The Glade 4.0

Wrong. With no apology to the "black community," all women were in the same state for a very long time. Throughout much of history, including recent north american history prior to Women's Suffrage, we were the property of our husbands, and before marriage the property of our fathers. At times we could not own our own property, and were not even considered "persons" under the law. Husbands could even use corporal punishment on their wives and it was considered acceptable. We had a select few protections that slaves did not have, but the differences were not substantial.



It is my experience, that for the majority of people, this is not true. Humans are still acting on the same instincts they have acted on for hundreds of thousands of years. We pair off and form semi-permanent bonds with members of the opposite sex, for the undefinable emotion known as "love." These other things can influence things with some people, but ultimately, they aren't a major issue.

As a side point, if anyone hasn't watched the link Diamondeye provided to Karen Straughan's "Girl Writes What" Youtube collumn, you're doing yourself a disservice. She's brilliant. I have watched a dozen or so of her videos now. I don't think it relates much to this thread, as unlike Diamondeye I don't think Schlafely is remotely trying to make the same point, but that's kindof irrelevant. Watch her!

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

This view is so overly simplistic and incorrect it's almost impossible to explain how wrong it is. For someone who claims not to be into traditional feminism you sure are quick to buy into their propaganda.

For one thing, women in the western world were never thought of as property, or "not human beings." Men also could not normally use corporal punishment on their wives; beating one's wife was punished very severely in most cases and was considered completely unacceptable. Men could punish their wives in certain ways, but that was because a man was held legally responsible for his wife's behavior - if she committed a crime, she was not held responsible, he was. Women could own property if they were unmarried, but if they were married their husband controlled the property because he was responsible for all the expenses including taxes and debts. Women were not thrown into prison for debts or unpaid taxes; their husbands were.

In fact, when the law was changed in the late 1800s that allowed women to control their own property, there was a period where the husband STILL had to pay the taxes on her property and income from HIS income, as well as all the household expenses. Women, exactly in accordance with the desires of the feminists of that era (suffragettes) enjoyed a period where they had the RIGHT to their own property, but also were still ENTITLED to the support of their husbands, and totally evaded the RESPONSIBILITY of paying taxes. Suffrage itself was the same way - women's suffrage came not long after men's (around a hundred years depending on where we're talking about) but men were still the ones subject to the draft - and theoretically still are today.

Your ideas are representative of exactly the kind of overly-simplistic, cursory examination of the past that feminists engage in and a complete failure to consider how things worked in the context of the time. If women were actually in the position, or thought of in the way, you are pretending they are, suffrage would never have gained any traction and you'd be in the kitchen today, if men actually did hold all the power, and were intractably opposed to women having any. Neither was ever the case. Women held less overt power than men because they had less responsibility, but social power is still power. The problem we have today is people demanding rights while trying to escape responsibilities - a problem with far more than just feminists; they just tend to be the most unsubtle about it.



Except that the evidence indicates there's a statistically significant drop in male interest in marriage. People are still people, but men are going to be much more choosy about marrying and having children the more legal avenues there are to screw them over for it, and they're going to pick the type of women that aren't likely to or aren't in a position to do so. Furthermore, these other things certainly can become a major issue if they're allowed to progress unchecked, especially in an era where reliable birth control is available. The emphasis there is on "semi-permanent". As long as a male can avoid getting a girl pregnant, he retains control over his own life, married or not. As soon as he marries or gets a girl pregnant, she gains near-complete control over the futures of both, and more and more men are figuring that out.

That doesn't mean that all, or even most women act cynically on that, but for a man who is looking for a partner, it makes him highly suspicious of commitment.



Schalefly isn't trying to make the same point, but Straughn's point is still related - Straughn is saying feminsts (and women in general that feminists are attempting to appoint themselves spokesmen for; note that she also criticizes "traditionalists") cannot have it both ways; they cannot on the one hand claim they don't need men for anything, then on the other hand turn around and complain that men don't want to get involved in a relationship that can be ended for trivial reasons. To put it more succinctly, if women don't want to have their lives revolve around their husband and his success, they can't then turn around and demand that his life revolve around her choices and that he be a dutiful money tree while she makes up her mind whether she wants to be a homemaker, pursue a career or some mix of both, especially since men don't really have the option socially (even if they do legally) to not be a resource provider.

Schalfely, on the other hand, is saying women should just make the choice to give up careers and such in order to find husbands; advocating a specific course of action to solve the problem Straughn is describing. The problem with Schlafely isn't that her idea never works; it's that it's not the only way to solve the problem. What the little 12 year old Nancy Pelosi wannabe doesn't get is that her ideas about what women ought to be doing don't apply to all women any more than Schalefly's do. It is not that Schlafely or older people in general think young people are the "worst thing ever" it's that older people have a far greater ability to see things from another person's perspective - something 12 year olds notoriously lack.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I have to ask, is this the same Schalefly that's the mother of the founder of Conservapedia? You know, the guy who advocates re-writing the Bible to eliminate liberal bias? Because if there's anyone in the world that actually means "barefoot and pregnant" when advocating for the role of women, it would probably be her.

No, it really wouldn't. You should probably stop taking MSNBC's word for things. Schlafely is a Roman Catholic, and would be very opposed to trying to re-write any part of the Bible, even if her son does think that.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

my point was even as an certified unabashed religious nutjob, I only have the slightest idea who she is. I don't think it's anything else than being a party hack to take her seven year old comments and try to hang them around the necks of an entire movement (especially in a world where the the owner of the house where the President started his political career is irrelevant and off limits). It's interesting to see you all buy it hook line and sinker.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Canada_(Attorney_General) - This is a rather famous and celebrated case in Canada that is what I was referencing by "not persons under the law." The law came from British Common Law ruling in the 1800s, that "women are persons in matters of pains and penalties, but are not persons in matters of rights and privileges”. Basically, a woman would be treated like a person if she were accused of a crime (and could therefore suffer the consequences of that crime), but had none of the rights and privilege that persons with penises had.

While there was no law ever in Canada or the USA that stated women were the property of our husbands, it is how we were treated. While individually, some of these laws varied from location to location, they applied almost universally across Europe and North America at various points: We couldn't own, buy or sell property. We were not treated like separate legal entities ... a husband and wife were considered one person under the law and that one person was the husband. We were not subject to rights of inheritance, a husband paid a "bride price" to purchase his wife-to-be from her father, in much the same way he could purchase livestock.



Again, while it goes back to before the revolution, in most of the colonies men were initially allowed to administer corporal punishment to all their dependants in the same manner, wives could be "spanked" (including with a switch or belt) the same as children and servants. (This DID change across the colonies years before the revolution.)

Now I'm one of the first ones to argue that things have gone too far in the opposite direction these days. Right now legal matters are skewed too far in favor of women - there should be no bias or default ruling in either direction in any case, and in too many there are. However, that doesn't change what things WERE like.


There's also statisticly significant drop in female interest in marriage. This is because the entire concept of requiring a third party to legitimize a romantic relationship is becoming absurd to more and more people.

As for the rest, men are definitely becoming more cautious, and rightly so. The law is a legal quagmire for them. More caution does not mean less interest, however.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Yeah, that's about as disrespectful as it gets, so overall I'd say it's "fairly" respectful, unless you're incredibly touchy.



Again, that's not her argument. She's lamenting the methods girls use to find and keep them, does not suggest in any way the motivation is anything other than hormones.



First, you can't be free and independent if you latch on to another person. That's fairly straight forward. Now whether they should be ignoring boys or not - she states her opinion - but also discusses at length how people should make their own decisions and not be judged. Lastly, no, she doesn't suggest that girls only chase boys because people are telling them boyfriends are important.



Horseshit. What a 12 year old does with her time is between her and her parents. What you feel is appropriate is irrelevant.

You guys are really missing the point here. It's not about whether or not women currently get equal pay for equal work or whether the proposed Paycheck Fairness Act actually is fair. It's not about any specific law. Schlaefly is flat out saying that because, in her opinion, relationships where the woman makes more money than the man are doomed to failure, women would actually be better off if we reinstituted the highly discriminatory policies of say the 19th century. She's saying that, instead of choosing the sane option and trying to get over the hangup about not getting into relationships with men that make less money than they do, women should just accept that the man must make more as a fact of life and therefore actively seek to deny themselves financial opportunities by opposing attempts to close the pay gap and actually support attempts to increase it, because the poorer they are, the larger the pool of available men for them to have a relationship with becomes. According to her, a woman's best strategy for financial success in life is to focus her efforts on maximizing the amount of money her husband can make, even if it's at her own expense. Any attempt to advance her own station in life is counterproductive, because it comes at the cost of having a husband and a family, which is what's really important.

From this argument, you can also infer that she considers a woman that chooses to have a family to have made a better choice than a woman that chooses to have a career. "Barefoot and pregnant" is exactly what she's advocating here.

Fair enough, but she's hardly the entire repulican party ot indicative of a need for further legislation. Also I still argue thst one moon bats long held opinion would not be news if "the point" was not about pushing the equal pay issue for political gain.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

"You're old and therefore don't know anything" is pretty much standard adolescent disrespect.



Which was not what I was responding to in that segment; I was responding to your asinine assertion that my age or gender somehow calls into question an assertion that should be blindingly obvious in the first place.



I didn't say anything about "appropriate." She's 12. No matter what her and her parents think, she is not yet an actress, activist, or any of that other stuff - she utterly lacks the maturity and life experience to make the claim to any of those. "Aspiring" maybe. In another 4 or 5 years she might be able to claim some of those titles. Right now, she's a little kid pretending to be an adult (or an adult pretending to be a little kid) by parroting feminist propaganda." The only "horseshit" going on here is your inability to parse anything I said.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, that is not what she's saying. That's what MSNBC is claiming she's saying.

Her ACTUAL comments



Aside from your incredibly biased characterization of one option as "sane", you just contradicted yourself. The pay gap is not the same thing as "equal pay for equal work", the pay gap is about "equal pay across women in general" which was not the issue in the 19th century or even in the 1960s. Furthermore, she isn't tlak8ing about a woman's best strategy, just what a lot of women naturally do



Except that it isn't, because that isn't what she's saying. She's talking about the "Gender Pay Gap", and why it's not a result of pay discrimination. But then again, it's pretty obvious no one here could be assed to read her actual comments. She did not actually say that women should earn less in order to find a husband; she said that it's not terribly important in a marriage because what matters is the combined income rather than the amount of either individually:



If you read carefully, (by carefully, I mean AT ALL) she does not say the pay gap is good; she says it isn't "all bad" because it helps sustain marriages. I'm not sure that conclusion is actually valid, but that does not make it ok to misrepresent it. Furthermore, her entire discussion is about WHY there's a gender pay gap - largely because men and women make different choices. Contrary to what feminists will tell you, this isn't because of mysterious "patriarchy" it's because women and men ARE NOT THE SAME.

The entire issue is the "gender pay gap" which is "equal pay, with or without equal work". No one cares about the gender DEATH gap; apparently high risk jobs shouldn't pay more if it contributes to group-wide pay differences. But Schalfely is a woman who hasn't followed the feminist party line and therefore has to be attacked, accurately or not, by liberals at every turn.. even if she's old, outdated, and largely irrelevant at this point. All it takes to get the Glade bandwagon on board is for MSNBC to refer to her as a conservative Christian advocate, and bam, she must be. I mean, **** reading what she actually said. She doesn't say that women should intentionally make less; she says because of the behaviors women ALREADY ENGAGE IN, that improving economic prospects (i.e. the job market) for men has more of an effect than trying to legislate away a fake "pay gap".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Which is exactly what I said. They also had none of the responsibilities, and the reason men had those rights and privileges were their responsibilities, not "because penis". Don't say "rights and privilieges" if you're not going to acknowledge responsibilities.



No, it isn't how "we" were treated. you aren't part of that "we". You don't get to lay claim to past circumstances any more than present day blacks get to claim they used to be slaves.

It also is not "how women were treated; you could not just go pay a "bride price" and buy a wife like livestock. Women could not buy sell or own property without their husband's permission - unless they were unmarried adults. Who do you suppose controlled property if the husband died? It didn't revert to the father in the Western world, and again, men controlled the property and income because they were responsible for the taxes.

Try doing a little actual learning and not just parroting back what you heard in high school. You like Straughn, go watch some of her other videos that deal with all of this in the length and detail it deserves.


Not really. They might be able to in extreme circumstances, but a man that beat his wife was subject to social and possibly criminal censure. Children, on the other hand, could be ebaten by EITHER parent and even by schoolmasters with near-total impunity.



What things were like is not what you seem to think they were, because just like most feminists, you're latching onto "rights" and totally ignoring both responsibilities and circumstances. Back when nearly everyone had to farm because that was what it took for the populace to get fed, there were no realistic alternatives. Men HAD to work, and women HAD to manage the house and kids. There were not automated assistances for it; and anyone lucky enough to do something other than agriculture was a lucky exception.



No, it has nothing to do with that. Mainly because it isn't absurd, except to you when you get in the mood to stamp your feet like an adolescent and scream "no one can tell me what to do!" because religion or something. The female drop in interest in marriage has to do with the fall of male income - not relative to their own, but relative to the economy - in the last 6-8 years. Women tend to select men for their economic viability in the absolute sense.


Except that's exactly what it means, and that's what Straughan was discussing in the video I linked. You like her so much, go watch some more. She presents things very matter-of-factly, and does excellent research.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

She clearly states that she believes that women making more money makes it harder for them to find a husband.



Again, she's clearly stating that a wage disparity between men and women "promotes and sustains marriages." She also states that the existence of a pay gap doesn't really matter.



Here she states that the decreasing pay gap is directly responsible for the fall in marriage rates, and that the best method for women to improve their station in life is to improve the earning power of their husbands, rather than by trying to improve their own.

The thing is, I don't disagree with her when she says that the current gap is due to the fact that men work more hours at harder jobs, and that the current gender pay gap is not due to misogyny or discrimination. However, the underlying cause of the pay gap is completely irrelevant to her other assertion that women actually benefit from making less money than men do. WHY they make less is irrelevant, just that they do.

Quite simply, it is not a misrepresentation of her position to claim that she believes that women would benefit from an increase in the pay gap. She is clearly stating that it is not in the best interests of women to try to "catch up" to men in this regard, regardless of whether they attempt to do so via politics or simply by working harder. She also clearly says that women should instead focus their efforts on empowering their husbands rather than themselves. She even says that the gap is basically irrelevant since households pool their income, and therefore the existence of a gap (no matter how large it was, is, will be, or what happens to be causing it) is actually unimportant because the household will earn the same amount regardless of the size of said gap. The one line where she says the gap "isn't all bad" is not consistent with the rest of her statements. She contradicts herself completely just a few sentences later.

While she doesn't specifically advocate a return to older laws that did discriminate against women, from the conditions she's laid out, it's easy to logically make this leap. She believes that:

1. The existence and size of the pay gap is irrelevant to the financial situation of the household unit.
2. A larger pay gap makes it more likely that a woman will be able to find a husband and form a household unit.

Therefore, logically, anything that increases the pay gap also improves the station of women. It's all upside and no downside if you follow her logic. I do not think it is a huge leap to assert that she believes that the best role for women is that of the stereotypical 50s housewife, who foregoes an education and a career and instead does all the cooking, cleaning, housework, child-raising, etc. so that the man can focus entirely on his job and maximize his earning potential, at the expense of hers.

At no point does she say that. All she says is that simple arithmetic suggests that if the pay gap were eliminated, then half the women would be unable to find a spouse that's suitable - suitable by the present standards. All that means is that women would then have to adjust their standards if they wanted to marry.



What do you mean, again? Before, you were claiming she said the pay gap was good, when I highlighted this I pointed out that she says it's not "all bad". Furthermore, so what if she says the pay gap doesn't really matter? It doesn't. It exists because the 2 sexes tend to make different choices. Group gaps don't matter; what matters is fair treatment on the individual level - i.e. if 2 people of different sexes make different money when all other factors are equal, there's a problem.



For which she gives the reason that in real terms, women's income has risen while men's has fallen



Except she never says that. What she says is that at this point, women would benefit more if the men in their lives made more than they do now, as opposed to the women themselves making more. That's because either A) they are married and therefore the resource pool would increase and or B) they are not, but are more likely to find someone "suitable" because



No, that is not a misrepresentation, but that isn't what you said. You said she wants a return to 19th century practices, and that she's advocating "barefoot and pregnant". She isn't.



No, she didn't. What she said is that men making more money will benefit women more than making more money themselves. This is predicated on improving the job situation for men, not worsening it for women. The idea that the pay gap would be beneficial is predicated on that improvement, not on the size of the pay gap itself. You are reading that into what she's saying in order to make hyperbolic claims about wanting 19th century discrimination.



You aren't following her logic. Her logic is based on increasing economic prospects for men, rather than trying to increase them for women. Furthermore, her statements are made in the context of the Paycheck Fairness Act which is intended to simply legislate that pay gap away, or at least take steps in that direction. Given that trying to eliminate the pay gap by creating new laws to hunt for discrimination that doesn't appear to exist isn't likely to work, it makes perfect sense for her to say "more jobs for men are better than more laws for women" (which is what this boils down.) Women who are advocating for this law are not advocating for earning more money themselves anyhow; they're advocating for legislation intended to fight assumed discrimination. You in fact are making a huge, or more properly, a strawman.

Taking her remarks out of context of the issue she's addressing is, itself, a misrepresentation. She isn't the issue; the bill is.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

LOL, DE, you'll argue with anything.

No, you do not know more than a 12 year old girl about why a 12 year old girl might want a boyfriend.

No, she doesn't suggest girls are only interested in boys because society tells them to be.

Yes, she is clearly an activist. There is no age restriction on the term. You also aren't informed about her maturity, don't really get to judge, and it's irrelevant anyway.

So will you. In fact, that's the entire point of this forum.



Yes, as a matter of fact I do. Practically everyone here does. It's pretty well-known why, but you're arguing with it just to take issue with the rest of what I'm saying.. speaking of people that will argue with anything.



Not directly, but I already covered this. Just shouting "nuh uh!!!" doesn't mean very much.. again, speaking of people that will argue with anything.



Yes I am. She's 12. The developmental ranges for pre-adolescents are well known. She's not an "activist". I guess you think toddlers can be activists too, since they can also parrot back what adults tell them. And yes, I do get to judge. What are you going to do, cry about it some more? Going to come give me a good honest tussel, tough guy? You were on the crew that didn't like rules and people getting banned, so don't try to lecture people on community standards.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Even a cursory amount of research reveals, despite my initial assumptions, that Ms. Kimrey is actually a highly self-actualized individual with extraordinary linguistic skills. It would be one thing if this were an isolated incident, but she's held her own against some rather aggressive interviewers in the past. She held her own with Al Sharpton on MSNBC.

_________________

Despite others dismissal for no reason other than "she's 12", she seems like a very impressive young lady. I'm sure her views will evolve over time (maybe she just hasn't me the right boy ), but she seems determined to make an impact. One reason she's being given so much attention is because she's 12, but I digress.

/golfclap



I can lecture people on community standards if I like! What are you going to do, cry about it?

Tool.

A slice of slightly damp toast could hold its own against Sharpton.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

This doesn't make sense, you can't make men more employable without making women less employable. There's no way to do one and not the other. If men are making more, that means women are either making less or there are less of them in the workforce to begin with. Wages are set by demand, and therefore improving the job situation for men implies worsening it for women, there's no way around this. There's only so many jobs and so much budget for wages, and if men become more employable then women must become less so.

In a moderated debate, sure. In a public forum where demagoguery is a valid tactic, beating Al Sharpton is pretty damn hard.

How do you know this? Why is any of this a zero-sum game, knowing that men make different employment choices than women?

Budgets and jobs are not fixed numbers, and improvement does not have to spread evenly across the economy. Improvement in areas men like to work in much more than women means improvement in a lot of the most wealth-generating areas of the economy, such as energy generation and heavy industry.

You're totally full of ****.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You can jump off a bridge too, if you like. That won't stop the splat at the bottom. Similarly, you can try to play standards enforcer and look like a total jackass after you whined and cried when people got banned in the past.

Oh wait, that's right. You like standards publicly when you get to enforce them (have "good honest tussels") but don't like them when someone else enforces them. Same behavior here. Yeah..

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Al Sharpton has practically no intellectual or debating skills. It would be nice to see the instance in which Sharpton would be debating her in the first place. Kimrey's linguistic skills may indeed be well developed but her thought process betrays that of a 12 year old believing victim politics fed to her by adults that she buys into because she gets to be part of the victim class. It's also not hard to imagine her getting a great deal of leeway against Sharpton just because people think it's cute to see 12 year olds give attitude in forums where they're allowed to (there are innumerable teenage shows about over-the-top obnoxiousness on satellite TV to demonstrate that) and Sharpton is essentially a bully in the first place.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."