Women in the workforce: feminist victory or economic necessity?

[Kazimiera]

To what degree are the concessions afforded women today in the workplace the result of?

Hard-fought victories by the feminist movement over the past 40 years or due to economic necessity, such as a rising cost of living and that the average household in the western world is not longer able to function on a single salary?

We know that the feminist movement made large steps in making jobs more available to women, as well as better salaries. Some countries are still fighting on equal salaries. So are jobs available to women because of feminism?

OR

Life becomes more expensive. In years gone by people could raise families on one salary. But now both husband and wife hold jobs. So is it just because of an economic nessecity?

[JamesSteal]

Cut down on thousands of dollars of designer dresses, make-up and yoga classes. Also, don't look to purchase that fabulous 2,000 square ft. apartment you clearly can't afford as an administrative assistant. The cost of living will significantly decrease when you save your money for necessities instead of spending it on your ego.

[Kazimiera]

Intelligent answers that actually focus on the question please.

[Mary]

http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/1103/equality-funny-ugly-girl-tosh-demotivational-posters-1299471786.jpg

[Kazimiera]

bump

[Runahild]

I think feminism is very wrong to women actually and to our society. The sacred role of women to take care of the home and family isn't meant to be seen as inferior like feminism means it is. But the system has definitely a role to play in the fact women have to work more, and be more away from home. By creating a financial need too big to be only carried by men alone. Of course your lifestyle says a lot as well, we can save money on many things if as a woman you wish to be a housewife. This modern world teaches women to care more for fashion, make up, all those superficial things that have no importance in life. Instead of caring for family and a good husband, they'd rather think they are free because they make their own money and are allowed by society to be with one different man every week end.
I have much more respect for those few women who still wish to be housewives, care of their home and family and who remain natural.

[Feral]

I think feminism is very wrong to women actually and to our society. The sacred role of women to take care of the home and family isn't meant to be seen as inferior like feminism means it is. But the system has definitely a role to play in the fact women have to work more, and be more away from home. By creating a financial need too big to be only carried by men alone. Of course your lifestyle says a lot as well, we can save money on many things if as a woman you wish to be a housewife. This modern world teaches women to care more for fashion, make up, all those superficial things that have no importance in life. Instead of caring for family and a good husband, they'd rather think they are free because they make their own money and are allowed by society to be with one different man every week end.
I have much more respect for those few women who still wish to be housewives, care of their home and family and who remain natural.

This a good POV about being traditional. I despice the globalized stereotype of a working-class woman trying to fit in a moderm social model (if it's frivolous) as well as you do. No human that worship money is free.
However, isn't that simple. First at all, most women in the history of human kind were seen as inferior to men and they were obligated to follow a role because of it. And any living being that is chained to do things that doesn't want to do, won't feel free and won't be free. Noone can define freedom, and everyone is free to be. The problem, of course, if when freedom is defined and set into a canonical rule which "should be" follow.
___

And to answer the topic. Yes to both question. I don't think that just feminist had fight for women and their rights of freedom. But women do
now are more free than before. And, on the other hand, it has become a economical necessity for lower and some middle-class couples to hold jobs both of them. It's possibly that this economical problem had affected the political decision, but I don't think it had too much influence.

[2Cool]

I think feminism is very wrong to women actually and to our society. The sacred role of women to take care of the home and family isn't meant to be seen as inferior like feminism means it is. But the system has definitely a role to play in the fact women have to work more, and be more away from home. By creating a financial need too big to be only carried by men alone. Of course your lifestyle says a lot as well, we can save money on many things if as a woman you wish to be a housewife. This modern world teaches women to care more for fashion, make up, all those superficial things that have no importance in life. Instead of caring for family and a good husband, they'd rather think they are free because they make their own money and are allowed by society to be with one different man every week end.
I have much more respect for those few women who still wish to be housewives, care of their home and family and who remain natural.

Good luck sustaining a economy when half of your citizens are home. You are also forcing people into gender roles which is wrong as gender roles change all the time and change depending on the culture. There are matriarchal societies you know.

But what if a woman wants to become a Doctor? Oh she can't now? But why? Oh I see, her role is to stay home to take care of kids while the father works and provides for the family. And what if a man wants to be a stay at home dad? Oops too bad you can't. Besides, if women are always home why do they need to vote? It's not like they'll be affected by it government since they are always home. I guess we could remove their right to vote as well then? Going to school would also be useless. You don't need to know calculus to know how to cook a meal and breast feed.

This is pretty closes minded way of seeing the world. I honestly think such thinking stems from insecurity. Insecurity that a woman can be more successful than you and can make more money than you etc. Personality I would rather a more confident woman that knows what she wants and is independent. I don't want to spineless woman with no back bone who's only worth is to do house chores. That wouldn't set a good example for my kids.

btw I'm not a feminist. In fact I hate most of them since I feel they are not concerned with gender equality and are more only concerned with pushing female rights. A lot of the serious ones also don't shave their arm pits and smell weird.

[Supreme American]

Economic necessity. No woman with kids wants to work, give me a break.

[rhiannon]

Economic necessity. No woman with kids wants to work, give me a break.

Some do.

[Supreme American]

Good luck sustaining a economy when half of your citizens are home. You are also forcing people into gender roles which is wrong as gender roles change all the time and change depending on the culture. There are matriarchal societies you know.

Except that the United States and indeed the West as a whole emerged as an economic power in just those labor conditions: Most women stayed at home.

Secondly, frankly only ass-backward tribal societies are matriarchal and your attempt to portray gender roles as fluid is laughable. Women are built to give birth; men are built to protect. Black society is largely matriarchal because the men abandon their roles as protectors and leave the family unit.

What exactly so frightens the left about stay at home motherhood? Oh I remember, Engels called the traditional family unit "oppressive" and it needs to be torn to shreds.

Lefty platitudes, always.

[Supreme American]

Some do.

When she has small children at home? If so, I'd call her a shit parent.

[rhiannon]

When she has small children at home? If so, I'd call her a shit parent.

Easy for you to say when you have no kids of your own. Walk a mile in her shoes before you judge.

For example....right now, I am working on my Masters Thesis Project. It is a fucking nightmare. Having my son at home alone with me (he is a very inquisitive 4 year old) makes it IMPOSSIBLE for my higher cognitive function to fully kick in. We have put him in daycare for 3days/week so I can get my stuff done. My husband is gone all but about 10 days of every month....and several of those 10 days he is home he spends recovering from jet lag and a schedule that never stays the same.

My son is my responsibility....but I have less than 8 weeks before this project is due. So he is in daycare for the first time in his life....and guess what?

He LOVES it. Granted, we picked a decent neighborhood daycare that is reputable and has been operated by the same Director now for greater than 20 years. Every time I pick my son up, he is happy and playing with the teachers and the other kids his age.

He doesn't get that at home because he is essentially an only child now. All of his sibs are MUCH MUCH older.

Until you have a child of your own, no mother is going to give a crap what you have to say, because you don't know what the hell you are talking about. This is not directed at you specifically, Lagergeld....but rather at any childless adult who has the audacity to go judging mothers for making a decision in the best interests of their family and children.

Walk what you talk here, or your opinion holds no validity.

[StonyArabia]

Feminist Victory my butt, it's economic necessity since many women can't afford to be dependent on their husbands or bfs due to various elements. Women need to work also so they will not be oppressed by the males wich often happens.

[2Cool]

Except that the United States and indeed the West as a whole emerged as an economic power in just those labor conditions: Most women stayed at home.

Secondly, frankly only ass-backward tribal societies are matriarchal and your attempt to portray gender roles as fluid is laughable. Women are built to give birth; men are built to protect. Black society is largely matriarchal because the men abandon their roles as protectors and leave the family unit.

What exactly so frightens the left about stay at home motherhood? Oh I remember, Engels called the traditional family unit "oppressive" and it needs to be torn to shreds.

Lefty platitudes, always.

It's not about being frightened... it's about giving people the choice of doing what they want with their lives. Also you ,emtality that omen -> child birth, men -> protect was all good and dandy when we were hunter and gatherers but now? Meh. We don't have the same needs that we needed back then. Btw, quick question for you: you know in Europe, back when it was mostly an agrarian society? Do you think that the women stayed at home while the men were talking care of their crops? Because in many occasions, women were helping the men + taking care of the kids.

Also I don't know what you talking about. Female workforce was very important to make the West boom like they did. Also let's not forget their important role during the world wars. Women are also around 50% of the workforce. In some countries it's more, in others it's less. You can't just remove such a large amount of the working population like that.

It's pretty sad that you guys claim to be a European Preservation Forum yet are oblivious to concepts such as gender equality. Concepts that started mainly in the West and Europe. Your mentality fits nicely with countries like Saudia Arabia though.

[Siberyak]

Good luck sustaining a economy when half of your citizens are home. You are also forcing people into gender roles which is wrong as gender roles change all the time and change depending on the culture. There are matriarchal societies you know.

But what if a woman wants to become a Doctor? Oh she can't now? But why? Oh I see, her role is to stay home to take care of kids while the father works and provides for the family. And what if a man wants to be a stay at home dad? Oops too bad you can't. Besides, if women are always home why do they need to vote? It's not like they'll be affected by it government since they are always home. I guess we could remove their right to vote as well then? Going to school would also be useless. You don't need to know calculus to know how to cook a meal and breast feed.

This is pretty closes minded way of seeing the world. I honestly think such thinking stems from insecurity. Insecurity that a woman can be more successful than you and can make more money than you etc. Personality I would rather a more confident woman that knows what she wants and is independent. I don't want to spineless woman with no back bone who's only worth is to do house chores. That wouldn't set a good example for my kids.

btw I'm not a feminist. In fact I hate most of them since I feel they are not concerned with gender equality and are more only concerned with pushing female rights. A lot of the serious ones also don't shave their arm pits and smell weird.

Sorry ladies I love you but feminism is destroying western civilization

[Siberyak]

In the 1960's one person working could provide for a family of 5 or 6. Now it is very different.

[2Cool]

Sorry ladies I love you but feminism is destroying western civilization

Yeah life was better when women stayed home and men went to work, then they go see their friends, drink and enjoy themselves. Then they could come home at whatever time they wanted since their wives were 100% dependent on them and if they talked back, the husband could just make her stfu and bitch how he had a busy/hectic day while he's on the couch and she's cooking while trying to look over the kids. The men could also have a couple of "lady friends" on the side and the wife would never suspect a thing since she's always home. Great stuff. Man, no wonder divorce rates were so low back then.

Man, life was great back then... if you were a white male.


Again give people the choice, don't force them into gender roles.

[StonyArabia]

In the 1960's one person working could provide for a family of 5 or 6. Now it is very different.

True, but women should get their economic independence because most often they become at the mercy of the males and very easy to be abused when they are dependent and some controlling males take a sick advantage of it. There is nothing wrong with a woman providing for herself and as well as a means of protection.

[Siberyak]

Yeah life was better when women stayed home and men went to work, then they go see their friends, drink and enjoy themselves. Then they could come home at whatever time they wanted since their wives were 100% dependent on them and if they talked back, the husband could just make her stfu and bitch how he had a busy/hectic day while he's on the couch and she's cooking while trying to look over the kids. The men could also have a couple of "lady friends" on the side and the wife would never suspect a thing since she's always home. Great stuff. Man, no wonder divorce rates were so low back then.

Man, life was great back then... if you were a white male.


Again give people the choice, don't force them into gender roles.

I can only dream about the good old days cant I not?

[Autobahn]

I think that both the feminist revolution of the past 50 years or so and the more recent poor global economic conditions combined both factor into the rising number of woman in the work force today. It should also be noted that during WWII, just after the Great Depression, the American woman were being forced to work in the factories, while their husbands were over seas.


During WWII, over 6 million women took wartime jobs in factories or filling in for men on farms, 3 million women volunteered with the Red Cross, and over 200,000 women served the military. In the days after December 7th, 1941, "Remember Pearl Harbor" became a battle cry for all of America as it entered World War II. It created fear on two coasts, with Germany looming on one doorstep, and Japan looming on the other. By the summer of 1942, men disappeared almost completely from the work place, having been drafted or enlisted into the US military. Rosie the Riveter quickly stepped into take his place.

With men being shipped overseas by the thousand, women were needed to step in to fill factory jobs, as well as to beef up hospitals, and even lend a hand to the military.

More:http://www.womeninwwii.com/


The proportion of women who are working has changed very little since the recession started. But a full 82 percent of the job losses have befallen men, who are heavily represented in distressed industries like manufacturing and construction. Women tend to be employed in areas like education and health care, which are less sensitive to economic ups and downs, and in jobs that allow more time for child care and other domestic work.

Complete Article:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/business/06women.html?_r=1


It was not until the 1960's that feminism experienced another upsurge. In 1953 Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex had appeared in English translation, an influential book that analyzed the history and implications of female subjection in Western culture. In 1963 Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique, openly criticizing the prevailing stereotypical role of the American housewife and mother. Also in 1963 a Presidential Commission issued a report American Women which recommended a number of moderate reforms to improve their status. In response to these and other developments, the National Organization for Women (NOW) was founded in 1966 and soon became the largest and best known of various new women's organizations. NOW almost immediately took up the fight for an Equal Rights Amendment and demanded several other drastic reforms, such as the right to abortion. In the meantime, these demands found much wider support than previously, because many middle-class women had become radicalized through the renewed black civil rights struggle, voter registration drives in the South, and the peace movement against the American war in Southeast Asia. Sexual and reproductive liberation could be discussed more openly, as the whole country had become more sensitive to issues of fairness and individual freedom. In the early 1970's the abortion issue was suddenly settled by the U.S. Supreme Court in the feminists' favor. Moreover, Congress finally passed an Equal Rights Amendment stating "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." No matter how difficult and lengthy the struggle for ratification may turn out to be, and no matter how often it may fail, feminists are hopeful that the amendment will ultimately be adopted.

Complete Article:http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/the_feminist_movement_in_the_u.html

[Phil75231]

This is a chicken-and-egg type of question.

I could be wrong, but even as early as the 1860s US Civil War, there were women working in factories making uniforms and even small arms and ammunition. Certainly that was the case in WW1 Britain.

Social attitudes about women's place in society started as early as the mid 19th Century in the US, then were gradually adopted by the rest of society. Economic (or more likely war) necessity also gives a boost to all this.

Also, on top of this, suburbanization (with its larger houses and larger lots) also made housing more expensive, particularly if you have to add commuting dollars to all this. IMO, it's the increasing size of houses AND lots that is driving all this further onward. In fact, I heard only in the last few years has the average size of the newly-built (i.e. within 1 calendar year) middle class home shrank. That makes houses more expensive, to the point where it almost does take two couples to pay for it; especially when they have kids and who can afford to live in a top-notched public school district.

Like much of what we see today, this one does not lend itself to simple explanations.

[purple]

I don't want a woman with p**** and a man who wears high heels

[Albion]

Whilst I could look back at the pre-suffragette era with some romantic notions about gender roles, there isn't actually much difference between then and now.

In the UK women worked in factories alongside men and sometimes kids too. They usually did the less dangerous work but they were there working nevertheless.
Before the industrial revolution women working would have been confined to very few roles, mainly helping out their husbands around the house, farm or in his trade.
The actual "fish wives" of the North Sea coast who sold the fish their husbands caught at sea probably went back a long time too.


However I don't see it as a necessity for women to work unless there's an actual need to bring more money into the household. I'm against the whole working mothers thing, women need to bring up kids and look after the house.
Women without kids or older kids don't have much to do at home and no good reason to be there so I don't see why they shouldn't work.

I think feminism created the impetus for women to work though. Without it I think most women today would be housewives, so I do see it as a partial feminist victory.
However there's a lot of women who don't mind being housewives, an increasing amount of women over here seem to come out of work for a few years to bring up young children and I personally believe it is the best way.

[Peterski]

It's kind of a myth that feminism caused this. In fact women were in the workforce already back during the Middle Ages.

[Bobby Martnen]

Some do.

:picard2:

No woman who is truly devoted to her children would want to work outside of the home while they are young.

I'd never marry a woman who wanted a career. It's like that old Michael Bolton song...I want to be the sole provider


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXO7UL84rK0


any childless adult who has the audacity to go judging mothers for making a decision in the best interests of their family and children.

Just because a mom thinks her decision is best for her family/children doesn't mean it actually is. Moms are flawed and fallible human beings who make a lot of mistakes and often haven't a clue what's truly best for their kids, they're not flawless and infallible geniuses or something. My opinion on child-rearing is just as valid as yours, since my mind is just as intelligent as yours. In fact, I'm probably more intelligent, since my IQ is 135.

People who are arrogant and set in their ways are unfit to be parents.

If you make a decision, don't be surprised when others judge you for it. If the judgement really gets under your skin, then maybe you made the wrong decision.

I've done things I've been judged for, but when I was 100% confident I was right, none of the flack I got bothered me in the slightest.

[Bobby Martnen]

It may be an economic necessity, but I would never, ever marry a woman who wanted any career or life outside of birthing and raising little Boberinos and Boberinas.

[rhiannon]

:picard2:

No woman who is truly devoted to her children would want to work outside of the home while they are young.

I'd never marry a woman who wanted a career. It's like that old Michael Bolton song...I want to be the sole provider


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXO7UL84rK0



Just because a mom thinks her decision is best for her family/children doesn't mean it actually is. Moms are flawed and fallible human beings who make a lot of mistakes and often haven't a clue what's truly best for their kids, they're not flawless and infallible geniuses or something. My opinion on child-rearing is just as valid as yours, since my mind is just as intelligent as yours. In fact, I'm probably more intelligent, since my IQ is 135.

People who are arrogant and set in their ways are unfit to be parents.

If you make a decision, don't be surprised when others judge you for it. If the judgement really gets under your skin, then maybe you made the wrong decision.

I've done things I've been judged for, but when I was 100% confident I was right, none of the flack I got bothered me in the slightest.

Oh it's you again...thumbing me down as always.

Yawn:bored:

No, your IQ isn't higher either. Just STFU with your whackadoodie ideas. I'm about 30 years older than you anyway so you have nothing to offer or show for yourself to indicate you've done anything in your life that would gain you any wisdom.

[Bobby Martnen]

Oh it's you again...thumbing me down as always.

Yawn:bored:

I gave you one thumbs down, that's hardly excessive or abusive.

I'm very generous with thumbs both ways. I thumb up a lot, and I thumb down a lot, too.

(in fact you'll notice that only 4% of my thumbs given are thumbs down, whereas 9% of my thumbs received are, so I actually thumb down people less than they thumb down me)

[Bobby Martnen]

No, your IQ isn't higher either. Just STFU with your whackadoodie ideas. I'm about 30 years older than you anyway so you have nothing to offer or show for yourself to indicate you've done anything in your life that would gain you any wisdom.

What's your IQ, then?

I disagree that you're wiser just because you're older. My mind is at least equally functional relative to yours.

And I don't downvote you out of personal animus, I downvote you because I disagree with almost everything you post. I would upvote your posts if I agreed with them. (post something like "I love President Trump" and I'll upvote it)

If I see someone as a friend, I won't downvote them ever, but if I don't, I'll downvote them only if I disagree with the post.

I never downvote just to downvote or to be nasty.

(Sometimes I upvote just to be nice)

[rhiannon]

What's your IQ, then?

I disagree that you're wiser just because you're older. My mind is at least equally functional relative to yours.

And I don't downvote you out of personal animus, I downvote you because I disagree with almost everything you post. I would upvote your posts if I agreed with them. (post something like "I love President Trump" and I'll upvote it)

If I see someone as a friend, I won't downvote them ever, but if I don't, I'll downvote them only if I disagree with the post.

I never downvote just to downvote or to be nasty.

(Sometimes I upvote just to be nice)

You know, I could quote any old IQ higher than 135 and there's no way you can prove I'm right or wrong. Same goes for your quoted IQ of 135. Just saying. Mine is somewhere in the gifted range as is my daughter's, although hers is higher than mine.


Life teaches you things. It rounds a person out. The longer one is on this godforsaken planet, the more you learn and gain from your life experiences. I'm not particularly slamming you for being young, as we were all young once. But the tone of your posts strike me as disrespectful and for you to talk about having kids and what constitutes a good parent when you can't even stomach the idea of having sex just strikes me as....I dunno...a little weird?

You're entitled to your opinions granted, but it might behoove to be a little kinder in your words.

I hate Trump. You will never ever see me post that I love him. He is the most misogynistic president in recent memory. The man is vile. But to be fair, I felt this way about him long before he became #45.

As for friends....meh. You're just some dude online. I suspect you're an alright guy but clearly from the things you post about as well as the things I talk about, we have nothing in common. I'm fine with that.

Take care, Bobby.

[Bobby Martnen]

You know, I could quote any old IQ higher than 135 and there's no way you can prove I'm right or wrong. Same goes for your quoted IQ of 135. Just saying. Mine is somewhere in the gifted range as is my daughter's, although hers is higher than mine.

OK


Life teaches you things. It rounds a person out. The longer one is on this godforsaken planet, the more you learn and gain from your life experiences. I'm not particularly slamming you for being young, as we were all young once. But the tone of your posts strike me as disrespectful and for you to talk about having kids and what constitutes a good parent when you can't even stomach the idea of having sex just strikes me as....I dunno...a little weird?


I disagree with this way of thinking. A 20-year-old can be just as knowledgeable about the world and any topic as an old person can. And I know just as much about parenting as you, since I lived through being the object of parenting much more recently than you did. Young people's opinions on parenting are relevant since they're the ones being parented. The tone of your posts strikes me as arrogant and standoffish, but once again, that's not why I downvoted you. For me to downvote, there are 3 conditions

1) The post is something I strongly disagree with
2) The post was not made by one of my TA friends.
3) I haven't already downvoted more than 2 or 3 of this user's posts within the last 24 hours (the only exception is if they are downvote warring with me)


You're entitled to your opinions granted, but it might behoove to be a little kinder in your words.

I'm cruel but fair.


I hate Trump. You will never ever see me post that.

Exactly. We don't agree on much if anything, hence I will never be upvoting you. But guess what, I voted for Trump, and he is going to be president until January 20, 2025, and you feminists just have to deal with it :)

Hopefully one day the Democrat party will be banished to the dustbin of history, where it belongs.


As for friends....meh. You're just some dude online.

Completely missing my point. People who are TA friends of mine do not get downvoted by me, even when I vehemently disagree with them. You're not a TA friend, so when I vehemently disagree with you, you get the downvote.

(I don't hate you either though, there are users here I actually hate and you're not one of them)


I suspect you're an alright guy but clearly from the things you post about as well as the things I talk about, we have nothing in common. I'm fine with that.

So am I. You'll likely be dead by the time I hit 40, and we live 3000 miles away from each other anyway. I wish you no misfortunes, but I do not see you as a friend or an ally.


Take care, Bobby.

You too.

[Peterski]

Life teaches you things. It rounds a person out. The longer one is on this godforsaken planet, the more you learn and gain from your life experiences. I'm not particularly slamming you for being young, as we were all young once.

I disagree, people don't usually change their views but rather die and get replaced by new generations with different views (it has cultural, biological and epigenetic underlying causes, look up "Biohistory" on You Tube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCB88E66Xk89epAcQPn2NAEA/videos)). As Max Planck said, science advances one funeral at a time, or more precisely: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." This applies not just to science but to all views in general, to any truth in general. Generational gap in views is not caused by young age of one group and old age of the other group. You, and your entire generation, had the same "progressive" views back when you were young. Our generation (aged 20s now) will also have the same views when we grow older.

[Not a Cop]

1. Urbanisation and shift in workforce distribution.

2. Decay in amount of housework.

3. Consumerist society baked by modern capitalism.


People in general do very few things if they are not motivated by economical reasons.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

I'm not sure if it's a hard fought right more than it is a desire for more tax revenue.

I'm all for both the husband and wife working cuz lets be honest: house work is just chores that you can wrap up pretty quickly. This is why soap operas are on in the early afternoon and not in the late afternoon. Soap operas appeal to women and house work isn't time consuming (far much less so in the last few decades) and so they have the time to sit and watch.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98T3PVaRrHU

That's some boring shit.

My mother told me not to marry a woman who didn't work. She knew what was up with the biotches.

[rhiannon]

OK



I disagree with this way of thinking. A 20-year-old can be just as knowledgeable about the world and any topic as an old person can. And I know just as much about parenting as you, since I lived through being the object of parenting much more recently than you did. Young people's opinions on parenting are relevant since they're the ones being parented. The tone of your posts strikes me as arrogant and standoffish, but once again, that's not why I downvoted you. For me to downvote, there are 3 conditions

1) The post is something I strongly disagree with
2) The post was not made by one of my TA friends.
3) I haven't already downvoted more than 2 or 3 of this user's posts within the last 24 hours (the only exception is if they are downvote warring with me)



I'm cruel but fair.



Exactly. We don't agree on much if anything, hence I will never be upvoting you. But guess what, I voted for Trump, and he is going to be president until January 20, 2025, and you feminists just have to deal with it :)

Hopefully one day the Democrat party will be banished to the dustbin of history, where it belongs.



Completely missing my point. People who are TA friends of mine do not get downvoted by me, even when I vehemently disagree with them. You're not a TA friend, so when I vehemently disagree with you, you get the downvote.

(I don't hate you either though, there are users here I actually hate and you're not one of them)



So am I. You'll likely be dead by the time I hit 40, and we live 3000 miles away from each other anyway. I wish you no misfortunes, but I do not see you as a friend or an ally.



You too.

Dead by the time you hit 40? Nah. I'd be about 70, then. Life expectancies are much higher than 70 so there's a good chance my old granny ass would still be kicking :)

I wish you no ill will either BTW.

[Bobby Martnen]

Dead by the time you hit 40? Nah. I'd be about 70, then. Life expectancies are much higher than 70 so there's a good chance my old granny ass would still be kicking :)

I wish you no ill will either BTW.

IIRC, your father died in his 40s or 50s, and life expectancy is heavily genetic. Look at Paul Ryan's family, for example. His father, grandfather, and great-grandfather all died before the age of 60, and that's one of the reasons he's stepping down now, since he knows he's not likely to live a long time.

I doubt I'll even make it to 70, given my family's medical history and my lifestyle. TBH if I died in my 40s or 50s I wouldn't be all that shocked.

But that's okay, because I believe that I will go onto eternal paradise.

[Jacques de Imbelloni]

Economic necessity, nowadays being a housewife is a luxury, not a form of oppression.

[rhiannon]

IIRC, your father died in his 40s or 50s, and life expectancy is heavily genetic. Look at Paul Ryan's family, for example. His father, grandfather, and great-grandfather all died before the age of 60, and that's one of the reasons he's stepping down now, since he knows he's not likely to live a long time.

I doubt I'll even make it to 70, given my family's medical history and my lifestyle. TBH if I died in my 40s or 50s I wouldn't be all that shocked.

But that's okay, because I believe that I will go onto eternal paradise.

This is true, but for my father's parents, they were both heavy drinkers and smokers. My father's sister is healthy as can be at 82. My mother's side are much longer lived. Nobody in her mother's family ever dies before they're in their 80s...and 90s-100s are common. My mother's mother was born 1894 and HER mother lived to be in her 90s. My grandmother died at 92 but her two brothers lived to be in their 100s.

My father died of Brain Cancer which was likely an occupational hazard in his case. He worked as an electrical engineer and in telecommunications back in the 1960s when computers took up entire rooms.

Me? I could go either way. My father was just one year older than I am right now when he died.

As far as the paradise aspect goes....I'm an extreme skeptic. To believe in something is too risky to basically render my whole life useless in the pursuit of something I just "think" will happen. I need proof.

Tried Christianity around the time I was your age. Never sat too well with me.

But, people are all entitled to believe as they see fit IMPO so long as no-one else is harmed. Freedom of Religion or from Religion is a very important concept. I have Mormons on both sides. In fact, my mother's older brother is 97 (and Mormon) and still lives on his own and goes horseback riding and hiking several times a week. It's pretty amazing.

Guess I'm not gonna know until I'm dead, and that suits me fine. My heart is good and I help others when I can. Maybe if there is a God (or Goddess), they will take that into account lol.

Have a good night, Bobby :)

[Bobby Martnen]

This is true, but for my father's parents, they were both heavy drinkers and smokers. My father's sister is healthy as can be at 82. My mother's side are much longer lived. Nobody in her mother's family ever dies before they're in their 80s...and 90s-100s are common. My mother's mother was born 1894 and HER mother lived to be in her 90s. My grandmother died at 92 but her two brothers lived to be in their 100s.

Is your mother still living?


My father died of Brain Cancer which was likely an occupational hazard in his case. He worked as an electrical engineer and in telecommunications back in the 1960s when computers took up entire rooms.

What did people even use computers for then? There was no internet and no gaming...


Me? I could go either way. My father was just one year older than I am right now when he died.

If you're healthy now, probably you won't die next year


As far as the paradise aspect goes....I'm an extreme skeptic. To believe in something is too risky to basically render my whole life useless in the pursuit of something I just "think" will happen. I need proof.

[CENTER]Some are believers
Some don't know
Some are lost
They're lost and alone

Some are deceivers
Their souls been sold
For the love
For the love of strange medicine[/QUOTE]


Tried Christianity around the time I was your age. Never sat too well with me.

You should try to read the Bible more.


But, people are all entitled to believe as they see fit IMPO so long as no-one else is harmed. Freedom of Religion or from Religion is a very important concept. I have Mormons on both sides. In fact, my mother's older brother is 97 (and Mormon) and still lives on his own and goes horseback riding and hiking several times a week. It's pretty amazing.

Mormonism is not the true Christianity.


Guess I'm not gonna know until I'm dead, and that suits me fine. My heart is good and I help others when I can. Maybe if there is a God (or Goddess), they will take that into account lol.

Have a good night, Bobby :)

People are saved by faith alone.

Have a good night for you too :)

[Thanas Django]

To what degree are the concessions afforded women today in the workplace the result of?

Hard-fought victories by the feminist movement over the past 40 years or due to economic necessity, such as a rising cost of living and that the average household in the western world is not longer able to function on a single salary?

We know that the feminist movement made large steps in making jobs more available to women, as well as better salaries. Some countries are still fighting on equal salaries. So are jobs available to women because of feminism?

OR

Life becomes more expensive. In years gone by people could raise families on one salary. But now both husband and wife hold jobs. So is it just because of an economic nessecity?

Women have historically always been part of the workforce. The amount of time where they were excluded from the workforce is miniscule and limited to a tiny minority of affluent people in affluent countries.

Ask your grandma if she worked.

[rhiannon]

Is your mother still living?Yes. She's 81 and shows no signs of going anywhere anytime soon.




What did people even use computers for then? There was no internet and no gaming...They were still being developed. Military had them. But today's cell phones have far more computing power than even the most behemoth computers did back then.




If you're healthy now, probably you won't die next yearYeah one would hope lol




[CENTER]Some are believers
Some don't know
Some are lost
They're lost and alone

Some are deceivers
Their souls been sold
For the love
For the love of strange medicineWhere is this from? I've never read it before.




You should try to read the Bible more.I kinda tried to back in my Christian period. Never could buy into what it was saying though. That's just me.




Mormonism is not the true Christianity.Yeah I think most Christians would agree with that.




People are saved by faith alone.This is the most difficult question of all for people like me. If you as an individual though find comfort in your own faith/beliefs, then more power to you :) I'm comfortable as an Agnostic and have felt more peace this way than I ever did years before.


Have a good night for you too :):thumb001:

[Bobby Martnen]

Yes. She's 81 and shows no signs of going anywhere anytime soon.

I wonder if the TA will still exist when I'm 81? (2079) If it doesn't, I don't see a reason for me to stay alive that long...


They were still being developed. Military had them. But today's cell phones have far more computing power than even the most behemoth computers did back then.

If I couldn't use computers to have fun, I don't think I'd use them at all

Sounds like old-timey computers were essentially overgrown calculators. BORING! lol


Yeah one would hope lol

I do know people who have died suddenly in their 40s, or got sick in their 50s and were dead within 10 days. I hope that doesn't happen to me.


Where is this from? I've never read it before.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOlTBzHy7ns


I kinda tried to back in my Christian period. Never could buy into what it was saying though. That's just me.

Sometimes I have my doubts, but I have chosen to trust in the Lord.


Yeah I think most Christians would agree with that.

Yes, but most would still vote for a Mormon Republican over a Democrat, because Democrats hate Christians and look down on us.


This is the most difficult question of all for people like me. If you as an individual though find comfort in your own faith/beliefs, then more power to you :) I'm comfortable as an Agnostic and have felt more peace this way than I ever did years before.

You might change your mind in 30 years when death goes from being "something that will happen to me decades from now" to "something that could happen to me any day".


:thumb001:

:thumb002:

[rhiannon]

I wonder if the TA will still exist when I'm 81? (2079) If it doesn't, I don't see a reason for me to stay alive that long...I'd be amazed if it did.




If I couldn't use computers to have fun, I don't think I'd use them at all

Sounds like old-timey computers were essentially overgrown calculators. BORING! lolYeah they kinda started out as just that....calculators.




I do know people who have died suddenly in their 40s, or got sick in their 50s and were dead within 10 days. I hope that doesn't happen to me.It can happen at anytime. Tomorrow is never guaranteed. I hope it doesn't happen to you, to me, or to almost anyone (child killers can drop dead right now as far as I'm concerned).




Sometimes I have my doubts, but I have chosen to trust in the Lord.I'm surprised to see you admit to having doubts. To me, it shows your introspection and willingness to embrace other possibilities, which is a good thing. Of course, only you can know what feels right :)

I would say I am not against the idea of any religious doctrine turning out to be true, but I am saying that I have no way to tell which is and which isn't without tangible scientific evidence. I also accept the possibility of there being nothing at all.




Yes, but most would still vote for a Mormon Republican over a Democrat, because Democrats hate Christians and look down on us.Many Dems are Christians themselves, though.




You might change your mind in 30 years when death goes from being "something that will happen to me decades from now" to "something that could happen to me any day". I've definitely thought about this. The 1991 film called "The Rapture" sort of touches on this very thing. Film is very, very bleak...and dark.

[Bobby Martnen]

I'd be amazed if it did.

I hope it never goes away. Even if Loki retires some day, I hope he names a successor, so that the TA can live forever.


Yeah they kinda started out as just that....calculators.

I'm glad someone eventually figured out how to make them not boring.


It can happen at anytime. Tomorrow is never guaranteed. I hope it doesn't happen to you, to me, or to almost anyone (child killers can drop dead right now as far as I'm concerned).

I could easily get hit by a car, or slip on the sidewalk and crack my skull, or even choke to death on my own stupidity. I hope it won't happen, but it could.


I'm surprised to see you admit to having doubts. To me, it shows your introspection and willingness to embrace other possibilities, which is a good thing. Of course, only you can know what feels right :)

I used to be an atheist, and I am still recovering, but every day I pray and read more, and I am strengthening my faith and banishing my doubts.


I would say I am not against the idea of any religious doctrine turning out to be true, but I am saying that I have no way to tell which is and which isn't without tangible scientific evidence. I also accept the possibility of there being nothing at all.

ASSUME GOD IS NOT REAL
If you're right, death is just nothingness
If you're wrong, you will be eternally tormented

ASSUME GOD IS REAL
If you're right, you will have eternal paradise
If you're wrong, death is just nothingness


Assuming God is real is the better bet.


Many Dems are Christians themselves, though.

In a vague sense, but most are just "I go to church on Christmas and Easter" Christians, as opposed to "I have a personal relationship to Jesus and pray every day" Christians.


I've definitely thought about this. The 1991 film called "The Rapture" sort of touches on this very thing. Film is very, very bleak...and dark.

I don't watch a lot of movies, because they take a long time, and I have a short attention span. The fact that I drink a bathtub's worth of caffeine every day probably doesn't help, either.

My favorite movie is SCARFACE. Tony Montana is such a badass and an amazing antihero.

[rhiannon]

I could easily get hit by a car, or slip on the sidewalk and crack my skull, or even choke to death on my own stupidity. I hope it won't happen, but it could. OMG I died laughing on this one. Bobby you really can have a great sense of humor lol




ASSUME GOD IS NOT REAL
If you're right, death is just nothingness
If you're wrong, you will be eternally tormented

ASSUME GOD IS REAL
If you're right, you will have eternal paradise
If you're wrong, death is just nothingness


Assuming God is real is the better bet.


Believe it or not, this one of the more cogent arguments on behalf of Christianity I've ever seen. Nice job. Not sure it'll work on me of all people, but your rationale is sound.



In a vague sense, but most are just "I go to church on Christmas and Easter" Christians, as opposed to "I have a personal relationship to Jesus and pray every day" Christians.This is kinda how I grew up. I was baptized Episcopalian as a baby but we were more or less secular.



I don't watch a lot of movies, because they take a long time, and I have a short attention span. The fact that I drink a bathtub's worth of caffeine every day probably doesn't help, either.Be careful with your caffeine loads. You can induce premature heart disease if you drink too many energy drinks, etc.

[Bobby Martnen]

OMG I died laughing on this one. Bobby you really can have a great sense of humor lol

:) Thanks


Believe it or not, this one of the more cogent arguments on behalf of Christianity I've ever seen. Nice job. Not sure it'll work on me of all people, but your rationale is sound.

Thanks

Also believing in Christianity gives me a sense of hope and purpose, so for me, even if I turn out to be wrong in the end, it will have made my life happier and less stressful.



This is kinda how I grew up. I was baptized Episcopalian as a baby but we were more or less secular.


People like this aren't really Christian, anymore than someone who just knows "Don't Stop Believin'" and "Open Arms" is really a Journey fan.


Be careful with your caffeine loads. You can induce premature heart disease if you drink too many energy drinks, etc.

I checked with an online calculator for caffeine intake relative to body size, and I'm not in the Danger Zone. (my apologies to Kenny Loggins) I'm also a fairly large person who has built up tolerance over time.

When I am not caffeinated, I feel "bleh".

BTW, what is a "rhiannon", and how do you pronounce it? I've never come across this word before...

[Profileid]

It may be an economic necessity, but I would never, ever marry a woman who wanted any career or life outside of birthing and raising little Boberinos and Boberinas.

You won't ever marry a woman anyway.
Because you're fucking gay.