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: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (1245)	9/1/2006 10:22:17 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

And your reasoning seems to rely on the belief that things can't change regardless of how modern society has made it possible for them to do so. You are late to the game. Society has already acted on many of the largest issues that forced women into secondclass citizenship. Having already agreed that there can't be biological parity between men and women, I am not sure why that means men can't adjust to women putting on shoes, taking birth control, and having a life that includes the mind and the outside world. I hear many stories about men not wanting their wives to stay home because they want the income. This is just as terrible as women leaving their children in inadequate childcare to pursue a career ahead of their family's welfare. But I also know many, many women who postpone or quit career paths to stay home, with the agreement of their husbands. This is what I see as the ideal solution-- a partnership that allows for mutually satisfying roles and choices. I believe that's the balance we are now in the process of establishing. I am sure you are aware that the advent of the mommy raising kids in the way we believe best is also a pretty new concept. CHanging roles hardly seems the slouching beast you seem to believe, imo. So please, would you explain to me why our working together to achieve a world where men and women are allowed to pursue satisfying lives, whatever they are, is destructive. Given the changes of the past century, where did you suddenly think, "whoa! that's enough? You can vote, but you can't participate in society the way men do"? It seems you are quite willing to deny this access to women, even though our ability to compete is equal. THe traditional role of protector has changed. As long as people place the welfare of the family first-- and this requires maturity and some sublimation of self on both parts, rather than just the female- we are not on the verge of self-destruction. THe biological role will always be fulfilled. Or as Ian Malcolm so eloquently said in Jurassic Park, "I'm simply saying that life, uh... finds a way."

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (1245)	9/1/2006 10:52:45 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

I want women to have a choice to be what they want because that is what I want. I meant to comment on this. This isn't about "I want because I want" in a trivial way. A person in servitude "wants" freedom. A person in pain "wants" relief. It may be your opinion that this is a blithe, frivolous and selfish desire on the part of women to have wanted equal rights and opportunities, but I don't believe you will be in the majority. And the argument is no longer should these things have happened; they have happened.