Spitzer's $4,000 call-girl revealed

garysher · 04-07-2008, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waitingtables

And may I ask how you might construe that as advantageous for a woman?

Women haven't had to worry about taking on the pressures of government, running large organisations, providing for their families, fighting wars, etc etc.

They were free to stay home enjoy raising their children and chatting to their girlfriends about handbags and hairdos over coffee.

Despite decades of equality we still don't see many woman working in coal mines, tiling rooves in the middle of summer or swinging off girder 80 stories up on a windy November afternoon.

Women continue to leave the "heavy lifting" to us men.

That's why women have always lived longer than men, and still do today.

Yet they still love to wallow in victimhood and portray men as abusers!

And please give me your evidence that men are still predominantly the bread winners. Women might still be the primary caretakers, but the majority work outside of the home as well.

According to the latest US Census bureau information:

Earnings

New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maryland had median earnings above $50,000 for men that worked full time, year-round in 2006. Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey and the District of Columbia were the only states or state equivalents where median earnings for women who worked full time, year-round were above $40,000.
In each of the 50 states, women had lower median earnings than men in 2006.

US Census Press Releases

As far as the argument about the CEO goes, I already said that someone who performs a job that they are paid a salary for, isn't required to give sexual favors to the boss, not anymore anyway. A prostitute isn't the employer, she is providing a service. The employer is not offering a service, he is offering to forward a career based on nothing but sexual favors. That is far more immoral than prostitution is.

That argument doesn't hold water.

If a male boss has two equal candidates for the same promotion, and one is a woman who is prepared to provide sexual favours, then she is in exactly the same position as a prostitute.

See how bigoted your opinions are on this topic??

fxashun · 04-08-2008, 07:20 AM

I know talk like that makes me want to go start a business. I can't wait to start "interviewing".

wd30_uk · 04-08-2008, 07:44 AM

any woman who gives her boss more than her job description calls for is a dope. and any male who asks for more should be ashamed of himself! this is for sure.

waitingtables · 04-10-2008, 09:20 AM

Gary, you are proving my point for me with your statistics. And women haven't had to worry about being in powerful positions in corporate situations, because they were never hired to do them. They are more than capable of doing those jobs, and we see that in our present world. Though some of them still earn less then an equally qualified man. Women don't need men to keep us from dealing with a difficult job, we need men to allow us to be the sovereign of our life, if we so choose to.

And women did not wallow in victimhood, they suffered in circumstances that they had no control over. Gary, do you have a mother, or were you hatched??

garysher · 04-10-2008, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waitingtables

Gary, you are proving my point for me with your statistics. And women haven't had to worry about being in powerful positions in corporate situations, because they were never hired to do them.

And why were they never hired to be CEO's?

They are more than capable of doing those jobs, and we see that in our present world. Though some of them still earn less then an equally qualified man.

And why do they earn less?

Women don't need men to keep us from dealing with a difficult job, we need men to allow us to be the sovereign of our life, if we so choose to.

And why do you need men to "allow" you to do anything?

And women did not wallow in victimhood, they suffered in circumstances that they had no control over.

And why did they have no control over their circumstances?

All of your statements only serve to underline the lack of competitiveness of women in the marketplace

Gary, do you have a mother, or were you hatched??

I have a mother.

waitingtables · 04-10-2008, 02:18 PM

Gary, wtf is wrong with you? How can you ask such idiotic questions. You know very well why there were no female CEO's, and the rest. Back then we were the property of our husbands and fathers. We were not sovereign over our lives, we were subjected to the will of our husband or father. Women earn less even to this day because there is no equal rights ammendment. We have come a very long way, but there is still much room for improvement, obviously. These ridiculous questions you ask don't favor your intelligence, they make you seem pseudo-intelligent.

garysher · 04-10-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waitingtables

Gary, wtf is wrong with you? How can you ask such idiotic questions. You know very well why there were no female CEO's, and the rest. Back then we were the property of our husbands and fathers. We were not sovereign over our lives, we were subjected to the will of our husband or father. Women earn less even to this day because there is no equal rights ammendment. We have come a very long way, but there is still much room for improvement, obviously. These ridiculous questions you ask don't favor your intelligence, they make you seem pseudo-intelligent.

You're still not getting it.

It men and women were equal then women would never have fallen into this subordinate position!

Why would employers pay women less than men for the same job? And why would women accept it?

The fact is that men and women are different, they have different strengths and weaknesses and they complement each other.

You have already made the same point in another thread when you said that men can never understand what it's like to be pregnant so shouldn't be involved in decisions about abortion.

waitingtables · 04-10-2008, 02:32 PM

But we are capable of doing the job that a CEO does, among other jobs typically reserved for men. Yes, men and women are different. But that does not make one sex superior over the other. We do have traits that are meant to be complimentary. I for one have no problem with a woman staying home and raising children while the man works. And it should only be because it is what the woman has decided is right for her own life, not an inescapable choice that directs the entire course of her life. And it shouldn't be at the cost of the family's financial security. Sweden actually pays a salary to whichever parent decides to stay home with the kids. The problem I have is that we are devalued for our strengths. Our strengths are put down as just women's work or we are told that we are ONLY capable of being mothers and housewives, which is utterly false and completely ridiculous.

And physical strength does not make a man superior to a woman, it gives him the ability to use might over right if he so chooses. And that is why women have been placed in subordinate positions in the past. Not because it was the natural way of the world.

nasty_nate · 04-10-2008, 02:36 PM

Let's see. If women were equal they wouldn't have fallen into a subordinate position. You mean like black people and slavery?

waitingtables · 04-10-2008, 02:39 PM

Yes, it seems to me that it shows an inferior constitution when a person would NOT use violence and brutality to enforce their will onto another human being. That is certainly something that our male ancestors should be very proud of.