First, women have been a part of the industrial workforce since the industrial revolution. Second, the number of jobs has fluctuated - some traditional fields like farming need fewer workers and some like information technology need more (being as they didn't exist before the 40s or so, play along). Third, the workforce has changed with changing global conditions. Last, you're incredibly stupid. Why don't you do the species a favor and kill yourself?
The reason women were put into the work force was because of the shortage of available male workers during World War 2. Thanks to the draft most of the young males were gone fighting or preparing for the war. The males came back and the wifes went back home to take care of the kids. The economy was booming at the time. Women started to slowly enter the wok force until we get to the state of the nation to which we are today. The economy sucks and is showing alot of signs of shrinkage. And plus with what I said above about simple economics it's pretty easy to understand a small portion of the answer why?
In deference to what Xev said in the previous post I may not be a history major, but I'm pretty sure I remember factories full of women doing typical women's jobs, mainly in the textiles arena, much earlier than WW2. Granted, they weren't Rosie the Riveter at the time, but their was a place in the industrial workforce for them.
Every group can only tolerate one leader or authority figure. A unity full of antagonism would quickly disintegrate. In the end someone has to back down and submit to a subordinate possition. A harmonious unity depends on total submission to the authority. the army accomplishes this through variuos techniques, creating blind followers of orders. The arnmy is not an entity full of masculine minds, as many incorrectly assume. There are no questioning, confrontational towards authority soldiers, and if there are they are quickly dealt with. If you add to the equation the absence of frontiers and dwindling spaces and resources you get the why modrn systems are characterized by a more docile unquestioning, submissive mind. Even the rise of modern day religions was the result on population pressures and the need to incorporate more and more individuals nito a system demanding more and more resources to support. I connect it back to Entropy, where fragmentation forces a reaction of more and more complicated ordering mechanisms able to access more energies so as to resist temporality. This, in turn, forces the parts into more and more submissive positions or into specialization. The human body is a product of this proecess. Xev And why is this hypocrisy on my part? You now sound like a snivveling child trying to get its way by bitching and crying. Unfair, you say? Yeah, that's exactly what I think. Good job. I love watching you scramble. Gustav See now I have to add it to my Amazon Wish-List. I love the sarcasm though. Perhaps some have to look-up the word Satyr on the web. It might explain some things about my style and if it doesn't it'll be all the more funnier. :shrug:
what works stays. That said, your 'more or less' remark already indicates the big truth. No species stays the same. A general bauplan can be so succesful as an adaptation that members of this group remain in the competition game. They never reach a plateau though. The only plateau a species reaches is extinction.
That's true, I'm inarticulate here. I meant species that become very specialized and can't adapt to a changing environment. Maybe it's a non-issue. Yeah, except that I said "the industrial revolution," which was in the mid/late 1900s, not the second world war, which was in the mid 20th century. And women worked before then, at least among the working classes. Who the fuck do you think tended the farms and livestock during the crusades and internicine wars of the dark ages? Robots? Not on your part, unless you're a mod. Did I not say "the mods?" I think I did. Okay, maybe it's because I am secretly in love with you and trying to make you jealous of Mikenostic. ALLOW ME TO SERENADE YOU, MY BANANA-BLOSSUM! We both lie silently still in the dead of the night Although we both lie close together We feel miles apart inside Was it somethin' I said or somethin' I did Did my words not come out right Tho' I tried not to hurt you Tho' I tried But I guess that's why they say Every rose has its thorn Just like every night has it's dawn Just like every cowboy sings a sad, sad song Every rose has its thorn! Though it's been a while now I can still feel so much pain Like the knife that cuts you The wound heals, but the scar, that scar remains I know I could have saved our love that night If I'd known what to say Instead if making love We both made our separate ways Now I hear you've found somebody new And that I never meant that much to you To hear that tears me up inside And to see you cuts me like a knife Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So, ready with that list of wars that were explicitly fought over women?
I ain't looking for nothing - BUT A GOOD TIME! Monkey I would enjoy learning something from the biology subforum beyond the fact of evolution. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I see that you are secretly reading my mind. The interesting thing is this offers more of a glimpse into yours than into mine. Stop it....you made me cry. I would say every war ever fought was over spreading a particular seed. The reason why women are not as readily put to death or are saved before all others is because they represent a potential womb gestating a males seed, from that particular tribe.
It's a buckshot approach, hun. Even if it did, who would care? Even if you exposed all of the psychological weaknesses and inferiorities that I'm sure everyone who disagrees with you has, the effect that it would have on the substance of argument would be nil. Here you are again, buying into the American kike-religion of psychology. Its promise is: it doesn't matter who you are or what you've done, how intelligent or how beautiful you are, you can always be torn down by some little shit who can repeat phrases about mental well-being. Talk about a revolt of the weak! Ah, how very specific. I like how I ask for you to back up your statement and you respond with some vague, non-falsifiable theory. But even if this is so, it hardly proves that women had a high status throughout history. The mutant creatures in HIlls have Eyes kidnapped women for breeding purposes, but they killed them afterwords. So did the cannibals in "Jenna jameson vs. the zombies," for that matter. Besides, with the advent of genetic engineering, gender differences will be entirely voluntary within a hundred years, if we survive as a species that long.
Satyr: It appears you don't want a debate. You want to belittle and insult other people. I've lost interest in you. Goodbye.
Whoa, babycakes...no need to become so defensive. When will you get over your paranoia? Not everyone is out to 'get you'. Are you a Scietologist now or is this your way of degrading what possible assessments I might make? A preemptive strike? You Americans are known for those. Who said anything about 'well-being', sugar? There is no such thing, just various degrees of discomfort. Life is about discomfort. Such low self-esteem packed into that ever changing style of yours. Did you just call me a "little shit"? I am offended. I would hope that I'm, at least, a big shit. Did I say such a thing? I said they had value and that they had sexual power. If you cannot relate then this has more to do with you than the average. I always thought you were distinct and special. Fascinating. Yes, and? Is this your vengeance? Baby cakes, this still doesn't stop women from being idiots in the here and now. Tomorrow?! Que sera, sera. Nice excuse. Run with it. I wonder what reasoning lies behind the conclusion that one must tolerate stupidity for the sake of 'debate'. Respect, [insult removed], is not given it is earned. At least the kind that is worth anything. Pseudo-intellectuals, like you, who depend on this sense of civility and offering respect indiscriminately and who display this faked seriousness which is supposed to give off an aura of objective reasoning, and cold logic, are so fragile and so sensitive to anything that breaks through this persona of aloofness that they run for the hills at the first sign of reality. You are like a rick old fart, sitting around his study wearing a smoking jacket and sipping a bandy, to pretend that he's other than an animal or that he's sophisticated and civilized, then being confronted by the basic 'truth' of a Neanderthal placing a spear up agaisnt his throat. If you were truly indifferent then none of this would matter to you. Your ego is supported by a thin strand of pretense and that's all you've got. This is how [insult removed] you are: Really, and philosophy or free-thinknig is what? Is this forum only dedicated to talking about what other people thought or said? Sophistry 101 - the academics kingdom...all information and no analysis. Read any Schopenhauer lately? Try Parerga and Parelipomena. Well then this explains a lot about Sciforums and you being one of its expert moderators, doesn't it? A dining room of vomited leftovers and you the head chef. dinner is ready, children. No pushing and shoving so everyone gets a healthy helping of regurgitated spew and go to bed with a full belly...and empty head. No shit Sherlock. Are we here to agree or are we here as regurgitators of established 'truths'? You know...experts. You are either a liar or a hypocrite. This is what you said... Right after you had made these statements... What other "independent evidence" did you have in mind and what?!... a reference to statistics and, what you call, "hard facts"? What pray tell are "hard facts" and who decides their 'hardness'? Are they the facts sanctioned and approved by a majority or by experts or are they the information derived through institutional authorities? Being what? Shall we speak about other people's perspectives and pretend we are thinking on our own? Is that how you pretend you are some kind of intellectual? No, maybe uttering a personal perspective has to pass the 'uniqueness' test. That's when imbeciles, [insult removed], try to insult or intimidate an opinion you find offensive into silence, by mentioning that another has also held such an opinion. So, you were referring to science other than the mainstream variety?
You have attempted to "analyze" quite a few of the people responding to you, I'm simply the latest and most sophisticated because you have more ammunition. They respond in kind, I find it amusing. Psychology. I have the highest respect for people who cut things up and figure out how they work. You could as easily say, "there are only varying degrees of comfort." This makes no sense without context, and probably wouldn't make sense within context. But ahhh, low self esteem. Another stupid American idea. People should feel good about themselves and confident even when they really have no reason to be so proud. You know who has high self esteem? A retard. On pudding day. Why should I have high self-esteem? I'm nervous, depressive, euphoric, critical. I bite my nails and I write poetry, most of which is bad. I do not think that I am pretty, I underachieve at my job. This is generally considered to be quite a bad thing, but why? You of all people should understand the fallacy of approaching the world the way a housewife on Valium does. The blurring of gender roles? Since all of that will happen long after I am dead (most likely) it would be a rather poor vengance on....whom? Besides, that's not all that could be on offer - who knows what human limitations are innate and which are fluid? I'm all about that. And the really cool drugs that I'm sure will be invented, I'm more pissed about that than the blurring gender roles: it's my hypothetical grandchildren who get to trip on such a range of weird shit, not me. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I find this....ironic.
Sweet cheeks, do you find all analysis created equal? You don't sound like it. yes, but I choose to be honest and imply that discomfort is the natural state of things, as death is an easier state than life, and darkness more ubiquitous than light. What demands constant energy/effort to maintain itself is more vulnerable and ephemeral. Then you are an American. What the fuck is up with "pudding day"? Did you see a movie again? Bite yor nails? Come, come....we know better. Oh I agree with you. But then you are allowing all these things to affect your opinion of your self. I've told you this before....playing the game isn't buying into it. Unfortunately it's the only game in town. Why would you 'losing' matter and why would you winning be shameful? On those that you could not satisfy. You don't? Then you don't know your own self. All human limitations are fluid. They are just not as fluid as you would like them to be. Escapism. You know its true but, for you, this is more because you want to restructure standards where you are 'good enough' to them. Who cares? Use them, playing their games, and expecting nothing more besides. If you are strong, within the limitations of your own limits and talents, then the are your material and you the creator. Knowing your limits and talents determines what creations you go for.
Satyr: When you're ready to debate without insults, then maybe we can talk. In the meantime, back to your playpen.
You do realize the essential difference between a science that studies the workings of the human mind, and a pissant little pseudoscience that spouts platitudes about the human soul? Fair enough. I gave an example of something I disagree with, you try to turn it into something I agree with. Don't lie to make a point. Several. The similie makes me happy. They are my "self," whatever transient thing that is. Why shouldn't they affect my opinion of myself? The hot naughty nurses? I admit that I failed at that task. Otherwise you'll have to stop insinuating and get to the damn point already. I'm talking about manipulating the human genome. An infant science at its best - why the hell SHOULD I know what will be possible? Do pay attention. You resemble most, at this point, a ADD child under the influence of marijuana, at DIsneyland. I know that your statement was ironic, coming from you? Why thank you. Still jacking off over the ideals of the Renaissance without understanding their context? Tsk tsk.
Yes, but all sciences went through a stage of infancy. Okay 'affect' was the wrong word, 'determine'. This is a public forum. Imagine. Cute. Please oh please explain the context.
Then we developed a methodology. Psychologists - the "healers of human souls" or whatever, therapists, etc, do not follow it. This isn't to say that they never do any good, but it simply does not use the scientific method. And I'm publicly asking you to get to the damned point. In spite of being amusing, you really suck at argument - insults here, calling someone a retard there, 2-buck psychoanalysis over there, but you can't define and defend a position, even for your sycophants. It's one eighth Nietzsche and the rest is fail-tastic submission to the limits of what others want. Play the game, manipulate people without care, you belabor this approach with me. A lot. I'm wondering why you would care if I follow it, why you would let out the secret of your happiness if it works, why you are so insistent that other people do as you are doing.
