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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carolyn who wrote (2033)	12/8/2003 8:00:30 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

That he (presumably, he) would even phrase it that way just struck me as funny. ;-)

To: Carolyn who wrote (2033)	12/8/2003 8:26:42 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 90947

Plus, the liberals don't understand that the Women's Movement caused women to be worse off today than they were before this thing got started! You really can't be serious. I'm sure there are some people who honestly believe what you do, and then maybe an equal number that think this way with a base emotion of jealousy or envy. But that has to be the fringe. I don't think too many women want to go back to the days when they had 3 options in their careers, teaching, nursing or secretarial. Mostly I find that when people try to downplay "womens issues", like say the abortion debate, it is because they are unable to cope with the situation at hand, so they try to downplay it. Like, "I can vote on this pro life bill and satisfy my constituency because these womens issues are overdone." The truth is these issues are just as hot as they ever were. In Bush's case he is no friend to women but it doesn't matter because he doesn't have too many friends anyway!

To: Carolyn who wrote (2033)	12/8/2003 10:14:29 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

Here's my perspective regarding women and what faces them in today's world: Women want choices. They should be entitled to choices. However, for many women, the possible choices do not include being a full time wife and mother (i.e., a stay at home mom) In some cases, this is because the family needs the second income. In other cases, it's because the family, the wife and/or the husband LIKE the second income more than they LIKE the idea of full time caring for the kids. In still other cases, it's because women feel they MUST work outside the home in order to feel like real, and worthwhile, persons. (Remember Hillary's disparaging comments about the fact that she didn't sit at home and bake cookies?) If the women's movement is to be considered a success, it seems to me that the outcome has to be one of choice. ( The same goes for men. There are stay at home husbands. Sometimes the economics dictate that outcome. (She makes more than he does. He lost his job. He likes to cook, whereas she hates it. Whatever.) But cutting to the very bottom line, whether a person has an array of viable choices depends on other choices they made: -dropping out of school vs. going to college -getting pregnant at age 16 vs. not doing that -taking a grocery checker's job at age 20 and staying in it until age 50, instead of trying to improve one's wage earning capacity. Now, lest you think I am being unfair, bear in mind that working shifts in a grocery store, while physically tiring while one is on duty, does not involve the cumulative stresses faced by those with more responsible jobs. Accordingly, it's a trade off. Any career and family choices a person makes necessarily has an effect on his or her lifestyle. And you can't blame everything on government. That's too facile and a cop out. I myself am a beneficiary of the women's movement, having entered what was once a predominantly male profession. I'm very grateful for the opportunities I've had. But, not one of those opportunities would have come to me had I not worked my way through school, as a starving student, earned a scholarship, taken out student loans, eschewed long vacations and basically worked my u-know-what off. I know many women from my high school class who never attended college and who chose other paths which limited their choices (primarily from a financial standpoint). So, yes, the women's movement was a good thing. It opened the options for women. But how each woman uses those options is entirely up to her. (Just like it is for men.) Do I think that's bad? No. Did women have it easier in some respects before the women's revolution? Maybe yes in some cases. There was less pressure to make choices, because the choices were more limited and more traditional. just my 2 cents.