09-03-2004 02:25									#241
	Increase Your PM Length

Obi Gyn's gender roles- do they come with confetti, or dry rice?


Geez louise.

It's back to the 50s with Obi Gyn- the 1650s, that is.

	09-03-2004 03:46									#242
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I have to admit I'm still curious as to what offended Ned about my post.

-Arrian

	09-03-2004 03:48									#243
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Arrian I have to admit I'm still curious as to what offended Ned about my post. -Arrian

Me too.


Perhaps I'm being a particularly obtuse homo.

	09-03-2004 13:16									#244
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Ned, Terribly sorry, old chap. Care to mention what offended you? -Arrian

The way I read your post was that you were putting down women who were mothers and child rearers rather than career women.

Also, IMHO, while permitting women to have carreers or not, depending on their "wishes," one should not engineer society to make it impossible, due to financial pressures or the like, for women to stay home and raise their kids.

How many women work because the have to? I am willing to bet that it is a substantial minority if not a majority. The question is, why has this happened in our modern age when it largely did not happen in yesteryear.

	09-03-2004 18:03									#245
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ned The way I read your post was that you were putting down women who were mothers and child rearers rather than career women.

He was doing no such thing, as he was quite obviously making fun of the sexist attitudes among men that women should be such. Nothing in his post denigrated women who would choose to do that of their own will. I don't see how anyone could get any other interpretation out of his post unless they were being deliberately obtuse or...living in the Nedaverse?

	09-03-2004 18:20									#246
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Quick! Who said this in response to a question about gay marriage?

quote: One of the most unpleasant aspects of this business is the extent of which private lives are intruded upon when these kinds of issues come up.

	09-03-2004 19:19									#247
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ned How many women work because the have to? I am willing to bet that it is a substantial minority if not a majority.

And I'm willing to bet it's roughly equal to or a little less than the percentage of men who work because they have to.

	09-03-2004 19:53									#248
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Ned,

That's not at all what I said. And if that wasn't clear the first time around, I'll quote my follow-up post (which I think was in response to MrFun):

quote: I think people do tend to crave defined roles. It's just that I think individuals should define their roles for themselves, and not have them thrust upon them by society at large (or worse yet, the gummint). There are people who like the old "traditional" roles of stay-at-home-mom and working dad. Good for them. But I see no reason to push that as preferable to the inverse.

Clear now?

-Arrian

	09-03-2004 20:00									#249
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Yeah -- when I read Arrian's post, I thought it was in response to mine.

	09-03-2004 22:53									#250
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov He was doing no such thing, as he was quite obviously making fun of the sexist attitudes among men that women should be such. Nothing in his post denigrated women who would choose to do that of their own will. I don't see how anyone could get any other interpretation out of his post unless they were being deliberately obtuse or...living in the Nedaverse?

Boris, that is why I said, "The way I read it."

Boris, I suggest you calm down just a bit. If you haven't noticed, I am largely, but not completely, on your side on these issues.

	09-03-2004 22:59									#251
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Ned, That's not at all what I said. And if that wasn't clear the first time around, I'll quote my follow-up post (which I think was in response to MrFun): Clear now? -Arrian

Arrian, I totally agree that we all should have complete "freedom" to pursue life the way we want. Unfortunately, we all know the truth.

Just coming from my own family, my wife stayed at home and raised my daughter who now is in medical school. Good for both of them. But I can tell you that back in the '70s and '80s, there was a drumbeat of feminist thought that suggested that women who were stay-at-home housewives were somehow "betraying the cause." Housewives were indeed put down and it actually hurt people like my wife.

	09-03-2004 23:05									#252
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Yes, I've heard my aunt (proud, happy, stay-at-home mom, though she does work from home part-time) complain similarly regarding the feminist push to get women into the workplace.

I have little love for the people who denigrated your wife for staying home, just as I have little love for those who beat the drum of "stay at home - it's your place" (thankfully, those ranks have thinned quite a bit). Let each individual decide their place.

So I think we agree, Ned.

-Arrian

	10-03-2004 00:12									#253
	Put an end to popups!

Crap, I go away for two days and FlameFlash posts the Oxford English Dictionary...

Anyway, while much of what I said is just drunk talk ("sweet, beautiful drunk talk..."-Barney Gumble), I mean that regarding the actions of the government with the kind of austere reverence we give to religious ceremony is a mixed blessing at best. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" sounds great, but my experience on the internet and IRL has been that people are nucking futs. Democracy works by cancelling out the most insane fringe ideas of all parties to find a solution that mildly displeases everyone equally. Democratic government is ANTI-idealistic by its very nature, arising in its modern form in response to abuses of power by individuals who grew too strong.

But we treat it almost like a deity, rather than the plain regulatory system it is, like all government. Subject to change. We talk about the proud tradition of the Constitution, but the constitution originally provided for slaves as three-fifths of a person, their votes allotted to the guy who whipped them all day. And we say "yes, but we amended that out while still preserving the original spirit of the founders," but the world the Constitution was written in was undoubtedly a different one from today's, and with very different values. Try going back in time and asking Jefferson what he thought about gay rights, abortion, and gambling as a means of revenue.

I don't mean we should go back to what they thought then. But by "amendment" we essentially make the government whatever we bloody well please at the moment. It's not a religion, it's a system to keep track of stuff more efficiently and keep us in line. There is no eternal truth in government. It's about what works here and now. If you think the same of religion, fine, but that's not the whole point of it like it is with politics.

	10-03-2004 08:42									#254
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Elok Crap, I go away for two days and FlameFlash posts the Oxford English Dictionary...

Guilty... hey, I just don't like double-posting.

quote: Anyway, while much of what I said is just drunk talk ("sweet, beautiful drunk talk..."-Barney Gumble), I mean that regarding the actions of the government with the kind of austere reverence we give to religious ceremony is a mixed blessing at best. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" sounds great, but my experience on the internet and IRL has been that people are nucking futs. Democracy works by cancelling out the most insane fringe ideas of all parties to find a solution that mildly displeases everyone equally. Democratic government is ANTI-idealistic by its very nature, arising in its modern form in response to abuses of power by individuals who grew too strong.

Eh? What does this have to do about 'civil union' and 'marriages'?

quote: But we treat it almost like a deity, rather than the plain regulatory system it is, like all government. Subject to change. We talk about the proud tradition of the Constitution, but the constitution originally provided for slaves as three-fifths of a person, their votes allotted to the guy who whipped them all day. And we say "yes, but we amended that out while still preserving the original spirit of the founders," but the world the Constitution was written in was undoubtedly a different one from today's, and with very different values. Try going back in time and asking Jefferson what he thought about gay rights, abortion, and gambling as a means of revenue.

The entire premise of going through and talking about 'founder's intentions' is exactly that... if the founders were here now, all grown up in today's age, how would they interpret and apply the Constitution? After all, searching a car after pulling a person over, the police simply have to arrest the driver or ask permission, yet does this go against search and seizures? The Supreme Court says it doesn't, but would they have? That's the entire gist of 'spirit of the Consitution,' would the Constitution, written today apply to certain modern day situations.

quote: I don't mean we should go back to what they thought then. But by "amendment" we essentially make the government whatever we bloody well please at the moment. It's not a religion, it's a system to keep track of stuff more efficiently and keep us in line. There is no eternal truth in government. It's about what works here and now. If you think the same of religion, fine, but that's not the whole point of it like it is with politics.

Eh?

	10-03-2004 19:09									#255
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I am inclined to think that, had Thomas Jefferson grown up today, he would have watched a few hours of reality TV and then devised a system specifically designed to keep the common man from having a voice in government at all. You can think otherwise, but it's speculation either way, and we're basically putting words in the mouths of the "gods of democracy," so to speak.

And no, it has nothing to do with gay marriage. Rants are like that.

	10-03-2004 19:31									#256
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Elok I am inclined to think that, had Thomas Jefferson grown up today, he would have watched a few hours of reality TV and then devised a system specifically designed to keep the common man from having a voice in government at all. You can think otherwise, but it's speculation either way, and we're basically putting words in the mouths of the "gods of democracy," so to speak. And no, it has nothing to do with gay marriage. Rants are like that.

True, Jefferson probably would try to strengthen the electoral college, but I'd certainly think he was justified too...

	11-03-2004 01:40									#257
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Now who's being anti-democratic?

	11-03-2004 01:43									#258
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Elok Now who's being anti-democratic?

It's a representative republic!

	11-03-2004 01:52									#259
	Increase the size of your Attachments

"Representative Republic, n. A two-part system of government in which the individual's happiness is assured by the appointment of officials who promise to give the people what they ask for, while the individual's best interests are served by those officials not giving the people what they ask for. See United States of America, Rome (ancient), Hostage Negotiation."

So there.

	11-03-2004 01:55									#260
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Elok "Representative Republic, n. A two-part system of government in which the individual's happiness is assured by the appointment of officials who promise to give the people what they ask for, while the individual's best interests are served by those officials not giving the people what they ask for. See United States of America, Rome (ancient), Hostage Negotiation." So there.

Heh... though I question the last example, the rest sounds fairly accurate.

You forgot about people being stupid... individuals, they're okay, but when you get people together, you're in trouble.

	11-03-2004 05:19									#261
	Tired of ads?

Yes, but then you run into the problem that individual human beings are pretty much useless. One man could never have built the pyramids. One man would've had the sense not to bother, but one man couldn't have done it alone.

	11-03-2004 06:25									#262
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I have some fantastic news (not so fantastic for the christian right). Support for gay civil unions, where all the same rights as heterosexual marriage is up. And opposition to gay marriage itself is starting to erode:

quote: MSNBC Updated: 11:18 a.m. ET March 10, 2004The heated debate over gay marriage is strengthening public support for legalizing civil unions for same-sex couples, with a majority of Americans now in favor of such formal recognition, according to two polls released Wednesday. Reflecting what appears to be a search for middle ground on the issue, both the Washington Post-ABC News poll and the USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll showed a significant shift in public opinion on civil unions in recent months. The latter survey found 54 percent of respondents favor civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, with 42 percent opposing them. In a poll conducted in July by the same organizations, 57 percent opposed civil unions and 40 percent favored them. The Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 51 percent of respondents favor allowing same-sex couples to enter into civil unions with the same basic legal rights as married couples, up 6 percentage points in less than a month. Deep divisions remain on gay marriage But both surveys also reflected deep divisions on same-sex marriage. The Post-ABC News survey found that 59 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage – up 4 percentage points from February. But the same poll found that 53 percent took issue with President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment outlawing the full legal recognition of same-sex couples. Instead, the poll found that a slim majority –- 53 percent -– favors allowing the states to determine whether to issue same-sex wedding license. The margin of error of the survey of 1,202 randomly selected adults, which was conducted March 4-7, was plus or minus 3 percentage points. The USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll found a slight softening of opposition to gay marriages, with 61 percent rejecting such unions, down 3 percent from a survey three weeks earlier. Support for constitutional ban weakens It also indicated that support for a constitutional ban was weakening slightly, with 50 percent supporting that approach, compared to 53 percent in the February survey. Opposition to a constitutional amendment inched higher over the period, rising from 44 percent to 45 percent, according to the survey. At the same time, the poll found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that local officials should be forced to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, according to the survey of 1,005 Americans conducted March 5-7. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent on most questions. Debate over the issue has moved to the forefront in the months since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that gay marriage would become legal in the state on May 17. Local officials in California, Oregon, New York and New Jersey have added to the controversy by issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, in many cases in defiance of state laws banning such unions. Bush said last month that he supports a constitutional ban on same- sex marriage, injecting the matter squarely into the presidential race. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has said he is opposed to gay marriage but favors allowing states to determine their own course. © 2004 MSNBC Interactive