Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Sexual Economics, Culture, Men, and Modern Sexual Trends
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
catman



Joined: 18 Jul 2004

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Titus wrote:
You're using his homosexuality as a pejorative?

How insufferably liberal of you.


No. I just love irony.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
catman



Joined: 18 Jul 2004

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm a bit of a history buff and love watching old films. Today I just happened upon some old feminist propaganda from the 1930's!

I'm no man's woman now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GF



Joined: 26 Sep 2012

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
Just out of curiosity, and Titus and GF can play along too, what is your opinion of original feminist issues, such as women voting, greater legal protection, etc.


Women are made as men's subjects and helpmeets for the generation and rearing of children, and for everything pertaining to motherhood; in all else, men are better helped by other men. With very few exceptions, women should have no role in public affairs. The vote is right out. For laywomen, liberal or 'rational' education (so important to Wollstonecraft) is iffy.

"Let wives be subject to their husbands ... as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord." - St. Paul

"The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out." - Catechism of Trent

Since you asked. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
Fox wrote:
Underwaterbob wrote:
Feminism-run-amok and sexual politicking causing lower birth rates? Good. People! Who needs em? A couple generations down the road the economy will either adapt to the new, lower population, or provide some real incentive to up that population again a la the baby boomers. It's not like there's the room for unlimited growth no matter how much our big business ruled, consumer driven economy demands it anyway.


So the answer to limited global resources is to adapt our boom/bust economic cycle into a boom/bust population cycle?


I think it already does that, due to obvious reasons, i.e. when people don't have a job or money they don't have babies.


Is this so? Perhaps you had best inform the high-fertility poor of their stance on this matter, because they seem to have forgotten.

Quote:
The Obamzas have no mosquito net, even though they have already lost two of their eight children to malaria.


Too poor to afford a mosquito net. Eight children. Eight! In no way unique. The most fertile nations in the world are the poorest, not the richest Leon, and often the lower classes in any given society are also higher fertility. When people don't have money, they have more children.

Leon wrote:
Also Fox, why complain about the Swedish parental leave system, which already gives Moms more time to be with their new children, and gives them money so that even if they normally need to work for money, they don't have to worry about that. That is far superior to the American system of maternal leave, also a woman is much more likely to be required to work in America due to financial reasons than Sweden.


Feminists like to pretend the movement is about things like "choice." That was the exact word Catman tried to use to shame me into agreeing with him, in fact: "choice." Forcing the father to take paternity leave for the family to get the full parental leave benefit is not choice, it's coercion. Coercing men to be more like women, so women can be more like men; coercing dad into staying home to get mom back to work faster. Oh, sure, you can choose to simply take the hit and give up the extra parental leave, but any feminist would be outraged if she was told women would have to give up financial benefit to make the choices they wanted, so why is it okay here? The answer is because it's your particular ideology that's being pushed. Of course guys like you and Catman cheer it on. I don't blame you for that: you're just doing what you were taught. That's fine, it's pointless to talk about it.

Leon wrote:
Also, what do you have against fathers staying home from work to spend time with their new child?


If a father really wants to stay home with his kids, fine. I'm okay with that, I am. When the government starts using economic meddling to push fathers into staying home so their wives can go back to work, we're not talking about what the father wants to do anymore (or even what the mother wants to do, given she may well wish to take those two extra months herself). I wouldn't want to be coerced in this fashion, so of course I have sympathy with those who are.

Leon wrote:
I think the financial requirement issue that you speak of is less a function of feminism, and more a function of the elite gaining greater control of the economy, and globalization, and etc. So perhaps your aiming a bit at the wrong targets in that regard.


Of course globalization has had an impact. That doesn't mean feminism hasn't. Globalization devalues western labor by increasing supply. So does feminism. I'm not an especial fan of either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
Fox wrote:
Underwaterbob wrote:
Feminism-run-amok and sexual politicking causing lower birth rates? Good. People! Who needs em? A couple generations down the road the economy will either adapt to the new, lower population, or provide some real incentive to up that population again a la the baby boomers. It's not like there's the room for unlimited growth no matter how much our big business ruled, consumer driven economy demands it anyway.


So the answer to limited global resources is to adapt our boom/bust economic cycle into a boom/bust population cycle?


I think it already does that, due to obvious reasons, i.e. when people don't have a job or money they don't have babies.


Is this so? Perhaps you had best inform the high-fertility poor of their stance on this matter, because they seem to have forgotten.

Quote:
The Obamzas have no mosquito net, even though they have already lost two of their eight children to malaria.


Too poor to afford a mosquito net. Eight children. Eight! In no way unique. The most fertile nations in the world are the poorest, not the richest Leon, and often the lower classes in any given society are also higher fertility. When people don't have money, they have more children.

Leon wrote:
Also Fox, why complain about the Swedish parental leave system, which already gives Moms more time to be with their new children, and gives them money so that even if they normally need to work for money, they don't have to worry about that. That is far superior to the American system of maternal leave, also a woman is much more likely to be required to work in America due to financial reasons than Sweden.


Feminists like to pretend the movement is about things like "choice." That was the exact word Catman tried to use to shame me into agreeing with him, in fact: "choice." Forcing the father to take paternity leave for the family to get the full parental leave benefit is not choice, it's coercion. Coercing men to be more like women, so women can be more like men; coercing dad into staying home to get mom back to work faster. Oh, sure, you can choose to simply take the hit and give up the extra parental leave, but any feminist would be outraged if she was told women would have to give up financial benefit to make the choices they wanted, so why is it okay here? The answer is because it's your particular ideology that's being pushed. Of course guys like you and Catman cheer it on. I don't blame you for that: you're just doing what you were taught. That's fine, it's pointless to talk about it.

Leon wrote:
Also, what do you have against fathers staying home from work to spend time with their new child?


If a father really wants to stay home with his kids, fine. I'm okay with that, I am. When the government starts using economic meddling to push fathers into staying home so their wives can go back to work, we're not talking about what the father wants to do anymore (or even what the mother wants to do, given she may well wish to take those two extra months herself). I wouldn't want to be coerced in this fashion, so of course I have sympathy with those who are.

Leon wrote:
I think the financial requirement issue that you speak of is less a function of feminism, and more a function of the elite gaining greater control of the economy, and globalization, and etc. So perhaps your aiming a bit at the wrong targets in that regard.


Of course globalization has had an impact. That doesn't mean feminism hasn't. Globalization devalues western labor by increasing supply. So does feminism. I'm not an especial fan of either.


When I say that birthrates fall due to economic conditions, I mean in aggregate, I'm not singling out the poor, who tend to have more kids. If you look at the birthrate since the recent economic troubles it has been falling in accordance to economic conditions. In 1990 there were 71.2 births per 1000 US women, age 15-44, and in 2010 there were only 64. Also, I'm talking about industrialized countries. I'm not sure if third world countries follow this trend. If anything they would probably follow the opposite trend, with a declining birthrate as they continue to industrialize, and once, if, they have a developed economy their birthrates would probably, in aggregate, begin to respond as I described.

As an aside, just something interesting from the report that I didn't know before, a large part of the declining birthrate is from foreign born women living in the US having less babies. Anyways the whole report is pretty interesting, and just 3 pages.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2012/11/Birth_Rate_Final.pdf

Here's a more direct report detailing the effects of the great recession on US birth rates.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/10/12/in-a-down-economy-fewer-births/

"A state-level look at fertility illustrates the strength of the correlation between lower birth rates and economic distress. States experiencing the largest economic declines in 2007 and 2008 were most likely to experience relatively large fertility declines from 2008 to 2009, the analysis finds. States with relatively minor economic declines were likely to experience relatively small declines.

For example, North Dakota, which experienced one of the nationís lowest unemployment rates (3.1%) in 2008, was the only state to show even a slight increase (0.7%) in births from 2008 to 2009. All other states and the District of Columbia experienced either no change, or declines, in births during that period.

These correlations are based on fertility trends calculated using data from the National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau and economic trend data from six familiar indicators (per capita income, per capita gross domestic product, employment rate, unemployment rate, initial unemployment claims, and foreclosure rates) tracked by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and RealtyTrac."

I wish I could post the graphs here, because they make the most compelling case for what I said, so I'd encourage you to click on the second link.

Princeton's study:

"When compared to 2007, the American birth rate in
2010 had decreased from 69.5 to 64.7 per 1000 women; this translates into 315,500 fewer babies
born in 2010 relative to 2007 (Sutton and Hamilton 2011). This decline represents the biggest
multiyear decrease in births seen in the past 30 years (Sutton, Hamilton and Mathews 2011)."

This was interesting, and had something to do with what you posted,

"The results suggest that effects of the GR and job loss varied by marital status and educational attainment. Unmarried women with a high school diploma or less increased their fertility in response to job losses in their communities 1-3 months prior to conception (column 2). These effects did not vary if job loss was experienced during the GR, and the GR itself did
not have an effect on their fertility.

Among married women with a high school diploma or less, fertility decreased in response to community-wide job losses occurring 0-4 months after conception, but only if those job losses occurred during the GR. There was no main effect of job
loss for this group, and like their unmarried counterparts, they did not change their fertility in response to the GR. Results for unmarried women with some college mirrored those of married women with a high school diploma or less: a decrease in the birth rate in response to community
wide job losses experienced 0-4 months after conception during the GR.

Finally, married women with some college or a college degree decreased their fertility in response to the GR, but did not change their fertility in response to job loss or job loss experienced during the GR.
http://paa2012.princeton.edu/papers/120736

So it seems like poorer and less educated people and countries tend to not be affected by economic conditions in terms of birth rates, or even have more babies as a result, but richer and more educated people and tend to have less as a result. But taken as a whole, in developed countries birth rates fall when faced with economic hardship.

In regards to the Sweden thing, I think you are letting ideology get in the way of the fact that regardless of the choice, they have one of the best paternal leave systems in the fact that it's much longer and paid, which father's choice or not, is much better for families than similar ones in America and other countries. It's not that I'm cheering it on because it makes dad stay at home, it's simply better even if someone loses that extra two months. Having sympathy for men who spend two months with their child, it's weird, because in a way it's like the mother gets 14 months paid paternal leave, which again is much better than most countries, and then the dad gets two months, it's not an either or thing, if the dad doesn't take it, it's not like the Mom loses anything. I think you're looking at this from an ideological, rather than a practical, viewpoint.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GF wrote:
Leon wrote:
Just out of curiosity, and Titus and GF can play along too, what is your opinion of original feminist issues, such as women voting, greater legal protection, etc.


Women are made as men's subjects and helpmeets for the generation and rearing of children, and for everything pertaining to motherhood; in all else, men are better helped by other men. With very few exceptions, women should have no role in public affairs. The vote is right out. For laywomen, liberal or 'rational' education (so important to Wollstonecraft) is iffy.

"Let wives be subject to their husbands ... as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord." - St. Paul

"The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out." - Catechism of Trent

Since you asked. Smile


Oh, right. This is why feminism was necessary.

Let it be known that when GF and Titus ominously intone "egalitarianism," they are at war with the 19th Amendment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:

In regards to the Sweden thing, I think you are letting ideology get in the way of the fact that regardless of the choice, they have one of the best paternal leave systems in the fact that it's much longer and paid, which father's choice or not, is much better for families than similar ones in America and other countries.


I can approve of the generosity of their parental leave system while simultaneously condemning the coercively feminist element of it.

Leon wrote:
Having sympathy for men who spend two months with their child, it's weird, because in a way it's like the mother gets 14 months paid paternal leave, which again is much better than most countries, and then the dad gets two months, it's not an either or thing, if the dad doesn't take it, it's not like the Mom loses anything. I think you're looking at this from an ideological, rather than a practical, viewpoint.


I'm looking at it from an ideological viewpoint because the justification for forcing the father to take at least two of the months in order to get the full benefit is purely ideological in nature. Like I said, it's easy for you to say, "Oh, just be practical about it," because it's your ideology being pushed by the government here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GF



Joined: 26 Sep 2012

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
Let it be known that when GF and Titus ominously intone "egalitarianism," they are at war with the 19th Amendment.


That's funny. "Let it be known..." Who will be outraged by my position based on the fact that it contradicts the "19th Amendment"? Will this rally all the undecided constitutional lawyers against me?

But you shouldn't assume that Titus believes the same as I do. That is incautious.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:

In regards to the Sweden thing, I think you are letting ideology get in the way of the fact that regardless of the choice, they have one of the best paternal leave systems in the fact that it's much longer and paid, which father's choice or not, is much better for families than similar ones in America and other countries.


I can approve of the generosity of their parental leave system while simultaneously condemning the coercively feminist element of it.

Leon wrote:
Having sympathy for men who spend two months with their child, it's weird, because in a way it's like the mother gets 14 months paid paternal leave, which again is much better than most countries, and then the dad gets two months, it's not an either or thing, if the dad doesn't take it, it's not like the Mom loses anything. I think you're looking at this from an ideological, rather than a practical, viewpoint.


I'm looking at it from an ideological viewpoint because the justification for forcing the father to take at least two of the months in order to get the full benefit is purely ideological in nature. Like I said, it's easy for you to say, "Oh, just be practical about it," because it's your ideology being pushed by the government here.


Well, as long as you at least noticed the generosity of it, then fine. Although, as I man, and probably a future father, I would like to have the option to stay home for two months with my child. You say it's feminism, but I see that as a great benefit for men, and for families to have the fathers take a more active role. It's always better when families have more choice, so I can see how you could see it as being coercive. I don't have that much of a problem with it because it's coercive using positive rewards instead of punishments, just like I don't have a problem with the United States using incentives to encourage marriage, having children, etc. etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GF



Joined: 26 Sep 2012

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
[...]have the fathers take a more active role.


Meaningless. What makes providing, in the traditional sense, a more passive role ? When it suits you, i.e. when you're talking about women, wouldn't you describe their having careers as more 'active' than their staying home with the children ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GF wrote:
Kuros wrote:
Let it be known that when GF and Titus ominously intone "egalitarianism," they are at war with the 19th Amendment.


That's funny. "Let it be known..." Who will be outraged by my position based on the fact that it contradicts the "19th Amendment"? Will this rally all the undecided constitutional lawyers against me?


The U.S. Constitution is a traditional (but also living) political document that directly bears on the question of woman's suffrage. Your biblical quotations provide very dubious and indirect grounds to oppose the right of women to vote. And that's aside from the fact that you're using the New Testament as authority for a political question.

Your position has become plainly ridiculous and I'm having fun ridiculing it.

Quote:
But you shouldn't assume that Titus believes the same as I do. That is incautious.


Let's see if he denies it. I'm hoping he does three times.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GF wrote:
Leon wrote:
[...]have the fathers take a more active role.


Meaningless. What makes providing, in the traditional sense, a more passive role ? When it suits you, i.e. when you're talking about women, wouldn't you describe their having careers as more 'active' than their staying home with the children ?


No, I wouldn't. Also, when children are younger they need more time with their parents. Also, the fathers in the Sweden scheme would still be receiving 80% of their pay, so they would still be providing. I think that people who are more involved in their career, both mother or father, than their family are taking a more passive role in raising their children. Also, I don't really believe that every women, or man, needs a career, or etc. etc. Again, none of this is either:or, you can be a provider and be active, you can even be a house wife/husband and be passive in raising children. A father receiving pay and spending two months with a young child obviously has a better chance to be more active than a father who spends much less time with their child.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GF



Joined: 26 Sep 2012

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
The U.S. Constitution is a traditional (but also living) political document that directly bears on the question of woman's suffrage. Your biblical quotations provide very dubious and indirect grounds to oppose the right of women to vote.


If I recall, you "believe" in "constitutional triarchy" the way a normal man believes in God. I guess it's my Scripture against yours !

Your constitution is a tremendously evil revolutionary document founded on a grievous error, the seperation of Church and State.

Kuros wrote:
And that's aside from the fact that you're using the New Testament as authority for a political question.


Spare me your grade-school exegesis and your weak reframing attempts. The New Testament has political implications just as women's liberation has spiritual implications. It is only right for a Christian to refer to it on this question.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GF wrote:
Kuros wrote:
The U.S. Constitution is a traditional (but also living) political document that directly bears on the question of woman's suffrage. Your biblical quotations provide very dubious and indirect grounds to oppose the right of women to vote.


If I recall, you "believe" in "constitutional triarchy" the way a normal man believes in God. I guess it's my Scripture against yours !


Ha ha, what? No, I don't confuse Caesar for God. I've read the New Testament, after all!

You think men worshipped reason in the age of Enlightenment as Christians worship God? Do you really think this?

GF wrote:
Kuros wrote:
And that's aside from the fact that you're using the New Testament as authority for a political question.


Spare me your grade-school exegesis and your weak reframing attempts. The New Testament has political implications just as women's liberation has spiritual implications. It is only right for a Christian to refer to it on this question.


Assuming so, arguendo. Then how do we interpret this quotation, in the light of women's suffrage?

Quote:
"Let wives be subject to their husbands ... as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord." - St. Paul


Hmmm, it seems the woman gets a vote but the husband may chose to cast it.

Ridiculous.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
GF



Joined: 26 Sep 2012

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
You think men worshipped reason in the age of Enlightenment as Christians worship God? Do you really think this?


There was a religious fervour to it, but it was a parody, and Reason was code for ego. Men worshipped themselves. Immanentizing the you-know-what.

"My profession of faith is as reassuring for the patriot as it is terrible for the treasonous: I BELIEVE IN THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE PEOPLE." - Anacharsis Cloots

"Let the Republic be the sole proprietor ... This is the only rebuilding of Jerusalem." - Prati

"Man is God." - Bonneville, Paine's close friend

So no, I don't think you hold the constitution sacred in the same way a normal man does Scripture, but perhaps it's the closest you come to it.

Kuros wrote:

Assuming so, arguendo. Then how do we interpret this quotation, in the light of women's suffrage?

Quote:
"Let wives be subject to their husbands ... as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord." - St. Paul


Hmmm, it seems the woman gets a vote but the husband may chose to cast it.


It is not so simple, since both are subject to the spiritual authority. Pius XII taught that it was binding on the Catholic woman's conscience to use her new rights in support of Catholic social doctrine. But note that that doesn't imply approval of the rights themselves.

"Consequently the vote is for the Catholic woman an important means of fulfilling her strict obligations of conscience, especially at the present time." - Women's Duties in Social and Political Life
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 5 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International