Will Sarah Palin be elected President of the US in 2012?

[Scienter]

Sorry to keep this OT bit alive, but I feel this needs a response. Scienter, if you've known and worked around dedicated, self-described feminists, then you know your statement is untrue. People who desire equal opportunity are called "egalitarians" or "classical liberals." People who call themselves "feminists" are explicitly in favor of empowering women, either because women are chronically disadvantaged by the "patriarchy," or because women are superior, or both. And there's often a very strong puritanical angle with self-described feminists.

No man ought to ever call himself a feminist. You can be an egalitarian, great. You can be a classical liberal, great. But avoid the F word like the plague.

I'm a self-described feminist and a woman. I find your remarks a little disturbing. Some feminists are in favor of empowering women to the detriment of men, but they are a minority. Just like some conservatives are also Christian dominionists. They're a noisy minority who are perceived as louder because they get a lot of attention.

Feminists aren’t man-hating harpies who think they’re superior to men. The majority of feminists want to be treated the same as men are in society. Equally. So yes, feminists believe in the empowerment of women, but not as you’ve described it. Not at the detriment of men.

A person can be a feminist and an egalitarian. But, feminism (a separate school of thought/area of activism) is necessary to combat misogyny. While egalitarians support the idea of equality for everyone, feminists look to the specific concerns regarding women: equal pay, bodily autonomy, rape and victim-blaming, the sexualization of girls, to name a few. Feminism is not just about equal opportunity, it’s about how society perceives women, how they are treated differently in society and by the law.

Patriarchy is not a word feminists like to throw around as an excuse for how women are treated. It’s the disproportionate conferring of leadership status on men. Maleness is assumed as the standard; women are seen as different, other, and thus, inferior or at least separate. Look at Congress, boards of major companies, other leadership positions, etc., women are not well represented. Our interests are not well represented.

I’m not arguing that all men support the idea of patriarchy, but it does exist in our society. It’s in our laws, who our leaders are, how our culture treats women.

[HoreTore]

I'm a self-described feminist and a woman. I find your remarks a little disturbing. Some feminists are in favor of empowering women to the detriment of men, but they are a minority. Just like some conservatives are also Christian dominionists. They're a noisy minority who are perceived as louder because they get a lot of attention.

Feminists aren’t man-hating harpies who think they’re superior to men. The majority of feminists want to be treated the same as men are in society. Equally. So yes, feminists believe in the empowerment of women, but not as you’ve described it. Not at the detriment of men.

A person can be a feminist and an egalitarian. But, feminism (a separate school of thought/area of activism) is necessary to combat misogyny. While egalitarians support the idea of equality for everyone, feminists look to the specific concerns regarding women: equal pay, bodily autonomy, rape and victim-blaming, the sexualization of girls, to name a few. Feminism is not just about equal opportunity, it’s about how society perceives women, how they are treated differently in society and by the law.

Patriarchy is not a word feminists like to throw around as an excuse for how women are treated. It’s the disproportionate conferring of leadership status on men. Maleness is assumed as the standard; women are seen as different, other, and thus, inferior or at least separate. Look at Congress, boards of major companies, other leadership positions, etc., women are not well represented. Our interests are not well represented.

I’m not arguing that all men support the idea of patriarchy, but it does exist in our society. It’s in our laws, who our leaders are, how our culture treats women.

Well said!!

Now please explain why your post count is as low as 39....

as for myself, I find that my feminism ties in nicely with my social anarchism, as feminism to me is to abolish society's written and unwritten laws and allow people do to whatever the heck they like with their lives, instead of being confined to a role based on your social class/birth/gender/whatever

[Samurai Waki]

I always like it when we get a woman's perspective around here...






...I still hate Palin.

[Scienter]

I always like it when we get a woman's perspective around here...
...I still hate Palin.

I don't want her as President for two main reasons. First, I think she lacks the experience necessary to participate in the international community. She doesn't come across as intelligent. The President should be pretty ing smart. I don't get that feeling from her. I don't think any amount of coaching or advisers could prop her up when she has to act on her own. Second, I strongly disagree with her stances on social issues that are important to me. She definitely does not represent me! I think it would be awesome for this country to have a woman president. Just not her. I'd rather wait for someone who is qualified for the job.

[Louis VI the Fat]

A woman should be paid the same as a man if they work the same hours and do the same quality work. End of story. Otherwise, it's discrimination and should be illegal.

Strong words. Does you husband know you are posting subversive material on the internets?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

A woman should be paid the same as a man if they work the same hours and do the same quality work. End of story. Otherwise, it's discrimination and should be illegal.

What if the man asked for a pay raise and the woman didn't?

[drone]

Now please explain why your post count is as low as 39....

Scienter is just Prole's alt account, the location gives it away.


2012, or rather late 2010 given the current creep of presidential election campaigning, should be interesting. The GOP does not really have a visible potential candidate that stands out, apart from Palin. She strikes me as more of a populist than a conservative anyway, and she is going to rub party leadership the wrong way all throughout the primaries. Odds are she will not win the nomination, but it will be entertaining to say the least. If she gets the nomination, she'll (hopefully) get crushed in the general election. If she runs third party, we'll get 4 more years of a Democrat in the White House.

I'll be even more curious about the Democrats. If the economy does not get turned around by the end of next year, I think there will be a serious challenger to Obama for the nomination. It's rare for the sitting prez to get bumped this way, but these are strange times. A lot will depend on the results of the midterms. If the GOP claws back one house of Congress, Obama will be a lame duck 2 years into his first term.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm a self-described feminist and a woman. I find your remarks a little disturbing. Some feminists are in favor of empowering women to the detriment of men, but they are a minority. Just like some conservatives are also Christian dominionists. They're a noisy minority who are perceived as louder because they get a lot of attention.

Feminists aren’t man-hating harpies who think they’re superior to men. The majority of feminists want to be treated the same as men are in society. Equally. So yes, feminists believe in the empowerment of women, but not as you’ve described it. Not at the detriment of men.

A person can be a feminist and an egalitarian. But, feminism (a separate school of thought/area of activism) is necessary to combat misogyny. While egalitarians support the idea of equality for everyone, feminists look to the specific concerns regarding women: equal pay, bodily autonomy, rape and victim-blaming, the sexualization of girls, to name a few. Feminism is not just about equal opportunity, it’s about how society perceives women, how they are treated differently in society and by the law.

Patriarchy is not a word feminists like to throw around as an excuse for how women are treated. It’s the disproportionate conferring of leadership status on men. Maleness is assumed as the standard; women are seen as different, other, and thus, inferior or at least separate. Look at Congress, boards of major companies, other leadership positions, etc., women are not well represented. Our interests are not well represented.

I’m not arguing that all men support the idea of patriarchy, but it does exist in our society. It’s in our laws, who our leaders are, how our culture treats women.

You know, one of the most damaging things I have come accross in Femenism is the devaluing of the traditional female role as a raiser of children. As though that wasn't a big enough job, femenists expect women to go out to work at the same time.

If you are an Egalitarian you don't need to be a femenist. Egalitarianism means valuing people for their merits, and treating everyone by the same stardard. Under egalitarianism men and women are treated by the same stardards, so if a woman works the same job as a man for the same number of years she will be payed the same for that work.

She won't get the same as a man if she takes two years off to have a baby that he doesn't.

[HoreTore]

You know, one of the most damaging things I have come accross in Femenism is the devaluing of the traditional female role as a raiser of children. As though that wasn't a big enough job, femenists expect women to go out to work at the same time.

The kindergarden was invented as a more efficient way of raising children.

....And as it turns out; it is!

Anyway, it's not the feminist in me that objects to people deciding not to work and raise children instead; it's the social democrat in me who objects to that. I believe people should be working, and if people have so much money they can decide to stop working, well, then they have too much money.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The kindergarden was invented as a more efficient way of raising children.

....And as it turns out; it is!

Anyway, it's not the feminist in me that objects to people deciding not to work and raise children instead; it's the social democrat in me who objects to that. I believe people should be working, and if people have so much money they can decide to stop working, well, then they have too much money.

So people should always be kept working, and never earn enough to stop working?

Interesting.

I agree with Lemur as well; I'm an egalitarian. Equality is important.

I'd also argue you don't have to be the same race/gender/whatever of someone to represent their interests.

CR

[Watchman]

So people should always be kept working, and never earn enough to stop working?

Most people don't, and never did. Moot point. The ones who *do* manage it tend to get referred to by monikers such as "the idle class" - and then have issues with excessive free time...

Anyway, kindergartens and other such family support measures have the quite considerable benefit of allowing both parents to keep working and earning money to support the family with minimal distruption (which makes for a generally higher standard of living and more accumulated resources to spend on the child's education), and without making one of them largely a pariah on the job market due to an extended break of many years spent caring for the children.
Also helps prevent one of the couple (namely the one who stays home to look after the kids) from becoming excessively economically dependent upon the other (the "breadwinner"), something that I consider a Very Good Thing...

Oh, and then there's the bit that such collective subvention of childcare etc. contributes to birth rates, because they actually make it an economically feasible option for people to have children in the first place.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Anyway, it's not the feminist in me that objects to people deciding not to work and raise children instead; it's the social democrat in me who objects to that. I believe people should be working, and if people have so much money they can decide to stop working, well, then they have too much money.

Then you should not be on your computer talking, but working Comrade!

Foward, for the Glory of the Revolution!

[HoreTore]

So people should always be kept working, and never earn enough to stop working?

Interesting.

I agree with Lemur as well; I'm an egalitarian. Equality is important.

I'd also argue you don't have to be the same race/gender/whatever of someone to represent their interests.

CR

....Until you retire in your later years of course, but I thought that much was obvious, actually.

Then you should not be on your computer talking, but working Comrade!

Foward, for the Glory of the Revolution!

I actually just got out of the shower, and I'm now off to work shortly

Also, you're confusing "everyone should be working" with "everyone should be working constantly". Quality matters too you know, not just quantity. Without proper rest the quality of work is reduced significantly, and nobody benefits from that.

Just as nobody benefits from having half the workforce sitting at home watching Oprah.

[Crazed Rabbit]

....Until you retire in your later years of course, but I thought that much was obvious, actually.

Just as nobody benefits from having half the workforce sitting at home watching Oprah.

So you would take the wealth of anyone who was successful enough that they could stop working before old age? Gee, that would encourage hard work.

And who are you to judge what people should spend their time doing? Who are you to judge one personal benefit above another?

It is a personal decision for every single human how much they want to work, and all choices will be different because we are all different. If a person is alright with working less, and therefore earning less money, would you force them to work however much you deem ideal?

Most people don't, and never did. Moot point. The ones who *do* manage it tend to get referred to by monikers such as "the idle class" - and then have issues with excessive free time...

If a person earned so much wealth that they could retire early, then they likely did so by providing a service or a good that a lot of people want.

I certainly wouldn't call such a person part of some "idle class".

And it's certainly not a moot point. You and Horetore want to take away the reward for hard work - larger rewards. In other words, you want to remove part of the foundation of any sane economic system.

Funny how some of the socialists here want so much control over our personal lives.

Society and my country's laws should not force women into traditional gender roles.

Do they? That is, the US? And if our laws do, then how so?

CR

[Watchman]

If a person earned so much wealth that they could retire early, then they likely did so by providing a service or a good that a lot of people want.

Actually, by your own work you're pretty much not going to get past "comfortable" wealth levels. True wealth is only possible through putting yourself into a position where you can profit from other people's work. This being you, I feel it necessary to point out this is in no way passing judgement on people who do so; it is merely an observation of how socioeconomics work.
Also, quite a few folks plain inherit most of their wealth, or something similar, and don't really need to do much else than *own* it - the practical management of the assets tending to get delegated to salaried experts, so the owner can focus on spending the surplus.

I find your fantasy of only hard-working and succesful people populating the upper income levels both quite amusing and hopelessly naïve.

I certainly wouldn't call such a person part of some "idle class".

Case in point: Paris Hilton. Though IIRC her gramps disowned her at some point, so she may not strictly speaking count anymore.

And it's certainly not a moot point. You and Horetore want to take away the reward for hard work - larger rewards. In other words, you want to remove part of the foundation of any sane economic system.

HT can speak for himself, but don't go putting words in my mouth. I dare you to show wherever did I express a wish for something so silly.

All I did was point out the stark reality that most people never do earn enough to stop working (although sooner or later they're forced to stop due to failing health, at which point their standards of living tend to dip - pensions and whatnot aren't usually *that* good) - and never have.

[Scienter]

Feminists don't all agree on the work/life balance debate. Some feminists feel that feminism is about choice, and others think that women who stay home are harming all women. I believe that it's about choice, or at least that I need to respect others' choices, so you know where I'm coming from here.

You know, one of the most damaging things I have come accross in Femenism is the devaluing of the traditional female role as a raiser of children. As though that wasn't a big enough job, femenists expect women to go out to work at the same time.

If a woman chooses to stay home and raise children, more power to her! But, not all women want to stay at home and raise children, and it's just as insulting to tell women who want careers that they should be home as it is to tell a stay at home mom to get back to work. Some women who stay home don't actually want to be there. They can't afford day care, or they stay home because it's what's expected of them. There are women who work because they have to, and would rather stay home with their kids. Regardless, the notion that the "traditional" role of woman as homemaker needs to fade into obscurity. Telling women that they, in general, belong in the home is harmful to women and to society, unless you believe that women have nothing to offer society but free childcare and maid service.

I've never said that women have to work and raise children alone. But, for women who want to work and have a family (like men!), feminism stands for the idea that they should be able to do this, and that this should be an acceptable choice in society. Society and my country's laws should not force women into traditional gender roles. Personally I don't believe women are any more inherently able to parent than men just because we can get pregnant. Since I don't believe in traditional roles, I expect my partner to do his share in raising a child. We both work, we both actively parent. I believe dual working families who actively share parenting responsibility are happier and more economically secure.

If you are an Egalitarian you don't need to be a femenist. Egalitarianism means valuing people for their merits, and treating everyone by the same stardard. Under egalitarianism men and women are treated by the same stardards, so if a woman works the same job as a man for the same number of years she will be payed the same for that work.

It's not just an issue of work/life balance. The rights of single mothers, abused mothers and children, pregnant women, pregnant women and mothers in prison, and same sex couples who wish to be parents are all feminist issues related to motherhood. Some feminists may rail against the stay at home mom, but I think both choices acceptable. Feminism is about choices, and the context in which those choices are made. It's about women being as free to choose their roles as men are.

She won't get the same as a man if she takes two years off to have a baby that he doesn't.

A woman should be paid the same as a man if they work the same hours and do the same quality work. End of story. Otherwise, it's discrimination and should be illegal. I'm not comparing someone who has been absent in from the work place to someone who has not. A person who takes two years off can't expect to pick up right where they left off. But, if a woman has a child, and returns to work full time, she should not be paid less than a man for doing the same amount of work. Nor should women without children be paid less than their male counterparts.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Feminists don't all agree on the work/life balance debate. Some feminists feel that feminism is about choice, and others think that women who stay home are harming all women. I believe that it's about choice, or at least that I need to respect others' choices, so you know where I'm coming from here.

That's fine, I can respect that point of view.

If a woman chooses to stay home and raise children, more power to her! But, not all women want to stay at home and raise children, and it's just as insulting to tell women who want careers that they should be home as it is to tell a stay at home mom to get back to work. Some women who stay home don't actually want to be there. They can't afford day care, or they stay home because it's what's expected of them. There are women who work because they have to, and would rather stay home with their kids. Regardless, the notion that the "traditional" role of woman as homemaker needs to fade into obscurity. Telling women that they, in general, belong in the home is harmful to women and to society, unless you believe that women have nothing to offer society but free childcare and maid service.

I didn't say that at all. You're over-reacting (sadly, predictably). I said that women should not be made to feel that they are required to have a family and a career. Your objection to the "traditional" role of a woman devalues the raising of a family. My own mother would tell you that raising two children of her own was harder and more demanding than working as an accountant or a primary school teacher.

I've never said that women have to work and raise children alone. But, for women who want to work and have a family (like men!), feminism stands for the idea that they should be able to do this, and that this should be an acceptable choice in society.

"Have a family" is a conveniently bland statement. Men make fathers, women make mothers; that's basic biology. Only women can concieve, carry, birth, and feed an infant. Anecdotally, women wake when their babies cry, men don't. It's also been shown scientifically that when women hold babies their brains release a hormone that creates a sense of "bliss", the same hormone is released when breastfeeding. These things don't happen to men.

Society and my country's laws should not force women into traditional gender roles. Personally I don't believe women are any more inherently able to parent than men just because we can get pregnant.

I dissagree vehemently. I have never found a "mother" figure in a man, or a "father" figure in a woman. Men should obviously be involved in the raising of their children, but shoehorning them into the maternal role seems unfair, and doesn't play to most men's strengths in my opinion.

Since I don't believe in traditional roles, I expect my partner to do his share in raising a child. We both work, we both actively parent. I believe dual working families who actively share parenting responsibility are happier and more economically secure.

I believe most three year olds would rather run to "mummy" when they cut their knee than "daddy" or "nanny".

It's not just an issue of work/life balance. The rights of single mothers, abused mothers and children, pregnant women, pregnant women and mothers in prison, and same sex couples who wish to be parents are all feminist issues related to motherhood. Some feminists may rail against the stay at home mom, but I think both choices acceptable. Feminism is about choices, and the context in which those choices are made. It's about women being as free to choose their roles as men are.

All of which is covered under egalitarianism. Except this; you seem to think women should be able to choose to be like men. That simply isn't possible on a lot of levels, and it begs the question of why on Earth you would want to in the first place.

I am reminded of The Life of Brian and a man demanding the right to have a baby.

A woman should be paid the same as a man if they work the same hours and do the same quality work. End of story. Otherwise, it's discrimination and should be illegal. I'm not comparing someone who has been absent in from the work place to someone who has not. A person who takes two years off can't expect to pick up right where they left off. But, if a woman has a child, and returns to work full time, she should not be paid less than a man for doing the same amount of work. Nor should women without children be paid less than their male counterparts.

You've skipped over my point. Legally, women who work the same job for the same number of years are due all the benefits of men. However, in many cases if you take maternity leave you fall behind in the payscale because you weren't working when the men were.

I can't think of a recent instance of a woman without children being paid less than a man; for all the rhetoric. Such a case would have made the national news and yet no femenist in Britain has ever produced an example.

[Watchman]

Jeez, not this parent-figure crap again. Look, quite a few kids don't even have one or the other and still grow up decent human beings; quite a few more would be considerably better off if they didn't have one or the other, or in some cases, both, of their parents...

And back in the day when men worked and women looked after the kids, it's not like most children saw much of their fathers anyway as they tended to be so busy working, what with being the sole breadwinner and all (and period cultural norms tended to prescribe something of an "aloof patriarch" model of behaviour); if anything, the modern "role-sharing" pattern means they interact more with both of their parents, or at least, more equally.

Merely not seeing the parents for the portion of each day the kids are in daycare, kindergarden or whatever matters little. Plus it could be argued the resultant socialising large numbers of their peers and adults outside the amily (ie. the staff of such facilities) is only positive...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

A feminist is someone who has firm beliefs about the state of women in society today, and takes some action towards changing that. I don't see why a man can't be a feminist, or why feminism would be objectionable. It's not inherently different from any other specific interest group.

You can argue about the merits of feminism of course


^^ I also agree with watchman, welcome back btw.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Jeez, not this parent-figure crap again. Look, quite a few kids don't even have one or the other and still grow up decent human beings; quite a few more would be considerably better off if they didn't have one or the other, or in some cases, both, of their parents...

For the psychological development of a child it is extremely important to have either parents or parental figures instead of merely plunking them in a facility. That isn't to say that children can't grow up to be normal and healthy people without a parent or parents, just that they would have been better off to have them.

Besides, doesn't wanting to entrust all child-rearing to the state make anyone nervous?

[Watchman]

For the psychological development of a child it is extremely important to have either parents or parental figures instead of merely plunking them in a facility. That isn't to say that children can't grow up to be normal and healthy people without a parent or parents, just that they would have been better off to have them.

Besides, doesn't wanting to entrust all child-rearing to the state make anyone nervous?

You state-phobics are tiresome. And silly.

Look, I went through the full welfare-state childcare assistance routine, kindergartens and all, both parents working long hours to make ends meet (and don't get me started on "father figures" - I've bad personal experience in the field), the works. What it meant in practice was that I was dropped off at the 'garten in the morning, played with the other kids etc. until something like four in the afternoon with mealtimes inbetween and so on, after which parents got home from work and fetched me (or I went home or to play with friends by myself, when I got older). Evening was then obviously spent with family or alternatively friends, and of course there were weekends and holidays and so on.

Do explain to me what part of that equals "not having parental figures" (nevermind now that the better of the 'garten staff made decent enough temporary substitutes) and "entrusting all child-rearing to the state"...?

[Beskar]

I didn't say that at all. You're over-reacting (sadly, predictably). I said that women should not be made to feel that they are required to have a family and a career. Your objection to the "traditional" role of a woman devalues the raising of a family. My own mother would tell you that raising two children of her own was harder and more demanding than working as an accountant or a primary school teacher.

Though the point was, your father could do that while your mother worked.

Only women can concieve, carry, birth, and feed an infant.

That one is not true. I was never breast fed.

Anecdotally, women wake when their babies cry, men don't.

They do, but they grunt and moan and tell their 'wife' to do it. Or they are actually a good father and do go to their child.

I dissagree vehemently. I have never found a "mother" figure in a man, or a "father" figure in a woman. Men should obviously be involved in the raising of their children, but shoehorning them into the maternal role seems unfair, and doesn't play to most men's strengths in my opinion.

They don't need a "mother" nor a "father" figure. They just need a figure there to love and care for them. Also, what is playing to not playing to most men's strengths? Majority of fathers I know are good and takecare of their children and raising kids do play to their strengths. I am also good with children. Just because you might be a bad father or raised by one, doesn't men that you just label everyone else.

I believe most three year olds would rather run to "mummy" when they cut their knee than "daddy" or "nanny".

And you are wrong there, unless they were a bad father, then obviously would go to "mummy" because "daddy" would be at the pub. Even seen three year olds come to "Uncle", (oh wait, that was my niece who came to me.)

All of which is covered under egalitarianism. Except this; you seem to think women should be able to choose to be like men. That simply isn't possible on a lot of levels, and it begs the question of why on Earth you would want to in the first place.

I think John Lennon once sang a song about you:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

We make her paint her
face and dance
If she won't be slave ,we
say that she don't love us
If she's real, we say she's
trying to be a man
While putting her down we
pretend that she is above us
Woman is the of
the world...yes she is
If you don't belive me take a
look to the one you're with
Woman is the slaves of
the slaves
Ah yeah...better screem
about it
We make her bear and raise
our children
And then we leave her flat for
being a fat old mother hen
We tell her home is the only
place she would be
Then we complain that she's
too unworldly to be our friend
Woman is the of
the world...yes she is
If you don't belive me take a
look to the one you're with
Woman is the slaves of
the slaves
Yeah (think about it)

You've skipped over my point. Legally, women who work the same job for the same number of years are due all the benefits of men. However, in many cases if you take maternity leave you fall behind in the payscale because you weren't working when the men were.

Actually, men can take maternity leave as well.

I can't think of a recent instance of a woman without children being paid less than a man; for all the rhetoric. Such a case would have made the national news and yet no femenist in Britain has ever produced an example.

LOL, it is a commonly known fact and is usually in the news regularly on BBC. Look at the various figures such as payscale differences, and national averages. It is usually at the bottom of the list because it is something which is known but they just don't make a fuss over it.

[Samurai Waki]

They do, but they grunt and moan and tell their 'wife' to do it. Or they are actually a good father and do go to their child.

I always liked holding my daughters in the wee hours of the morning, I'm not much of a sleeper (maybe 4-6 hours per night on average), best alarm clock I ever had. I don't really get that anymore, when something is wrong they always climb into bed, and steal MY blankets.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Though the point was, your father could do that while your mother worked.

Hasn't it been shown that very young children have a closer connection to their mothers than their fathers? I need to dig out that study.

That one is not true. I was never breast fed.

I think he meant naturally.

They don't need a "mother" nor a "father" figure.

Again, they do not need one but it is beneficial to have one. I personally know people who have various levels of problems in their lives because they never knew a mother figure or never knew a father figure, biological or otherwise.

Actually, men can take maternity leave as well.

Paternity leave.

LOL, it is a commonly known fact and is usually in the news regularly on BBC. Look at the various figures such as payscale differences, and national averages. It is usually at the bottom of the list because it is something which is known but they just don't make a fuss over it.

I seem to recall reading an excellent response to an accusation like this, unfortunately my bookmarks have all been erased and I cannot find it. To Google it is, I suppose.

[Beskar]

I seem to recall reading an excellent response to an accusation like this, unfortunately my bookmarks have all been erased and I cannot find it. To Google it is, I suppose.

I remember reading one as well, mainly where men asked for raises and the females didn't. However, there is still the pay difference.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Though the point was, your father could do that while your mother worked.

I still believe the mother is better at this when the child is at a young age.

That one is not true. I was never breast fed.

No, it is true. Only women have the biological capacity (without messing with hormones etc.) to feed an infant using their own body. This is an adaptation which naturally makes the unweened infant more dependant on the mother than father. To get around this you have to domesticate animals.

They do, but they grunt and moan and tell their 'wife' to do it. Or they are actually a good father and do go to their child.

I know one father who doesn't, he asks his wife to wake him because he doesn't think it's fair. It doesn't have to be about "bad" fathers. You know what else women do when babies cry?

Lactate.

They don't need a "mother" nor a "father" figure. They just need a figure there to love and care for them. Also, what is playing to not playing to most men's strengths? Majority of fathers I know are good and takecare of their children and raising kids do play to their strengths. I am also good with children.

I dissagree, I see men and women dealling with children differently. This doesn't make men bad parents, but it doesn't make them mothers either.

Just because you might be a bad father or raised by one, doesn't men that you just label everyone else.

I beg your pardon? That's dangerously close to ad hominem. You know very little, if anything, about my father. If you must know, I didn't meet him until two years old because he was always working. Despite this, I probably have a better relationship with him than my mother.

And you are wrong there, unless they were a bad father, then obviously would go to "mummy" because "daddy" would be at the pub. Even seen three year olds come to "Uncle", (oh wait, that was my niece who came to me.)

It might have something to do with "daddy" stinking of sheep muck and having big calloused, clumsy, hands, you know. Your assumption is, again, that because the man can't perfom the woman's function as well as her he must have been incompetant.

I think John Lennon once sang a song about you:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

We make her paint her
face and dance
If she won't be slave ,we
say that she don't love us
If she's real, we say she's
trying to be a man
While putting her down we
pretend that she is above us
Woman is the of
the world...yes she is
If you don't belive me take a
look to the one you're with
Woman is the slaves of
the slaves
Ah yeah...better screem
about it
We make her bear and raise
our children
And then we leave her flat for
being a fat old mother hen
We tell her home is the only
place she would be
Then we complain that she's
too unworldly to be our friend
Woman is the of
the world...yes she is
If you don't belive me take a
look to the one you're with
Woman is the slaves of
the slaves
Yeah (think about it)

So now we have moved to ad hominem. Congratulations, I must be a bigot because I don't agree with you. So, I suppose it's acceptable for men to punch and kick women, leave them to do all their own heavy lifting, not stop to offer to help change a tire, God forbid the woman might be insulted! Obviously, we shouldn't hold heavy daws open for them either, even the small women with tiny hands who have to lean into the things with their shoulders!

Let be tell you what I think of men, they're boring, mind-numbingly, soul-crushingly, boring. At any given time I would rather be in the company of women than men.

[Watchman]

Lactate.

Or get the milk bottle. Common enough. Also, know what a "wet nurse" is ? Not exactly a lively tradition, but that's beside the point.

You really do seem to have a bit of a biological-mechanist take on this stuff you know.

[Shaka_Khan]

Looks like the poll has a very long middle finger. Is that the purpose of the OP?

Btw- more power should be given to the people and Congress. The president should have more of a representative role. More emphasis would be put on appearance. I wouldn't mind if Sarah Palin was president if she didn't make the decisions. I dream of a day when president elections would become beauty pageants so that the leaders of the world would be pleasing to the eye.