"...it's pretty damn clear that the right hates women--and I don't give a shit if they do it actively or passively."
Wholly agree with your basic premise. But I think this is a stretch. Pretty damn clear? I'm not so sure. I hate pseudo-journalism with comments like this. It's like you're attempting to abrogate any argument to the contrary. "You see? It's clear! And if you don't see things through my eyes you're a moron."
It also seems that you imply that all women who register to vote and then do so will vote liberal. Not so sure about that either.
Not really. This thread is about advances that have been made by the women's movement. The fact that women are not required to register for selective service is not the fault of the women's movement.
Morgan said:
Not really. This thread is about advances that have been made by the women's movement. The fact that women are not required to register for selective service is not the fault of the women's movement.
Of course it isn't. But the thread is about equality. How you can say this issue matters less than any other is bizarre.
The draft argument would be legitimate if we, men, had actually been drafted within the last 35 years... It's doubtful there ever will be a draft again, anyway, unless we ever face a war on such a scale as, say, WWI/II... so, the draft is moot...
I stick with Jim Hightower... "If God had wanted us to vote, he'd have given us candidates (worth electing)!"
Of course, I'm an atheist... so I vote, anyway.
59
woweezowee
Denver, CO
November 2003
AUG 27, 2007 07:52 PM
rampage121584 said:
When women are forced to register with Selective Service I'll start celebrating their equality.
reprobate said:
Even if there were, the draftee casualty rate for Vietnam was almost exactly 1%.
Casualty has nothing to do with it. It's forced servitude, no matter how little chance it has to be put into action.
No, its potential "forced servitude", and regardless that's not the point you made. You made a mindless bombastic point with no basis in reality. Now you're moving the goalpost. The fact is, there isn't a draft. If there is a draft, most won't be drafted. Of those who are drafted, most won't see combat. Of those who see combat most will never even be injured. That's pretty fucking attenuated coming from a guy who registered nearly two fucking decades ago.
As for forced servitude, it is a marginal, and wholly theoretical step away from the "forced servitude" of having to work to eat and pay bills. Life sucks some times and you have to make sacrifices for comfort. There isn't a country on earth who wouldn't kick our asses and rape our country for the resources we have. Well, maybe not Canada.
In short, your point, such as it is, has absolutely nothing to do with equality of even privilege, its a shameful and meaningless rhetorical dodge.
Cash said:
For example...if women did the same job men did...for less money...wouldn't it stand to reason that CEOs and CFOs of major corporations would be dumping all of their male staff in favor of the cheaper but just as competent females?
Women aren't seen as "just as competent" in many of those fields. Women are often passed by for promotions based on their gender. For example, women are not offered better positions because it's assumed that they will just leave their jobs and get knocked up.
If someone is only going to be able to do 40 hour weeks because they have strong family commitments (man or woman), they shouldn't be surprised that they get left behind for people who are single (or willing to abandon their families) to work 50-60+ hour weeks
What if we're just smarter than you and don't need that long to do our jobs?
Cash said:
For example...if women did the same job men did...for less money...wouldn't it stand to reason that CEOs and CFOs of major corporations would be dumping all of their male staff in favor of the cheaper but just as competent females?
Women aren't seen as "just as competent" in many of those fields. Women are often passed by for promotions based on their gender. For example, women are not offered better positions because it's assumed that they will just leave their jobs and get knocked up.
If someone is only going to be able to do 40 hour weeks because they have strong family commitments (man or woman), they shouldn't be surprised that they get left behind for people who are single (or willing to abandon their families) to work 50-60+ hour weeks
What if we're just smarter than you and don't need that long to do our jobs?
It's all about the billable hours
Only if you're a snake oil salesman.
Here's a tip: when your potential client base rejects you it's not because they're stupid, it's because you have a shitty business model. Doctors don't want an off site system because you might not be around in five years and they don't wan to start from scratch, plus if you fuck up the HIPAA by not safeguarding your system, they're fucked. This is before the data mining that I'm quite certain is built into your software.
People with real jobs don't encounter these problems, but you'll figure that out, or at least be bitter and lonely about it, soon enough. Coffee may be for closers, but the rest of us just buy it at Starbucks.
Morgan
SUICIDEGIRL
Illinois, USA
AUG 27, 2007 06:10 PM