I used to think so. After a little consideration, however, I notice that men have god knows how many social obligations to do everything for women. If taken out to eat, it is customary for the MAN to pick up the tab. When dating, the MAN is supposed to buy her expensive shit, like jewelry, to name one.
As long as society pressurizes and expects men to wait on them hand and foot, I think the fact that men tend to make higher incomes is justified.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-09 20:38
>>Should Women Make Equal Incomes?
Yes.
If the amount of work performed by both genders is equal, then they both should get equal pay.
(in the states)
Grades dont reflect actual ability these days. Most public school systems have been restructured to accomodate girls because of BS interveiws with kintergarteners in the 80's. The little girls bitched about school and the little boys didnt. Then we had OPERATION: GIRL for about 10 years. Giving special treatment to the girls and hold back the guys because they can "handle" it only disenfranchises young men (potential scholars).
You sound really bitter. Same poster as in the abortion thread? The anonymous thing doesn't work as long as you hold on to characteristic (see: cliched) behaviors.
If you look at the avarage score, XY does NOT beat XX, I think even a late report said that XX had a slight slight advantage (like 1 point). however, the quirk is that XY has a much much wider spread/distrubution. so if you look at, like, 150 points, you'll find many many more XY. however, you'll also find many more XY at like 75 points, while XX cluster more around 100.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-10 9:03
So women are most always average stupid bitches, while men CAN become greater.
I mean, my last REAL IQ test (nm shitty intorwebs ones) was 154.
So, while there are a lot of retarded men (durr durr red states)
There are a lot more generally stupid women, and a lot less smart women.
Males sperm cells have a thinner membranes which increases the likely hood of mutation. This is because evolutionarily, females reproduce and males exist to test and try out new genes. As mutations are generally not beneficial, men tend to be slightly inferior, but with a larger range of abilities. In terms of intelligence, you will get a large variety of different states of mind in men that rarely exist in women. Due to the recent improvements in the standard of living, people who would have otherwise died in a life as a peasant or medieval warrior from disease, low intelligence and physical inferiority still live and pass on their genes. Eugenics must be applied in a humane manner to stop this process before it harms people who will exist in the future by forcing them to have inferior genes that could have been easily avoided.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-10 14:28
>>89
Last time I checked, sex is a way of conveying one's love to his/her spouse in a physical manner. Sex is making the intangible definition of love physical.
Then again, there are a lot of sluts and manwhores out there whom abuse sex and give it a bad name. Damn slutty whores and mansluts. Lol.
First of all, dumbfuck. You can't "fail" an IQ test. Second of all, the fact that you think my admonishment of your bitter behavior toward women logical means that I'm a woman is a pretty strong indicator that you're a soon-to-be-faggot due to your crippling inability to relate to the female species. Thank god your genes won't get passed on.
Picking up the check and being obligated to by jewelry is pretty old fashioned by now, no?
I've never payed for the whole check. A friend of mine laughs when someone talks about "Paying for your woman's food". She pays her share, and he pays his.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-15 4:02
>>93
No, it isn't. Those women who don't accept it are ungreatful bitches, and those men who don't do it are good-for-nothing bums.
I NEVER respect anyone who don't agree, and I never will. There are simply some things that shouldn't be considered outdated.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-15 6:00
>>94
However, if you think women should earn as much money as you do, yet get all kinds of stuff for free that you don't, you're a woman's bitch. A male feminist failure. A 'nongenital man' (*). Somebody who should just kill himself to end his misery.
Women never wanted to be anything mut a man without a penis...
Name:
Xel2006-08-15 13:21
>>95 "However, if you think women should earn as much money as you do, yet get all kinds of stuff for free that you don't, you're a woman's bitch. A male feminist failure. A 'nongenital man' (*). Somebody who should just kill himself to end his misery."
Laghaubly preachy and overblown. Real feminists dislike all determinism and side-treatment by gender. Lolololololo maybe You should kill yourself hahahahhahahahaha you don't have a penis you are whipped by women hahahhahaahah.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-15 15:35
>>98
There are no real feminists anymore since women have exactly the same rights as men these days.
What does exist are retarded entitlement bitches nobody gives a shit about and who need to be killed with fire ASAP.
Name:
Xel2006-08-16 3:04
>>99
Well, I'm not to sure about the same rights thing, but furthermore it is apparent that gender roles serve no actual purpose but to create a destructive gulf between genders. That should be fought against. Show me some proof that a large number of feminists are off the map when it comes to logic. The word "militant" and "bitches" are so overused by anti-feminists it makes me want to buy throwing stars.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-16 4:53
>>100
>Well, I'm not to sure about the same rights thing
You're not so sure? Please elaborate!
>it is apparent that gender roles serve no actual purpose
Because there are no significant differences between genders, like one having an uterus and stuff? Also, different hormones that affect their development (including brain chemistry, probably)?
>Show me some proof that a large number of feminists are off the map when it comes to logic.
Show me what purpose feminists still have today. And please do so without drawing up some theory of a "patriarchal conspiracy" which tries to keep women out of certain jobs, makes sure they earn less etc.
Name:
Xel2006-08-16 7:01
>>101
I'm afraid I don't have the time to find sources or elaborate to a sufficient degree. I'm not going to claim upper hand, but neither can you until you get some facts. My point, unsubstantiated as it is, is that the minuscule biological discrepancies are overprojected on society, causing waste of resources and inflexibility in people's minds. Rape and homophobia are partially caused by gender roles, if you ask me, but I don't have the oomph in me today to solidify my position with facts or elaboration. Feminism is justified even in our time, and I don't think I am alone in stating that.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-16 15:58
>>102
>I'm not going to claim upper hand, but neither can you until you get some facts.
What kind of facts? Like how the law enforces equal rights for men and women?
>minuscule biological discrepancies are overprojected on society
Sounds like a theory, but probably hard to prove.
>I don't have the oomph in me today to solidify my position with facts or elaboration.
:-(
>Feminism is justified even in our time, and I don't think I am alone in stating that.
I think for every possible opinion you'll find people who support it. Especially for things which are universally considered PC, like feminism. I still say feminism has no place anymore in today's society. It did when women were discriminated against by the state, but since that has become obsolete, feminism has taken an entirely new form.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-16 22:41
>>103 Women are still discriminated against by the state. Doesn't take a bucket of bolts to figure it out.
"Conservatives contend that the dropouts prove that feminism “failed” because it was too radical, because women didn’t want what feminism had to offer. In fact, if half or more of feminism’s heirs (85 percent of the women in my Times sample), are not working seriously, it’s because feminism wasn’t radical enough: It changed the workplace but it didn’t change men, and, more importantly, it didn’t fundamentally change how women related to men."
I have the impression that feminism is trying to legistlate change, by forcing people to act differently, rather than actually try to change how people think. That is why it causes so much animosity and resentment.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-18 5:11
I don't know why many women want to succeed in the corporate world. I am a man and I want nothing to do with it, they represent everything that is wrong with civilisation at the moment. I'd rather start my own eco-village or start living in one.
>>112 The corporate world IS human civilization, a prerequisite for almost everything you see, including the monitor these here pixels appear on. The problem is that capitalism is an expression of humans valuing immediate satisfaction over more nebulous yet greater rewards in the future. I think we as an organism lack the correct mindset to survive into the next millenium, or at least be able leave this planet in some kind of stable, biospehere-imitating vessel. We are fucked, if one asks me.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-18 10:47
>>113
I'm far more worried about humanity destroying most of itself in nuclear war than I'm worried about enviromental disasters. Regardless of what enviromentalist doomsayers say we humans aren't very capable of doing anything that would destroy our planet or it's ecosystem. Making such claim is egoistical and absurd, this planet has survived far worse things than humanity is capable. Humans are just one cog in nature's machine. Anti-enviromentalists are wrong too though. Pollution is a big problem, but it's not problem that could destroy human civilization. It could affect in ecosystem causing mutations(evulution to adapt new polluted enviroment, not really so much chemicals) and causing some species to be extinct, but in the long run it's not that big deal. There might be catastrophes and we might make enviroment unsuitable for human life, but we humans posses an unique trait when compared to other animals. That is our mind. I'm fairly sure we develop means to survive, unless we nuke ourselves or get wiped out by comet. As for economics, corporate monopoles suck, but they're inevitable outcome of free society. There's no good way to prevent it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-18 12:34
>>114
>corporate monopoles suck, but they're inevitable outcome of free society
o_O
Every free society will ultimately turn into a non-free one?
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-19 18:56
>>115
Nope, if it has it's safeguards and not all mega corporations have fascist mindset. Besides economics aren't so simple. It's possible for even mega corporation to fall down. However corporate monopoles are something that will start to fuck up every free society at some time.
>>116
Truth, at the end of the day coorporations are below the law and the law is controlled by the people. Even though socialists like to claim evil cooporations are in control to whip people into a paranoid frenzy, conversely the popularity and effect of socialism in increasing statism is evidence of the fact that the people are in control, even if they make the wrong decisions.
People should vote for the libertarian party because, then it would be practically impossible for anyone in positions of power (whether they own a private business or are in the government) to act like tyrants.
IMPORTANT: Note how I said *practically* impossible, since the threat of tyranny always looms and even with a libertarian government we must stay vigilant.