Intersting - although a little ambiguity in there. What I like is the last part:
"Regarding ship captains and marriages, you should let readers know about the best possible resolution. It's a plaque I've seen on at least half a dozen vessels (mostly sailboats, for obvious reasons to anyone who already understands). It says, "Any marriages performed by the captain of this ship are valid for the duration of the voyage only."
Sound like a loophole for good Religious people to get a little while on board.
What is even more amazing is that her rivals are such a pack of unadulterated morons that they won't even take a cursory look at her dismal time overseeing HP's most severe decline.
You are, I trust familiar with her dismal record at HP, which left the company and tatters. How anyone thinks this moron is fit to run a lemon aid stand, let alone a company or country, is beyond me.
It does demonstrate just how detached from what any given company does your average CEO is.
Some have said she plans to do the same thing with the US as with her early profits at HP - Sell half the country off.
Amazing that the woman touts her financial acumen.
And... from my view on the other side of the coin... playing fast and loose with family values is worse than explicitly endorsing evil.
It definitely is. Because it is a form of "We are right because we are right".
No truth needed, merely "truthiness". No morals needed, because we choose to point out our enemies lack of morals, but our's are a special case. Just like someone in here tried to make Sanford's transgressions more acceptable than Clinton's.
Now I have no doubt that some of the folks in North Carolina share some of those values. But it is a pity in this day and age, we have people saying that Solar panels cause cancer, that they would prevent plants from growing.
And here's the big tie in of truthiness:
Mary Hobbs, a woodland resident said that her home was surrounded by solar farms, and has lost value as a result.
That has been shown to be an outright lie, as the Ars article points out, and I've done a google earth and street view and have not found a solar farm anywhere yet.
Truthiness has a hell of a time in the internet age, where I can take a virtual tour of the town to check the veracity of people's statements.
You are confusing South Carolina with North Carolina, Mark Sanford was governor of SC and state rep for SC, not NC. This doesn't change the fact however that NC is a backwards shithole, however.
That is correct. I definitely made a mistake there, Mark Sanford was the Governor of South Carolina, and after his little taxpayer funded affair, his constituants elected him to the US house of representatives. As penance, I am apologizing to everyone who points it out. While possibly related to inconsistency of voters, it has nothing to do with North Caolina. Very sorry, my fault, and caused by insufficient research on my part.
Yes, he indeed was the Governor of South Carolina, and thanks fo rpointing that out. I was definitly incorrect for saying he was the Governor of North Caolina.
Most sorry for the mistake and the confusion I have caused.
Actually it helps if you get you anecdotes correct...Mark Sanford was the governor of SOUTH CAROLINA, an altogether different place. As a former resident of South Carolina and a current resident of North Carolina I can say with a bit of confidence "please don't confuse us with those numbskulls down south"
I have made it a point to apologize to everyone who points out my obvious error, Sanford is indeed the one time Governor of South Carolina who was having government fund his affair with a South American woman, and was elected to the US House of Representatives after that.
But yes, I was completely mistaken on his state. It was South Carolina, and not North Carolina.
While parody of free speech is just more free speech, parody of religion is not itself a religion. Unless you're a dipshit, which many self-proclaimed FSM adherents seem to be.
Its amazing how many people just don't get it. If some dipshit wants to believe in FSM, anyone who believes in Freedom of religion cannot oppose it, or else they don't really believe in freedom of religion.
Except of course, acceptance of other people's religion is definitely not a characteristic of religions. The separation of religion and state, while hated by so many religious people, is actually their greatest protector. Much of the anger toward the FSM is that there is no cogent argument against it.
If someone wants to believe in that great big meatball in the sky, then they have the right to. Just as they do a bearded guy who decided that he was going to reveal himself to some folks living in the middle east desert a few thousand years ago, and literally to hell with the rest of the planet's inhabitants. All the same to me.
Although if I had to believe in something, I find Ganesha to be pretty cool.
I'm not sure how I feel about the USA solution as well, where they claim full separation of church and state but allow clerics to issue official marriages, with the excuse that anyone can issue marriages. It feels like a cop out and it is frequently used to weaken the separation of church and state.
Don't forget Ship Captains! They can marry people.
I'm comfortable enough with the present situation. The minister can perform a wedding ceremony, but the rights and obligations of marriage are still a civil matter. One is no more married than the other, and you don't get the rights without that marriage certificate.
Which by the way, was the source of the downfall of the gay marriage bans. Its important to know the distinction between wedding and marriage. Given freedom of religion, a same gender couple couple could be wedded by any religion that would do the wedding. But the civil marriage was not recognized because the law forbade it. And while the law was based on mores of particular religions, what it did was create a group that was not provided the rights and obligations of others, therefore unequal protection under the law. There are a lot of them, such as matters dealing with children, inheritance issues and others.
If we look at say inheritance, in a male/female marriage, if one of the two dies intestate, the other gets the estate with no legal wrangling. If no marriage is allowed, such as was the case with same gender couples, if one dies intestate - or even with a will, others can contest the will with impunity.
The same goes for insurance purposes, all manner of things.
So given that the opposition to gay marriage had no other objections than it was based on their religion, it was decided that the religion was creating unequal protection for citizens.
In other countries, we just retrospectively recognise de-facto marriage, no need for any registration with the state.
How do you deal with the rights and obligations, like inheritance and children? Does some not involved person have to attest to the couple's coupleness?
As an example, over here, if one or the other partners dies, the estate is automatically now in the hands of the surviving partner. Bills, income, that sort of thing.
Yeah. Seriously, if mocking other people's religion is so important to you that you're basing your own wedding on it, then you've really got your priorities screwed up somewhere.
You don't want any religion in your life/wedding/marriage? Then don't have it. It's that easy.
But since churches do not pay taxes, and many use that to their advantage, I want to get in on that good free ride.
My marriage kind sir, is not based on some Cosmic bullroarer who has a yen for genocide, or even a flying meatball.
My marriage is based on love and respect. The legal ceremony is based on the legal rights and responsibilities.
Historically marriage has been about forging alliances and transferring wealth and property. Is that normal? Historically marriages have been polygamous. Is that normal?
Good to see that someone brought this up.
Morality and normality sometimes seeks practicality. In places, where for some reason or other, there is an imbalance in gender, polygamy will often become normal. In a world where population has overridden resources, procreation is not as important, or is even detrimental, and homosexuality becomes more normal.
While there are always exceptions, a well known pop culture one is the Duggars (as representative of the small group who is in favor of making as many offspring as possible) but these people are blips on teh radar, outliers that are of interest to many because they are freaks.
And it's worth noting that the latest far-right fundamentalist hero in Kentucky, who refused to sign marriage certificates for same gender couples, is also an outlier, as the others in her office were quite willing to sign them.
Point is, times change, situations change, and so do mores.
Whereas the original folks believing in the dominant religion where I'm from would be aghast at the evolving acceptance of homosexuals in today's cultures, we can rest assured that most of us, gay or normal, are repulsed by their invading the neighboring tribes, killing all the men, grown women and male children, but taking the young virgin girls as their sex slaves. Condoned and ordered by their deity - therefore a moral act to them.
Pretty typical Slashdot. The one comment here offering actual useful, relevant information is responded to with this inane rambling.
Hint: You would have looked better if Mark Sanford had been governor of NORTH Carolina.
I'm really really sorry for saying that Sanford was Governor of North Carolina. I was wrong, and he never was. He was Governor of South Carolina, and is now a member of the house of representatives form South Carolina.
However, I don't make a moral distinction between Sanford and Clinton. And do have questions about the people who elected Sanford to another office.
But as noted by a lot of people, Sanford is from South Carolina, so it's not completely relevant.
Fun fact. Mark Sanford was Governor of South Carolina and currently represents South Carolina in the House.
But I'm sure that fact isn't important to you.
Ive decided I was going to apologize for that faux pas to everyone who points it out.
Some days it's like in Office space where Peter Gibbons when he's talking to the Bobs.
Peter Gibbons: Bob: I have eight different bosses right now.
Bob Slydell: I beg your pardon?
Peter Gibbons: Eight bosses.
Bob Slydell: Eight?
Peter Gibbons: Eight, Bob. So that means that when I make a mistake, I have eight different people coming by to tell me about it. That's my only real motivation is not to be hassled; that, and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired.
and a State where these people vote, and prove their stupidity often. After all, y'all had a Governor by name of Mark Sanford
It's very entertaining to be lectured about stupidity by people who don't know the difference between North Carolina and South Carolina.
Yes, I've noted that I was incorrect about Sanford.
But since we're here, and have now included me in that stupid group - I'll note that I was incorrect about where Sanford was Governor, and now representative. But there is a rather big difference, If I make a mistake, I'll admit it. In South Carolina, they reward it.
Probably the reason I got confused is that the same type of people think that KKK billboards are good, and Solar panels are evil are the same type of people who go on and on about morals and family values and fiscal responsibility, yet re-elect a guy who used government money to leave his wife at home to go fuck his south American mistress, and then lie about it. He was "Hiking the Appalachian trail " as he put it. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/P....
Not to put to fine a point on it, but these are the same people who gleefully spent millions to impeach a different guy for getting a free blowjob.
I knew who Bill Clinton was before the scandal broke out. He was already a big shot in the media.
I didn't know who Mark Sanford was until he went missing. Then the media made a deal out of him.
But I agree there are double standards afoot.
Full disclaimer - I was incorrect about the State - Sanford is from South Carolina. He is however still a fine example of we're all about morals and family values until we aren't. We're all about fiscal responsibility until we aren't.
"Other predators" don't have knowledge, education or communication.
All life is precious, every single bit of living matter in the universe, from Single cell organisms, to plants to animals. Do not be so smug and condescending that you think that because you are not eating things with faces that you are not killing life forms.
It is the ultimate moral bankruptcy of vegans to assume they are somehow practicing moral superiority by saying "I only kill and eat plants". You are every bit the killer that those you detest are. You are a killer. Things die in order for you to live.
And it will remain that way until we become chemoautotrophs. I mean, you could go on a breatharian diet, but that tends to remove you from the gene pool.
You even take the completely ridiculous assertion that other animals do not have knowledge , education, or communication - so it is okay for them. Is it? Why cannot those of the moral high ground make certain that frank carnivores stop thier parctices, that animal they kill is just as dead as if a human killed it. Take a frank carnivore, and in making them an intelligent vegan, oinly feed them those foods oyu think are acceptable to kill. See how that works out for them. They will die, no matter how you rationalize it, they are designed to eat meat. It does not make them evil, and if you try to force them to eat only veggies, you will have killed them despite your assumed moral high ground.
And humans are omnivores, no matter what you think. There is no logical way out for you.
Since all life is precious, and since all creatures except chemoautotrophs can only survive by killing other life forms, We simply must accept that it is how we survive. So go forth and kill something to eat today, and be grateful for it, as it allows you to survive..
Or eat a rock, whichever you wish.
Ex short term vegan here. Impossible for my metabolism to handle, and the other vegans were impossible to be around. So now I eat as humans were designed to eat. My digestive tract works correctly, and I go to no strange and unnatural lengths for my nutrition.
These threads aren't going to get any better until those those of us who disagree with this consensus speak up and make our case.
What are your thoughts about female discouragement of other females?
My wife was an example of of what a lot of women say is the goal. Well paid, well respected, no one's fool.
Oh - hold on. Many of the other women hated her. Not for her personality, which is admittedly alpha, but for her success. The backstabbing and occasional sabotage by jealous females was something that didn't go over too well.
The men? Despite the meme of men being the source of all trouble, they respect and with one exception really like her. They certainly listen to her when she hands out the orders. And this is in an industry with a lot of "traditional" type guys.
The same situation exists with the female engineers and scientists I worked with. Many ended up associating with only men at work because we would accept them.
In the end, is it even wrong to lay all of the blame for gender issues at the feet of men?
The writer of an article chose to ignore the entirety of the panel discussion and select a few ignorant and irrelevant statements made during the proceedings just to give the people a rise.
And thus the reaction we see here. It looks like there are more ignorant folks out there than just the few in this town.
Nice cherry picking. The reaction is to the people making those statements - and a State where these people vote, and prove their stupidity often. After all, y'all had a Governor by name of Mark Sanford, who was using State money to travel to South America to get a little regular on the side poontang. Then after that y'all elected him to th eHouse of Representatives. I'll bet he's gettin' regular strange in DC.
Stupid people, KKK homeland, and people who can be outraged over a presidential blowjob, but rewarding of using guvmint money to facilitate dippin yer wick to a feriner, and then rewarding it.
Forgive us - for we only make fun of North Carolina because they've worked so hard to deserve it.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget Ship Captains! They can marry people.
That's not actually true. http://www.straightdope.com/co...
Intersting - although a little ambiguity in there. What I like is the last part: "Regarding ship captains and marriages, you should let readers know about the best possible resolution. It's a plaque I've seen on at least half a dozen vessels (mostly sailboats, for obvious reasons to anyone who already understands). It says, "Any marriages performed by the captain of this ship are valid for the duration of the voyage only." Sound like a loophole for good Religious people to get a little while on board.
Mark Sanford was from South Carolina. He was never governor of NC
That is correct, and I apologize for the mistake.
What is even more amazing is that her rivals are such a pack of unadulterated morons that they won't even take a cursory look at her dismal time overseeing HP's most severe decline.
A pity when she ends up as "the smart one".
You are, I trust familiar with her dismal record at HP, which left the company and tatters. How anyone thinks this moron is fit to run a lemon aid stand, let alone a company or country, is beyond me.
It does demonstrate just how detached from what any given company does your average CEO is.
Some have said she plans to do the same thing with the US as with her early profits at HP - Sell half the country off.
Amazing that the woman touts her financial acumen.
And ... from my view on the other side of the coin ... playing fast and loose with family values is worse than explicitly endorsing evil.
It definitely is. Because it is a form of "We are right because we are right".
No truth needed, merely "truthiness". No morals needed, because we choose to point out our enemies lack of morals, but our's are a special case. Just like someone in here tried to make Sanford's transgressions more acceptable than Clinton's.
Now I have no doubt that some of the folks in North Carolina share some of those values. But it is a pity in this day and age, we have people saying that Solar panels cause cancer, that they would prevent plants from growing.
And here's the big tie in of truthiness:
Mary Hobbs, a woodland resident said that her home was surrounded by solar farms, and has lost value as a result.
That has been shown to be an outright lie, as the Ars article points out, and I've done a google earth and street view and have not found a solar farm anywhere yet.
Truthiness has a hell of a time in the internet age, where I can take a virtual tour of the town to check the veracity of people's statements.
You are confusing South Carolina with North Carolina, Mark Sanford was governor of SC and state rep for SC, not NC. This doesn't change the fact however that NC is a backwards shithole, however.
That is correct. I definitely made a mistake there, Mark Sanford was the Governor of South Carolina, and after his little taxpayer funded affair, his constituants elected him to the US house of representatives. As penance, I am apologizing to everyone who points it out. While possibly related to inconsistency of voters, it has nothing to do with North Caolina. Very sorry, my fault, and caused by insufficient research on my part.
That's OK. You just keep on digging yourself into that hole. Go on, keep digging!!! Dig some more!!!
You may want ot ponder the words of Friedrich Nietzsche:
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
You might ponder the words of Mark Twain:
“The human race has only one really effective weapon and that is laughter.”
I might add, that your post made me laugh. Thank you kindly for that gift.
Mark Sanford was governor of SOUTH Carolina.
Yes, he indeed was the Governor of South Carolina, and thanks fo rpointing that out. I was definitly incorrect for saying he was the Governor of North Caolina.
Most sorry for the mistake and the confusion I have caused.
Actually it helps if you get you anecdotes correct...Mark Sanford was the governor of SOUTH CAROLINA, an altogether different place. As a former resident of South Carolina and a current resident of North Carolina I can say with a bit of confidence "please don't confuse us with those numbskulls down south"
I have made it a point to apologize to everyone who points out my obvious error, Sanford is indeed the one time Governor of South Carolina who was having government fund his affair with a South American woman, and was elected to the US House of Representatives after that.
But yes, I was completely mistaken on his state. It was South Carolina, and not North Carolina.
While parody of free speech is just more free speech, parody of religion is not itself a religion. Unless you're a dipshit, which many self-proclaimed FSM adherents seem to be.
Its amazing how many people just don't get it. If some dipshit wants to believe in FSM, anyone who believes in Freedom of religion cannot oppose it, or else they don't really believe in freedom of religion.
Except of course, acceptance of other people's religion is definitely not a characteristic of religions. The separation of religion and state, while hated by so many religious people, is actually their greatest protector. Much of the anger toward the FSM is that there is no cogent argument against it.
If someone wants to believe in that great big meatball in the sky, then they have the right to. Just as they do a bearded guy who decided that he was going to reveal himself to some folks living in the middle east desert a few thousand years ago, and literally to hell with the rest of the planet's inhabitants. All the same to me.
Although if I had to believe in something, I find Ganesha to be pretty cool.
I'm not sure how I feel about the USA solution as well, where they claim full separation of church and state but allow clerics to issue official marriages, with the excuse that anyone can issue marriages. It feels like a cop out and it is frequently used to weaken the separation of church and state.
Don't forget Ship Captains! They can marry people.
I'm comfortable enough with the present situation. The minister can perform a wedding ceremony, but the rights and obligations of marriage are still a civil matter. One is no more married than the other, and you don't get the rights without that marriage certificate.
Which by the way, was the source of the downfall of the gay marriage bans. Its important to know the distinction between wedding and marriage. Given freedom of religion, a same gender couple couple could be wedded by any religion that would do the wedding. But the civil marriage was not recognized because the law forbade it. And while the law was based on mores of particular religions, what it did was create a group that was not provided the rights and obligations of others, therefore unequal protection under the law. There are a lot of them, such as matters dealing with children, inheritance issues and others.
If we look at say inheritance, in a male/female marriage, if one of the two dies intestate, the other gets the estate with no legal wrangling. If no marriage is allowed, such as was the case with same gender couples, if one dies intestate - or even with a will, others can contest the will with impunity.
The same goes for insurance purposes, all manner of things.
So given that the opposition to gay marriage had no other objections than it was based on their religion, it was decided that the religion was creating unequal protection for citizens.
In other countries, we just retrospectively recognise de-facto marriage, no need for any registration with the state.
How do you deal with the rights and obligations, like inheritance and children? Does some not involved person have to attest to the couple's coupleness?
As an example, over here, if one or the other partners dies, the estate is automatically now in the hands of the surviving partner. Bills, income, that sort of thing.
Just curious.
Yeah. Seriously, if mocking other people's religion is so important to you that you're basing your own wedding on it, then you've really got your priorities screwed up somewhere.
You don't want any religion in your life/wedding/marriage? Then don't have it. It's that easy.
But since churches do not pay taxes, and many use that to their advantage, I want to get in on that good free ride.
My marriage kind sir, is not based on some Cosmic bullroarer who has a yen for genocide, or even a flying meatball.
My marriage is based on love and respect. The legal ceremony is based on the legal rights and responsibilities.
My mockery is based on my sense of humor.
Historically marriage has been about forging alliances and transferring wealth and property. Is that normal? Historically marriages have been polygamous. Is that normal?
Good to see that someone brought this up.
Morality and normality sometimes seeks practicality. In places, where for some reason or other, there is an imbalance in gender, polygamy will often become normal. In a world where population has overridden resources, procreation is not as important, or is even detrimental, and homosexuality becomes more normal.
While there are always exceptions, a well known pop culture one is the Duggars (as representative of the small group who is in favor of making as many offspring as possible) but these people are blips on teh radar, outliers that are of interest to many because they are freaks.
And it's worth noting that the latest far-right fundamentalist hero in Kentucky, who refused to sign marriage certificates for same gender couples, is also an outlier, as the others in her office were quite willing to sign them.
Point is, times change, situations change, and so do mores.
Whereas the original folks believing in the dominant religion where I'm from would be aghast at the evolving acceptance of homosexuals in today's cultures, we can rest assured that most of us, gay or normal, are repulsed by their invading the neighboring tribes, killing all the men, grown women and male children, but taking the young virgin girls as their sex slaves. Condoned and ordered by their deity - therefore a moral act to them.
I suppose that those are all interesting points, but Mark Sanford is from _South_ Carolina.
Yes, I was 100 percent wrong about that - I apologize.
Pretty typical Slashdot. The one comment here offering actual useful, relevant information is responded to with this inane rambling.
Hint: You would have looked better if Mark Sanford had been governor of NORTH Carolina.
I'm really really sorry for saying that Sanford was Governor of North Carolina. I was wrong, and he never was. He was Governor of South Carolina, and is now a member of the house of representatives form South Carolina.
However, I don't make a moral distinction between Sanford and Clinton. And do have questions about the people who elected Sanford to another office.
But as noted by a lot of people, Sanford is from South Carolina, so it's not completely relevant.
Fun fact. Mark Sanford was Governor of South Carolina and currently represents South Carolina in the House.
But I'm sure that fact isn't important to you.
Ive decided I was going to apologize for that faux pas to everyone who points it out.
Some days it's like in Office space where Peter Gibbons when he's talking to the Bobs.
Peter Gibbons: Bob: I have eight different bosses right now.
Bob Slydell: I beg your pardon?
Peter Gibbons: Eight bosses.
Bob Slydell: Eight?
Peter Gibbons: Eight, Bob. So that means that when I make a mistake, I have eight different people coming by to tell me about it. That's my only real motivation is not to be hassled; that, and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired.
It's very entertaining to be lectured about stupidity by people who don't know the difference between North Carolina and South Carolina.
Yes, I've noted that I was incorrect about Sanford.
But since we're here, and have now included me in that stupid group - I'll note that I was incorrect about where Sanford was Governor, and now representative. But there is a rather big difference, If I make a mistake, I'll admit it. In South Carolina, they reward it.
Probably the reason I got confused is that the same type of people think that KKK billboards are good, and Solar panels are evil are the same type of people who go on and on about morals and family values and fiscal responsibility, yet re-elect a guy who used government money to leave his wife at home to go fuck his south American mistress, and then lie about it. He was "Hiking the Appalachian trail " as he put it. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/P....
Not to put to fine a point on it, but these are the same people who gleefully spent millions to impeach a different guy for getting a free blowjob.
Yeah - I'm stupid...
I knew who Bill Clinton was before the scandal broke out. He was already a big shot in the media. I didn't know who Mark Sanford was until he went missing. Then the media made a deal out of him.
But I agree there are double standards afoot.
Full disclaimer - I was incorrect about the State - Sanford is from South Carolina. He is however still a fine example of we're all about morals and family values until we aren't. We're all about fiscal responsibility until we aren't.
Thank you for the correction.
Shhh. You're addressing a genius. Show some respect.
By gosh, I was definitely wrong. Sanford is indeed from South Carolina.
In order to keep they buoyancy, they won't be able to fart a lot.
I had this sudden vision of a cow flying around like a regular ballon when we don't tie it off and let go of it. Wonder where Cow guy is?
"Other predators" don't have knowledge, education or communication.
All life is precious, every single bit of living matter in the universe, from Single cell organisms, to plants to animals. Do not be so smug and condescending that you think that because you are not eating things with faces that you are not killing life forms.
It is the ultimate moral bankruptcy of vegans to assume they are somehow practicing moral superiority by saying "I only kill and eat plants". You are every bit the killer that those you detest are. You are a killer. Things die in order for you to live.
And it will remain that way until we become chemoautotrophs. I mean, you could go on a breatharian diet, but that tends to remove you from the gene pool.
You even take the completely ridiculous assertion that other animals do not have knowledge , education, or communication - so it is okay for them. Is it? Why cannot those of the moral high ground make certain that frank carnivores stop thier parctices, that animal they kill is just as dead as if a human killed it. Take a frank carnivore, and in making them an intelligent vegan, oinly feed them those foods oyu think are acceptable to kill. See how that works out for them. They will die, no matter how you rationalize it, they are designed to eat meat. It does not make them evil, and if you try to force them to eat only veggies, you will have killed them despite your assumed moral high ground. And humans are omnivores, no matter what you think. There is no logical way out for you.
Since all life is precious, and since all creatures except chemoautotrophs can only survive by killing other life forms, We simply must accept that it is how we survive. So go forth and kill something to eat today, and be grateful for it, as it allows you to survive..
Or eat a rock, whichever you wish.
Ex short term vegan here. Impossible for my metabolism to handle, and the other vegans were impossible to be around. So now I eat as humans were designed to eat. My digestive tract works correctly, and I go to no strange and unnatural lengths for my nutrition.
These threads aren't going to get any better until those those of us who disagree with this consensus speak up and make our case.
What are your thoughts about female discouragement of other females?
My wife was an example of of what a lot of women say is the goal. Well paid, well respected, no one's fool.
Oh - hold on. Many of the other women hated her. Not for her personality, which is admittedly alpha, but for her success. The backstabbing and occasional sabotage by jealous females was something that didn't go over too well.
The men? Despite the meme of men being the source of all trouble, they respect and with one exception really like her. They certainly listen to her when she hands out the orders. And this is in an industry with a lot of "traditional" type guys.
The same situation exists with the female engineers and scientists I worked with. Many ended up associating with only men at work because we would accept them. In the end, is it even wrong to lay all of the blame for gender issues at the feet of men?
The writer of an article chose to ignore the entirety of the panel discussion and select a few ignorant and irrelevant statements made during the proceedings just to give the people a rise. And thus the reaction we see here. It looks like there are more ignorant folks out there than just the few in this town.
Nice cherry picking. The reaction is to the people making those statements - and a State where these people vote, and prove their stupidity often. After all, y'all had a Governor by name of Mark Sanford, who was using State money to travel to South America to get a little regular on the side poontang. Then after that y'all elected him to th eHouse of Representatives. I'll bet he's gettin' regular strange in DC. Stupid people, KKK homeland, and people who can be outraged over a presidential blowjob, but rewarding of using guvmint money to facilitate dippin yer wick to a feriner, and then rewarding it.
Forgive us - for we only make fun of North Carolina because they've worked so hard to deserve it.