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 : Polite Political Discussion- is it Possible? An Experiment. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (1225)	8/31/2006 2:08:46 PM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

You are trying to finesse this issue. You are trying to make it seem that women should and can have a different existence than they have had for most of human recorded history simply because they want to and it is easier and better for them as individuals, and that this new role will not cost either men or society. Furthermore, you are trying to spin their past role by putting the pejorative of "regressive" on it thereby implying or imparting a negative to it. Like it or not that is the role women had. Before you blithely attempt to toss it into the dustbin of history for the benefit of your personhood, I think it has to be asked why societies organized themselves that way. The different role of women from their traditional role is a very very recent phenomenon and it has not been existence long enough to establish that it will work for society. The larger question(s)is (are),IMHO, what are the implications for society of women's parity, and also, why should men accept it? Do not tell me that women's parity will not come at the expense of men. It already has and will continue to do so (Talk to all the male wrestlers on the college level who lost their scholarships as women's sports teams achieved parity.) Why should men put up with this simply become women want it? We don't have to put up with it if we don't want to. Unless women can convince men it is their best interests also that women achieve parity, I don't think this experiment will be a success. Aside from men's own selfish reasons for questioning whether parity will work for them, it has to be asked if it will work for the whole. Modern women assert that it can and will and there will be no going back. The truth of the matter is that this is an experiment in uncharted, and I think, dangerous waters. We have broken a mold and not replaced it. The longterm results of this are unknown. Lastly, I disagree with your characterization that women weren't protected by men. For most of human history women literally couldn't live without the protection of men---from the assault of other men or the forces of nature. The roles of the sexes, are deeply embedded in the archetypical human psyche, and it is not lightly that we should cast them aside without wondering what this rendering will achieve. This, I grant you, flies in the face of modern feminism, but history of the human race will not be ignored.

To: Rambi who wrote (1225)	8/31/2006 5:19:05 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 1695

Obviously it's a problem for men to have to compete for jobs against women. After all, there are so MANY women, and now they are all going to college, and dang it if they aren't doing well. That must be annoying. Sure, families suffer, because men aren't terribly interested in picking up the slack at home left by their working wives, and children wind up (often) in substandard care, because this country sucks at providing child care. What to do? Well, I don't see women wanting to go back to picking up the house and raising the kids even if they could afford to. Oh sure, some idealists will give up lucrative careers to do it, but most won't. So what do we do? Workarounds, imo. We need to train boys to do more in the home, and make sure they expect to do more. We need to disabuse them of the notion that all that classic literature they read, that may reflect women in "traditional" roles, does not reflect the women of today. The Beaver's mom is no longer available (or ever alive, I think- but maybe I have prematurely killed her, however she's very old, and probably not looking for husbands). We need good school site daycare- to try to give kids intellectual stimulation, and good physical activities, to eliminate the patchiness of truly bad daycare. I don't know what we do about infants. Women are leaving their infants so early, and they just don't get the stimulation in day care that a mom would give. But what can you do? Women don't want to be second class citizens. I can't say I blame them. Men set the system up to make women second class- it's no wonder that once civilization got a bit more civilized, and women got educated, they realized it, and weren't as interested in playing along. When you free a captive people, they aren't always all that grateful to the folks who kept them in bondage. It's sad for men, but there you are. Sometimes the sins of the fathers are visited on the sons. I'm sorry for America's kids, of course, but there are ways to work around women in the labor force.