Korean Job Discussion Forums

[caniff]

What about the "time of the month"? Maybe some voters aren't comfortable with that?

[Adventurer]

[bucheon bum]

MOS, I think it is time for you to step in and tell these poor people that you didn't mean any of that.

[twg]

[dogbert]

Buchanan's domestic policy couldn't be much worse than Bush and his foreign policy would be demonstrably better.

[bucheon bum]

yes, i agree. Buchanan would be an improvement over dubya.

[Manner of Speaking]

[Manner of Speaking]

Look what happened during the Revolutionary War. There were numerous famous instances of the white women taking up the cause and actually joining the war, as soldiers, if not as spies, doctors, etc. But what happened? As soon as the War of Independence was over, white men got the vote. The white women didn't. The white women could have pointed out, "Hey, we worked hard for Liberty, too: we deserve the vote too." The war of Independence was a golden opportunity for the white women, politically speaking. But they didn't. The maj...no, I stand corrected: almost ALL of them - were perfectly happy to leave politics to their husbands and stay at home to be farmers houswives. Even though the white women had the numbers in terms of sheer population to organize themselves and get the vote.

During the settlement of the west in the late 1800s, there were plenty of opportunites for the white women to achieve economic and political power. The west being so big, any person - man or woman - could go off and find a piece of land, and start their own farm or ranch. Lots of white men did it, very few of the white women did it. Most of them preferred to be housewives and live off their husbands.

[Manner of Speaking]

Then look what happened during World War II. All the white men went off to fight Hitler and Tojo - you didn't see the white women clamoring in droves to go off and kill Japs - the white women stayed home. The white men died like flies at Iwo Jima and Normandy, but you didn't see any of the white women dying on those beaches. The white women stayed home, got jobs in factories and production plants, and made lots of money.

Then the war ended, the white men came home and said, "We want those jobs now," and the white women said, "Fine, take them, we want to go back to being housewives." Maybe not every single one, but the vast majority of them. Even though for the first time in US history, the white women could earn an independent income and livelihood, the vast majority of them chose to give up that opportunity and go back to being housewives.

Does that sound like a politically or economically astute decision to you?

[Manner of Speaking]

So the question arises, if white men have historically shown an interest in politics and an ability to be successful in organizing themselves to participate, politically, why should they be blamed for being successful? It's only been in the last 25 years or so that the white women have shown a substantial interest in participating in the political process, and there has been an immediate positive result. There are now more white women politicians and officeholders in the US than ever before. Because the white women are finally starting to get their act together.

But even still, as a group, the white women still don't seem to have the ability, ambition, or brains to get themselves properly organized in politics. The vast majority of the white women vote for white male candidates, rather than white women candidates. That's just plain faulty wiring upstairs.

[Manner of Speaking]

If you were black, and wanted to increase the number of black politicians in the US...would you vote for the black candidate or the white candidate? C'mon.

Would the white women do a better job as politicians than white men? There's not an awful lot of evidence in the historical record that they could even do as well as the white men, let alone better.

[gang ah jee]

MOS, you're aware that until quite recently in the West women were essentially considered as property of their husbands and fathers, right? Rape and beatings were legal, and women trying to live independent from men had very, very few economic opportunities. Not really conducive to independent political organisation, wouldn't you agree?

[Adventurer]

[Nowhere Man]

[madcap]

wow. MOS, I'm kind of speachless. Please tell me you aren't really that low-brow. That's like saying that black people are naturally violent and lazy and turing a blind eye to all the detrimental social and economic factors through the years. Traditionally women have been viewed as second class citizens and the sole property of their husbands. Kudos to them for getting as far as they have and best wishes for the future. (Hmm...that ought to get me laid)