I agree--though I may not have made myself as clear as I could have. (It was time for me to go to lunch, I was distracted...) The "innate" sense has a lot to do with the differences in the male and female brain and how they are "wired". The size of certain lobes are different in men and women, as well as the amounts of white and grey matter, and the connections between parts.
It all adds up (in addiction to the physical differences) to two equal but very different parts of the same species, each with their unique strengths and weaknesses that complement each other. I don't think the idea of the woman raising the kids and the man going out to provide the means for food and shelter for the family is really just "antiquated". Those roles came naturally from the way our minds and bodies are structured differently, and therefore function differently. One isn't better than the other, but they won't perform every single task with the same competency or in the same way.
The "above opinion" was not any more sexist than the second one. I don't think either are that bad, it's just that today's politically correct and automated society does not want to hear the truth. What I don't get is why being a mother is suddenly something to be ashamed of? I thought a lot of people viewed it as a noble pursuit when done correctly.
This may be off topic, but I'd like to point out that you have no idea what you're talking about. Putting all beliefs about Christianity aside, when Jesus was actually around, his teachings were positively revolutionary. The idea that slaves and nobles, men and women, children and adults were equal in God's sight literally turned the societal structure completely upside-down. Women were treated almost like property, most did not have a say in whether they married the man who sought to do so. If a woman was raped, she was made to marry the man who had done it to her--horrifying! Jesus actually had a radical message for the time period, and it's probably part of why the Roman government hated him so much.
Christian male power structure? Obviously an idea put forth by too many power-hungry, self-righteous men hiding their insecurities and prejudices behind a veil of "religion".
Because kids turned out much better back in the day when they had a stable, scheduled ritual at home enforced by a mother who could stay at home raising them. I firmly believe that most of the health and behavioral problems children have these days are due in part to the transient childhoods, being raised by someone other than their parents, rules not consistently enforced, etc.
Not only that, but women have more of the innate ability to regulate and juggle all the things necessary for keeping a kid (or two, or three) fed, occupied, out of trouble, at school or sports practice or wherever, as well as the tons of other things she's got to do to keep the home life and kids' extracurricular activities going. I do not have children and do not plan to, but I have observed the men and women in my office who do. The men speak fondly of the kids but admit their wife does most of the actual day-to-day raising, and when these guys are at work they focus on work alone. The women seem more stressed, are always on the phone with the kids or the day care or the doctor or the soccer coach or... etc etc... splitting their mental and emotional energy between work and their family life. This impacts productivity in both areas of her life.
The bottom line? If you want to have children, you should be prepared to realize that it is a full-time job in and of itself. It may not pay the bills, but it is rewarding in other ways (or so they say). Can't afford your lifestyle without two incomes? Then don't have kids. It's only fair to yourself and whatever kids you'd have.
Most of the time I think it's due to some biological "urge" they feel. When it comes down to it, they are just selfish and putting their desires above what is practical and responsible for themselves, those around them, and even the child itself.
^Forgot to add another similarity--Almost everybody has one, and almost every owner is categorised in one of two polar opposite camps: 1) I know everything about and can do anything with one of these, or 2) I know absolutely nothing about how this thing works, I just get on/in it and do a few things I've been taught to do with it.
Hey, they aren't mutually exclusive. I like learning about, working on, and operating both. They're actually pretty similar if you think about it. They both have physical parts and (in newer cars anyway) software-like components to master. Both can be operated basically with a low level of knowledge, but there's almost no limit to how deep you can go into it and how well you use them. And both have a loyal fan base that enjoy their unit(s) to it's fullest extent and get annoyed with the idiots who act like assholes with theirs.
But it is hard to deny that most people DO enter purely sexual relationships with selfish intentions. It feels good and they want to do it. I'm not saying either extreme (very conservative or promiscuous) is right, just pointing out that the types of relationships you and the parent poster were referring to may be quite different.
Nah, he's about right. As a female, I can testify. They put us on the passenger seat and then glance at us (or stare, depending on the size of the rack) until they get home and can plug it in. He hopes.;)
This is kind of what I was thinking. I imagine the big talking points of this (from their perspective anyway) will be a reduced price for the game and the fact they "aren't polluting the environment" with plastic CDs and paper packaging. That being said, I doubt they would reduce the cost of the games by much, since well, we're used to paying a certain amount for a game and in short, they could get away with it. Also, with the current state of things, it paints one in a bad light to argue against the "save the earth" idea of the second point.
Nice compromise? Give folks a choice. Sell the game as a download for a little less money than the physical copy in a store. Some people care about packaging and having a non-volatile copy in their hand--I would hazard a guess that most of the Slashdot crowd would fall in this category (I know I do). But many would not, so this model in theory works well to reduce costs overall while still keeping consumers happy.
Clearly, someone was tired of standing around at sci-fi conventions where everybody smells. They might not shower, they might not buy regular cologne, but they'll buy STAR TREK COLOGNE!:D
Genius. Especially since people will undoubtedly want to "collect the whole set" (granted there are only two at the moment). PROFIT!
I agree with this in principle. However, this is a unique subject. Net neutrality is so important TO the idea of a competitive market that it needs to be protected.
Normally I tend to lean towards smaller government and less regulation, but this is a biggie.
Good call. It amazes me how even as I get older, I still forget that money runs this country and permeates even aspects that should be above such things.
Sure does cause a rift between the different "classes" of technological adeptness.
Yeah, but the point (I thought) of the electronic voting was to make this easier and more accurate. If it's just as flawed as the previous system, why bother going through the trouble of changing?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree--though I may not have made myself as clear as I could have. (It was time for me to go to lunch, I was distracted...) The "innate" sense has a lot to do with the differences in the male and female brain and how they are "wired". The size of certain lobes are different in men and women, as well as the amounts of white and grey matter, and the connections between parts.
It all adds up (in addiction to the physical differences) to two equal but very different parts of the same species, each with their unique strengths and weaknesses that complement each other. I don't think the idea of the woman raising the kids and the man going out to provide the means for food and shelter for the family is really just "antiquated". Those roles came naturally from the way our minds and bodies are structured differently, and therefore function differently. One isn't better than the other, but they won't perform every single task with the same competency or in the same way.
The "above opinion" was not any more sexist than the second one. I don't think either are that bad, it's just that today's politically correct and automated society does not want to hear the truth. What I don't get is why being a mother is suddenly something to be ashamed of? I thought a lot of people viewed it as a noble pursuit when done correctly.
This may be off topic, but I'd like to point out that you have no idea what you're talking about. Putting all beliefs about Christianity aside, when Jesus was actually around, his teachings were positively revolutionary. The idea that slaves and nobles, men and women, children and adults were equal in God's sight literally turned the societal structure completely upside-down. Women were treated almost like property, most did not have a say in whether they married the man who sought to do so. If a woman was raped, she was made to marry the man who had done it to her--horrifying! Jesus actually had a radical message for the time period, and it's probably part of why the Roman government hated him so much.
Christian male power structure? Obviously an idea put forth by too many power-hungry, self-righteous men hiding their insecurities and prejudices behind a veil of "religion".
Because kids turned out much better back in the day when they had a stable, scheduled ritual at home enforced by a mother who could stay at home raising them. I firmly believe that most of the health and behavioral problems children have these days are due in part to the transient childhoods, being raised by someone other than their parents, rules not consistently enforced, etc.
Not only that, but women have more of the innate ability to regulate and juggle all the things necessary for keeping a kid (or two, or three) fed, occupied, out of trouble, at school or sports practice or wherever, as well as the tons of other things she's got to do to keep the home life and kids' extracurricular activities going. I do not have children and do not plan to, but I have observed the men and women in my office who do. The men speak fondly of the kids but admit their wife does most of the actual day-to-day raising, and when these guys are at work they focus on work alone. The women seem more stressed, are always on the phone with the kids or the day care or the doctor or the soccer coach or... etc etc... splitting their mental and emotional energy between work and their family life. This impacts productivity in both areas of her life.
The bottom line? If you want to have children, you should be prepared to realize that it is a full-time job in and of itself. It may not pay the bills, but it is rewarding in other ways (or so they say). Can't afford your lifestyle without two incomes? Then don't have kids. It's only fair to yourself and whatever kids you'd have.
Just my two cents, anyway...
Most of the time I think it's due to some biological "urge" they feel. When it comes down to it, they are just selfish and putting their desires above what is practical and responsible for themselves, those around them, and even the child itself.
^Forgot to add another similarity--Almost everybody has one, and almost every owner is categorised in one of two polar opposite camps: 1) I know everything about and can do anything with one of these, or 2) I know absolutely nothing about how this thing works, I just get on/in it and do a few things I've been taught to do with it.
Hey, they aren't mutually exclusive. I like learning about, working on, and operating both. They're actually pretty similar if you think about it. They both have physical parts and (in newer cars anyway) software-like components to master. Both can be operated basically with a low level of knowledge, but there's almost no limit to how deep you can go into it and how well you use them. And both have a loyal fan base that enjoy their unit(s) to it's fullest extent and get annoyed with the idiots who act like assholes with theirs.
Oh, somebody please mod this up. This post almost made me spit my coffee on the keyboard with laughter!
But it is hard to deny that most people DO enter purely sexual relationships with selfish intentions. It feels good and they want to do it. I'm not saying either extreme (very conservative or promiscuous) is right, just pointing out that the types of relationships you and the parent poster were referring to may be quite different.
Thanks ;) I know, but it's a little more clear this way.
This is the first thing I thought of too--the irony of his downloading an album after the whole Napster fiasco...
Nah, he's about right. As a female, I can testify. They put us on the passenger seat and then glance at us (or stare, depending on the size of the rack) until they get home and can plug it in. He hopes. ;)
This is kind of what I was thinking. I imagine the big talking points of this (from their perspective anyway) will be a reduced price for the game and the fact they "aren't polluting the environment" with plastic CDs and paper packaging. That being said, I doubt they would reduce the cost of the games by much, since well, we're used to paying a certain amount for a game and in short, they could get away with it. Also, with the current state of things, it paints one in a bad light to argue against the "save the earth" idea of the second point.
Nice compromise? Give folks a choice. Sell the game as a download for a little less money than the physical copy in a store. Some people care about packaging and having a non-volatile copy in their hand--I would hazard a guess that most of the Slashdot crowd would fall in this category (I know I do). But many would not, so this model in theory works well to reduce costs overall while still keeping consumers happy.
Haha, I was waiting for someone to call me out on that. One of those moments where you realise the awkward phrasing *after* it's too late.
I mean no, I meant it that way. And then I ponder myself pondering that. And so forth and so on and then holy crap infinite loop of ponderage.
Some of us do! ;)
Aint it great?
Clearly, someone was tired of standing around at sci-fi conventions where everybody smells. They might not shower, they might not buy regular cologne, but they'll buy STAR TREK COLOGNE! :D
Genius. Especially since people will undoubtedly want to "collect the whole set" (granted there are only two at the moment). PROFIT!
I agree with this in principle. However, this is a unique subject. Net neutrality is so important TO the idea of a competitive market that it needs to be protected.
Normally I tend to lean towards smaller government and less regulation, but this is a biggie.
Also I'd like to point out that jumping down someone's throat for making a joke, especially as an AC, makes you look like an asshole.
Hey, was just trying to be funny... Cracked me up anyway. Chill, man. /. memes are great if you ask me.
"Using ESO's Very Large Telescope, astronomers have gained valuable new insights about the atmosphere of the dwarf no-longer-a-planet Pluto."
There, fixed that for you.
Good call. It amazes me how even as I get older, I still forget that money runs this country and permeates even aspects that should be above such things.
Sure does cause a rift between the different "classes" of technological adeptness.
Yeah, but the point (I thought) of the electronic voting was to make this easier and more accurate. If it's just as flawed as the previous system, why bother going through the trouble of changing?
Centrist? Obama? What are you smoking?
Like the guy or not, nobody in their right (or left--ha) mind can say he's centrist. He's one of the most liberal Democrats out there.
I was wondering when the "Brave New World" references were going to come out. It's what I thought of almost instantly.