Moderator: Community Team
PLAYER57832 wrote:However, to attain anything like the basic rights, ability to earn a living we have now definitely requires women having control of their OWN reproduction, without having to necessarily seek approval of whatever men they associate with (whether married or not).
Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:However, to attain anything like the basic rights, ability to earn a living we have now definitely requires women having control of their OWN reproduction, without having to necessarily seek approval of whatever men they associate with (whether married or not).
That still doesn't explain why you and the other radical feminists are demanding that the government (aka, everyone else) has to pay for all their sexual choices. If you believe that women should not seek approval from a man for their actions, why are you demanding that the men pay the money required for those actions? How does relying on others for payment cause those women to be free?
Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:However, to attain anything like the basic rights, ability to earn a living we have now definitely requires women having control of their OWN reproduction, without having to necessarily seek approval of whatever men they associate with (whether married or not).
That still doesn't explain why you and the other radical feminists are demanding that the government (aka, everyone else) has to pay for all their sexual choices. If you believe that women should not seek approval from a man for their actions, why are you demanding that the men pay the money required for those actions? How does relying on others for payment cause those women to be free?
PLAYER57832 wrote:Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:However, to attain anything like the basic rights, ability to earn a living we have now definitely requires women having control of their OWN reproduction, without having to necessarily seek approval of whatever men they associate with (whether married or not).
That still doesn't explain why you and the other radical feminists are demanding that the government (aka, everyone else) has to pay for all their sexual choices. If you believe that women should not seek approval from a man for their actions, why are you demanding that the men pay the money required for those actions? How does relying on others for payment cause those women to be free?
"me and other radical feminists" Funny, that.. VERY funny!
And no, I don't demand that the government "pay for all their sexual choices". I DO say that all INSURANCE should fully cover health issues and that reproductive health is most definitely a health issue for women.
How you twist that into a claim that I demand free payment should be interesting.. but then, I rarely see you explain your thinking. You seem to prefer to toss out blurbs like that as if they were true.
Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:However, to attain anything like the basic rights, ability to earn a living we have now definitely requires women having control of their OWN reproduction, without having to necessarily seek approval of whatever men they associate with (whether married or not).
That still doesn't explain why you and the other radical feminists are demanding that the government (aka, everyone else) has to pay for all their sexual choices. If you believe that women should not seek approval from a man for their actions, why are you demanding that the men pay the money required for those actions? How does relying on others for payment cause those women to be free?
"me and other radical feminists" Funny, that.. VERY funny!
And no, I don't demand that the government "pay for all their sexual choices". I DO say that all INSURANCE should fully cover health issues and that reproductive health is most definitely a health issue for women.
How you twist that into a claim that I demand free payment should be interesting.. but then, I rarely see you explain your thinking. You seem to prefer to toss out blurbs like that as if they were true.
Insurance companies are forced to pay for it without charging a co-pay and without charging women higher premiums, which really means everyone has to pay a higher premium in order to cover the costs.
Night Strike wrote:Furthermore, insurance already covers contraceptives used for actual medical issues. If a woman wishes to use contraceptives for family planning, then that is HER responsibility to pay for it, not every one else's.
PLAYER57832 wrote:To put it more succintly .... women could legally vote and own property several decades prior to the 60's, but it was not until the LATE 60's and mid 70's that women even had the power to fight for a chance to take any but the most menial, "feminine" positions.
tzor wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:To put it more succintly .... women could legally vote and own property several decades prior to the 60's, but it was not until the LATE 60's and mid 70's that women even had the power to fight for a chance to take any but the most menial, "feminine" positions.
I'm really curious to know what non "feminine" positions you are thnking of here that were gained in the late 60's and mid 70's. When my mother (from Queens) married my father (from East Hampton) she was actually making more money than he was at the time. She gave it up, because that was what you did at the time, and in addition his job was in East Hampton so keeping the job in Manhatten was simply out of the question.
tzor wrote:
It was the WWII labor shortage that really broke the ice for women. While this was short lived because of the influx of male veterans after the war, the ice had already been broken. The biggest factor was the growing movement of women into engineering fields which would not occur until the 80's.
PLAYER57832 wrote:tzor wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:To put it more succintly .... women could legally vote and own property several decades prior to the 60's, but it was not until the LATE 60's and mid 70's that women even had the power to fight for a chance to take any but the most menial, "feminine" positions.
I'm really curious to know what non "feminine" positions you are thnking of here that were gained in the late 60's and mid 70's. When my mother (from Queens) married my father (from East Hampton) she was actually making more money than he was at the time. She gave it up, because that was what you did at the time, and in addition his job was in East Hampton so keeping the job in Manhatten was simply out of the question.
and that proves, what, exactly?
Exceptions make the rule. I don't need to look to YOUR mother, since I lived that period. I can well remember the hoopla when Mary Tyler Moore actually wore PANTS (Capris) on TV, etc. Go back and look at old shows like "Bewitched", Brady Bunch.. in the first few years, and then compare them to later years. It tells you a lot about how society thought back then. Even the Partridge Family is almost repugnantly condescending by todays standards, yet at the time, it was seen as big progress in the image of women.
And.. well, I began college in 1981. It was not until I was in a conversation with another student that my advisor even realized I had scored something like 95% among college bound seniors on the SAT... and the reason it came up is because the other students were talking about this male student as a "known genius" and "after all, he scored [the same score I made]. My advisor had tried to dissuade me from taking science.
Again.. that was 1981!!!
I Also, in 1989, was part of a JUST post-consent decree crew hired for the US Forest Service. The lady who began one of the major lawsuits, from Region 6 in the Forest Service, is just a year or two older than I.
I can bring up plenty of recent examples. To deny my timeline means you have not really looked back at what was going on, you are simply making assumptions or listening to opinions of people who don't think it should have happened anyway.
tzor wrote:
It was the WWII labor shortage that really broke the ice for women. While this was short lived because of the influx of male veterans after the war, the ice had already been broken. The biggest factor was the growing movement of women into engineering fields which would not occur until the 80's.
Rosey the Riveter did a lot, as did Tupperware parties. However, little of that could happen as long as employers could just say "hey.. why hire her, she will only go off and have her kids....", not to mention the very real health limitations that came from having child after child.
stahrgazer wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:tzor wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:To put it more succintly .... women could legally vote and own property several decades prior to the 60's, but it was not until the LATE 60's and mid 70's that women even had the power to fight for a chance to take any but the most menial, "feminine" positions.
I'm really curious to know what non "feminine" positions you are thnking of here that were gained in the late 60's and mid 70's. When my mother (from Queens) married my father (from East Hampton) she was actually making more money than he was at the time. She gave it up, because that was what you did at the time, and in addition his job was in East Hampton so keeping the job in Manhatten was simply out of the question.
and that proves, what, exactly?
Exceptions make the rule. I don't need to look to YOUR mother, since I lived that period. I can well remember the hoopla when Mary Tyler Moore actually wore PANTS (Capris) on TV, etc. Go back and look at old shows like "Bewitched", Brady Bunch.. in the first few years, and then compare them to later years. It tells you a lot about how society thought back then. Even the Partridge Family is almost repugnantly condescending by todays standards, yet at the time, it was seen as big progress in the image of women.
And.. well, I began college in 1981. It was not until I was in a conversation with another student that my advisor even realized I had scored something like 95% among college bound seniors on the SAT... and the reason it came up is because the other students were talking about this male student as a "known genius" and "after all, he scored [the same score I made]. My advisor had tried to dissuade me from taking science.
Again.. that was 1981!!!
I Also, in 1989, was part of a JUST post-consent decree crew hired for the US Forest Service. The lady who began one of the major lawsuits, from Region 6 in the Forest Service, is just a year or two older than I.
I can bring up plenty of recent examples. To deny my timeline means you have not really looked back at what was going on, you are simply making assumptions or listening to opinions of people who don't think it should have happened anyway.
tzor wrote:
It was the WWII labor shortage that really broke the ice for women. While this was short lived because of the influx of male veterans after the war, the ice had already been broken. The biggest factor was the growing movement of women into engineering fields which would not occur until the 80's.
Rosey the Riveter did a lot, as did Tupperware parties. However, little of that could happen as long as employers could just say "hey.. why hire her, she will only go off and have her kids....", not to mention the very real health limitations that came from having child after child.
Player... It sounds like I'm 1 year older than you. I, too, was discouraged from math and sciences and told to take typing and secretarial. Fortunately, my excellent typing got me into an aerospace company and, while I never did get a 4 year degree, I was an engineering assistant in liquid rocket engines for a few years.
stahrgazer wrote:Theme for Mary Tyler Moore: You're gonna make it after all!
stahrgazer wrote:I looked into selling Tupperware. I rejected the company because females were required to wear skirts for any Tupperware function or demo. Really!
stahrgazer wrote:I have a big problem with a political party that wants to tell me what I should do with my body, but if I do it, then they don't want to help raise the result. Have the kid, then stop asking for help feeding, clothing, or housing it, because "we don't want to pay more taxes to cover all that."
As late as 12 years ago, some doctors wouldn't give a single woman a tubal ligation, nor would they give a married woman a tubal without husband's signed consent. Not sure what the situation is today. But I don't think they ever denied a single man, or required wife's permission if he was married.
PLAYER57832 wrote:I can well remember the hoopla when Mary Tyler Moore actually wore PANTS (Capris) on TV, etc. Go back and look at old shows like "Bewitched", Brady Bunch.. in the first few years, and then compare them to later years. It tells you a lot about how society thought back then. Even the Partridge Family is almost repugnantly condescending by todays standards, yet at the time, it was seen as big progress in the image of women.
Activities leading to the adoption of a code for television were begun simultaneously with the licensing of stations. The experience of many years of operation in radio broadcasting pointed to the desirability of early agreement upon standards of programs. The NARTB Television Code became effective March 1, 1952. Subscribers are entitled to display a seal of good practice signifying compliance with code standards.
tzor wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:I can well remember the hoopla when Mary Tyler Moore actually wore PANTS (Capris) on TV, etc. Go back and look at old shows like "Bewitched", Brady Bunch.. in the first few years, and then compare them to later years. It tells you a lot about how society thought back then. Even the Partridge Family is almost repugnantly condescending by todays standards, yet at the time, it was seen as big progress in the image of women.
That is a good fact, but it doesn't point where you think it should. During this period in history, television was drowning in regulations as to what could and what could be televised; what could and could not be discussed and so forth. All of these regulations were put in place by progressive liberal administrations. āThe Shadow of Incipient Censorshipā: The Creation of the Television Code of 1952
tzor wrote:So we come to an interesting question: What was the real role of "Star Trek" in Television and self censorship? "Star Trek" literally made "All in the Family" possible. Before Star Trek, some subjects, including race relations, were literally forbidden from broadcast. But if you have two aliens, one black on the left and white on the right, and one black on the right and white on the left, you could get away with an epsiode on the subject. This allowed to have a comedey where Archie argued with "Meat Head."
tzor wrote:Anyway, to get back on subject, this generally proves that using the TV media to see what the society as a whole was like in the 1950's and 1960's is not a good idea.
Woodruff wrote:So you believe it was liberals who were keeping women back, as far as what was shown on television? Really?
In 1950, only one in every three women entered the workforce; by the 1960s, social and economic forces made higher education more available to women, thus increasing their job opportunities. As a result, more women married later and postponed having children. In 1998, the number of women entering the workforce had climbed to three out of every five women. And in 2006, women comprised 46 percent of the paid workforce. The influx of women has been "one of the most important forces shaping the economy over the past 30 years, influencing economic factors such as average family income, productivity, and consumer behavior," according to Workplace Visions: Exploring the Future of Work, a report by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM).
"The Sixties were an edgy time of transition, change, and confusion, " observed journalist Kati Marton in Hidden Power: Presidential Marriages That Shaped Our Recent History. "In 1963 Betty Friedan published her book The Feminine Mystique, in which she claimed that 'the problem that has no name burst like a boil through the image of the happy American housewife.' The same year, an American woman, the physicist Maria Goepper-Mayer, won a Nobel Prize for the first time. The civil rights and antiwar movements politicized and radicalized a growing number of women bombarded with contradictory expectations and images about work and family. While Lesley Gore's hit song 'You Don't Own Me' climbed the charts, Leave It to Beaver and Father Knows Best dominated television. One in 5 women with children under 6 and nearly one fourth of women whose children were over 16 held paid jobs in the Sixties.
tzor wrote:Woodruff wrote:So you believe it was liberals who were keeping women back, as far as what was shown on television? Really?
No, I was saying that what you saw on TV at that time was not reflective of the society of that time. You cannot use those shows as to the condition of the average woman of that era.
I mean one would get the impression that there was no opposition to the war in the 1960's.
tzor wrote: Anyway, to get back on subject, this generally proves that using the TV media to see what the society as a whole was like in the 1950's and 1960's is not a good idea.
Funkyterrance wrote:I am sad to say that I arrived late onto this discussion but I've taken the time to read this entire thread in one sitting. It has been a good ride. That being said, I still think I have something to contribute.
I would like to return to John's reference to abortion as genocide. While this may be a technically incorrect statement, I think that we all understood what he meant by it. While some would like to throw this baby out with the bathwater (pun intended) for the sake of argument, I think there are some real similarities in the comparison.
Take the Holocaust for instance. A group of people were considered less than human and were therefore exterminated by those who regarded them as undeserving to live/not fitting into their "future plan". This was a power play of extreme proportions but not altogether unlike the jury of an unborn child whose parent(s) wish for it to be aborted. The baby is not part of their "future plan" as it were and is therefore disposed of.
Woodruff wrote:Star Trek was VERY anti-war, as a show, for instance.
tzor wrote:Woodruff wrote:Star Trek was VERY anti-war, as a show, for instance.
If Star Trek wasn't about aliens it would not have been allowed most of its espiodes.
Funkyterrance wrote:I would like to return to John's reference to abortion as genocide. While this may be a technically incorrect statement, I think that we all understood what he meant by it.
Woodruff wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:I would like to return to John's reference to abortion as genocide. While this may be a technically incorrect statement, I think that we all understood what he meant by it.
Words have meaning. Using them improperly simply to get an emotional reaction is a dishonest argument.
Funkyterrance wrote:Woodruff wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:I would like to return to John's reference to abortion as genocide. While this may be a technically incorrect statement, I think that we all understood what he meant by it.
Words have meaning. Using them improperly simply to get an emotional reaction is a dishonest argument.
True, but if you publicly discount a person's overall reasoning due to a technicality it tends to look like avoidance of the issue at heart.
John directed the conversation in a real thought provoking direction and I thought it was underhanded to, instead of provide a legitimate counter to his legitimate point, attack him for his misuse of a word instead.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:btw, with regards to those who think those who oppose abortion are "anti-woman":
if you believed that a fetus was human, wouldn't YOU be against killing fetuses, even in cases of rape, despite the fact that you are totally pro-woman and love gender equality?
quit pretending that our position is based on our so-called "misogyny". that's a fucking cop-out. the debate is and always has been about whether a fetus is human and whether killing it is an act of murder... it has NEVER been about trying to find clever ways to punish women because we just hate them so very much
i suppose i should have expected it from the same people who call anyone who dislikes obama a "racist".
how the hell can you take yourselves seriously... i sometimes wonder how many of you are trolling, as opposed to simply being ignorant or stupid.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users