Women's Rights
cfrizz
Posts: 13,415
I had to address this little bit from James.
Monogamy doesn't really exist now if all the people who are cheating on thier spouses have anything to say about it.
Religion had ZERO bearing on womens rights when this country first came to be. Or any other country for that matter!
Here is a little bit of reading for you James, you obviously missed this in history class:
The Women's Movement
“To have drunkards, idiots, horse racing rum-selling rowdies, ignorant foreigners, and silly boys fully recognized, while we ourselves are thrust out from all the rights that belong to citizens, is too grossly insulting to be longer quietly submitted to. The right is ours. We must have it (Rynder 3). “
This quote from one of Cady Stanton's speeches shows what great injustices women had to suffer. Stanton is saying that even the scum of the earth had more rights than highly cultured women.
In many aspects of life, women's rights were dramatically less than those of men. Women were not allowed to vote, yet they had to pay taxes. Women were subjects of their husbands, and expected to do all of the house work. The fight for women's rights, also known as the women's movement, changed women's civil rights, social rights, and opened doors for generations of women to come.
The most important civil right that women were denied of was the right to vote. When the United States became a country, women were never included in which people had the right to vote. The right to vote in our country was restricted to white men that owned property.
Women wanted this right. The women's movement was already in action before the civil war. Women were fighting for suffrage, the right to vote, and prohibition, which would outlaw alcohol. During the war, women's attentions were diverted to war issues, but the movement was strong again after the war.
In the United States, individual states decided who was allowed to vote. In the western frontier states men and women had to work equally hard to survive, and men recognized this. In light of this fact, women were given the privilege of voting. When the civil war ended, all of the slaves were free. This was also the time when women strove their hardest to pass an amendment that would give women the right to vote (Sigerman 3).
With all the slaves free, the men and women would want suffrage, and they joined in the fight. One of the women that stands out in history as being a leader in the women's movement was Susan B. Anthony. When Anthony voted in the election of 1872, she did so illegally. As a result of her action, Anthony and 16 other women were arrested. They were then released on bail and were ordered to appear before a grand jury. Susan was found guilty and given a sentence to pay $100 and the cost of persecution. She was never forced to pay.
Before this, the women's movement had suffered its largest blow on February 3, 1870 when the 15th amendment was passed. The amendment stopped states from denying citizens the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, but said nothing about not discriminating based on sex. In this amendment, men were saying that the African-American men they had enslaved were of higher stature than their own wives (Stevenson 54).
Despite this setback women continued to work for suffrage. Stanton and other wrote the Sentiments and Resolution 9 in order to get more people to join in the fight. Many women worked hard to achieve suffrage, and finally they got it. In 1920 the 19th amendment was finally passed giving women the most important civil right, the right to vote.
Beside not having the right to vote, women did not have the basic civil right of owning property. When a women entered into marriage, it was believed that the husband and wife became one unit. The husband was considered the head of that unit. If a women owned any property, when she was married, it would legally become her husbands.
Besides not owning plain property, women were not allowed to own businesses either. It was believed that it was the husband's duty to make money for the family. A women may have been able to sell a few goods out of her home, but that was the extend of it. Over time women were given more freedom from their husbands.
They were allowed to receive some possessions in a divorce, and women started opening their own businesses. Today women have the same opportunities to own property as men (Chafe 53). Along with civil rights, women's social rights were not equal to those of men. Women were to be submissive to their husbands. As wives, women's were expected to perform all of the household duties. They were expected to cook, clean, and take care of the children (Chafe 67).
As the women's movement went on, new methods of performing these duties became available. Catherine Beeches wrote The New Housekeeper's Manual. showing women how to lay out their homes in order to save time, and create a cleaner, more comfortable home (Rydner 2).
New appliances such as toasters and washing machines started becoming available to aid women with their chores. Today men and women do housework, and our society has a lot of new technology that helps with housework.
Before about 1900, were still not able to control their own bodies, and were not allowed to use birth control. A woman was bound by law to her husband. She was forced to consent to his wishes. If she did not, it was legal for him to beat her as punishment (Rydner 34). A women was not allowed to control whether or not she wanted children.
Before 1873 women could learn about birth control through advertisements in women's magazines. This right was taken away from women in 1873 when Congress passed the Comstock Act after Mr. Comstock's prodding. This law prohibited selling distributing, or mailing obscene literature and defined contraceptive devices and any information about them as obscene.
The new form of birth control was voluntary motherhood (Rydner 37). Supporters of this form stated that if women were able to have children when they wanted to, the women would have happier, healthier children because they were wanted. In order to use this form of birth control, women needed the right to say no to their husbands.
Some religions encouraged this practice because it prevented sexual excess. It is not known to what extent this method worked, but from 1800 to 1900 the birthrate among American women declined by about one half (Ryder 39). Today, women are allowed to use birth control, and in some cases, are encouraged to do so. Different religions say different things on what to use for birth control, and every women has to decide for herself what is best. Material is made widely available for women to research and find answers to their questions.
It only became illegal for a man to beat his wife in the 1970's. Protection of children from child abuse came years later after that.
So please don't try to convince me that marriage was the salvation of women! Regardless of what religion, they simply went from being the property of their fathers to being the property of their husbands!
jdhdiggs wrote:BTW: Monogomy only exists because of religion, not in spite of it. Without religion there would be no marriage and humans would act more like packs of dogs or a pride of lions with the dominant males humping everything in site and the non-dominants getting what they can. Womens and family rights wouldn't exist. Yup, religion defining relationships is EVIL!!!!! :rolleyes:
Monogamy doesn't really exist now if all the people who are cheating on thier spouses have anything to say about it.
Religion had ZERO bearing on womens rights when this country first came to be. Or any other country for that matter!
Here is a little bit of reading for you James, you obviously missed this in history class:
The Women's Movement
“To have drunkards, idiots, horse racing rum-selling rowdies, ignorant foreigners, and silly boys fully recognized, while we ourselves are thrust out from all the rights that belong to citizens, is too grossly insulting to be longer quietly submitted to. The right is ours. We must have it (Rynder 3). “
This quote from one of Cady Stanton's speeches shows what great injustices women had to suffer. Stanton is saying that even the scum of the earth had more rights than highly cultured women.
In many aspects of life, women's rights were dramatically less than those of men. Women were not allowed to vote, yet they had to pay taxes. Women were subjects of their husbands, and expected to do all of the house work. The fight for women's rights, also known as the women's movement, changed women's civil rights, social rights, and opened doors for generations of women to come.
The most important civil right that women were denied of was the right to vote. When the United States became a country, women were never included in which people had the right to vote. The right to vote in our country was restricted to white men that owned property.
Women wanted this right. The women's movement was already in action before the civil war. Women were fighting for suffrage, the right to vote, and prohibition, which would outlaw alcohol. During the war, women's attentions were diverted to war issues, but the movement was strong again after the war.
In the United States, individual states decided who was allowed to vote. In the western frontier states men and women had to work equally hard to survive, and men recognized this. In light of this fact, women were given the privilege of voting. When the civil war ended, all of the slaves were free. This was also the time when women strove their hardest to pass an amendment that would give women the right to vote (Sigerman 3).
With all the slaves free, the men and women would want suffrage, and they joined in the fight. One of the women that stands out in history as being a leader in the women's movement was Susan B. Anthony. When Anthony voted in the election of 1872, she did so illegally. As a result of her action, Anthony and 16 other women were arrested. They were then released on bail and were ordered to appear before a grand jury. Susan was found guilty and given a sentence to pay $100 and the cost of persecution. She was never forced to pay.
Before this, the women's movement had suffered its largest blow on February 3, 1870 when the 15th amendment was passed. The amendment stopped states from denying citizens the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, but said nothing about not discriminating based on sex. In this amendment, men were saying that the African-American men they had enslaved were of higher stature than their own wives (Stevenson 54).
Despite this setback women continued to work for suffrage. Stanton and other wrote the Sentiments and Resolution 9 in order to get more people to join in the fight. Many women worked hard to achieve suffrage, and finally they got it. In 1920 the 19th amendment was finally passed giving women the most important civil right, the right to vote.
Beside not having the right to vote, women did not have the basic civil right of owning property. When a women entered into marriage, it was believed that the husband and wife became one unit. The husband was considered the head of that unit. If a women owned any property, when she was married, it would legally become her husbands.
Besides not owning plain property, women were not allowed to own businesses either. It was believed that it was the husband's duty to make money for the family. A women may have been able to sell a few goods out of her home, but that was the extend of it. Over time women were given more freedom from their husbands.
They were allowed to receive some possessions in a divorce, and women started opening their own businesses. Today women have the same opportunities to own property as men (Chafe 53). Along with civil rights, women's social rights were not equal to those of men. Women were to be submissive to their husbands. As wives, women's were expected to perform all of the household duties. They were expected to cook, clean, and take care of the children (Chafe 67).
As the women's movement went on, new methods of performing these duties became available. Catherine Beeches wrote The New Housekeeper's Manual. showing women how to lay out their homes in order to save time, and create a cleaner, more comfortable home (Rydner 2).
New appliances such as toasters and washing machines started becoming available to aid women with their chores. Today men and women do housework, and our society has a lot of new technology that helps with housework.
Before about 1900, were still not able to control their own bodies, and were not allowed to use birth control. A woman was bound by law to her husband. She was forced to consent to his wishes. If she did not, it was legal for him to beat her as punishment (Rydner 34). A women was not allowed to control whether or not she wanted children.
Before 1873 women could learn about birth control through advertisements in women's magazines. This right was taken away from women in 1873 when Congress passed the Comstock Act after Mr. Comstock's prodding. This law prohibited selling distributing, or mailing obscene literature and defined contraceptive devices and any information about them as obscene.
The new form of birth control was voluntary motherhood (Rydner 37). Supporters of this form stated that if women were able to have children when they wanted to, the women would have happier, healthier children because they were wanted. In order to use this form of birth control, women needed the right to say no to their husbands.
Some religions encouraged this practice because it prevented sexual excess. It is not known to what extent this method worked, but from 1800 to 1900 the birthrate among American women declined by about one half (Ryder 39). Today, women are allowed to use birth control, and in some cases, are encouraged to do so. Different religions say different things on what to use for birth control, and every women has to decide for herself what is best. Material is made widely available for women to research and find answers to their questions.
It only became illegal for a man to beat his wife in the 1970's. Protection of children from child abuse came years later after that.
So please don't try to convince me that marriage was the salvation of women! Regardless of what religion, they simply went from being the property of their fathers to being the property of their husbands!
Marantz AV-7705 PrePro, Classé 5 channel 200wpc Amp, Oppo 103 BluRay, Rotel RCD-1072 CDP, Sony XBR-49X800E TV, Polk S60 Main Speakers, Polk ES30 Center Channel, Polk S15 Surround Speakers SVS SB12-NSD x2
Post edited by RyanC_Masimo on
Comments
-
Who said progress was always a good thing?
BDTI plan for the future. - F1Nut -
I'm with you. I'm definitely for women's rights over any religios beliefs.
-
ah, the good old days
Living Room 2 Channel -
Schiit SYS Passive Pre. Jolida CD player. Songbird streamer. California Audio Labs Sigma II DAC, DIY 300as1/a1 Ice modules Class D amp. LSi15 with MM842 woofer upgrade, Nordost Blue Heaven and Unity interconnects.
Upstairs 2 Channel Rig -
Prometheus Ref. TVC passive pre, SAE A-205 Amp, Wiim pro streamer and Topping E50 DAC, California Audio Labs DX1 CD player, Von Schweikert VR3.5 speakers.
Studio Rig - Scarlett 18i20(Gen3) DAW, Mac Mini, Aiyma A07 Max (BridgedX2), Totem Mites -
Hmm. They have rights? Well I'll be. Maybe being up on these kinds of things will help out my luck a bit.
In UseGeorge Grand wrote: »
PS3, Yamaha CDR-HD1300, Plex, Amazon Fire TV Gen 2
Pioneer Elite VSX-52, Parasound HCA-1000A
Klipsch RF-82ii, RC-62ii, RS-42ii, RW-10d
Epson 8700UB
In Storage
[Home Audio]
Rotel RCD-02, Yamaha KX-W900U, Sony ST-S500ES, Denon DP-7F
Pro-Ject Phono Box MKII, Parasound P/HP-850, ASL Wave 20 monoblocks
Klipsch RF-35, RB-51ii
[Car Audio]
Pioneer Premier DEH-P860MP, Memphis 16-MCA3004, Boston Acoustic RC520 -
As with all rights comes responsibilities.
Like making sure their husband's pot pie is cooked, but not overly cooked so as to make the crust less than flaky, thereby upsetting the husband.
........okay, put the gun down. :rolleyes:
Nice post there Cfrizz.Sal Palooza -
Nice post Cathy.....
Seems AB wants to keep 'tang to just his computer screen for the rest of his life.........;)comment comment comment comment. bitchy. -
Religion has zero bearing on monogomy in general. There are species other than humans that are inherently monogomous - they choose a mate for life.
But Cathy is exactly right. Religion has kept women's rights in the background for thousands of years. Most religions just further establish the dominance of males in society. Most religions were invented in order to keep the status quo going. The heirarchy of the religion always reflects the hierarchy of the region where the religion was born. And since men invented them, not only did they try to keep certain people in power, they tried to keep MEN in power as well.
It's obviously worked all right for me, being a guy, but... If you will it, dude, it is no dream. -
Once again, someone missed the point and read what they wanted to into it. I need to read history? Something tells me the only history you know comes from government schools. Try reading history a LITTLE closer next time and go a LITTLE further back (say 400,000 years if you're into evolution or 6,000 if your not) and be a LITTLE more informed...
Monogomy is NOT in the human desire pattern (Marriage and cheating). Yes, other animals mate for life but not humans, it's not natural to the species. So that fact is meaningless.
As for womens rights, look to the animal kingdom as to what womens rights would be without formal societal patterns. Who or what formed the earliest laws and societal patterns? Answer: Religion. Without these for a basis, as backwards as they might have been, women would have and still would be viewed as mere objects to have and pass around amongst the men. To believe that we would have gone from cave man patterns to women owning property and having abortions without laws based on religion is ignorant at best.
The right to vote? You might want to look as to who was the true silent majority in that movement. Same with the rest of your "post". If you knew what was going on behind the scenes you'd see how uninformed you are.
Yes, most religions do put women in the background, but they tend to do it as a sign of respect, as misguided as it is. If you look at the intent, typically it is to "protect" them from whatever.
The next time you want to call me out, be a little more educated on the topic please, this is tiresome.
Here you go, you want to disprove my point: Argue how humans could have moved from cavemen to equal rights and protections for women WITHOUT involvement from religion or the laws that having a religion would generate. That was my point. Try looking at the broader world sometime. There is more to it the the 20th century US.There is no genuine justice in any scheme of feeding and coddling the loafer whose only ponderable energies are devoted wholly to reproduction. Nine-tenths of the rights he bellows for are really privileges and he does nothing to deserve them. We not only acquired a vast population of morons, we have inculcated all morons, old or young, with the doctrine that the decent and industrious people of the country are bound to support them for all time.-Menkin -
How's the view from that high horse, professor?If you will it, dude, it is no dream.
-
Hehe, I haven't been a prof for 6 years now...
BTW, who did the calling out first? I didn't see you responding to the arrogance of the first post, so what's changed?
Anyway, I'm done with this crap. Everyone is going to view it through their preconcieved ideas and views and nothing will ever be accomplished.There is no genuine justice in any scheme of feeding and coddling the loafer whose only ponderable energies are devoted wholly to reproduction. Nine-tenths of the rights he bellows for are really privileges and he does nothing to deserve them. We not only acquired a vast population of morons, we have inculcated all morons, old or young, with the doctrine that the decent and industrious people of the country are bound to support them for all time.-Menkin -
You did with the **** you posted in the other thread! I simply responded with some more current facts. You call it misguieded protection. I call it sexist monopolization which is still being combatted to this day.Marantz AV-7705 PrePro, Classé 5 channel 200wpc Amp, Oppo 103 BluRay, Rotel RCD-1072 CDP, Sony XBR-49X800E TV, Polk S60 Main Speakers, Polk ES30 Center Channel, Polk S15 Surround Speakers SVS SB12-NSD x2
-
You seem to be afraid for anyone to disagree with you without bringing up all this "preconceived notion" garbage.
(Apologies in advance to any religious folk for the below statements... )
Even if you are right about human beings natural proclivity towards non-monogamy, taht doesn't mean religion was the only path to where we are now. What separates humans from other animals is our unique ability to reason, and to feel compassion. We haven't evolved from our animal roots (sorry to Creationists) simply by adhering to religion. There is a conscious effort involved in forming a society. To say taht without religion, we would have formed societies that simply followed all of our animalistic urges is overly simplistic. Someone formed the ideas behind religions. Those people obviously had a vision of society and the way it "shoudl be". Where did those ideas come from? Someone at some point said "monogamy is good." Someone at some point made a conscious decision to treat certain people certain ways, and those decisions were not always just based on animal instinct.
Just telling peopel they're wrong and uninformed and getting ANGRY for whatever reason doesn't make your opinion or view of the world right.If you will it, dude, it is no dream. -
jdhdiggs wrote:
Monogomy is NOT in the human desire pattern (Marriage and cheating). Yes, other animals mate for life but not humans, it's not natural to the species.
This statment is without merit. The first law of life is preservation of the species. "No man is an island." We need others to help us, to protect us, and to teach us survival skills. This is the function of the family -- the core component of any civilized nation. If the family structure breaks down, then so goes the nation. Strong families cannot be built with daddy's infidelity. Such behavior perpetuates the development weak men who cannot control their sexual urges, and it creates inappropriate competition among women for the attention of men (i.e., promiscuity).
Just because we have these natural urges does not mean we have to act upon them in ways that only satisfies our individual desires. To imply that monogamy is not a human desire pattern is a misapplication of this principle.HT/2-channel Rig: Sony 50 LCD TV; Toshiba HD-A2 DVD player; Emotiva LMC-1 pre/pro; Rogue Audio M-120 monoblocks (modded); Placette RVC; Emotiva LPA-1 amp; Bada HD-22 tube CDP (modded); VMPS Tower II SE (fronts); DIY Clearwave Dynamic 4CC (center); Wharfedale Opus Tri-Surrounds (rear); and VMPS 215 sub
"God grooves with tubes." -
I've never understood how such a sharp dileneation can be drawn between a "pre-societal" evolutionary scheme and that which exists today.
I agree wholeheartedly with Early B.... the practice of monagamy fits just as well into the framework of evolution, though it is often dismissed as a trivial artifact of recent times.
As Early pointed out, monogamy serves a purpose -- mainly the survival of the species. Moreover, "Spreading the seed" is overly simplistic.I never had it like this where I grew up. But I send my kids here because the fact is you go to one of the best schools in the country: Rushmore. Now, for some of you it doesn't matter. You were born rich and you're going to stay rich. But here's my advice to the rest of you: Take dead aim on the rich boys. Get them in the crosshairs and take them down. Just remember, they can buy anything but they can't buy backbone. Don't let them forget it. Thank you.Herman Blume - Rushmore -
bobman1235 wrote:You seem to be afraid for anyone to disagree with you without bringing up all this "preconceived notion" garbage.
(Apologies in advance to any religious folk for the below statements... )
Even if you are right about human beings natural proclivity towards non-monogamy, taht doesn't mean religion was the only path to where we are now. What separates humans from other animals is our unique ability to reason, and to feel compassion. We haven't evolved from our animal roots (sorry to Creationists) simply by adhering to religion. There is a conscious effort involved in forming a society. To say taht without religion, we would have formed societies that simply followed all of our animalistic urges is overly simplistic. Someone formed the ideas behind religions. Those people obviously had a vision of society and the way it "shoudl be". Where did those ideas come from? Someone at some point said "monogamy is good." Someone at some point made a conscious decision to treat certain people certain ways, and those decisions were not always just based on animal instinct.
Just telling peopel they're wrong and uninformed and getting ANGRY for whatever reason doesn't make your opinion or view of the world right.
I think he's getting annoyed because the bulk of the board has opinions they have no clue about the dynamics of. There's being informed, and knowing what your opinion actually means, and then there's having an opinion and just not knowing what the hell you're talking about.
'Oh, I think I know more about homosexuality than you because I am ****.' :rolleyes: Okay, Confucious -- didn't know being meant all knowing.
Whatever, we all have brains, but I doubt many of us are qualified to perform brain surgery. It's the same thing here. 'Oh, I'm a woman, you don't know.' How do you explain all the women pushing against the feminazi movement then? Men and women are different, so stop trying to make them the same. Think a man has the same affect on an infant as a nurturing mother? No chance. Neither sex can be replaced and they're both needed to varying degrees.
Nobody really wants to recognize differences, we just want to make everyone who is different exactly the same with no unique properties. I can't think of anything more boring. Society evolves, but pushing it where it was never meant to go does more harm than good.
The Woman's sufferage was by and large a good thing. Taking it to an extreme is a joke. You want equal pay? How does an employer know you're not going to get pregnant? Women are a bigger risk in the workplace, but the rest of the world is supposed to pay for their special needs. What a load of crap. If you really want equality can we get rid of the paid leave benefits? That's just one example of the whole women's rights thing that was never intended, but simply hijacked by militant feminists. You ladies can blame them for the bulk of today's woes. -
Demi, no offense, but I think you're confusing a lot of issues. Yes, the feminazi movement is often ridiculous. But i think there's an obvious difference between giving women the same RIGHTS as any other human being deserves and trying to treat them as EQUALS.
And your equal pay argument is kind of backwards. Pay is based on quality of work, not the idea that someone might "get pregnant." Most companies offer paternity leave nowadays anyways, so who's to say that a man's wife won't get pregnant and he'll leave for a month?
I think something more along the lines of waht you're saying would be women in the military, or being firefighters. Sure, if they're equally strong as a man vying for the job, they should be allowed to get it, but forcing women into the mix who are less qualified simply because of gender equality is forcing a false equality where one does not exist.If you will it, dude, it is no dream. -
Barefoot and pregant I say, lighten up guys:D
CRj -
bobman1235 wrote:Demi, no offense, but I think you're confusing a lot of issues. Yes, the feminazi movement is often ridiculous. But i think there's an obvious difference between giving women the same RIGHTS as any other human being deserves and trying to treat them as EQUALS.
And your equal pay argument is kind of backwards. Pay is based on quality of work, not the idea that someone might "get pregnant." Most companies offer paternity leave nowadays anyways, so who's to say that a man's wife won't get pregnant and he'll leave for a month?
I think something more along the lines of waht you're saying would be women in the military, or being firefighters. Sure, if they're equally strong as a man vying for the job, they should be allowed to get it, but forcing women into the mix who are less qualified simply because of gender equality is forcing a false equality where one does not exist.
I think I recognized in my post the highlights of women's sufferage, and the women's rights movement that by and large it was a good thing. The point I was making is that the entire movement has been hijacked by the entitlement crowd like the first poster seems to be a part of. It really runs the line of the typical mentality of these types. I read her business bashing posts in other threads, sue happy mentality she seems to have, and so it's no surprise the same na -
Never really thought of the insurance implications, so I will definitely cede that point. I know you're a business owner, so I really can't argue costs of owning and operating a business with you, you'll definitely win that argument.
I'm also not a woman, so I'm not going to fight that hard on this topic anymore. I'm spent. If you will it, dude, it is no dream. -
Early: Humans would develop into packs, not family units. Look at high school cliques for modern examples in humans.
I'll take the position of evolution is fact since most of the people arguing assume that it is a fact, so:
Studies into the neandertal and other early humans and great apes do show them forming family units, but not the nuclear family that modern humans define. In fact, they more resemble packs of families where the females may have favorites but are always available to be taken by a dominent at anytime.
You want to see how humans would evolve without religion and laws, look at research on the great ape species. See how the females of the species influence the pack and how many rights they have and how they are treated by the males. (no laws or governenment that I'm aware of was ever formed without religion as a basis, even communism has a religious basis, you just need to think about it)
Great ape view of human behavior: Both the men and the women would have multiple partners. The female drive for multiple partners is that any child born would be protected by all suiters as no one would know whose it is, typically this would be for the more submissive of females. Now once a female has seduced the strongest male, she will vie for monogamy with that one since he provides the greatest benifits to her and offspring (goldiggers anyone?) Or she might force monogamy on a subserviant male (P-whipped anyone?). However, she would still be subject to the dominent male (how many P-whipped guys get cheated on, anyone, anyone? Usually with a biker or the captain of the football team right?)
The dominent male will never want the monogamy for himself, but would fight to protect "his" females from other males. The submissive male will accept it just because it provide him the oppurtunity to mate.
Face it, this is what humans would be without the rule of law which is based on the mythology that the group adheres to, misguided or not.
One rhetorical question: How come we keep trying to point out differences between people and then demand equal rights/oppurtunities?There is no genuine justice in any scheme of feeding and coddling the loafer whose only ponderable energies are devoted wholly to reproduction. Nine-tenths of the rights he bellows for are really privileges and he does nothing to deserve them. We not only acquired a vast population of morons, we have inculcated all morons, old or young, with the doctrine that the decent and industrious people of the country are bound to support them for all time.-Menkin -
bobman1235 wrote:Never really thought of the insurance implications, so I will definitely cede that point. I know you're a business owner, so I really can't argue costs of owning and operating a business with you, you'll definitely win that argument.
I'm also not a woman, so I'm not going to fight that hard on this topic anymore. I'm spent.
I think we're on the same page there anyhow. It's just if you look at it from a base salary standpoint it's going to look unfair, when in reality it's much more in line with getting what you pay for. Larger businesses can offer better packages, but watch when they cut back on the benefits. The same people go nuts as if they're entitled to it. That I just don't get. Businesses are forced to be competitive. -
If you will it, dude, it is no dream.
-
-
If you want to believe that you evolved from an ape, feel free to do so. It conveniently allows you to justify immoral, animalistc behavior as "natural," denies your will (freedom to choose), impedes rational thinking, and absolves you from responsibility of your actions.
For instance, when you screw around on your wife or girlfriend and she finds out, just blame it on your ape ancestors! She'll understand, forgive you, apologize for bringing it up, then cook you some dinner and a pie.HT/2-channel Rig: Sony 50 LCD TV; Toshiba HD-A2 DVD player; Emotiva LMC-1 pre/pro; Rogue Audio M-120 monoblocks (modded); Placette RVC; Emotiva LPA-1 amp; Bada HD-22 tube CDP (modded); VMPS Tower II SE (fronts); DIY Clearwave Dynamic 4CC (center); Wharfedale Opus Tri-Surrounds (rear); and VMPS 215 sub
"God grooves with tubes." -
Early B. wrote:If you want to believe that you evolved from an ape, feel free to do so. It conveniently allows you to justify immoral, animalistc behavior as "natural," denies your will (freedom to choose), impedes rational thinking, and absolves you from responsibility of your actions.
For instance, when you screw around on your wife or girlfriend and she finds out, just blame it on your ape ancestors! She'll understand, forgive you, apologize for bringing it up, then cook you some dinner and a pie.
AMEN!!!
And I do get offended when spirtuality is equated to mythology."SOME PEOPLE CALL ME MAURICE,
CAUSE I SPEAK OF THE POMPITIOUS OF LOVE" -
Demiurge wrote:A man making $50,000 salary in my business is not in any way shape or form the same as a woman making $50,000 in my business. Not with all of the additional expenses that come along with that $50K salary offered to a woman.
Women are different, and so are men. On that point we agree. The idea that pay should be equal is a joke. You should pay for what you get, and often time with women you're not getting 100% of what you paid for. Just a fact of life.
What about infertile women, should they get paid as much as men? -
jdhdiggs wrote:One rhetorical question: How come we keep trying to point out differences between people and then demand equal rights/oppurtunities?
Because differences should not dictate your rights, MAYBE some opportunities, but not rights."SOME PEOPLE CALL ME MAURICE,
CAUSE I SPEAK OF THE POMPITIOUS OF LOVE" -
ND13 wrote:AMEN!!!
And I do get offended when spirtuality is equated to mythology.
Dont' equate spirituality with organized religion. All of what I spoke about above was about the organization / heirarchy of religion, not the "meat" of it. For example, the heirarchy of the Catholic church, with a Pope and bishops and blah blah, was created to mimic the heirarchy of the governmental systems of the time period. Nowhere in anyone's Bible is there mention of a Pope.If you will it, dude, it is no dream. -
PolkThug wrote:What about infertile women, should they get paid as much as men?
Sure.
