"Don't Marry Career Women"

[matriarch]

There are many heads in a family.

Why does there have to be a head OF the family? If I may be so bold, (and probably piss one or the other off) I'd say that if a family have that need for hierarchy, they need to look it over and see what's causing the illness.

I you.

 

[Oblimo]

And a 'flaccid five' for someone who apparently can't do the math, fully engorged, expands three to five times the flaccid state, so, grunt and take it...play hide the salami...not the pepperoni...

Amicus, in all honesty, I am having trouble understanding what you're saying. And this is coming from a guy who understands what "the teleological suspension of the ethical" means.

So, please, help me out:

This flaccid five will guarantee dilation to 7cm in a fully engorged state.

What part of whose anatomy is doing the dilating in the above sentence? Does it, by any chance, go through effacement?

 

[Liar]

'REASON' is precisely what you do not do.

Like a bug in a rug, you are comfortable with your belief's and so be it. You have every right to be stupid and uninformed and illiterate. And I would never question your right to be so.

Maybe so, but I have yet to see you try on a new perspective either. Reason is apparently only reason if it's based on your dogmas.

Nature abhors a vacuum...it also bypasses non productivity or non pro creation, not really a difficult equasion...

I assume this wasa further explanation to your "Transvestites, Transgender, Homosexuals, Lesbians, however you equate them do not reproduce and thus are inconsequential in nature's scheme of things." statement?

Then apply reason to this, please: If nature has a scheme, it's not a pesky little guideline or recommendation. It's a natrural order that we can't escape from, more than we can gravity. And in spite of millions of years of natural selection, that reasonably should have rid the human race and other spieces from such a large percentage of improductive behaviour, they exist. Which can reasonably mean one of two things: Either current scientific consensus on the mechanics of evolution is wrong, or homosexuality is not as inconsequential as a narrow minded look at it might suggest.

Hell, I'll even pull a perfectly reasonable hypothesis out of my ass for ya: In a herd, there might be a good reason to have a bunch of strong, healthy individuals that are not preoccupied with competing with the others for mating rights.

 

[Guest]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

'REASON' is precisely what you do not do.

Like a bug in a rug, you are comfortable with your belief's and so be it. You have every right to be stupid and uninformed and illiterate. And I would never question your right to be so.

But in the real world, you suck, in terms of debate and discussion..

Nature abhors a vacuum...it also bypasses non productivity or non pro creation, not really a difficult equasion...

And a 'flaccid five' for someone who apparently can't do the math, fully engorged, expands three to five times the flaccid state, so, grunt and take it...play hide the salami...not the pepperoni...

bon appetite'

amicus...

Oooh. That li'l soldier comment got under your skin, didn't it, ami?

How delightful.

 

[cloudy]

Oooh. That li'l soldier comment got under your skin, didn't it, ami?

How delightful.

He wants you. *nods*

 

[Guest]

He wants you. *nods*

I don't think so.

He's still confused about the size of his peepee.

 

[cloudy]

I don't think so.

He's still confused about the size of his peepee.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Maybe so, but I have yet to see you try on a new perspective either. Reason is apparently only reason if it's based on your dogmas.

I assume this wasa further explanation to your "Transvestites, Transgender, Homosexuals, Lesbians, however you equate them do not reproduce and thus are inconsequential in nature's scheme of things." statement?

Then apply reason to this, please: If nature has a scheme, it's not a pesky little guideline or recommendation. It's a natrural order that we can't escape from, more than we can gravity. And in spite of millions of years of natural selection, that reasonably should have rid the human race and other spieces from such a large percentage of improductive behaviour, they exist. Which can reasonably mean one of two things: Either current scientific consensus on the mechanics of evolution is wrong, or homosexuality is not as inconsequential as a narrow minded look at it might suggest.

Hell, I'll even pull a perfectly reasonable hypothesis out of my ass for ya: In a herd, there might be a good reason to have a bunch of strong, healthy individuals that are not preoccupied with competing with the others for mating rights.

An excellent response and a cogent explanation for homosexuality. Not for bisexuality, but that's another issue. It doesn't really need much of an explanation.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Dear ami,

Plenty of us KNOW that there are gender differences. I just choose not to let those dictate all of my views on issues like this. Of course, there are differences. One just doesn't have to structure society in such a way that overemphasizes those differences at the expense of the equal value of the sexes. Are they the same sex? No, of course not. But they have the same value, though with different tendencies (not universal, however).[/QUOTE]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ah...severus...therein lies a bit of a rub...as I do not share your conclusion that the sexes have the same values.

I rather think the value system of each gender is so far apart and different as to be nearly unrecognizable by the other.

It takes a whole different set of values to nurture an infant or to soothe a frightened six year old from a nightmare than it does to wrestle a D-12 Cat in a forest fire or be a steel worker a thousand feet above ground.

That is not to say that either could not do both, that is entirely possible and has no doubt occured many times.

I enjoy being male and masculine. I am comfortable and easy with it. I am also very appreciative of the female and femininity and I am easy with that.

But I would never wish to be a female or a woman, not for a single second of my life. The reason being...it seems to me to be an entirely different universe they live in.

amicus...

Wait, I thought I heard you say many times over and over that there is no such thing as *different values* that you either have values or you don't.

Yes, once or twice you've even said it to me.

 

[amicus]

My apologies to the thread starter and the original topic, '...Career Women..."; it was not my intention to change the direction of the posts and so I shall withdraw from this thread in hopes it may return to the original purpose.

amicus...

 

[Guest]

My apologies to the thread starter and the original topic, '...Career Women..."; it was not my intention to change the direction of the posts and so I shall withdraw from this thread in hopes it may return to the original purpose.

amicus...

Tsk.

 

[Black Tulip]

And how do I fit in? I'd love to find a husband who makes enough money so I can stay home, raise kids, take care of the home and write. I don't seem to fit into their statistics. How typical of me.

LOL Join the club, sweetie. Except, that I had a kid on my own. *gasp*

The only offense I take is the historical bullshit.

Granted, I can only speak for the Old World, but women only stayed at home to take care of the house and the kids since the 19th century. And that's in the (upper) middle class to prove they were wealthy enough to get by on one income.
Simpler folks just had to work their butt off, kids or no kids.

 

[Liar]

My apologies to the thread starter and the original topic, '...Career Women..."; it was not my intention to change the direction of the posts and so I shall withdraw from this thread in hopes it may return to the original purpose.

amicus...

Meh. Threads wander all the time. And it's my thread so I say it can wander wherever it darn well please.

So feel free to answer my previous post.

 

[yevkassem72]

LOL Join the club, sweetie. Except, that I had a kid on my own. *gasp*

The only offense I take is the historical bullshit.

Granted, I can only speak for the Old World, but women only stayed at home to take care of the house and the kids since the 19th century. And that's in the (upper) middle class to prove they were wealthy enough to get by on one income.
Simpler folks just had to work their butt off, kids or no kids.

Yes, homemaking has been a historical luxury of the rich. Ozzie and Harriet were more myth than reality. Just ask my grandparents, if they were still alive to be asked. Both worked.

 

[MagicaPractica]

LOL Join the club, sweetie. Except, that I had a kid on my own. *gasp*

The only offense I take is the historical bullshit.

Granted, I can only speak for the Old World, but women only stayed at home to take care of the house and the kids since the 19th century. And that's in the (upper) middle class to prove they were wealthy enough to get by on one income.
Simpler folks just had to work their butt off, kids or no kids.

Ah, but they were generally either working around the home or had an extended family close enough to provide the "daycare." Otherwise they had to wait until one of the kids was old enough to take care of the others. As for having a kid on my own, that's my plan if I ever get financially comfortable to do that. I have accepted that although I really would like to find someone to share my life with, nothing in my life to this point suggests that's ever going to happen so I might as well go ahead with the kids on my own.

 

[Black Tulip]

Ah, but they were generally either working around the home or had an extended family close enough to provide the "daycare." Otherwise they had to wait until one of the kids was old enough to take care of the others. As for having a kid on my own, that's my plan if I ever get financially comfortable to do that. I have accepted that although I really would like to find someone to share my life with, nothing in my life to this point suggests that's ever going to happen so I might as well go ahead with the kids on my own.

You want some advice on that, you can PM me anytime.

As for the history. Yes, in the Middle Ages, people could depend on the extended family. As for the period after that, it was mixed, at least in Western Europe. Trade made a lot of people richer, but there were lots of little people with small shops who had to make it a family business to get by.
At the start of the Industrial Revolution however, common women didn't even get time off to give birth. They had to be back on their feet in no time, because they couldn't afford to lose the much needed income.

On a side note: amicus always murmurs about people not discussing with proper facts, but only with opinions. So far he never reacted to any of the facts I posted; perhaps he couldn't reconcile them with his opinions.

Sorry, I had to say it.

 

[amicus]

Ah...Black Tulip calls me out...for the first time...if I recall...


"...As for the history. Yes, in the Middle Ages, people could depend on the extended family. As for the period after that, it was mixed, at least in Western Europe. Trade made a lot of people richer, but there were lots of little people with small shops who had to make it a family business to get by.
At the start of the Industrial Revolution however, common women didn't even get time off to give birth. They had to be back on their feet in no time, because they couldn't afford to lose the much needed income.

On a side note: amicus always murmurs about people not discussing with proper facts, but only with opinions. So far he never reacted to any of the facts I posted; perhaps he couldn't reconcile them with his opinions.

Sorry, I had to say it. .."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't mind...but a cursory scroll back up the last page shows me no 'facts' you have posted, just some rather strange perceptions about historical matters.

It is as if by some slight of hand you wish everyone to believe that women in the vast majority, never worked at home.

Nor do I wish to imply that women ever had an easy time of things in an agrarian setting, they certainly did not.

Anyone can search this should you wish, but my reading of history as an overview, indicates that 80 to 90 percent of the people lived on small family plots producing most of what they consumed and trading surplus to neighbors.

As late as the mid 1850's, the beginning of the industrial revolution in America, eight out of 10 people lived in the countryside, only a small percentage is towns and cities.

The percentage gradually declined, but even in the 1940's more people lived outside the cities than within, and there were no such things as 'suburbs' then.

So that the 'career woman' as spoken of in the article that began this thread is a fairly recent occurence.

Before about 1930, few girls every had any education beyond a few years primary school. It was a rarity to see a woman in a college setting, save those in the medical, (nursing) and teaching professions.

The last three quarters of a century, most of which I have witnessed, has brought about tremendous social changes, career women being perhaps the latest.

As the article referred to studies made and conclusions drawn, most of the assertions are irrefutably fact and cannot be rationally challenged. The divorce rate is higher, the child birth rate lower, career women do not stay married, nor do they produce even replacement level numbers of children.

Instead of spurring an interesting debate about where the future might be taking us, I pointed out that the radical feminists on this forum merely rejected out of hand the 'factual' evidence presented in the Forbes Magazine piece and thereby did not do justice to the article.

amicus...

 

[Huckleman2000]

There are many heads in a family.
Why does there have to be a head OF the family? If I may be so bold, (and probably piss one or the other off) I'd say that if a family have that need for hierarchy, they need to look it over and see what's causing the illness.

"head of the family" is a really volitile term. In demographic studies, for the most part there are two "heads of the family", the female head and the male head. That's if it's a 'traditional' household of a male and female raising children, or even just co-habitating. so, it's really not a distinction that says anything about who 'wears the pants' in the household, it's just a way to designate the principal male and female household members. Nevertheless, many people define "head of the family" as one person who makes all of the tough decisions. In the past, this wasn't such an issue, but today it's a real problem if you want to conduct research, since it introduces a whole big level of differences of perception amongst the respondents.

With the growing acceptance (and prevalence) of gay and lesbian households, the definitions are much more murky, and the questions needed to define them in conducting research are more intrusive, leading to lower respose rates and unequal impact on the response rates from different social groups.

Demographers and market researchers have a very difficult task to try to get meaningful data from the population in such a changing environment. Everyone wants to know 'the truth', but it becomes harder and harder to get to that - or, maybe easier and easier, as single-sex couples feel more mainstream. Anyways, it's a particularly difficult problem.

 

[Oblimo]

AhAs the article referred to studies made and conclusions drawn, most of the assertions are irrefutably fact and cannot be rationally challenged.

Oh, you're still participating in this thread! Then, in the interest of irrefutable facts beyond rational challenge, would you mind responding to my early inquiry concerning your post wherein you apparently state that your penis ia capable of dilating a woman's cervix to seven centimeters?

Thanks!

 

[Black Tulip]

Ah...Black Tulip calls me out...for the first time...if I recall...

No, but never mind.

I don't mind...but a cursory scroll back up the last page shows me no 'facts' you have posted, just some rather strange perceptions about historical matters.

You should have read the sentence where I stated I was referring to European history since I can only speak about facts I know.

The percentage gradually declined, but even in the 1940's more people lived outside the cities than within, and there were no such things as 'suburbs' then.

You could be quite right about American history. But not for Western Europe. Commerce was booming business which started in the 17th Century.
Maybe there were no suburbs like we know them today, but there certainly were slums. Have you ever wondered what spurred the French Revolution?

I'm not spouting my perceptions, but quoting historical facts most educated Europens are aware of.

You're right that career women are a modern day invention, but the implication was that women used to stay at home to raise the children and that is not correct, not in European history anyway.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Oblimo]Oh, you're still participating in this thread! Then, in the interest of irrefutable facts beyond rational challenge, would you mind responding to my early inquiry concerning your post wherein you apparently state that your penis ia capable of dilating a woman's cervix to seven centimeters?

Thanks![/QUOTE]


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You are one persistent cuss, Oblimo...whomever you may be...but as I must maintain my reputation of citing facts and not opinion...even though your quest to dethrone me is somewhat less than admirable and you know it....

This all got going with a poster who perjoratively said 'flaccid dick'...made me curious, so I measured...

Also did a google and learned that flaccid to fully engorged is three to five times the flaccid state. Since I claimed a 'flaccid five' (ahem), the let the ladies swoon, what do I care?

In my younger days, interested in such things, as a matter of curiosity, I measured the widest part at the base, with a thumb and middlefinger and found it to be just under three inches...curious, eh?

Now, if memory serves, nowhere did I use the word 'cervix', I was more thinking
of that delightful vaginal opening that I so love to penetrate...

"...Centimeters: 7
Meters: 0.07
Inches: 2.755905509..."


"...Cervical dilation is the dilation (widening) of the cervix during childbirth. In the early stages of pregnancy, the cervix may already have opened up to 1-3 cm, but during the last stage of labour, repeated uterine contractions lead to rapid further widening of the cervix to 10 cm..."


out of wikipedia I think, ifin ya wanna yell at them...

So...Oblimo...whomever you may be...unless you think I fabricate everything I post, (I do not), then your abject apology will be accepted...


the always ready to please....amicus...