Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (53898)	6/21/1999 7:52:00 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

<<Because, women are underpaid relative to men, thats the real issue in economic terms.>> Maybe 20 years ago.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (53898)	6/21/1999 11:23:00 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 67261

<<...just out of curiosity... did it even occur to you...>> Michelle, I am 46 years old. I lived through the years of cultural upheaval that defined "social movements" in America. Everyone in my age bracket has been satiated with electronic media, literature, political activity, etc. to make the glaring point that we don't live in bonanza land. Some people are deliberately very Archie Bunkerish about it and some people are very educated about the issues and happen to disagree with your position. What do the latter attribute to the formation of their position on this subject? You might say blind allegence to the doctrine of their religion. Yet, if you are as aware of the 60's and 70's as you say, then you know that most churches in the USA were nearly empty vessels during that time. These people, some religious, some not, went through a long period of introspection seriously considering all aspects of the "gender" gap/harmony/disharmony/war/condition. It is a question worth looking into before pigeon holing everyone as coming from one place? In addition to that, I have performed formal study on the issues of gender equity in the work place. I consider you a qualified spokesperson on nontraditional women challenging the glass ceiling phenomenon. I also consider you very naive or insensitive regarding the struggles of traditional women in the work place. There is also a great deal of study that you could do to give yourself a more well rounded view of upwardly mobile business women. To answer your original question, yes I have considered a world where women's earning power is equal to mens. In fact "all things being equal" it is now. The problem is what you call "all things being equal" really means that "all things are the same." Which they are not nor will they ever be. The idea of a world of unisex roles, may sound utopian in its simplicity, but this life is diverse, rich and interesting. Complimentary beings are far more interesting that finding others just like yourself or trying to force everyone to be the same. In general we live in a world where men and women still seek long term committed relationships. Relationships that result in families. Some give up on that, some try but fail, many are successful. The goals you have in your life are your own. They in no way represent the dreams of the average woman. Just out of curiosity, have you considered that?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (53898)	6/22/1999 3:53:00 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Anyway, that was just an attention getter. The research coming out is full of the negative effects of absent fathers. I've got a feeling you've had a blind eye to it. Oh well, we now have a whole generation where the popular culture dismissed fatherhood as an unessential element to the home, or even a nuisance factor. Some folks are going to have to eat some crow if we are ever to clean this mess up. Problem is we probably wont and the next generation will hold it over our heads to the grave.