@punksterdaddy: I quoted studies and you said they were wrong. Everything I said you just said is wrong. You haven't really proven anything other than tell me I'm wrong and called things non-issues and non-points, despite millions who would disagree with you. You even ranted on a previous post about people need to be able to change their viewpoint. But I don't see you changing yours so don't lecture me about changing mine. Be angry all you want, yell all you want, call me any name you want, bold-face and italicize words as facts all you want, I honestly don't care. I was hoping this would be civil but you certainly lived up to the socially-maladjusted gamer stereotype, so there's no point in continuing this. I know you'll respond to this so you can have the last word. It is yours for the taking. Peace.
@punksterdaddy: "Who is treating women unequally? This is a problem created out of nothing that bears no resemblance to our Western societies."
This is really the summation of your argument. However, millions of women would disagree with you, but according to you, each and every one of them are wrong. Pleasure discussing this with you. Enjoy the rest of your week.
@straightcur: Childcare is expensive. In many cases, the cost of childcare is more than the salary of one of the parents. So that parent stays home. Not a choice at all. What if money isn't an issue? What if neither parent trusts a stranger to watch their kid so they agree that the lesser income parent stays home and then they get divorced? Yes, it was choice, but it was a choice in the best interest of the child. Still, that stay-at-home parent (usually the woman) is left with a greater difficulty to earn income post-divorce (because her skill set and education will likely have lapsed). I'm not saying alimony is properly awarded by the court (often it's completely unfair), but there are circumstances where it is appropriate.
@punksterdaddy: So because YOU don't see it or haven't heard of it, it doesn't exist? Well, fair enough. Alright, again we'll agree to disagree. I won't change your mind and you won't change mind. Peace out.
@straightcur: I'm not sure what part of the world you live in, but in the U.S., there's a LOT of people that would disagree with your statement that we are absolutely treated equally (even if you include the "for the most part").
Can you give some legitimate evidence of pendulum swinging that you speak of? When women earned the right to vote, did they take over the government and men now need to take it back? When women earned the right to own property, did they take over the country, forcing men to live on their land? When women earned the right to participate in the military, did our military become all women?
Again, please don't casually ignore that all of these major social policy changes were made possible by people taking some kind of action. Women didn't just say "Voting is an equal right for all so someone will eventually allow us to vote."
@straightcur: I completely agree with you that we need to be treated as equals. The problem is we're not. How do you suppose we fix that? Just do nothing and hope it gets better?
I hate to break it to you, but what equality we do have, was made possible by people of action (rallies, marches, etc....). That's how it happened. Do nothing, get nothing.
@straightcur: Excellent question. Males are already heroes in most of our forms of entertainment (and the women are the ones who need to be saved). I don't think they need to be celebrated further.
Now, in typically female-dominated industries, I would like to see more males propped up (such as teaching and nursing). But instead, men are looked down upon for being in such roles. If that's not evidence enough of sexism, I don't know what is. In other words, if a woman succeeds in a male-dominate industry, she's viewed among women as an incredible person. If a man succeeds in a female-dominated industry, he's viewed among men as weak. That's not fair either.
93ChevyNut's comments