Discussion in 'Community' started by Only-One Cannoli, Sep 7, 2013.
I just imagine Ender as a really drunk Russell Crowe.
I do a wicked Rusty impression.
Sent from my iPhone 5... take that, Wocky!
Interesting piece on shifting demographics among families in Australia. Whilst this doesn't deal directly with the issue of income equality it shows a more crucial shift in attitudes towards the traditional roles of "breadwinner" v "homemaker".
In Hanna Rosin's arguments* against the lazy "WIMMENS GET 77% OF MEN'S MONEY FOR WORKS!" soundbyte, she argued that the real driver of any inequality in pay is the disruption to a woman's career that family can be. This, she argued, is the real issue as legislation, regulations and attitudes expect that women sacrifice careers for family and no meaningful change is possible without a shift in law and attitude.
(* Going to see Rosin talk at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas in Sydney in 2 weeks time - excited!)
What, therefore, the above link shows is a minor shift in that direction. It's a baby-step, but crucial because it shows that the change is simply happening. Australia's a country with strong sexist undercurrents (though we lamentably engage the hyperbole drive and use "misogyny" instead, because YOLO right?) and nothing will challenge this better than inarguable results such as, you know, successful women.
Small victory is still a victory.
That's just crazy talk from women who want to kill all men and harvest their sperms! TUMBLR TOLD ME SO
I thought this thread was upped for Aytee-Aytee
Is this the thread to discuss prostate cancer, JoinTheSchwarz ?
Succubi are ironically a male sexual fantasy
So you make a thread about sexism and then get mad when people give a personal example of their own because of the gender they were born? You do realize how hypocritical that is, right? This could have been a nice idea for a thread if people with different experiences were encouraged to share their stories and learn from the experiences of others. But if you want to hear the sound of your own voice, thats fine too.
3... 2... 1...
Upping this thread was a mistake.
Upping any of these threads is always a mistake.
Hey man, I'm just saying, maybe you want to consider taking this back. I mean, it's cool and all, but SLG will **** you up. So you know, fair warning.
With a reasonable rebuttal or with a flurry of personal insults? Because I can handle either of them.
It's more her style to drain the blood slowly why you're alive.
I thought it usually involved setting fires in flesh.
You do realize that SLG's post, the one you quoted, was from nearly 6 months ago, right? Stop retreading old ground.
lol typical bro talk
No personal attacks
That's what happens when the legislature does a poor job writing a law. It's not the court's job to rewrite the law on the fly to match what they think the legislature meant. It's the flip side of the laws that are made overly restrictive and catch unintended actions in their net.
Something similar happened in Virginia a few years ago, with regards to the law regarding stopping at a school bus with flashing lights. The legislature forgot the word "at", and so the law as written only made it illegal to fail to stop a school bus with its lights flashing, rather than stopping at the school bus. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/30/AR2010113004624.html
Does that mean that sometimes a creep goes free? Yes. But that is the price of having a society of laws. That which is not prohibited is allowed, and in this case, the law didn't prohibit it. The court ruling makes it clear that the Massachusetts legislature could make that behavior illegal (and in fact, they considered a bill in recent years that would have fixed that section of the law), and the court even pointed them at similar wordings from other states that would have solved the problem. They essentially handed the legislature a new law on a silver platter, but it is still up to the legislature to actually pass it.