Feminism

"And of course this "ME" society where everyone only thinks of their rights and their needs leave no room for the respect of others and the discovery of others' thoughts, needs, and rights, hence conflicts arise as time is not taken to even examine the first stone." ("justathought")

In fact, this "ME" outlook prohibits disrespect for others, and correctly defines others' thoughts, needs, and rights as their concern, not mine.

The rest of your message might have been interesting, if you had discussed "a woman" instead of "women", saying for example "a woman can now work in most jobs that previously were exclusively male, although she must now consider the same questions of qualification, ability, and potential that men have traditionally had to face, as material providers" instead of "Women can now work in most jobs that previously were exclusively male, but the negative side of this is that it also took away our femininity. I have seen women working on the railway line, and to tell you the truth I do not think anything is gained here. Men are stronger to handle those jobs."

Nothing took away all women's femininity (whatever you believe that means), nor ever could. Any job can be done effeminitely or butch-like. By treating all women as a single monolith, you commit an affront to the dignity of each. Being enslaved to feminism instead of paternalism is not an improvement, it is a meaningless name change.

Freedom implies responsibility. As we say here in the states: "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Reality permits you to dislike that fact, but not to evade it.

Australia is lagging behind the rest of the English speaking world with regard to women reaching high positions in government, the courts and business.

England has had a female Prime Minister; New Zealand has a female Prime Minister; America has a female secretary of state and a potential female candidate for the presidency.

There is no likelihood of a female prime minister in Australia in the foreseeable future. Almost all judges and magistrates are male.

There has never been (to the best of my recollection) a female premier of a State (equivalent to governor in the USA).

This is quite ironic as one of the prime instigators of the feminist movement was an Australian academic ? Germaine Greer.

There are many other areas ? e.g. company directors or chairmen; chancellors etc. of universities ? which are still almost exclusively male.

There are women in the police force and armed services but overall there is still a long, long way to go before women will have access to the positions of power in our country let alone equal access.

An outspoken minority of feminists seem to have not a desire to be treated as equals to males, but as males. I open doors for ladies because I'm a gentleman, not because you're a lady. Being a gentleman is is about me, not you. If the feminists were right I'd only open the doors for attractive women.
For those of you feel I've somehow insulted you by insinuating you aren't capable of getting through the door by yourself, let me know and I can assure you I won't do it again in your case.

Don't know why you want to be equal anyway, personally I'd aim higher.

.
....be careful what you ask for. You just might get it.

.
When it comes to voting, getting loans, working (most, but not all jobs), etc, and all those other "equality" things, I'm certainly all in favor of treating men and women equally. However (you knew there had to be a however, didn't you?), men and women are not equal, and anyone who thinks so is a moron. Men and women are as different as night and day. And just like night and day, they compliment each other, but one cannot become the other. Each has strengths and weaknesses; each has unique aptitudes; and so on.

When, instead of "complimenting" each other, they try to be "equal", the relationship is doomed to fail at worst, never be what it could be, at best. And, in my opinion, modern-day feminism has absolutely ruined many relationships, it's caused too many divorces, too many single-parent homes, etc.

Okay, blast away.

there have been "feminine" and "unfeminine" women - modern trends have not changed that. I suspect that as soon as women get equal pay for equal work, they will get the respect some of them feel is missing.

It is harmful to say (especially to a youngster) that is too "sissy" or that is too "butch". If it is real (and not criminal) it isn't "too" anything. After all, both sexes have testosterone AND estrogen - just in different proportions.

To me, an ideal relationship is between people with a lot in common and just enough differences to make life interesting. Doesn't that describe men and women?

I had plenty of lovers before my husband, and not a one of them could bring me to orgasm... a feat my husband can accomplish in a matter of minutes. I used to blame myself for my "inabilty" and now I give my husband his due accolades (and whatever else) for his super-human (apparently) abilities.

That being said, I highly reccommend that any woman who intends to have an orgasm with a man be well versed in how such a thing is accomplished... a little solo flying practice is quite helpful. Once you've figured out how to achieve it yourself, you can easier teach someone else to "fly."

And IF "justathought" is a woman, she must be a very young one... I've never heard so much female bashing from any woman... and blaming a generation of heathens on feminism is downright appalling... how about we put that blame squarely where it belongs, on parents who run off, leaving all the parenting responsibility to one person, and parents who don't discipline their kids... and timeout is not discipline, it's time to think about what you did... my mom used to give us time to think about what we did, right before she spanked us for doing something we knew was wrong.

to the very end..

The whole feminism must take the blame for the majority?? Puhleeze. Marraiges failed just fine before feminism, it's just that people stayed together and lived in misery instead of just moving on..

[b]Why[/b] do you believe that "the feminist movement must(, in my opinion,) take the blame for the majority of it."

What agenda items of the feminist movement are responsible for "the breakup of the traditional and healthy family unit"? You made clear points about the labor union movement and the environmental movement [b]directly[/b] causing certain outcomes, which all regulars know that you personally find abhorrent. But you did not, in my opinion, support the claim that "the breakup of the traditional and healthy family unit" is attributable to feminist ideology. In fact, you did not even define what you meant by "breakup". Since there is more than one family, you must not mean my own personal breakups with ex-girlfriends, and if I were prone to assumption, I might guess that you mean increased divorce rates. If so, you have not explained why those are the fault of feminism, or some sect within feminism, rather than technological advancements in birth control since the 1950's, or any of the other environmental factors that have also changed substantially in the time that divorce rates have increased.

I contend that drug prohibition is singly responsible for (1) skewing the relationship of supply and demand, in turn (2) drastically increasing the number of users, in turn (3) drastically increasing the number of non-violent persons suffering long-term incarceration, in turn (4) drastically increasing the number of women whose partners are either killed, imprisoned, or unreliable due to involvement in criminal activity, association with women of loose morals, and any other aspects of criminal culture I may be omitting.

Do you understand how much filling you have left to do?

I don't speak for "some people" because I have yet to make the acquaintance of the vast majority of people. But speaking for myself, if somebody does "call me" something that is not only different from what I know I am, but contrary to some of my most important beliefs (outside of a "yuk" thread, of course) I explain why the word that I was called is an inaccurate description of what I am. If, for example, somebody were to call me a "zealot" without explaining that the standard connontation of fanaticism was not intended, then I would explain why "fanaticism" is inapplicable.

BTW, the [b]first[/b] definition of "zealot" in my dictionary: "a member of afanatical sect arising in Judea during the first century AD and militantly opposing the Roman domination of Palestine," and "zealotry" is defined as "[b]excess[/b] of zeal." (emphasis mine) It's [b]perfectly reasonable[/b] to assume, [b]unless specified otherwise[/b], that a words' primary meaning is the intended meaning.

Likewise, "I know what I am, and regardless of how others may or may not see it, I'm perfectly happy with it." But when somebody makes a statement about me that is contrary to the truth about me, I may, especially if I hold that person in esteem, make the error or misconception clear.

.
I seem to remember a discussion in which you advocated that parents (plural) should accept full and total responsibility for their children's education -- including bearing the full and total financial burden. Why stop at just education? And why stop at just the financial burden? Why not include absolutely every aspect of that child's upbringing?

I've provided a statistic that shows 80 percent of divorce is justified by "irreconcilable differences". (And please, don't insult me by asking for a "source"; because, as you probably know, without a doubt, I can indeed provide it.) Therefore, one could certainly surmise that the remaining 20 percent is for other reasons, including spousal-parental abuse. Perhaps it's you who should go searching for the data to back-up your assertions, not me. I'm talking about the 80 percent who toss aside their parental responsibility for convenience's sake. I'm talking about how shunning that responsibility becomes a burden -- financial and otherwise -- to society as a whole, a burden we both agree society should not pay for -- financially and otherwise.

For argument's sake, I will concede that whether or not a legal "marriage" is the vehicle in which parents accommodate their parental responsibility is immaterial. Married or not, like it or not, one plus one, in this case, equals a third, which also equals a family; and these people should stay together and raise those kids, not shifting that responsibility -- or the fallout of their poor decisions -- onto society. Or perhaps you think that people should bear kids like packs of stray dogs -- wham, bam, thank you ma'am, and the kid that pops out ain't my problem? Sorry, absolutely, that "dog" just won't hunt.

In the most simplistic and concise manner possible, how can you possibly reconcile such an obvious contradiction? Or do you agree with me?

By the way, let me guess. You have no kids, since you seem so unaware of what's really involved in their upbringing.

.
Stop telling me how to educate my kids.

AND

Stop telling me that I must educate yours.

I think that just about answers your entire rambling message with one simple sentence.

Okay two sentences.

"Educating" kids means a lot more than just school.

"By the way, let me guess. You have no kids, since you seem so unaware of what's really involved in their upbringing."

Being on Welfare is not necessary to know that it is destructive to the recipients as well as the rest of society. It is also not necessary to be an abused woman, or wife of an irresponsible, thoughtless, or adulterous husband, or to have personally experienced any of the other valid breaches of the marriage contract to judge that breach of contract is always grounds for (1) compensation and (2) dissolution of ongoing contractual obligations.

Leaving a husband is not a privilege reserved to wives who have suffered assault or rape by their husbands, or whose children have suffered same. Leaving a husband (or wife) is the right of every married individual who suffers breach of the marriage contract.

.
....you used that "after-thought" of mine as an excuse to ignore my entire message and to evade my point.

"For argument's sake," I accept your concession "that whether or not a legal "marriage" is the vehicle in which parents accommodate their parental responsibility is immaterial."

Your subsequent assumption that "Married or not, like it or not, one plus one, in this case, equals a third, which also equals a family; and these people should stay together and raise those kids", I do not accept. It is, morally, the responsibility of both parents to raise their offspring to adulthood. But that responsibility does not supersede the contractual agreement to love and cherish, have and hold, in sickness & health, etc, their spouse. If that contract is breached, the wronged party has rights, including dissolution of the marriage contract, cohabitation, and all expectations of enjoyment of conjugal [b]privileges[/b].

No person has a right to a permanent association of any kind with another person, nor to continue any contractual association without fulfilling their obligations under that contract.

I don't intend to ask for your statistic, because it is irrelevant what percentage of divorces result from "irreconcilable differences". Even assuming that every divorce but one, in all the history of humanity, were nothing but frivolous, the right of that one wronged party remains intact, to end relations with the person who failed to fulfill his or her marital obligations.

"I seem to remember a discussion in which you advocated that parents (plural) should accept full and total responsibility for their children's education -- including bearing the full and total financial burden. Why stop at just education? And why stop at just the financial burden? Why not include absolutely every aspect of that child's upbringing?"

You're right about my advocacy "that parents (plural) should accept full and total responsibility for their children's education." It is my right to not pay for children I did not have the pleasure (or nausea, as the case may be!) of helping to conceive, and it is my business to oppose laws whose effect is to compel me to do otherwise. It is not my business to conclude, based on a statistical trend, that the right of women to a divorce is less than a right. It is not my business, or my right, to decide how much abuse anybody must endure for the sake of another.

"....you used that "after-thought" of mine as an excuse to ignore my entire message and to evade my point."

What I did was single out your closing comment because it has [b]no[/b] place in this discussion.

.
You said, "It is, morally, the responsibility of both parents to raise their offspring to adulthood. But that responsibility does not supersede the contractual agreement to love and cherish, have and hold, in sickness & health, etc, their spouse. ....."

It doesn't supercede it? Are you crazy? Are you willing to admit that by not superceding it, those kids might be left out on the streets to fend for themselves? What if BOTH parents literally walk away from the other -- and from the kids -- for "breaching the contract"? Then what? What should society (i.e. you and me) do in that case? Watch all those "stray dogs" fend for themselves?

(I won't even mention the religious aspect of your "marriage contract". Did you really say all that?)

Responsibility comes in more forms than just a contractual agreement. The mere fact that people have kids enters them into an unspoken contract -- a fiduciary duty -- to accept responsibility for those kids.

I vehemently disagree with you. The unspoken contract with the kids supercedes the written contract with the adult partner.

"Stop telling me how to educate my kids.

AND

Stop telling me that I must educate yours."

I never told you that.

I told you that women have the right to decide for themselves when enough is enough, not you. I did not tell you that once they decide to divorce their children's husband, they then acquire any right to your money, because I do not believe they [b]ever[/b] acquire a right to your money, unless you commit a crime against them.

I believe women have the right to divorce their husbands when the obligations desribed in marriage vows are being shirked. I also believe that [b]both parties[/b] remain responsible for all expenses of their children, up to the time that their children become financially self-sufficient, including the education, training, and guidance required to achieve said self-sufficiency. Fulfilling those responsibilities is likely, I concede, to be more difficult [b]logistically[/b] for divorced parents, but it remains the right -- and responsibility -- to weigh their complaints about their spouse against those logistical difficulties, and decide accordingly, for themselves. I never said, nor in any way implied, any right to [b]evade[/b] those responsibilities.

Children have a better upbringing overall with one responsible parent acting independently than they would be with that same parent, required by law to suffer hindrance by another parent, who is free to evade his marital duties to arbitrary extent, Maxwell's as-yet-undefined concept of "severe pain and abuse."

I will not go into detail here because it is not appropriate.

You can believe me or disbelieve me. It doesn't matter to me.

M: You said, "It is, morally, the responsibility of both parents to raise their offspring to adulthood. But that responsibility does not supersede the contractual agreement to love and cherish, have and hold, in sickness & health, etc, their spouse. ....."

It doesn't supercede it? Are you crazy?

A: No, the responsibility to raise one's children does not supersede the right to dissolve a breached contract. It's the responsibility of a person in an unhappy marriage to weigh their rights against their responsibilities. It's nobody's right to force parents to sacrifice their rights, [b]nor[/b] the parents right to evade their obligations, acquired through their own choices, in the form of their offspring.

M: Are you willing to admit that by not superceding it, those kids might be left out on the streets to fend for themselves? What if BOTH parents literally walk away from the other -- and from the kids -- for "breaching the contract"? Then what? What should society (i.e. you and me) do in that case? Watch all those "stray dogs" fend for themselves?

In general, children know their parents' full names, and usually their home addresses and many of their associates, and children "left out on the streets to fend for themselves" would have no trouble prosecuting "BOTH parents" who turned them out, whether the parents remain married or not.

I'm not talking about "stray dogs", I'm talking about humans, who can succeed as well as you have, without interference from a police state or from a nanny state.

"(I won't even mention the religious aspect of your "marriage contract". Did you really say all that?)"

(Although my personal beliefs prohibit me from entering into a contract so steeped in mystical tradition, marriage is a legally recognized contractual relationship, which is how I analyze it. The religious aspects are uninteresting to me, as long as they are not imposed upon me.)

"Responsibility comes in more forms than just a contractual agreement."

True, but contractual agreements also [b]define[/b] particular responsibilities, and rights, in a society of laws.

"The mere fact that people have kids enters them into an unspoken contract -- a fiduciary duty -- to accept responsibility for those kids."

True. Responsibility to kids does not include prolonging conjugal privileges to an unsatisfactory husband (or wife) after breach of the marriage contract.

"I vehemently disagree with you. The unspoken contract with the kids supercedes the written contract with the adult partner."

One does not supersede the other because they are not in conflict. The marriage is a contract between consenting adults, which can be dissolved by either party when breached by the other. The responsibility to the children is insoluble, but does not include a right to hold the parents together in violation of the right of one or both parents to end their relationship with one another.

.
It has every place in this discussion. People don't decide to have kids like they might decide to have a parakeet, and the societal repercussions of their decisions are much more severe. Two people split-up, neither wanting the parakeet, so they let him fly free, but left with the challenge of evading the cat on his own. Kids are different. We don't leave them to fend for themselves. And no, there's no way that you, without kids, could possibly relate to someone who does indeed have such a responsibility.

And "liberty", if you will, is not absolute, as you name-sake might suggest. When a person decides to have kids, he AND she relinquishes much of that liberty to accept the responsibility that they, themselves, have created. You can't walk away from one in the name of the other.

...that where there is divorce, "those kids might be (likely, by implication) left out on the streets to fend for themselves," whereas if the parents can just be forced by law to stay together, everything will be dandy for those kids. Bad spouses make bad parents, as well, and removing the option of divorce will do nothing to improve the ability of bad people to be good parents.

Lots of people make bad decisions, including having children without the means or the maturity to support them. But one (or more) bad decision does not subject any individual to arbitrary social sanction, including deprivation of the right to redress for breached contract. Whatever anybody believes about the value of the institution of marriage, it [b]is[/b] a contract, and must legally be respected as such.

"Thanks a lot, Mae. See what you started?"

But instead of a referee, I propose that we limit ourselves to responses that are more concise.

Specifically, when I want to respond to multiple points from a single message, I'll use separate messages for each response to each distinct point. In other words, my eight responses to your eight separate paragraphs would be in eight separate messages. After I posted, I saw how long that was, and its lenght was indeed ridiculous.

.
You said, "Children have a better upbringing overall with one responsible parent acting independently....."

Prove it.

The proof is part of the complete statement:

Children have a better upbringing overall with one responsible parent acting independently than they would be with that same parent, required by law to suffer [b]hindrance[/b] by another parent, who is free to evade his marital duties to arbitrary extent, Maxwell's as-yet-undefined concept of "severe pain and abuse."

I defined the second parent, in that statement, to be a hindrance. It's the responsibility of the wronged spouse to make that determination, and to weigh all other aspects of their child's welfare and their own, and decide accordingly. It's never my right nor responsibility to decide for somebody else what is best for him or her, until they violate [b]my[/b] rights. It is never another person's right or responsibility to make those decisions for me, because I have not violated their rights.

Reciprocity is the most important principle to respect in all interpersonal relationships, even with parents and spouses I haven't met.

Your freedom to raise your kids as you choose does not extend to anybody else's kids, and does not extend to deciding for anybody whether or not their spouse's breach of their marriage contract supersedes their collective responsibility to their child or children.

While you are right that there are things to learn in life other than the classes taught in schools, most of those are entirely within the realm of parents' individual discretion to instruct according to their beliefs, which may sometimes not match yours, nor mine.

What you have forgotten, Max, is that utopia cannot be legislated. If keeping irresponsible parents married would also cause them to accept your premises regarding individual responsibility, all the problems experienced by children of divorcees would be solved by forbidding divorce, but that isn't how people work. Some people will simply be irresponsible, whether they are legally married or divorced. Allowing divorce when the marriage contract is breached limits to the other spouse the number of victims of irresponsible spouses. I agree that parents ought to raise their children "right". I also think many people get married for frivolous reasons, and likewise on their choices on childbirth. But taking away people's rights only reduces their incentive to make good decisions, or any decisions at all, and shortage of personal incentive is the root of all the various social crises. I wouldn't trust somebody with a child who I believe I can't trust with a simple benefit vs. drawback choice.

What do you say, Mae? What about you, Max?

.
Are a huge waste of my time.

Why in the hell do I even bother?

(And this is where people will say, yeah, Max, if people don't agree with you ..... yada, yada, yada ..... Same song, different verse.)

.
I quit.

.
I quit

.
He's dead wrong.

I edited this post to speak the truth.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I am not addressing you "justathought" but the posters in general.

In order to understand what effects the feminist movement has had upon society and on gender roles, one would have to have been at the very least in their late teens, but preferably early adulthood BEFORE the movement started. Only in those circumstances would you have been able to observe these changes taking place.

I strongly suspect that most of the arguments between the various peers in this discussion are derived from this premise.

You would probably have to be at least 50 years of age in order to have personally witnessed the beginning and evolution of the feminist movement.

If you are, say, 40 years of age or younger, you would have grown up in a society in which many/most of the changes were already in place and firmly entrenched.

Someone suggested that "justathought" must be very young in order to make so many criticisms of persons of her gender.

On the contrary I think she is most likely of a sufficient age to have PERSONALLY WITNESSED AND EXPERIENCED the effects of feminism.

I don't recall whether the movement sprung up spontaneously around the world (in nominally Christian countries), but my first recollection is of a book titled: "The Female Eunoch" by an Australian academic, Germaine Greer. Ms Greer was born in 1939 and the book was published in 1970.

I have just lifted this brief comment from the web:

"It's not the finest feminist book ever written but it's the first one I ever read and it was the first time I had a name and a context for my understanding and experience of the world."

Compare this with an excerpt from "justathought's" original post:

3. "But perhaps the most positive aspect is that Feminism liberated the woman from herself. It gave her the confidence she needed as a human being."

As Max so astutely observed in one of his posts: the feminist movement was NEEDED at the time, but may have outrun it's usefulness and developed negative side effects which were not part of the original vision.

I am surprised that it has taken you so long to wake up to this idiot.

He shows the maturity of a young child who makes a noise or mess or breaks things to get attention.

Absolutely NEEDS an audience. So deprive him of his audience. Just don't respond and he will get bored and find some other website to sh*t in.

to take responsibility for anyone elses posts.. :)

What if your husband had not cheated, just stopped loving you? I mean, completely. Suppose he had forsaken all other, but didn't love or cherish you, either. He would have been in breach of contract. Do you agree that [b]any[/b] breach of contract by one party grants the other party the right to dissolve that contract? That's what I believe. And I believe that care of the children remains the privilege of the parent that kept up their side of the marriage longest, most & best.

We get ONE life to live. Until someone can offer me absolute truth that there is an afterlife, I will continue to believe we have just one life. Why squander it by living with someone who doesn't love you? I wouldn't. Do you get a badge for sticking it out? Points? Where do you redeem them?

.
...is that an opinion that disagrees runs the risk of judging others, and I don't wish to do that. So while I do disagree with you, mae, I do so without judgement.

Anyone who believes that a marriage is continual stream of "love and cherish" is an absolute fool. (No, Mae, I'm not suggesting that's you.) And anyone who believes that it's tantamount to "breach of contract" for two people to "fall out of love", per se, is the epitome of naive'. And people who hold such high and lofty expectations for a marriage will undoubtedly be disappointed in any marriage themselves.

It's not how people handle the good and easy times that tests a marriage, it's how they handle the rough times. And for those who cut and run from a relationship because he/she "doesn't love me anymore" is weak, selfish, and shallow. And if it leaves his/her kids in a one-parent home as a result, it's not only doing a grave disservice to them, but teaching them that they can cut and run from a commitment just because it's getting hard.

Love takes on many forms -- and it's not all hugs and kisses. I pity the poor fools who destroy they kid's lives because they can't see it.

And to absolutely -- your "What if" message above this one is among the most foolish things I think I've seen anybody ever say. You are a very naive' fool if you believe such things -- and you should stay single.

This is what I love about you..we disagree so well with each other...

I whole heartedly agree that marriage is not all hearts and flowers..dear god, I'd get bored with that. However, a marriage completely devoid of love would be hell to endure and a horrible lesson for children. I'd rather see my child divorce than be forced to live with someone who didn't care about them.

Now, there are times that I absolutely HATE my husband. He does some things that drive me batty. But, I always love him. There is a difference between that, and complete indifference.

And the problem with people like Maxwell is that they are hypocrites. You want to decide what's best for yourself and your own kids, and that's fine. But you also want to decide what's best for other adults, with their kids' welfare as their excuse, and that's hypocritical. The funniest thing about all this is that the breakdown of the family and the varieties of delinquency you attribute to divorce are the most common excuses for the welfare state you despise. It turns out, you aren't part of the solution at all. You only believe in personal freedom, responsibility and "wherewithal" when it suits you, only in financial freedom, but within their families, you don't actually believe in other's rights to make their own choices at all.

.
I decided to tone it down.

.
Who said I wanted to "decide" anything for anyone? I didn't. Who said I wanted to "legislate" such things? I didn't.

I'm just spouting off just like everybody else. And if I can convince somebody to make a different personal choice, so be it. But I'm not suggesting that I want to FORCE it. I might have an opinion about it, but I won't try to force anything. Where did I say that?

For the record, I don't give a rat's a$$ what you or anyone else does with their private life, as long as it doesn't interfere with mine, and as long as their bad decisions aren't costly (monetarily and otherwise) to society as a whole, and to other individuals as a result. A person is taking too much liberty with their liberty when it places a burden on others. Outside of that, live and let live as far as the "law" goes.

I'm not hypocritical, and I'm not inconsistent. You're just too friggin' stupid to differentiate where opinion stops and desire to legislate begins. Where did I say I wanted to "DECIDE" for them? Where did I say I wanted to "LEGISLATE" for them? I didn't you friggin' moron! This whole discussion has been OPINION for me, not desire to FORCE or LEGISLATE.

To answer your question, that's where you crossed the line. When you put words in my mouth, make false assumptions, and then blast me for it.

Get bent, jerk!

"Married or not, like it or not, one plus one, in this case, equals a third, which also equals a family; and these people should stay together and raise those kids, not shifting that responsibility -- or the fallout of their poor decisions -- onto society."

I found it at https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=185132&messageID=1892110, a post by Maxwell Edison. You have been arguing that the right to have a divorce is (1) the cause of youth delinquency (2) the "fault" of the feminist movement (3) that married couples should stay together for the kids. You have been arguing against the right of women to divorce their husbands, which means depriving them of a right they currently have. That does involve legislation and the threat of the use of force by the state if people don't comply.

I do not make things up.

I pity the fool that steps between those two!

.
I did say, "Married or not, like it or not, one plus one, in this case, equals a third, which also equals a family; and these people should stay together and raise those kids, not shifting that responsibility -- or the fallout of their poor decisions -- onto society."

Of course I said it, and I stand by it.

And now, to my favorite question, therefore what? You answered it for me incorrectly. You assumed my "therefore what" was to force, by legislation, those people to stay together. YOU MADE THAT UP!

My therefore what? Therefore, they're lousy parents and they should be ashamed of themselves, and I'll say as much if I feel like it -- AND THE STUPID FEMINISM MOVEMENT made it easy for them to justify it. That's what this discussion is about, lame-brain.

You really are a piece of work. And you really need to pull your head out of where you've firmly implanted it.

Mae: "Marraiges failed just fine before feminism, it's just that people stayed together and lived in misery instead of just moving on.."

Max: "And misery to one might merely be a desire to get out of a bad decision to another -- all at the expense of breaking up an otherwise stable family unit. A stubbed toe to one person may define misery, but to another person it's merely a discomfort that must be dealt with. And cutting off the toe is not the way to do it.

You always come across as though the majority of those "miserable" marriages are mired in severe pain and abuse. Sorry, I don't buy it. Severe abuse might (and does) happen, and maybe it happened to you, but it's very limited, it's rare, and it's the exception. But when someone might need an excuse, there ya' go, it's an easy way out."

Absolutely: Therefore, what, Max? I won't put any words in your mouth now.

You're a waste of my time.

Slightly off topic, but I'm curious for other peoples opinions on this:

Why is it that a female pedophiles and rapists gets more lenient scentences compared to males for the same crime?

I heard on the news that a female teacher had sex with several male students, 3 I think, all all 15 and under. I beleive she, of course, lost her career and got three months jail. A male teacher in the same situation would be locked up and "lepper-ised" for life.

Or should be, at least. Look at the details of the cases that have given you the impression that male and female "pedophiles" are treated differently, and I'm sure you'll notice that defendants who receive lighter sentences have had sex with minors who have at least entered puberty.

Jews set the age of adulthood at 13. Modern courts set the age of legal consent higher, but apparently judges understand that there is a difference between adults who have sex with 15 year olds and adults who have sex with 5 year olds. It's fair to say that the five year olds are much more harmed and that the 15 year old "vicitms" were willing participants.

"It's just different when the later involves women, and I'm curious as to why?"

Incorrect, it's different depending how much the victim's age is less than the age of consent.

It's human nature to take as much as we can get.
right now society is in flux from the effects of feminism, and other influences like I.T.
Going from effectively little more than property to "legally" equal citizens in a short span of time is naturally going to cause a disruption in the way things are. [ the legally in quotes because in some ways and countries it still is only legally that women are equal to men ]

We cannot blame feminism alone for the scarcity of jobs, if the I.T. industry had not exploded the way it did, there would be more jobs, since the automation enabled by I.T. has had as significant an effect on the number of jobs as the additional people in the workforce caused by feminism.

As Dawg put it though:
hire the best person for that particular job, regardless of gender.

great attitude, unfortunately it will be our grandchildren that will have the best chance of actually receiving it in their lives of the generations currently living. [ some exceptions to this generalisation, as some employers are that current ]

Just to throw a monkey wrench into the works of your opinions, My wife and I are equal partners in our relationship, we are not the same, and have different strengths we bring to it. We do talk over every important decision, and reach an agreement that works for both of us. We will spend days not talking much, because we are happy and there is no issues to work out. in the decade that we have known each other, we have never had a fight. We have had disagreements, and resolved them through a discussion without it degenerating into an argument.

just to show that not every relationship is failing due to the partner's meness. :)

thumbs up. :)

.
You have "absolutely" NO credibility in my eyes. Why should I give a rat's ass what you think? What an idiot.