Yes, unfortunately for women, we work and do the dishes. And here are some statistics on women from last year:
a world where two-thirds of the poor are women. They are pointing out that 66 percent of the illiterate of the world are women who are being denied the right to an education. They are not unaware that 70 percent of the refugees and internally displaced population of the world in war-torn countries are women.
They know that women, even in Ireland and in developed countries in general, are still earning only 69 percent of male wages for the same level of work. A people in an agricultural country who have known desperate starvation themselves, realize in a way most don't in our part of the world, that women produce 80 percent of the planet's food but get less than 10 percent of the world's agricultural assistance and aid, even from nations like the United States. (/Irish Times/, Thursday, March 8, 2007, Mary Raftery, Trocáire ad deserves an airing, p. 16.)
And, finally, they are acutely conscious of the fact that women who are the backbone of the church everywhere, including in Ireland, are barred from the theological formulations of the church. They know that, however much women serve the church, they are nevertheless left out, even of its restored diaconate -- "not even given a chance" -- simply because they are female. Best of all, the questions are getting more numerous, more pointed, more revealing every day.
That is from an article about an advertisement for Lenten considerations from a church in Ireland. And the ad was banned because it was considered to be political.

Quote:

I agree that women did not have equality in a legal sense until fairly recently, but I also think that could be construed as advantageous to their situation.

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

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.

So do you believe that women should be allowed to bed their employers to try and obtain promotions in the workplace? I agree that this behavior is despicable; but I think you fail to see that this is a two-sided street. A man whom offers promotions and raises in exchange for sex is wrong-pure and simple.I do not; and will not deny that. What I'm saying is that a woman would be also wrong to offer sexual favors in trying to obtain those raises and promotions, also. Women do flirt, WT; but all do not do it to get ahead in this world. That's why I cannot and will not agree to anything other than following the law in our different views on this topic.
Your statistics are fine; but they say "bad", instead of "vastly improved".
Are you telling me that women do not have those opportunities today, that they did not have before? I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with this. I would point out that these stats could easily be overturned; with effort and desire to do so. On an individual case, one can easily obtain college degrees online. Could this not help a woman to expand her career choices? And since it is done online; it is done at the applicant's time frame.
I'm not saying that such effort is easy. But I am saying that the ability and opportunities are there; for those who choose to seek them. I'll also apologize upfront for this crude remark; but it is one I believe in: "Excuses are like a**holes. We all have them; but some are bigger than others."
Please don't think I was referring to you personally in such terms. I generally don't even speak in such a manner. But I am a firm believer in the fact that one is only limited by their own desire and effort to obtain all that they could ever want to.
As far as the prostitution debate goes; I just simply believe that the law must be the overriding factor here. I personally don't approve of it; but if a woman chose to move to Nevada to make this her career choice; she would be fully within the law to do so. And if some guy chose to indulge himself here; he also would be within the law. The electorate in those area of Nevada decided so. When (anf if) other areas of this country make this legal in their own jurisdictions; then both client and prostitute have the blessing of the legal system; and won't care less what I or anyone else thinks about this.

Spitzer is stupid and he blew his career over what? what did that girl have that was worth $4000 a night? boy she sure chased that carrot. and caught it.

Why do the cheaper hookers always have pimples on their butts?

How do you know?

I remember from the porn movies I saw in the 1970s.

Maybe it was because the pimps bit them there?

I always wondered where the word "pimp" came from.

Hey, maybe that's the shortened version of "pimple", si? And I suppose that instead of using Bactine, they use Stridex instead.

Damn, that was the same impression I got from those old movies too. It seemed like all those hoes had a great big zit or three right in camera shot.

Ewww.