Meh, your anecdote smacks of US executives observing Japanese team bonding exercises and assuming those were why Japanese corproations were so successful, instead of their permanent jobs with good salaries and conditions, leading to an endless circus of cargo cult morale building which mostly annoyed people.and generated zero company loyalty.
This story doesn't really denigrate the women despite the rainbow dyed legbeard brigade's shrieks of outrage, they're getting paid and I would assume fairly well for walking around the place smiling at people. It's taking advantage of both China's skewed demographics, more men than women, and the social awkwardness that seems to be an attribute of many programmers globally. Personally I'd treat them as a needless distraction to be honest.
This comment makes no sense. The OP said "D&D was really an interactive version of Tolkein's world to begin with" which is exactly what D&D was and remains. No claims were made that D&D was a story or a story generator, because they would be false claims. People didn't sit down after a game of D&D and write stories about their adventures, they just enjoyed their adventures.
This is way beyond arrogance, this is tantamount to installing malware on my computer. So now I have to go through all my windows machines checking and uninstalling "patches" for... ever?
The entire study only has value if you consider productivity and quality of life to be negligible factors. Every country has benefitted from or will benefit from the technological and industrial advancements which caused the pollution in the first place, so unless that is weighed against environmental damage you're seeing a misanthropic picture whereby the only solution is for almost everyone to die. The basic premise is massively flawed.
That's not to say pollution is a good thing, but the focus should be on balance and progress towards improvement, which luckily enough is what's happening outside the fever dreams of watermelon marxist environmentalists..
Yeah a lot of groups and sites I participate in have introduced a new rule recently - any political posts, IN PARTICULAR American political posts will result in an instaban. Tell your story walking.
See my response to a similarly ill educated zealot in this same thread. And some further education for you, the Victorian era persisted until 22 January 1901.
The UK is an interesting case. The simple fact was that at the start of the 20th century, most men also did not have the right to a parliamentary vote. While Mrs. Pankhurst and her supporters were fighting for their right to vote, the overwhelming majority of young men sent to the trenches in 1914 lacked any political franchise. Further, while other groups supported universal adult suffrage, such as the Labour movement, the suffragettes advocated a separate bill for wealthy women with property; women such as themselves.
The following extract from the Socialist Standard in 1908 makes clear its opposition to their proposals.
“Men vote at present under the £10 franchise. The suffrage is thus upon a property basis with plural voting for the wealthy. Therefore, according to the proposals of the women Suffragists, only those women having the necessary property qualifications are to be allowed to vote. This excludes not only all those single working women unable to qualify because of their poverty, but it also bars practically the whole of the married women of the working class who have no property qualifications apart from their husbands’. Further, it increases enormously the voting power of the well-to-do, since the head of the wealthy household can always impart the necessary qualifications to all the women of his house, while the working-man, through his poverty, is entirely unable to do so....
The limited suffrage movement is consequently only a means of providing votes for the propertied women of the middle class, and faggot votes for the wealthy; possibly tipping the balance of votes against the workers—men and women. Yet the Suffragettes pretend that this is a movement for the benefit of working women! The huge sums spent in this agitation prove that it is not a workers' movement. It is a movement by women of the wealthy and middle class to open up for themselves more fully careers of exploitation, and to share in the flesh-pots of political office, to get sinecures, position and emoluments among the governing caste.”
At the conclusion of the war, women over the age of 30 became eligible to vote in parliamentary elections. Rightly or wrongly, it was argued at the time that the age restriction was necessary to avoid a gender imbalance in voting given that so many young males had lost their lives. By 1928, however, universal suffrage for both men and women over the age of 21 became a reality.
So as you can see the picture was quite complex but had little to do with cultural misogyny or patriarchal power structures as some would paint it today.
There is nothing in the passages you quote to explain why the right to vote shouldn't apply equally to men and women
Possibly you missed this part: "how women back then had preferential treatment under the law and an excess of privileges compared to men already". The purpose of the quote is to highlight the historical revisionism rampant around the role of women in the past.
And obviously I don't think that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, but I also understand that among the reasons for the delay in their suffrage, many women didn't want to be drafted. Eventually they got what they wanted, the right to vote without the responsibility of the draft. In places like Ireland where no draft existed, men and women got the right to vote at the same time.
You should read the book "No Votes for Women", on the movement of women who opposed the passage of the Amendment which gave women the right to vote. The following excerpts from the book shed light on how women back then had preferential treatment under the law and an excess of privileges compared to men already according to these women:
"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...
"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 labour 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."
Usually when presented with this information feminists and manginas go into full meltdown mode but it's only one part of the entire picture. Education and opportunity at the time had far more to do with class than gender, and we never hear anything about that majority of women who had to work outside the home because they had to help support their families.
I don't even know what the OP is gibbering about with his modern day patriarchy.
Discipline is a far cry from being a nazi. I agree with the op.
And what passes for a justice system these days is a far cry from parental discipline. Lunatics feeding their own children into that dystopian horror show need to be a) chemically castrated to prevent the creation of any more innocent victims and b) lobotomised to prevent any further child abuse.
I'm sorry, but fourteen year olds are not "children" by every definition
Oh yes they fucking are. I seriously don't know what's wrong with you perp-walk-lovin' murcans but I sincerely hope you get to enjoty a taste of your own medicine when those skeletons start peeking out of the closet.
I would have thought it was common sense for how appropriate it is to be sending naked pictures of oneself, even at the age of 14.
A fourteen year old is a child by every definition of the word. We don't allow them to vote, drink alcohol, or drive. So tell me, in what benighted universe are we to hold them responsible for their sexual foibles at a time when they're just entering puberty, usually under the tutelage of adults too terrified of their own sexuality to give them useful advice?
And sign in if you want a response next time, Obfuscant.
It's not how the world works, it's how a justice system which has been completely warped by feminist legbeards works. Think I'm kidding? Think again. If the degree to which an out and out hate movement has co-opted legislation and law enforcement doesn't appall you, it should.
Slashdot Mirror
Meh, your anecdote smacks of US executives observing Japanese team bonding exercises and assuming those were why Japanese corproations were so successful, instead of their permanent jobs with good salaries and conditions, leading to an endless circus of cargo cult morale building which mostly annoyed people.and generated zero company loyalty.
This story doesn't really denigrate the women despite the rainbow dyed legbeard brigade's shrieks of outrage, they're getting paid and I would assume fairly well for walking around the place smiling at people. It's taking advantage of both China's skewed demographics, more men than women, and the social awkwardness that seems to be an attribute of many programmers globally. Personally I'd treat them as a needless distraction to be honest.
Not to worry, other people are suing tech groups for discrimination quite successfully. Maybe they can write about that instead.
This comment makes no sense. The OP said "D&D was really an interactive version of Tolkein's world to begin with" which is exactly what D&D was and remains. No claims were made that D&D was a story or a story generator, because they would be false claims. People didn't sit down after a game of D&D and write stories about their adventures, they just enjoyed their adventures.
Don't knock static cling spray, some days I'm walking around like Johnny B from Misfits of Science.
This is way beyond arrogance, this is tantamount to installing malware on my computer. So now I have to go through all my windows machines checking and uninstalling "patches" for... ever?
The entire study only has value if you consider productivity and quality of life to be negligible factors. Every country has benefitted from or will benefit from the technological and industrial advancements which caused the pollution in the first place, so unless that is weighed against environmental damage you're seeing a misanthropic picture whereby the only solution is for almost everyone to die. The basic premise is massively flawed.
That's not to say pollution is a good thing, but the focus should be on balance and progress towards improvement, which luckily enough is what's happening outside the fever dreams of watermelon marxist environmentalists..
So what's to stop it flying straight off the comet when it performs the "spin-off" maneuver to get out of a hole?
Yeah a lot of groups and sites I participate in have introduced a new rule recently - any political posts, IN PARTICULAR American political posts will result in an instaban. Tell your story walking.
And once again another reminder that anyone carrying a cellphone is effectively transmitting their location to the authorities at all times.
Have you calculated the annual cost of your scheme and figured out the effects it would have on inflation? Because you should do that.
See my response to a similarly ill educated zealot in this same thread. And some further education for you, the Victorian era persisted until 22 January 1901.
The UK is an interesting case. The simple fact was that at the start of the 20th century, most men also did not have the right to a parliamentary vote. While Mrs. Pankhurst and her supporters were fighting for their right to vote, the overwhelming majority of young men sent to the trenches in 1914 lacked any political franchise. Further, while other groups supported universal adult suffrage, such as the Labour movement, the suffragettes advocated a separate bill for wealthy women with property; women such as themselves.
The following extract from the Socialist Standard in 1908 makes clear its opposition to their proposals.
“Men vote at present under the £10 franchise. The suffrage is thus upon a property basis with plural voting for the wealthy. Therefore, according to the proposals of the women Suffragists, only those women having the necessary property qualifications are to be allowed to vote. This excludes not only all those single working women unable to qualify because of their poverty, but it also bars practically the whole of the married women of the working class who have no property qualifications apart from their husbands’. Further, it increases enormously the voting power of the well-to-do, since the head of the wealthy household can always impart the necessary qualifications to all the women of his house, while the working-man, through his poverty, is entirely unable to do so. ...
The limited suffrage movement is consequently only a means of providing votes for the propertied women of the middle class, and faggot votes for the wealthy; possibly tipping the balance of votes against the workers—men and women. Yet the Suffragettes pretend that this is a movement for the benefit of working women! The huge sums spent in this agitation prove that it is not a workers' movement. It is a movement by women of the wealthy and middle class to open up for themselves more fully careers of exploitation, and to share in the flesh-pots of political office, to get sinecures, position and emoluments among the governing caste.”
At the conclusion of the war, women over the age of 30 became eligible to vote in parliamentary elections. Rightly or wrongly, it was argued at the time that the age restriction was necessary to avoid a gender imbalance in voting given that so many young males had lost their lives. By 1928, however, universal suffrage for both men and women over the age of 21 became a reality.
So as you can see the picture was quite complex but had little to do with cultural misogyny or patriarchal power structures as some would paint it today.
There is nothing in the passages you quote to explain why the right to vote shouldn't apply equally to men and women
Possibly you missed this part: "how women back then had preferential treatment under the law and an excess of privileges compared to men already". The purpose of the quote is to highlight the historical revisionism rampant around the role of women in the past.
And obviously I don't think that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, but I also understand that among the reasons for the delay in their suffrage, many women didn't want to be drafted. Eventually they got what they wanted, the right to vote without the responsibility of the draft. In places like Ireland where no draft existed, men and women got the right to vote at the same time.
You should read the book "No Votes for Women", on the movement of women who opposed the passage of the Amendment which gave women the right to vote. The following excerpts from the book shed light on how women back then had preferential treatment under the law and an excess of privileges compared to men already according to these women:
"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...
"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 labour 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."
Usually when presented with this information feminists and manginas go into full meltdown mode but it's only one part of the entire picture. Education and opportunity at the time had far more to do with class than gender, and we never hear anything about that majority of women who had to work outside the home because they had to help support their families.
I don't even know what the OP is gibbering about with his modern day patriarchy.
Yes I was going to post something similar to this.
LMGTFY. (Why do all the mouth-breathing morons post as AC?
Hahaha, citations include "theFreeDictionary.com" and Google's wiki scrapings. And even those qualify the definition.
Discipline is a far cry from being a nazi. I agree with the op.
And what passes for a justice system these days is a far cry from parental discipline. Lunatics feeding their own children into that dystopian horror show need to be a) chemically castrated to prevent the creation of any more innocent victims and b) lobotomised to prevent any further child abuse.
Check yourself into the nearest psych unit.
Right, which is why we have an entire legal profession dedicated to knowing the laws of the land. And therefore ignorance is no excuse.
I'm sorry, but fourteen year olds are not "children" by every definition
Oh yes they fucking are. I seriously don't know what's wrong with you perp-walk-lovin' murcans but I sincerely hope you get to enjoty a taste of your own medicine when those skeletons start peeking out of the closet.
I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Yeah pull the other one, it has bells on.
I don't know about these days, but when I was fourteen, we were supposed to be adults.
Really, you grew up in the 19th century?
our PARENTS would have insisted that they press charges, just to show that life has consequences.
Oh I see, you grew up in a Stazi gulag, that explains a lot.
I would have thought it was common sense for how appropriate it is to be sending naked pictures of oneself, even at the age of 14.
A fourteen year old is a child by every definition of the word. We don't allow them to vote, drink alcohol, or drive. So tell me, in what benighted universe are we to hold them responsible for their sexual foibles at a time when they're just entering puberty, usually under the tutelage of adults too terrified of their own sexuality to give them useful advice?
And sign in if you want a response next time, Obfuscant.
I'm pretty sure that a fourteen year old boy should know it isn't appropriate to send naked pictures of himself to others.
Are you taking the piss?
It's not how the world works, it's how a justice system which has been completely warped by feminist legbeards works. Think I'm kidding? Think again. If the degree to which an out and out hate movement has co-opted legislation and law enforcement doesn't appall you, it should.
Brilliant, criminals exist so we must all become mafioso.