Women should not get equal pay until they can be drafted and are required by law to pay for at least half of the money spent on a date. Once that happens then **** yes of coarse they should.

Right, and exactly how is this a logical reason when women are being paid less...? Shouldn't those "laws" come afterward?

Because men need that extra money they make to spend on there girls/dates dinner and such. So in the end it evens out.

And a women would have to register with there local government and receive a card. This card gives them that extra salary boost and is required to be shown on a date while paying.

Although I do seriously mean the first thing I said. I know theres no war now but if a man can get taken from everything and killed then I think he does deserve something extra in someway.

does it count if the man who needs the extra money is spending it on a guy rather than a girl?

I would assume if its 2 guys on a date the one who asked the other out would pay or it would automatically be split. Thats just my assumption though.

and the other man would not deserve a raise then?

I think the thing about paying for dates is kind of dumb. I mean, I never pay for dates, because I'm always broke, but if I do I always try to pay for my own portion even though he doesn't let me most of the time, lol. I think the notion of having to have the man pay is really dumb. But as for the draft, there's no way in **** they're going to reinstate it, so good luck on that one

how in the world paying for dates ever relate to wages?

Yea the date thing was a joke. Thats entirely up to women to do. It really should be whomever asks whomever out. I just went on this date with a girl who asked me out and I was about to pay and she stepped in and said ill get it I asked you out. I thought that was pretty classy.

And yes I am very aware of that draft fact, but it is definitly somehting that should be brought to light when women's rights activists bring the issue up. To men by law it is considered "your right" to be drafted.

I would very much like to know womens rights activists opinion on this matter, as id be interested in there interpretation.

Oh, it totally wouldn't, because you know, we just bring our best grain and blacksmithery when we go to restaurants.

I hoped so, haha. I guess I'm too used to people saying things like that seriously. I don't feel that anyone should be required by law to serve in the military, so yeah, if one gender has to do it, it's only fair that women could be too. But I'm pretty fervently anti-war. The thing is, I'm not just a women's rights activist, feminism just means that you believe men and women should be treated equally.

And men should have equal right to see their children as well, in some places they do not have that.

And remember it was really about a kind of division of labour in the past. Men went out and got the money and women looked after the home. Some might argue women got the better deal sometimes (not conscripted into war), and it's not like most men for 100s of years got much of an education either or had any real political rights. And there were no doubt some societies in the past where women did have a different role as well.

Anyway I have no problem with equal rights, as long as it's for everyone. In practice of course governments will always side with some people against others (minorites) anyway. And in entertainment pay, as I said, is based on audience draw not on whether you do the same thing.

Sime might argue but they would be wrong. When your expected role is to look after the house and children while the male goes out and not only establishes himself in the business world and brings home bread to take care of all of them he clearly has the power over the rest of his family.

That alone is the reason women go out and get jobs. They could sit at home and play housewife (nothing wrong with that) but instead they want to take charge of there own life and not rely on a man for dinner at night.

look at you being all feminist, d'awww!

Some still want to look after their children for example, women certainly get maternity benefits. Women had the power in the home some might say, and that power over children has extended into the modern age (to men's detriment perhaps). So an estranged partner might not be able to see his children, women can carry out an abortion while the partner who contributed half the baby has no say.

I think it is good that there is more freedom for people to do what they want, but ultimately there will be some kind of division of labour because one person can't do everything very easily in a family.

Also you talk about all women like they are all the same, that is wrong. Same if you did that with men.

Thats a mighty big accusation!

from the way you've been posting, not really

I know you said in some places but it seems like the tide is turning on that.

Deadbeat dads are still able to have rights to see their kids even if they aren't providing for them.

My female friend is going through a similar situation like this and maybe he just has a really good lawyer but it's a crap situation to be in.

This was not power. The men at any time could have taken that "power" away on a whim. Any "power" that the wielder can not prevent from being taken by a third party (and that third party is given the authority to take that "power", by force if they choose, by the government) is not power. It is an illusion.

:laughing:

I will say the only thing I dont feel women are equal in doing is the playing of proffessional sports. While there maybe an exception here and there men are prodominantly more athletically capable of competing at the level that they do, and especially in football. If the day ever came where women started crying about wanting the chance to be a part of the NFL, I would quit watching the sport all together.
Everything else you can have and I could care less, just leave sports alone or remain in your own league cause combining men and women in proffessional sports would be a train wreck.

Are you doing this shit on purpose?

Off topic, but I swear I've seen you doing it elsewhere too. And now I see it on every post all in one page. So I've just been wondering.

And yet again on the next page!


Just an observation man, just an observation.

If you're going to be a grammar nazi, at least explain yourself.

"There" implies position: The ball is over there.
"Their" implies ownership: It's their ball.
"They're" is a contraction of "they are".

No, well, I wasn't playing grammar nazi, I just really want to know if he's doing that shit it on purpose. Four times in a row is a bit much. I assume he knows those rules already though...

Most people don't. Trust me. "There", "their", and "they're" are the most butchered grammar **** ups in the English language. I just ignore it, or else I would go into a grammar nazi seizure.

homophones r difficult bro!

Well, shore, but fore times in a row. Just helping out.

I was wondering the same thing? What are you talking about Palo?

Homophones are words that sound the same, but may be spelled differently and possess different meanings.

I thought she said homophobes.

No, homophones....

Moving on...

All right, if ball busting you must do I accept that. First off yes I am very aware of what the each of those words mean in each context. Secondly I just simply mistype them primarily because I am typing as I am thinking about my opinion on a particular matter therefore not giving typing my full 100% attention.

The part where I am at fault is that I am to lazy to go back and correct all those errors while the incorrect way still gets the message I am trying to give across. Not to mention since this is an internet forum about music I did not think anyone would really care all that much if a there/their was incorrectly placed.


Do not lump me in with ignorant masses. I am very aware as I mentioned of what each mean. Perhaps it makes me a bad poster to not go over my posts and correct it, but I still hold to the fact you can understand my message loud in clear in all my posts.

In result I shall start giving my use of there and their (also any one double meanings) my utmost attention.

but none of you can tell, can you?

because I'm wearing this electronic masque

Completely understand, I just thought for some reason, you were doing it until someone noticed, lol, but fair enough. I too have fallen prey to typing to fast and mixing up words.

And yes...moving on with the topic at the hand. I'll contribute my two cents.

The thing is, obviously every gender, age or creed deserves equal pay, but only if they deserve it. What I mean by that is, you should get payed according to your productivity. Where productivity simply means, the hours worked, in relation to the hours available. If you do not however measure up to the amount of working hours of the populace, then obviously you shouldn't payed as much.

i don't see why women can get a 60-day maternity paid leave

just leave it unpaid

if the husband can't afford it, she might as well stay single

/thread

If that's an effort at trolling, I would say, most uncool. If not...I have to shake my head.

If an employer offers paid maternity leave, they should have to offer paid leave for all other medical operations as well. That's only fair.