technical colleges which should be more affordable, but still it's equivalent to a second car payment. And there's no guarantee they'll like it and graduate. Also, while technical colleges often offer computer courses that can get you into some lower field in tech, I don't think that they'll offer much in terms of the S EM. To pursue a career in science, engineering, or math I think they're stuck with the second mortgage payment. And if they want to go far in tech they would be too.

Take a sociology course for Christ's sake.

This is the worst possible time to take such a course. The content is filtered, and debate is censored. You won't learn anything true. Social justice warriors are there to ensure that schools are only teaching them things that don't hurt their feelings. Universities are garbage now. If you'd watched the video that Chris posted you'd know that, but you're too busy digging your head into the sand so you can pretend to be right.

Women do want to have families, and want to have kids, and want to be there for their kids. They don't all want to go to work for 8 or 10 hours, and come home exhausted to ignore their family. There's nothing wrong with that.

Women that try to do it all are impressive, but they also grade their level of happiness much lower than their mother's and grandmother's generation did. What's the point if it doesn't make you happy?

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

qz.com said:

Since the 1980s, and particularly in the past decade, girls have had more encouragement and more female role models in the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. If social conditioning were the primary cause of the difference in test scores, you’d expect the gender gap to narrow, and it did.

In the 1980s, boys made up 93% of the very high math scorers; there were 14 boys for every girl in the top 0.01% of math scores. By the mid-1980s, the ratio had fallen below 8-to-1, and since 2010 the ratio has been closer to 2.5-to-1.

Pretty much proof that girls are just as capable as men, given the right conditions and encouragement.

You can shut up now. ;)

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

The "right conditions" is correct. Schools have been turning their backs on boys. They teach classrooms today in ways that make sense to girls, and they punish boys for being boys. There are very few male teachers anymore because they've been bullied out of the field. Research shows that boys do better with male role models. And female teachers are harder on boys than on girls. The result is that many boys are not trying, not enjoying school, and therefore performing badly. Even though the boys are plenty capable, they're not even given the chance anymore. The political situation has made it important for girls to succeed, and nobody cares how the boys are doing.

Notably the article and study appear to be comparing the ratio of boys to girls, but it doesn't mention the total numbers of students. Are the boys stlil performing as well as they used to, but more girls are also performing well? Which would suggest that what we're doing is working, and girls are reaching their potential now. Or have boys just stopped performing well, which would automatically boost girls up when comparing the sexes by ratio of achievers.

That said, I've been saying that women are capable, but they choose a different path. Your own article even said that.

The Vanderbilt researchers concluded that while there are not many female math superstars, brilliant women tend to have a more well-rounded intelligence than their male counterparts. But they also noticed the women were more likely to choose roles that were less research focused and attracted to jobs that also made use of their equally strong communication skills. And that’s the kind of career path that—while potentially fulfilling in its own way—can, for example, steer women away from the lab where an award-winning scientific breakthrough might occur.

(Emphasis mine)

And again, research is no longer designed to be unbiased and properly peer reviewed. You're ignoring this inconvenient fact. There's plenty of biased research looking for confirmation that girls are strong and smart and every bit as capable, but there's no research trying to proof the opposite to be true. Because there isn't allowed to be. So while, sure, we all generally agree that women deserve equal opportunities, the research isn't really being done properly for scientists to fully understand the differences. We all just have to shut up and pretend it works the way that political activists want it to work because otherwise we'll draw unappealing attention to people and organizations and funding will be cut to end the smear campaigns.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

Let's get this thread back to warmer waters.

Anyone learn any neat programming tricks?

For example, there are entire websites dedicated to "bit twiddling" (changing bits) of floating point (as well as integer) numbers.

The point here is that, the general consensus is "floats are special" so you should never do any kind of bitmasking on them. This is incorrect.

https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html

https://matthewarcus.wordpress.com/category/bit-twiddling/

It's still not something you should "usually" do. But you also shouldn't usually use double pointers. Every tool has its purpose, and "good and bad" applications.

[edit]

Another thing is unfortunately, the D language, has shown me some thorns hidden beneath the surface. Quite a few actually.

Delegates are great.
Concurrency is great.

Too bad you can't actually use a delegate properly with Std.Varient which means you can't send any data from one thread to another marked "shared"--including the thread ID. So without using hacks / less elegant methods, you can't tell another thread what thread called it!

??? ??? ??? ???

And there's plenty more than that. Like simply importing std.regex balloons your required compile RAM from ~150MB to over 700MB and would actually out-of-memory die when compiling on my 2GB laptop unless I started closing most of my Chrome tabs (which I need for reference!)

The templates are still to die for.

The biggest flaw with D, really, is simply a lack of popularity so more people can volunteer time to improve it while the "big heads" who run D work on more pressing matters. For example, the garbage collector in D can be removed, it can also be improved. But that's a fundamental 50/50 split of languages. Making the standard library work without garbage collection, and/or, making the garbage collector something that wasn't written with "90's era" techniques in mind that are (relatively speaking) very slow and a serious risk for anyone writing real-time applications. (games!) There could also do with a huge amount more tutorials. Everyone has a "hello world" but very few exist, on say, "Std.variant."

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Quote:

for Christ's sake.

Exodus 20:7 (KJV)
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Sorry, but I found what you said ironic considering your condemnation of my humour. You might want to pull the plank out of your own eye first.

I find it odd that you prefer vulgar humor to God's Word... :/

Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010

Thank you, that was most interesting, I didn't know.

In the examples, I notice there are often additional words which act as markers for the number. So there is, so to speak, a certain overhead involved.
Besides, its historic usage seems to be confined to unknown people (someone) or situations where the (i.e. a generic) person was not known and therefore also their (!) gender wasn't. To refer to a specific person you know with "they" seems to be more recent and, also, if you'll excuse me, seems more awkward to me, because of the "number overhead" which basically seems to force speakers to use additional markers for the number where it cannot be inferred from the context.
On the other hand, as you English speakers seem to address each other in the (polite) plural form "you" anyway, regardless of number, it does not matter that much, unless you decide to finally bring thou/thee/thy/thine back. ;D

bamccaig said:

Schools have been turning their backs on boys. They teach classrooms today in ways that make sense to girls, and they punish boys for being boys.

You forgot the conspiracy of the women who enrich the environment with their artificial contraceptive hormones to make boys less masculine. ::)

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

Polybios said:

You forgot the conspiracy of the women who enrich the environment with their artificial contraceptive hormones to make boys less masculine. ::)

Wait, you... you're not actually arguing against the fact that boys are treated as "defective girls" in schools are you? Because that's... basically been settled as "yes" by science.

Boys act out and don't want to sit in chairs. Girls crave the approval of an authority figure. Science shows this.

https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/06/stop-penalizing-boys-for-not-being-able-to-sit-still-at-school/276976/

Female teachers score boys harder than girls (even when their ACTUAL test-result grades are higher), while girls assume male teachers treat them worse but are actually graded fairly. Science shows this.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/06/do-teachers-really-discriminate-against-boys/

Boys are "defective" because our schools are so terrible they don't care that many people learn differently and cram all people into one, terrible, system. Sitting in a chair and memorizing. Boys that don't succeed in this system are drugged to "normalize" them.

Quote:

The decline of recess and physical education has been harmful to all kids but perhaps more so for rambunctious boys than eager-to-please girls.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a32858/drugging-of-the-american-boy-0414/

Or are Esquire, Time, and the Atlantic an alt-right blogs and not left-wing enough to be reputable? :P

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

Just anecdote (because despite me being a SJW!!!!! I do believe biological differences could be a reason for behavioral differences between women/men; it's just a matter of are these differences biological and which are social; are they good or bad for us; and can society do things to alter these differences if it's for the best):

Boys act out and don't want to sit in chairs. Girls crave the approval of an authority figure.

I (assigned male at birth) was a girl in public school and my best friend (assigned female at birth*) was a boy. Wow. :o

(I'm just highlighting "the individual case" vs the "general case" [e.g., BMI; it's good for a population but can fall apart in individual cases]).

*: She's cis but I just used that terminology because symmetry!

Also there are a lot of social factors that do disinterest women from pursuing STEM; teaching differences, like you mentioned when discussing boys/girls, are a major one. Correcting these would increase women participation in STEM and they are... social, not biological, changes! Funny how biological differences can be corrected by social changes. If you're interested I could dig up the sources.

Also these sources invalidate bambam's academic feminist conspiracy ;D.

Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010

Wait, you... you're not actually arguing against the fact that boys are treated as "defective girls" in schools are you? Because that's... basically been settled as "yes" by science.

I don't know. There seems to be a fine line between adequate teaching for boys and merely excusing a lack of discipline and creating another "victim" group that needs special treatment. To sit down to concentrate on a task is an important skill.
I hardly remember elementary (primary?) school but we were certainly moving around a lot between lessons. I also vaguely remember playing competitive "mental arithmetic" games which involved moving around the class room, advancing from post to post. The biggest motivator I can remember was that you sometimes could go home a bit earlier when you'd finished your task. :P
Anyway, yes there seems to be a problem with boys in school. Maybe the presence of well-performing and disciplined girls just makes it somehow ... unmasculine to be like them?

Quote:

Sitting in a chair and memorizing.

I hardly ever had to memorize something at school (except vocabulary for foreign languages), even less so while sitting in a school chair.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

NiteHackr said:

Sorry, but I found what you said ironic considering your condemnation of my humour. You might want to pull the plank out of your own eye first.

Oh pull the corncob out of your a$$, have a nice bm, and call me in the morning. ;)

Posting pornographic poems about tea bag sex is far worse than encouraging bambam to get an education, and stop spreading mis-knowledge in Christ's name. Christ was a teacher after all. Rabbi? That's what they called him.

But hey, we all know tea bag sex is funnier than learning about God or knowledge. :/

And the parable about the sliver and the board hardly applies, unless you're applying it to yourself first, considering your believe things like the dead are all in their graves, when we know God is God of the Living. Before Abraham was, I am. You might want to go back and read the chapter out of John I posted before.

I'll quote it here :

52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.

53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?

54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

If you're going to debate God on A.CC, I suggest the both of you either:

1 - Use private messages.

2 - Be more respectful and calm, and give the other party the benefit of the doubt and permission to "be wrong".

Because this is silly. Even I am starting to think this is unprofessional for this site. It doesn't look very good from an outsider-looking-in when emotions are this high.

You don't like each other's idea of "God". That's okay. But you're both not moving on any positions so just accept the other party is "wrong" and move on.

Don't get sucked into this kind of stuff. We're not kids anymore. You can't feign inexperience in "God discussions" online or debates, or youthful passion, you know exactly how these arguments only cause rifts.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

So it's not okay to talk about God, but it's okay to blather on for pages and pages about how girls are biologically inferior and incapable of performing as well as boys in math and science, or somehow they just enjoy it less. Well duh, they've been conditioned to accept that girls are the weaker sex, and that they should depend on males for support. But arguing about that all day is okay. As well, it's okay for bambams to defame God, but not for me to support him?

This thread could be about the pursuit for knowledge. Instead, it's about women being weaker, and how believing in God makes you delusional.

I've been here so long, but sometimes I get tired of having to debate endlessly things that should be accepted as well known facts. Old beliefs die hard.

If you want to censor this thread, then might I suggest you censor anything and everything to do with an opinion as well. Because we're all a bunch of opinionated zealots who weren't destined to get along.

So what do you want to talk about instead? Floating point numbers in base 2? They're boring and inaccurate, what's new? The fact that 0.1 is a repeating decimal in base 2 makes it hardly useful for anything.

https://www.exploringbinary.com/why-0-point-1-does-not-exist-in-floating-point/

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

I can warm myself with the flaming. 8-)

...And I'm just finding an excuse to post this:

{"name":"TBVqqND.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/9\/99611f159658e1676201c0fcb1cdb209.gif","w":320,"h":240,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/9\/99611f159658e1676201c0fcb1cdb209"}TBVqqND.gif

And there's water, too.

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

it's okay to blather on for pages and pages about how girls are biologically inferior and incapable of performing as well as boys in math and science, or somehow they just enjoy it less. Well duh, they've been conditioned to accept that girls are the weaker sex, and that they should depend on males for support.

That's incorrect. The studies show that womens' performance in such fields vary less while men's performance has wild outliers on each end (ie. studies referencing bell curves). This is why the absolute best male mathematician is generally going to more proficient than the absolute best female mathematician, but the average man and woman have more similar aptitudes. There are exceptions, but in general, women are physically weaker than men, because men and women have major physical differences. This isn't even able to be questioned with a straight face. Men and women should treat each other well in their own capacities, and that includes men being physical protectors of women as they traditionally have been.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Male humans are biologically outdated, and only good for hard labor. Thank God I didn't go into construction. My back would be ruined, and I would be worse off.

Why does it make sense for women to choose lesser paying jobs other than they've been socially conditioned into choosing them? I don't disagree that boys are biologically better at math and girls are biologically better at reading, but the narrowing trend in women scoring less than men has been declining drastically since the start of the STEM intervention to get girls into science. 2.5 to 1 of top scoring boys to top scoring girls in math since the last 20 years have passed from a ratio of 14 to 1. So it's an indubitable fact that girls are not biologically inferior to males, at least by any great margin, and given the right encouragement as well as the actual opportunity. Many pass up careers to become mothers, because naturally thats something they want to be. But women don't have to give up a career because of having the unfortunate responsibilty of bearing children because of their sex.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Well duh, they've been conditioned to accept that girls are the weaker sex, and that they should depend on males for support.

Actually, they haven't. Since I was in about grade 4 they've been teaching girls that girls can do anything a boy can. I was in grade 4 for the 1995/1996 school year. That means that for more than 20 years girls have been taught that they are equal to boys (even though they aren't), and that they don't need men. Destiny's Child released the hit pop song "Independent Women" in September of 2000. Over 18 years ago. To assert that girls are being taught that they're inferior to boys is complete bullshit. Every piece of society tells them the lie that they're every bit as capable as men at everything. The only thing holding them back is reality. They're not the same, they don't have the same interests, they don't have the same ambitions, and they don't have the same strengths or weaknesses. They're different.

Plenty of intelligent, strong, capable women will readily admit this. That you are so strongly programmed to read this as discrimination instead of just factual science highlights how closed minded you are. You don't have "hate" women to acknowledge that they're different. As a matter of fact, there are large groups of women that feminism turns its back on because their ambitions in life don't align with what feminism believes. Feminism is really, really bad for men, and boys, but it's also bad for women and girls overall. The only people that it really helps are rich people that benefit from twice the labour force for the price of one.

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

girls are not biologically inferior to males

Did I miss something or is this just a recurring strawman you like to present?

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

In terms of mental ability, no girls are not biologically inferior. To believe otherwise is to be brainwashed.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Why does it make sense for women to choose lesser paying jobs other than they've been socially conditioned into choosing them?

Money isn't everything. Why do you assume money is the most important factor in deciding upon a career? That's very narrow-minded. You're talking about 50% of the population. Surely, they might have different ideas than you do. Are your ideas the only good ones?

So it's an indubitable fact that girls are not biologically inferior to males, at least by any great margin, and given the right encouragement as well as the actual opportunity.

Only if you ignore all of the evidence. Which apparently you're very good at doing. We've already discredited this information by explaining that boys are no longer doing their best in schools. They are being ignored in schools so that the girls can do well. The statistics gathered from that are meaningless. If they were doing everything in their power to empower both boys and girls then you'd see the real numbers. Unfortunately, those numbers might not look so good in the current political state of our world so that's not allowed to happen. Perhaps if you'd like to prove us wrong you should advocate for boys too so that we can see if there's any truth to your argument. In the meantime, there's no way to say, because science isn't allowed to question it. It's considered sacred. Questioning it is blasphemy.

Many pass up careers to become mothers, because naturally thats something they want to be. But women don't have to give up a career because of having the unfortunate responsibilty of bearing children because of their sex.

Actually, women are very much at the mercy of the clock. Women that attempt to give birth above I think 34 or so are considered emergency scenarios. Just because of their age. Child birth is demanding, and the risks to both the mother and baby increase with age. The mother could die, or the baby could be born with serious disabilities as a result.

How incredibly sexist of you to assert that the responsibility of child birth is "unfortunate". In fact, it's a very rewarding experience that most women put above all else. We're programmed to do it, and no career could ever reward a woman with as much happiness and purpose in life that a child can. Men literally cannot do this. It isn't possible. So there's no point questioning it's fairness. For a god-loving being you certainly seem to question his decision making a lot. Was it unfair of god to place this burden upon women? What about the burden of protecting and providing for women? Was it unfair of him to place that on men?

Certainly women can choose to have a career instead, but they certainly have to choose. It can take a lot of time and energy to find a suitable mate, and for conditions to be right between them to get pregnant. Demanding careers don't leave a lot of time or energy for such endeavours. And once the woman is pregnant she will have to take a leave of absence from her career leading up to and shortly after the birth. Fortunately, reasonable countries (the US not being one of them) grant's women a generous maternity leave to do so where their employment status is protected by law. There may be some women that are able to both have a successful career and have children, but they'll have to make sacrifices to do it. And it's reasonable to conclude that either her happiness or her career will suffer as a result. You cannot do it all. Nobody can. Plenty of fathers end up missing out on their children's lives because they're dedicated to their careers. And that's unfortunate. But somehow you think more women should be doing it too. I don't understand.

I'm sure if men could stay home with their kids instead of going to work we'd all do it. The really sick thing is that for 3 decades we've been preaching to women that it's wrong for them to want to spend this precious time with their children or taking care of their family/household needs, and that it's somehow liberating to go be a slave at some job somewhere for some printed paper with a fluxtuating exchange rate. It must have been in the fine print that they'd really just be working for the wages that were removed from their husbands' pay since they're now twice the workforce and each family requires both parents working to pay the bills. In reality, women had the golden goose, and feminism has tricked them into surrendering it. It's one thing to advocate for what women want and what is fair, but it's another thing to advocate for what a few vocal women want without asking the rest of them what they want. It's especially sickening to consider the negative affects this is having on families, and on children. And it hurts the struggling minority communities even harder.

Give your head a shake, and double-check your facts. Question where you got these ideas from, and question their evidence. You may mean well, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

I grow weary of refuting your BS. You're brainwashed bambam.

Despite being 'held back' by girls, boys still outperform women when it comes to wages. And yes, money is one of the largest deciding factors in whether or not to pursue a career. And child birth is a career ender.

I simply don't have time to waste spouting brainwashed gibberish like you all day.

::)

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

{"name":"1200px-CheckmateProper.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/5\/a54c81d2edc66ad40c283a66f8ae9bbf.jpg","w":1200,"h":839,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/5\/a54c81d2edc66ad40c283a66f8ae9bbf"}1200px-CheckmateProper.jpg

Everybody knows that the one with the winning argument surrenders.

Post Reply


Go to: