My Theory On Femininism

I don't think 'we' would be alot richer as then there'd just be less workers

less workers mean less companies

less companies means there's less profit running around

I wasn't attacking you. I was just saying that if that is what you believe, then you should do that. Since you /are/ a woman and say that women (or feminism, rather) are ruining the economy and if residing to not work would fix things, then you shouldn't work. Telling others to do something and not do it yourself makes one look pretty bad.

Also, a Diploma is proof that one is smart and can do said tasks. To not have a diploma, but saying one is smart anyway, is pretty half-assed, and won't give you the recognition you need.
And, not everyone can teach themselves at certain things. I in no way could teach myself how to do long division without help.

How, then do you explain that families could thrive off of one person working prior to the influx of women workers in the workforce? Whether or not there would be less companies, would men not be paid more than they are now (salaries adjusted for inflation, of course)? Plus -- I ask, is it really necessary to have the over-abundance of companies we have today, anyways?

Isn't that the beauty of ol' USA? Where men and women can extend beyond the limitations of implied gender roles to create an unintended series of consequences that test the structure of our economic, social, and political foundations?

From an archaeological perspective, feminism often times encourages the further study of women in past cultural societies, which turns out to be a good practice in most cases.

However, the only real beef I have with the small impact that feminism has on my life is that they are advancing the ludicrous concept that is "political correctness."

Nice theory though, even though I didn't contributed much to the thought of it. =/

There are people who actually think this?

Because it doesn't matter how many people are available as long as its not a crisis (too little availability / too much), they're still paid the same. However, back then there wasn't a need for gimmicks, which there is now. These gimmicks require additional money.

Yes it is. More companies means more products.

This post has been edited by MechaBowser on Feb 24 2009, 03:22 PM

There is a difference between hypothetical belief and practical belief. I believe I should be able to emotionally abuse and degrade people intellectually below me, but I don't because I know it'll hurt me more than it'll help me. I'm sure you have some beliefs like that, too -- overly idealistic ones that would be nice if they could work, but you know they won't, so you opt not to take part in them?

Also, where did I tell women to drop out of school and get married? Where did I order anyone to do anything, for that matter? Putting words in my mouth and then trying to refute them is a silly way to debate -- please read what I write and reply to the points I make, not the one's you seem to think I'm making.

Exactly, and you just proved my point there, thanks. These women were not after intellect or education, they were after recognition and attention. Anyone can read a book on Biology and more or less understand it, but you're not going to get a diploma for it unless you crank out tens of thousands of dollars for college and take a few years worth of classes that would teach you the same thing. If women at the time were only after intellectual equality and being educated, the could pick up a book themselves and read it (oftentimes, actually, women did do a lot of reading, just not the educational kind, which would seem to imply they had time to do it).

And I think with the proper time and texts you could probably teach yourself if you were interested in it. However, I don't see why you'd pursue something that wouldn't interest you. Also, keep in mind, you're not an adult, and you don't have the experience and intuitiveness an old housewife may have reading textbooks in her spare time to teach herself. Oh, and long division is a basic skill that you'd probably be taught in co-ed school if my hypothetical world really existed, and women didn't have to enter the workforce. There're certain things everyone needs o be taught so they can perform simple tasks, and I'm pretty sure long division would be one of them.

Off-topic: Wait, you're not learning long division right now are you?

Yes.

Hmm... a valid point.

When you say "gimmicks," what exactly do you mean, praytell?

I beg to differ; I think there is such thing as too many companies/products. Everything in moderation, y'know?

No I'm not learning long division now. I meant when I was younger.
Sure I have really idealistic ideas, and they may never come true; but I won't know until I try, which, as soon as I find a way, I will attempt.

But people don't want to be smart just to be smart. They're either 1; curious, or 2; want to be successful in they're eyes and/or others. The majority of people believe diplomas are success. Whether this is true or not, people are going to look at your school work to judge if your inteillegent or not.

How on earth do one's genitals have any impact whatsoever on their intelligence?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO8x8eoU3L4

There is such a thing as market over-saturation, however, to suggest that at this point there's any immediate danger of over-saturation in the markets with new companies facing the single largest hurdle since the 1930s and established companies under-performing their way to bankruptcy...

Well, that's just plain stupid.

Well if the first were the case, merely self-teaching without earning a diploma would be satisfactory; thanks for proving my point.

As for the second, personal success could just as easily be achieved by self-teaching, while success in the eyes of others is only grabbing for acceptance and acknowledgment -- attention, basically. Are you then agreeing with me that by demanding the right to get degrees women were, in a sense of the word, being "attention-*****s?"

Also, in my hypothetical anti-feminist world, what would be the use of a degree? Women don't have to work, and shouldn't have a desire too (though a desire to learn and be educated is fine and they are welcome to pursue that). Getting such a thing would be superfluous, would it not? It would be like getting a degree in law or medicine today so you could go flip burgers at McDonalds.

Also, it's pretty clear you're still in high school because in reality diplomas aren't the only thing determining your success in the real world.

If I knew, why would I be questioning it?

This post has been edited by Mrs. Aforcer on Feb 24 2009, 03:37 PM

In the older years, people were satisfied with just having roof over their head. Now, it has to be well-arcitected, decorated and thus expensive. This was just an example, but I think you get the point.

The more people want these gimmicks and luxury, the more there needs to be produced. It's a simple linear curve. In order to keep up with the demands, new companies are automatically made. It's nothing that you or I control, it just happens as people want more luxury.

I think your assumption that so many people desire luxury is a little overshot, but I see where you're going with this... you've got a good point.

Cheers, I hadn't considered this factor in my original equation either.

You never cease to amaze me. That's the kind of answer I expected from you, and you answered my questions quite well. You've proven your point, in my opinion, though I truly understood and agreed with what you said the first time. You just delivered a ittle more clarification.

You're Title as "MFGG's Best Forum Debater" stands.

Ah, that's not actually my title though (officially, at least) -- Lightning got that award this year.

Apparently I'm the Best Newbie of 2008, but, hey! I can dig that too!

Thanks, though, bro. It means a lot.

I think not.

However, I do think you're drawing to conclusions in your first post and only looking at single factors that could've had an influence, while not looking at others, which is why I believe it is false.

Well I'm not ignoring factors as much as isolating others, but I see what you mean. Like I said, I didn't take this so much into account, thank you for pointing it out to me.

Nope. Not agreeing. What I want requires a diploma and learning languages. I am simply not learning because I want to learn, I am learning because I want diploma and what results in said learning.

There are other reasons why one would want a diploma other than pleasing others.
You need a diploma to get a certain job. Say you wanted this job, Lawyer. You wanna be a lawyer because your parent/someone you looked up to was a lawyer, because you want the money, or you want recognition. In order to be a lawyer, you'd have to go to law school and get a diploma. Self teaching won't give you diploma and therefore will not make you a lawyer. Getting a diploma will make you a lawyer.
In order to get diploma, you must work for diploma. You must work and study by a professor to get diploma. Getting good grades will make professor more likely to give you diploma. You are pleasing others to get what you want. It could be you don't give a **** about the proffessor, you just want him/her to think you are smart enough to recieve the diploma. That doesn't make you an attention *****.