Reply to SubZero:

Are you seriously trying to compare the two? they are both bad the fact of the matter is in the most parts of the world women do not have equal rights compraed to men.. This isn't suggesting women are always the victims.. But you guys simply are dillusional if you think women some how have the most power overall.. They don't.

Uhh women not having much in the way of rights thanks in part to the leaders though DOESN'T necessarily mean that those same men don't treat the majority of other men like crap; Africa would be more comparable to Ancient Greece ifwhat you saywere the case. Such a minimalist view of the problems in Africa and making it gender devisive (not talking about you in this thread since its related the point of the topic, but much our policy regarding the region) underscores considerations for more effective strategies (like calling out those rulers for the scum that they are rather than hoping they adopt egalitarianism).

And remember my other point, the issue of women's status compared to men in many parts of Africa doesn't take into accountthe factthat women and men live in seperate spheres within their own communities with their own rules and customs and have limited engagement from the other sphere outside of marriage partners and special occasions. How can women in a good portion of Africa exactly be oppressed or disempowered by men if said spheres of women are ultimately run by older women?

You want to know why that is? Because parents think that having a male child is MUCH better.. So they abandon the female child.. This is brought upon on the view of thinking that having a male child is SUPERIOR.. And sexual power? Seriously? Men still control the majority of wealth and power in that nation..

Remember that the traditional family and many of the customs associated to it is still a central institution in China. Women upon marriage leave their own family sphere and marry into their husband's. Men are considered to still be connected with their parents and extended paternal family. And though this doesn't actually affect either's ability to support their families, women aren't shamed by the community for not taking care of their parents after getting married while men are shamed to death for abandoning their parents; such an arrangement is understood and enforced in partby women (both by mothers and by daughters who want to focus care on THEIR kids).

And though men have the majority of wealth in China, women who marry these men get access towards said wealth; they wouldn't actually marry themif that wasn't the case. Have you actually considered that many women may rather marry men who amass wealth than endeavor in the workplace to make that money themselves? Movements to empower women in other countries MUST take into account what the women of those countries desire. The values Western women hold aren't the same as those in other cultures afterall.

This has little to do with the fact of warring but of social development.. Countries with low social developement (or different) will tend to treat women has property or second ****citizens.

Thing is though is that men are the ones who predominately build infastructure thanks to the physical sacrifices such development requires. You recognize that infastructure is key to women's status compared to men so logically speaking, educating and empowering the men in those poorer Muslim countries in order to get them to start work on infastructure would do a lot more for women's empowerment for those regions than the equality dogma (whether or not such concerns are justified) at least until the regions have a comparable standard of life. Putting the cart in front of the horse and all that.

What does this have ANYTHING to do with the topic? Your talking about taxation something that has nothing to do with gender.

You talk about the wealth disparity, but said wealth disparity is casued by a small minority of very wealthy men who hold the majority of overall wealth. They have clout in Washington and options to exploit loopholes to prevent them from getting taxed. Women's rights have traditionally been won through burecracy. The wealth disparity simply cannot reach true equality until women's rights advocates adopt a different strategy other than moral shaming and dogma (not bad in of itself mind you)which has little effect on the big wigs in Washington. All further lobbying does is give those elites who are responsible for the wealth disparity the moral authority and the social approval to implement more taxation on the masses without seriously closing the wealth disparity; aka a poorly thought out strategy.

Yes because the taxes and extraction consists of just the men, not the women as well in the US.. :roll:

Men are the ones who pay the most in taxes. Women have the choice of marrying a man who will provide for them as opposedto working (that's not even getting into the social programs designed specifically for women that minimizes their need to work). Men (with very few exceptions) have to work to get money. Such a system of gender relations GUARENTEES that men will be taxed more than women through simple makeup of the overall taxbase, all other things being assumed equal. Such a reality dictates that the concerns of men in regards to taxation are more important than those of women (well, should) no matter how much this specific point disenfranchises women.

Who exactly do you think is responsible? I just pointed it out how guys who think men are some how less then women are full of it.

The wealthy elite.

No they aren't.. If you look at statistics its relatively even.. But say that it wasn't.. That has nothing to do with the system being unfair but voter turn out.. But yet agian no they are not.

In that case wouldn't that be, you know, WOMEN'S FAULT and their and their sympathizers responsibility to do something about other than complain about men and/or unfairness?

No because women and any minority just don't vote for those reasons.. Its a issue but there are general issues which are much more important overall.. You seem to have a overly simplistic view of the political process.. Women do not some how control it.. So yet again I am merely pointing out how full of it people are in declaring how men are pawns to women.. That just isn't the case.. If you look through out the world.. You will notice that every place of political power whether its military, dictator or elected official is held by a man.. The heads of all major religious orders are held by men (Pope, Dali Lama, Islamic Cleric's etc etc).. The Richest and most powerful organizations in the world are held predominately by men.. As I have shown earlier women have at the most positive figures in the United States still make less than 10% of a males wage.. This isn't defending extreme feminism.. But it just seems like many in this thread ignore basic unavoidable facts about this..

My logic can be applied to all issues. If the women voters repeatedly decide in part that a man is more capable of furthering their interests (which doesn't necessarily have to be gender based), then who is anybody to complain that women aren't in Washington? The desires of the majority of women should logically take precedence over that of a minority who want to be politicians.

[QUOTE="-Big_Red-"][QUOTE="urbangamez"]

Very funny thread Big Red. The good feminists are fightn for the rights of women all over.

sSubZerOo

:lol: What? Are you serious? Tell that to the African Continent, Tell that to the Middle Eastern Region.. Tell that to China.. Tell that to the majority of the most powerful positions in the world both wealth wise and political power wise..

Really? For all the regions you mentioned, its one thing to care about women's rights and status, but its incorrect to assume that women may actually be where they are due to discrimination.

• First of all, the vast majority of the ****ing African Continent is a 3rd world crapsack hellhole. Women simply CAN'T be empowered in a place where physical strength still rules for a large part and with an absolute lack of modern conviences we here take for granted. Secondly, women and men in many parts of the continent still largely live in seperate spheres in their own communities; the concept of women's equality goes flying out of the window when African women interact with their men FAR less then we do here in modern society and are less under the thumb of the rule of man. Thirdly, the worse the women go through (aside from possibly the mass rape campaigns) are NOTHING compared to the experiences of thousands of boys being forced to serve as child soldiers for local warloards.
• You forget (or are unimformed) that China has a severely lopsided gender ratio in terms of an over abundanceof males. Women there essentially have huge sexual power, greater than women here in the West due,and the men there have almost NO ability to complain for the women are practically guarenteed to be able to find another man if they desire to leave their current one. And though females are aborted over there more than males, recognize this as aside effect of the one child policy and that MOTHERS THEMSELVES have a huge say in deciding to kill the female fetuses as boys are more likely to support their parents into their old age (the girls will rather marry a provider than labor herself).
• As far as the Middle East in concerned, though I agree that women DO have their problems there and that they can be discussed, there status there may not be so much based on sexism (which is a precedent required for a women's rights movement to truly be effective IMO) but based on the realities of life those regions face, particularly almost constant fighting and warring which demands cultures and communities that put a premium on masculinity and male characteristics and the ability to stabalize the region will be based on strategies far more complex than simply empowering women and educating girls.

As far as wealth and political power goes, the vast majority of wealth is held in the hands of a very small minority of men. Provided, this does concern women but you can't seriously use the system to extract the wealth of the very men who RUN the system, for all political lobbying would do is empower those men who hold the wealth to extract the wealth from the lower 99% of males without getting women anywhere closer to those who are the ones truly responsible for the wealth disparity. And as far as political power goes, women are the majority of the damn voting block. Who is anybody to complain if women decide that a man would be better at furthering their interests than another woman (they wouldn't exactly vote for him if they didn't think otherwise)?

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Economists are useless.

Why? Politicians don't care. They DO NOT CARE. Politicians do what they do to benefit themselves.

The solution to saving the economy is so simple but does Obama, his minions, or congress care?

NO!!!!!

AHUGECAT

No, really, just no.

Get Americans employed again... solution = simple. Bring back manufacturing jobs and deport illegal immigrants.

Not so simple. Government may be corrupt and in bed with Big Business, but it isn't STUPID (outside of Obama, Pelosi, and a few other Dems). Though Government officials may get personal earmarks from business owners who ship jobs to different countries (which balances out the decreased tax base in their eyes), there is NO way Government would allow businesses (beyond the ones their already in bed with)to stab them in the back by replacing part of the paying tax base with illegals unopposed within their own boarders...........unless there weren't enough Americans willing to DO those jobs and Government had no choice.

Women will NEVER work in the blue collar sector (which employs a majority of the illegals) outside of the government forcing a gun to their heads and will overwhelmingly go into white collar labor or marry a more well-off man. Young men could and are more willing to do those jobs except for the fact that women don't date or even notice blue collar workers; young men have no incentive to take on back breaking labor like that like we did in the old days and will instead either go into white collar work or take on easier jobs. I mean, is there an explainable reason for the shortage of plumbers and engineers (which most illegals are unqualified to enter) other than the dictates of the sexual marketplace?

Shipping out the illegals, as much as it eventually needs to happen, would lead to a huge labor shortage in the bottom rungs of employment. Government will not be able to do such a thing without the insurance of American men taking these positions as though it will lead to more employment opprotunities, it may lead to a bunch of businesses closing shop (which would also be detrimental to the economy). Remember we don't have the same testicular fortitude as the Americans during the Great Depression. Those men had the benefit of a sense of brotherhood and common interests with their fellow man which made all of them more willing to put their self-interests aside (its not a given that many young men these days would actually take these jobs given the present shortage of plumbers and engineers) along with not having to face the prospect of their wives dumping them in favor of getting handouts from the government (which the older Gen Xers would face).

If you don't plan on having a real job or going to college, or medical school, or law school, or graduate school, etc., then yes homework is pointless. You don't have to worry about your job at McDonald's after you clock out and ride your bike home.

However, If you DO plan on having a career or getting an advanced education, then guess what? Those commitments don't just go away when you get home. There is ALWAYS more to do, whether you're at the office, in the classroom, at home, or anywhere else. If you can't manage your free time and do things on your own, you will not be successful.

Homework conditions kids to be self-sufficient and disciplined. It prepares them for college, graduate-level programs, and professional school. So please, don't do your homework. That will be another person that people like me, who are ambitious, won't have to compete with.

Communistik

First of all, slightly off-topic, you contextualize employment at the two extremes of Burger Fool and University majors. Its stupid and short-sided to state that most blue collar, non minimum wage jobs aren't "real jobs" because of the simple fact that SOMEBODY has to do them, they wouldn't even exist otherwise if they weren't necessary to maintain modern infastructure. If we don't have enough young Americans willing todo that work (what with young women overwhelmingly choosing the white collar sector and young men having to follow women into the white collar sector if they want said women to notice them), then business and Government would HAVE to import immigrants to fill in these open positions.

Secondly, all the commitments adults have to face don't necessarily come from the SAME person/institution. A basic problem with school, exemplified by homework, is that such work is given to kids on a cultural assumption that kids lives revolve around school accompanied by the ever increasing influence of the public school system in how the system is involved in kids lives, whether to their detriment or not what with kids being expected to conform to the needs of the system and not the other way around. Private employment doesn't have such a cultural backing behind it and HAS to accomodate its employees to the extent of being favorable to the competition in respect to new hires (or tovalued employees potentiallyleaving). Such market forces are precisely why women's concerns in the workforce are being increasingly met (men's concerns don't get met mainly because American Men traditionally have tolerated a LOT of abuse by employers in order to provide for their families). Even if homework does have benefits for kids, increasing homework can't be given the grading bias it has on the justification of preparing kids for the workforce if the experience of public school doesn't translate well enough to the workforce (not just white collar stuff like law or medical school).

Thirdly, discipline is only a beneficial trait when a man's superiors can be expected to have some regard for his subordinates' well-being. Discipline is detrimental for a person if his superiors are given leeway to throw him under the bus at their discretion. Anybody not already employed by the Government is an idiot or ill-informed for endorcing ideas of unconditional discipline and obedience in our modern dog-eat-dog world.

Any job that pays a decent salary is going to require you to take some work home, it isn't given "arbitrarily" as the TC might like to think.UT_Wrestler

I'd debate this as that kind of work done outside the office is either excess workload, work being done outside the office but still done "on the clock", or talking/meeting up with clients (which homework doesn't represent at all anyway). I don't actually think the idea perpetrated by schoolsof being assigned work to be done specifically on your own time by your employer represents the majority of jobs outside of the most high profile ones like lawyer or doctor. Work to be done at home in the adult workforce finally doesn't tend to be its own entirely seperate sphere of work like it does for primary and secondary school.

I don't necessarily say this as an excuse to not do homework (we all have to live with the hand we're dealt with), but as a rebuttal to the idea that homework is actually beneficial to kids to begin with shared by most adults who don't care about questioning the status quo.

I say this on one main basis: what should be most important is that the kids learn the material taught to them and tests/exams are the most instrumental tool in determining that kids learn the stuff; homework by comparison is busy work at best. Kids not doing the homework doesn't necessarily mean that they don't know the material or even that they are lazy, it means that the kids largely don't feel as the homework is worth doing in favor of potentially more worthwhile things they could do like working, hanging with friends (which anyone capable of critical thinking would say is more useful for a developing kid than stupid busy work in my opinion), or playing sports (not that ALL kids necessarily use the time wisely, but that's what parents are for) particularly when the kids already know the stuff.

Hell, even the workplace justification doesn't work as employers worth their salt don't EVER arbitrarily give out work for their employees that serves no practical purpose other than taxing their employees stamina; all they mainly care about is productivity and results.

Is the increased effect homework is given on the grading system doing public school kids a disservice?

I've noticed there seem to be a lot of Jew jokes on Family Guy, and they're getting old. Additionally, my family fought for the Union in the American Civil War. Unfortunately, I'm still white, I'm pretty well off, and if I bothered to vote, I'd probably vote Republican, so that means I'm still pretty racist. :(

Palantas