So the disabled, those suffering from illness, the elderly and those who can't pass the military fitness test should not be allowed to participate in democracy.
The sentiments are not mine, merely pointing out that the feminist myth that women had no rights before the 1970s is just that. A myth.
If that is the current law then you have a legitimate reason to protest. I'm no expert on US law but in most developed countries divorce law splits assets fairly, without favouring either gender. Child support is paid to which ever parent ends up with the children.
Really? Here's the current state of affairs in Ireland, for example:
99 percent of Irish husbands lose their homes during divorces
Judges frequently make child maintenance orders against men on state benefits whose marriages have broken down - leaving many living below national insolvency guidelines, below subsistence levels
In seven out of ten cases the judge ordered a transfer of the property into the wife’s name
During 160 contested cases when an order was made to sell the home the wife received more than half of the proceeds in 25 percent of the cases, during the other 75 percent the proceeds were split
Joint custody does not mean shared parenting, with children in more than nine out of 10 cases living with their mothers- the "standard access" for married dads to their children after separation is "a couple of hours" every second week, with a few hours once or twice during the week
In no cases were the views of any child heard directly by a judge
A significant number of divorce cases take eight years or more to be concluded
Divorce in Ireland costs on average €30,000
100% of maintenance orders, both child and spousal maintenance, are made in favour of the wife
You sound so put upon. I don't see many male politicians talk about vasectomies or the fact that women have held any rights in America for less than 100 years.
"Catharine Esther Beecher, daughter of Lyman Beecher, the preacher and revivalist, feared that woman suffrage heralded an imminent national crisis challenging the “most sacred interests of woman and of the family state.” She pointed out that under New York State law women had more advantages than men had.
A woman had unlimited and independent control of her property but regardless of how rich a wife was, the husband had to support her and the children. It had also become easier for a woman than for a man to obtain a divorce."
"Almost immediately after the April committee meetings, Helena Gilder detailed the reasons she opposed woman suffrage in a long letter to her dearest friend , Mary Hallock Foote...
She , like many other anti-suffragists, believed in an inextricable link between military service and voting; only a person able to sacrifice himself on the battlefield earned the right to vote."
"In view of the privileges they already had women did not need political rights. Mariana Van Rensselaer articulated her particular views about women in articles for the New York World in May and June 1894;...She considered the enfranchisement of millions of women a risk not worth taking. Women already held more privileges than men under the law.
Specifically, Van Rensselaer wrote, a woman had control of her earnings, her personal property, and any real estate she owned. She could carry on a business or profession, she had no responsibility for her husband’s debts, and she was not required to support him.
She could sue and be sued, and she could make contracts. She had no obligation to serve on juries. With her husband she had equal rights to their children and, yet, he was obligated to support her and her children. Women were entitled to alimony in the event of a divorce, while a man could not ask for alimony.
She was entitled to one third of her husband’s real estate upon his death, but he was not entitled to her property after death if there were no children. Van Rensselaer concluded that the distribution of labor and privileges between women and men seemed fair, that the different roles of women and men were critically important, and that it was “slander” to claim that men did not already take good care of women."
But when someone invests in a minority cause
Except women are literally in the majority in the US. Men are the minority.
Why doesn't someone put fifty million into figuring our why fewer young men are graduating from universities than ever before, instead of trying to "lean in" on what feminists perceive as "soft skill white collar" industries.
Mars has an atmosphere about 3% the density of earth's. You can keep pushing people out the airlock forver and they won't evolve into anything but a bigger pile of frozen corpses.
Easiest answer is nuke a polar icecap, gently lower a prefabbed nuclear powered station into the crater, and wait for the meltwater to pour back in. Or start shovelling, whichever is quicker.
I'm pretty sure that's cybernetics rather than robotics. In any case I'm not particularly worried about being replaced by a robot, people have always been weaker, smaller, slower, more vulnerable to the elements than a wide variety of more specialised species. Our key advantage and greatest strenght is our intelligence and we're a very long way indeed from automating that.
Although it does raise some interesting questions economically, once all of the grunt work is done by robots, and that means just about any job that doesn't need a trade qualification or bachelor's degree at minimimum to do, so taxi drivers, waiting tables, flipping burgers etc where then the less well educated?
To say that people should be "left alone" in that sense is still to take an ethical, moral, or as you've been calling it, ideological stance.
A swing and a miss. At no point did I say that unfettered capitalism was the best of all possible worlds, merely that people, left to their own devices, tend to place value on goods and services and develop a market under their own steam, rather than someone sitting down in a cave somewhere and saying "hey let's build a stock exchange because we deeply believe in the fundamental principle of private property".
So you've deliberately and rather poorly misrepresented my position, then constructed an argument to attack that misrepresentation, whose value in this particular market is actually less than zero given that it takes away from the legitimacy of any further posts from you on the matter.
And bonus negative points for backhandedly equating the ownership of private property and the exchange of said goods and services to people who "steal from and enslave and murder each other". Someone's ideological bias is showing, sadly, and it's not mine.;-)
Capitalism is what people do when you leave them alone. You may as well say physics is a religion.
they are organizing things to accumulate more and more wealth by dispossessing it from other people - which has been the whole capitalist project all along.
...except the wealth and standard of living for average individuals has been improving steadily under pseudo-capitalistic systems far more quickly than under any other known system. China is a good example of this, they were languishing in Mao's ubiquitous state everything until they began to embrace capitalism.
Vast amounts of land was dispossessed from the commons by force a few hundred years ago, and now we have the rule of "private property" - which most people never wanted.
You must be joking. Everybody wants and always has wanted private property! The only difference is that recently they've actually had the opportunity to acquire as muich of it as they could achieve. The myth of the commons is a leftist fairytale, the only time where that actually held true was under very limited conditions and for certain types of property for a very short period of time. Farmers did not share cattle or pigs, except maybe for breeding purposes.
Millions of people are dying right now because of these policies because resources are being hoarded by a small number of people and don't get to where they are needed (food, water, medicine).
Please. Food water and medicines aren't geting to people in developing countries because of the local tyrants, dictators, or other failures of the state, not because greedy white people are hoarding them all.
So your beloved capitalist system is murdering "millions upon millions of innocent people" as we speak, and you still seem to think it's working well.
Start with a false axiom and you inevitably end up with a false conclusion. GIGO.
Science and engineering are amazing, but they only serve the interests of the ruling ideology - they can't fix the world's problems on their own.
Yet they've been doing exactly that, working hand in glove with capitalism, which propagates their discoveries and advances.
Unless they are oriented towards actually doing good for society they are just going to keep (for the most part) producing junk that makes more money for rich people.
And we swing right back to neoreligious ideologies secure in the notion that THEY know what's best for people, nobody else, all evidence to the contrary pushed aside. People actually know what they want, that's why they're willing to pay money for it. Who are you to decide what's junk or not? With that said the government should play a role in disincentivising destrcutive habits like smoking and destructive developments like monopolies. Keep in mind that this is different to controlling these activities, prohibition and te war on drugs are evidence enough that if you take away what people want, far more dangerous capitalists arise to provide it.
But it's blinkered in the extreme to believe that either full state control or unfettered capitalism are the answer. Although it is notable that of the two, the former has been by far the most destructive.
The only advantage the state has over corporations is that the state is accountable to the populace at large. When that bargain falls apart, you start to see the rise of the likes of libertarians, as a direct result of state failures and inefficiencies. Go talk to some of the people who actually lived under collectivised soviet regimes in Eastern Europe, they won't be long correcting your misapprehensions.
The market places quite a high value on real imagination, just ask JK Rowling or Steven King. "Imagination" spent coming up with new ways to inflict ideology on people, not so much, other than in the persistence of the numerous victim industries, which are largely government funded.
Then again students can't challenge tenured professors without risking their future careers, leading to the oft bemoaned academic echo chambers in the humanities.
Actually our current society is founded on technological advancement, for example the mass production of white goods which had far more to do with the changing roles of women in society than second wave feminism ever did.
As for inequality, the standard of living enjoyed by most people in modern western democracies is far beyond that of even the most powerful kings of yore, which can be directly attributed to capitalistic competition and efficiencies, economies of scale and so forth. Greed works really well as a motivator and performance enhancer.
Environmentally there is a broad overall trend to move towards renewables - by 2100 I'd be surprised if there was a single coal or gas power plant left on earth. Petrol and diesel engines will be for the most part a thing of the past. Conservation efforts continue apace as we slowly gain further understanding of the biosphere around us.
All of this was and will be achieved through advances in science and engineering, not so much by rearranging society to fit whatever ideology happens to be in vogue this decade.
This is not of course an argument for unfettered capitalism nor is it an argument to abandon the humanities. It's merely pointing out that people who think they know the direction society should take are almost uniformly wrong, often with tragic consequences. You don't need to take a humanities course to care about humanity, nor do you need to view the world through an ideological lens in order to improve it. Quite the opposite in fact, leftist ideologies have been responsible for the murders of millions upon millions of inncoent people in the 20th century alone. Religions make the same moral rudder claim - perhaps you might consider why the two phenomena have this in common.
Its not the job of any third level course to teach basic spelling and grammar to anyone, or it shouldn't be. That's a failure of primary and secondary education.
That's the thing though isn't it. I respect the shit out of Grace Hopper, just like I respect any man or woman that just says, hey, I'm going to do this - then buckles down and gets it done. They earn that respect instead of expecting it on account of genitalia or highly suspect historical-cultural narratives. This is unfortunately the exact opposite of the kind of woman that feminism's eternal victimhood and collectivised pressure creates.
As a kid I loved Aliens and have watched it many times since, but women like Ripley are thinner on the ground than ever before, to my lasting disappointment.
you have a huge population of white men who grew up working with other white men.. do you think they are going to be open to all of a sudden working with women or people of a different color? From my experience, most definitely not
I'm betting they have vertical control of everything except the last leg, they wait till they can fill a container up, put it on a freighter and ship it for a miniscule per-item cost, drop it off at a distribution centre owned by the same company, then hand it to the local postal service with whom they're already arranged a bulk discount.
Slashdot Mirror
So the disabled, those suffering from illness, the elderly and those who can't pass the military fitness test should not be allowed to participate in democracy.
The sentiments are not mine, merely pointing out that the feminist myth that women had no rights before the 1970s is just that. A myth.
If that is the current law then you have a legitimate reason to protest. I'm no expert on US law but in most developed countries divorce law splits assets fairly, without favouring either gender. Child support is paid to which ever parent ends up with the children.
Really? Here's the current state of affairs in Ireland, for example:
99 percent of Irish husbands lose their homes during divorces
Judges frequently make child maintenance orders against men on state benefits whose marriages have broken down - leaving many living below national insolvency guidelines, below subsistence levels
In seven out of ten cases the judge ordered a transfer of the property into the wife’s name
During 160 contested cases when an order was made to sell the home the wife received more than half of the proceeds in 25 percent of the cases, during the other 75 percent the proceeds were split
Joint custody does not mean shared parenting, with children in more than nine out of 10 cases living with their mothers- the "standard access" for married dads to their children after separation is "a couple of hours" every second week, with a few hours once or twice during the week
In no cases were the views of any child heard directly by a judge
A significant number of divorce cases take eight years or more to be concluded
Divorce in Ireland costs on average €30,000
100% of maintenance orders, both child and spousal maintenance, are made in favour of the wife
You sound so put upon. I don't see many male politicians talk about vasectomies or the fact that women have held any rights in America for less than 100 years.
"Catharine Esther Beecher, daughter of Lyman Beecher, the preacher and revivalist, feared that woman suffrage heralded an imminent national crisis challenging the “most sacred interests of woman and of the family state.”
She pointed out that under New York State law women had more advantages than men had.
A woman had unlimited and independent control of her property but regardless of how rich a wife was, the husband had to support her and the children. It had also become easier for a woman than for a man to obtain a divorce."
"Almost immediately after the April committee meetings, Helena Gilder detailed the reasons she opposed woman suffrage in a long letter to her dearest friend , Mary Hallock Foote...
She , like many other anti-suffragists, believed in an inextricable link between military service and voting; only a person able to sacrifice himself on the battlefield earned the right to vote."
"In view of the privileges they already had women did not need political rights. Mariana Van Rensselaer articulated her particular views about women in articles for the New York World in May and June 1894;...She considered the enfranchisement of millions of women a risk not worth taking. Women already held more privileges than men under the law.
Specifically, Van Rensselaer wrote, a woman had control of her earnings, her personal property, and any real estate she owned. She could carry on a business or profession, she had no responsibility for her husband’s debts, and she was not required to support him.
She could sue and be sued, and she could make contracts. She had no obligation to serve on juries. With her husband she had equal rights to their children and, yet, he was obligated to support her and her children. Women were entitled to alimony in the event of a divorce, while a man could not ask for alimony.
She was entitled to one third of her husband’s real estate upon his death, but he was not entitled to her property after death if there were no children. Van Rensselaer concluded that the distribution of labor and privileges between women and men seemed fair, that the different roles of women and men were critically important, and that it was “slander” to claim that men did not already take good care of women."
But when someone invests in a minority cause
Except women are literally in the majority in the US. Men are the minority.
Why doesn't someone put fifty million into figuring our why fewer young men are graduating from universities than ever before, instead of trying to "lean in" on what feminists perceive as "soft skill white collar" industries.
Sounds good?
The leather is half the fun, baby.
Mars has an atmosphere about 3% the density of earth's. You can keep pushing people out the airlock forver and they won't evolve into anything but a bigger pile of frozen corpses.
Except esperanto. I'm pretty sure someone sat down and invented that one.
Ten thousand years of painful scientific advancement and we go back to living in caves.
Easiest answer is nuke a polar icecap, gently lower a prefabbed nuclear powered station into the crater, and wait for the meltwater to pour back in. Or start shovelling, whichever is quicker.
I'm pretty sure that's cybernetics rather than robotics. In any case I'm not particularly worried about being replaced by a robot, people have always been weaker, smaller, slower, more vulnerable to the elements than a wide variety of more specialised species. Our key advantage and greatest strenght is our intelligence and we're a very long way indeed from automating that.
Although it does raise some interesting questions economically, once all of the grunt work is done by robots, and that means just about any job that doesn't need a trade qualification or bachelor's degree at minimimum to do, so taxi drivers, waiting tables, flipping burgers etc where then the less well educated?
To say that people should be "left alone" in that sense is still to take an ethical, moral, or as you've been calling it, ideological stance.
A swing and a miss. At no point did I say that unfettered capitalism was the best of all possible worlds, merely that people, left to their own devices, tend to place value on goods and services and develop a market under their own steam, rather than someone sitting down in a cave somewhere and saying "hey let's build a stock exchange because we deeply believe in the fundamental principle of private property".
So you've deliberately and rather poorly misrepresented my position, then constructed an argument to attack that misrepresentation, whose value in this particular market is actually less than zero given that it takes away from the legitimacy of any further posts from you on the matter.
And bonus negative points for backhandedly equating the ownership of private property and the exchange of said goods and services to people who "steal from and enslave and murder each other". Someone's ideological bias is showing, sadly, and it's not mine. ;-)
Capitalism is already an ideological lens.
Capitalism is what people do when you leave them alone. You may as well say physics is a religion.
they are organizing things to accumulate more and more wealth by dispossessing it from other people - which has been the whole capitalist project all along.
...except the wealth and standard of living for average individuals has been improving steadily under pseudo-capitalistic systems far more quickly than under any other known system. China is a good example of this, they were languishing in Mao's ubiquitous state everything until they began to embrace capitalism.
Vast amounts of land was dispossessed from the commons by force a few hundred years ago, and now we have the rule of "private property" - which most people never wanted.
You must be joking. Everybody wants and always has wanted private property! The only difference is that recently they've actually had the opportunity to acquire as muich of it as they could achieve. The myth of the commons is a leftist fairytale, the only time where that actually held true was under very limited conditions and for certain types of property for a very short period of time. Farmers did not share cattle or pigs, except maybe for breeding purposes.
Millions of people are dying right now because of these policies because resources are being hoarded by a small number of people and don't get to where they are needed (food, water, medicine).
Please. Food water and medicines aren't geting to people in developing countries because of the local tyrants, dictators, or other failures of the state, not because greedy white people are hoarding them all.
So your beloved capitalist system is murdering "millions upon millions of innocent people" as we speak, and you still seem to think it's working well.
Start with a false axiom and you inevitably end up with a false conclusion. GIGO.
Science and engineering are amazing, but they only serve the interests of the ruling ideology - they can't fix the world's problems on their own.
Yet they've been doing exactly that, working hand in glove with capitalism, which propagates their discoveries and advances.
Unless they are oriented towards actually doing good for society they are just going to keep (for the most part) producing junk that makes more money for rich people.
And we swing right back to neoreligious ideologies secure in the notion that THEY know what's best for people, nobody else, all evidence to the contrary pushed aside. People actually know what they want, that's why they're willing to pay money for it. Who are you to decide what's junk or not? With that said the government should play a role in disincentivising destrcutive habits like smoking and destructive developments like monopolies. Keep in mind that this is different to controlling these activities, prohibition and te war on drugs are evidence enough that if you take away what people want, far more dangerous capitalists arise to provide it.
But it's blinkered in the extreme to believe that either full state control or unfettered capitalism are the answer. Although it is notable that of the two, the former has been by far the most destructive.
The only advantage the state has over corporations is that the state is accountable to the populace at large. When that bargain falls apart, you start to see the rise of the likes of libertarians, as a direct result of state failures and inefficiencies. Go talk to some of the people who actually lived under collectivised soviet regimes in Eastern Europe, they won't be long correcting your misapprehensions.
The market places quite a high value on real imagination, just ask JK Rowling or Steven King. "Imagination" spent coming up with new ways to inflict ideology on people, not so much, other than in the persistence of the numerous victim industries, which are largely government funded.
Then again students can't challenge tenured professors without risking their future careers, leading to the oft bemoaned academic echo chambers in the humanities.
Actually our current society is founded on technological advancement, for example the mass production of white goods which had far more to do with the changing roles of women in society than second wave feminism ever did.
As for inequality, the standard of living enjoyed by most people in modern western democracies is far beyond that of even the most powerful kings of yore, which can be directly attributed to capitalistic competition and efficiencies, economies of scale and so forth. Greed works really well as a motivator and performance enhancer.
Environmentally there is a broad overall trend to move towards renewables - by 2100 I'd be surprised if there was a single coal or gas power plant left on earth. Petrol and diesel engines will be for the most part a thing of the past. Conservation efforts continue apace as we slowly gain further understanding of the biosphere around us.
All of this was and will be achieved through advances in science and engineering, not so much by rearranging society to fit whatever ideology happens to be in vogue this decade.
This is not of course an argument for unfettered capitalism nor is it an argument to abandon the humanities. It's merely pointing out that people who think they know the direction society should take are almost uniformly wrong, often with tragic consequences. You don't need to take a humanities course to care about humanity, nor do you need to view the world through an ideological lens in order to improve it. Quite the opposite in fact, leftist ideologies have been responsible for the murders of millions upon millions of inncoent people in the 20th century alone. Religions make the same moral rudder claim - perhaps you might consider why the two phenomena have this in common.
Its not the job of any third level course to teach basic spelling and grammar to anyone, or it shouldn't be. That's a failure of primary and secondary education.
Rockets, the horse drawn carriage of interstellar space flight.
Who let the feminists in?
That's the thing though isn't it. I respect the shit out of Grace Hopper, just like I respect any man or woman that just says, hey, I'm going to do this - then buckles down and gets it done. They earn that respect instead of expecting it on account of genitalia or highly suspect historical-cultural narratives. This is unfortunately the exact opposite of the kind of woman that feminism's eternal victimhood and collectivised pressure creates.
As a kid I loved Aliens and have watched it many times since, but women like Ripley are thinner on the ground than ever before, to my lasting disappointment.
I find deep frying them all keeps them pretty fresh. ;)
Just out of mildly appalled interest, what racially sensitive questions do you imagine would commonly crop up in IT job interviews.
This is the third comment on this matter in the discussion with no upmods or replies, despite its huge importance.
you have a huge population of white men who grew up working with other white men.. do you think they are going to be open to all of a sudden working with women or people of a different color? From my experience, most definitely not
This is horrifically racist.
I'm betting they have vertical control of everything except the last leg, they wait till they can fill a container up, put it on a freighter and ship it for a miniscule per-item cost, drop it off at a distribution centre owned by the same company, then hand it to the local postal service with whom they're already arranged a bulk discount.
The stupid in your post actually made me stupider, consider the possibility that you may not in fact be very smart.
Yeah, there is only one search engine. That's why it got verbed.