Good thing Beth is a feminist
Overfloater928
Bob
don't care whether she's a feminist or not, she's human, and when you have
the chance to get that kind of money, you're going to do it. It's not like
she didn't earn it, I'm sure she's helped out Ed a lot over the years.
"Overfloater928" <overflo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001217133855...@ng-mj1.aol.com...
the happy squid
wrote:
>she probably didn't take any of his money!
Eddie could afford to part with some. But w/o kids, I'm not sure how
much she could hope to get. Maybe some, but like I said, not much.
=
!squid
to reply to me thru e-mail- thecolo...@yahoo.com
__
AIM- TheHappySquid
_
Today I accidently stepped on a snail on the sidewalk in front of my house. And I thought, I too am like that snail. I build a defensive wall around myself, a "shell" if
you will. But my shell isn't made out of a hard, protective substance. Mine is made out of tin foil and paper bags.
_
I hate SUVs. Apparently, so does this guy.
http://poseur.4x4.org/
__
Funny stuff
http://www.dilbert.com
__
END TRANSMISSION
Akshay Arora
>
> she probably didn't take any of his money!
I can't stand the divorce court in America. They are so fucking
ridiculous. I personally would sign a prenup whether I or my future wife
is better off. Money is such a big deal all of a sudden. And just
because people thing that they "deserve" half of what their ex has is
just a bunch of bullshit.
Alright, this isn't a post about how much Beth "deserves" or will get,
but a post about how fucking ridiculous the divorce court system is.
That and I think people here get divorced too often (especially the
famous folks).
I personally would like to think that I will not get divorced, but if I
did and my wife had more money, I sure as hell wouldn't expect her to
"GIVE" me any of it...she earned it, and it was ours to work with when
we were together, but now it's hers again!
One of the best skits done on divorse was by Eddie Murphy back in the
day when he did "Delerious" and "Raw." If you haven't seen it...then you
should and you'll understand what i mean.
-Akshay
p.s. now that i've been awake a full hour after i planned....good night
--
http://www.5vs1.com - A Pearl Jam Fan Site - Tape Trading mainly, plus
more to come.
"Only when the last tree is dead, the last river damned, and the last
field paved, will we realize that we can't eat money."
"Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can."
-Eddie Vedder
blues02
Akshay Arora <aks...@5vs1.com> wrote:
> Overfloater928 wrote:
> >
> > she probably didn't take any of his money!
>
> I can't stand the divorce court in America. They are so fucking
> ridiculous. I personally would sign a prenup whether I or my future
wife
> is better off. Money is such a big deal all of a sudden. And just
> because people thing that they "deserve" half of what their ex has is
> just a bunch of bullshit.
>
> Alright, this isn't a post about how much Beth "deserves" or will get,
> but a post about how fucking ridiculous the divorce court system is.
> That and I think people here get divorced too often (especially the
> famous folks).
>
> I personally would like to think that I will not get divorced, but if
I
> did and my wife had more money, I sure as hell wouldn't expect her to
> "GIVE" me any of it...she earned it, and it was ours to work with when
> we were together, but now it's hers again!
american divorse courts are so biased against men it's sick. Same for
family courts.
--
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
the happy squid
>american divorse courts are so biased against men it's sick. Same for
>family courts.
I always thought that American divorce courts were biased toward
whomever gets custody of the children, if applicable. Typically
that's the (ex) wife, but not always. Since I've never been married
(therefore never divorced), I wonder what makes you say that the
courts are biased against men. Not flaming, just asking.
JettKarma
>she probably didn't take any of his money!
*************************************
HIS money? Oh, boy. Argument #5,768 is on the way. I'm sure she
won't take his, but she sure as hell will take hers. :))
--Jett
Akshay Arora
(excluding what would be in the "joint" savings account that they BOTH
contributed to...)
--
Grn Eyes
> famous folks).
Um, that is probably because we hear about their divorces. I'm sure there
are many more 'common' folk who divorce. But then again, it's like any
relationship, it only works if the two people work on it together, if one
person is doing all the work, it will fail.
Laurie Hester
life, the woman will give up her career for her husband's (or vice versa).
Be it because he gets transferred and she has to keep starting over in new
jobs while he works his way up to the top, or she stays home to care for the
house, kids, him. This is a pact they make in their marriage. If he is
bringing home the money, she is contributing other things to the household.
And if, and only if, she has sacrificed her career and money-earning
potential, she should be entitled to half the money that he made during
their marriage. To be fair, I believe this should be up to a certain amount
which she might reasonably expect to have made had she not made this
sacrifice.
I don't think courts are biased against men, unless you think that it's fair
that men get everything because he had the job, and the woman should get
nothing because she only served as housekeeper, mother and caretaker. Yes,
in most cases, the woman gets the kids, but she usually has more time, care
and concern invested in them. For one thing, she carried them in her womb.
I think the ideal solution is joint custody, and that's what I worked out
with my ex; wouldn't have it any other way, but they lived with me, and went
to his house on his days off.
Laurie
Akshay Arora
>
> I think the deal is this. In many marriages, which are supposed to be for
> life, the woman will give up her career for her husband's (or vice versa).
> Be it because he gets transferred and she has to keep starting over in new
> jobs while he works his way up to the top, or she stays home to care for the
> house, kids, him. This is a pact they make in their marriage. If he is
> bringing home the money, she is contributing other things to the household.
> And if, and only if, she has sacrificed her career and money-earning
> potential, she should be entitled to half the money that he made during
> their marriage. To be fair, I believe this should be up to a certain amount
> which she might reasonably expect to have made had she not made this
> sacrifice.
true, very true, but this is starting to lessen as we get more and more
modern.
> I don't think courts are biased against men, unless you think that it's fair
> that men get everything because he had the job, and the woman should get
> nothing because she only served as housekeeper, mother and caretaker. Yes,
> in most cases, the woman gets the kids, but she usually has more time, care
> and concern invested in them. For one thing, she carried them in her womb.
> I think the ideal solution is joint custody, and that's what I worked out
> with my ex; wouldn't have it any other way, but they lived with me, and went
> to his house on his days off.
this is a good point, and this not the situation that i was tackling. I
was talking about the situation where both parents work. The sacrafices
that one parent has to make (or does make) is definately worth that oh
so important "half." The point that i was mainly talking about was
situation where a marriage lasts for about 10 years, no children, the
male is 60 and the female is 30 (after the 10 years of marriage) and she
will ask for her "half" of the property when the divorce happens.
-Akshay
Bob
care of the kids if there were any, etc.? That's just as important as the
other spouse's making money.
"Akshay Arora" <aks...@5vs1.com> wrote in message
news:3A3DCCA3...@5vs1.com...
Bob
just as much as it is his.news:3A3EBFAF...@5vs1.com...
the happy squid
<laurie...@home.com> wrote:
>I think the deal is this. In many marriages, which are supposed to be for
>life, the woman will give up her career for her husband's (or vice versa).
>Be it because he gets transferred and she has to keep starting over in new
>jobs while he works his way up to the top, or she stays home to care for the
>house, kids, him. This is a pact they make in their marriage. If he is
>bringing home the money, she is contributing other things to the household.
>And if, and only if, she has sacrificed her career and money-earning
>potential, she should be entitled to half the money that he made during
>their marriage. To be fair, I believe this should be up to a certain amount
>which she might reasonably expect to have made had she not made this
>sacrifice.
I don't know if I agree with that. Look at the facts Laurie, the ex
wife gave up (or at least badly damaged) her career for her husband's
gain. He's the one with all the money in this hypothetical of yours,
so IMHO the man ought to be liable for X%/month to her, along with
child support (that's only fair too, esp if she has custody). If the
lady hadn't ever gotten married, she could have done a lot with her
career. Clearly, the fact nothing was slowing the man down. IMHO,
this case is pretty clear cut. 'Course, I've heard of men getting
taken to the cleaners by angry wives and being forced to live in ratty
apartments, but I don't think that will be such a problem in a case
wherein the hubby in question is banking $1 million/year... but then
that can't be very often...
blabbering as usual...
Tristan - Boy of Destiny
<myst...@mindspring.com> uttered the following gibberish:
you're aware that Eddie makes more money, right? therefore, it would
be HIS money that would be thrown around.
Tristan - Boy of Destiny
uttered the following gibberish:
>I can't stand the divorce court in America. They are so fucking
>ridiculous. I personally would sign a prenup whether I or my future wife
>is better off. Money is such a big deal all of a sudden. And just
>because people thing that they "deserve" half of what their ex has is
>just a bunch of bullshit.
I will not sign a prenup. Its not about money, and should the
marriage end, I refuse to quibble about money. Let her take it if it
will make her happy. I'll make more money in the future. Marriage is
about more so I will gladly sacrifice all that I have for it.
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ
Tristan
Oh God I can see it, you know it’s incessant mace
http://www.optics.arizona.edu
It's like being a monkey with chickens on your back
http://www.fuckmicrosoft.com/
the happy squid
>sign a prenup. Its not about money, and should the
>marriage end, I refuse to quibble about money. Let her take it if it
>will make her happy. I'll make more money in the future. Marriage is
>about more so I will gladly sacrifice all that I have for it.
Isn't a prenup supposed to protect Mr. Rich from Ms. Not-So-Rich in
the event of a divorce (or vice versa)? My understanding was that
prenup basically says that, say, Ms. Not-So-Rich waives any right to
to the money Mr. Rich made BEFORE getting married. Prenup or not, if
they get divorced, she still gets 50%. I thought that was how it
worked (or maybe that's how I think it should work, I don't know).
Laurie Hester
Laurie
the happy squid
<laurie...@home.com> wrote:
>You can write any sort of pre-nup you want. Ivana Trump signed one giving her *only* $25M as I recall.
Was that meant to be sarcastic or something? Shit! $25 mill ain't
chump change for ANYbody. Then again, I guess Donald Trump has more
where that came from. But damn, $25 mill will buy a pretty big candy
bar...
JettKarma
proclaim:
*****************************************************
But you're aware that it's Beth that forewent *her* career to help his
out. And you're probably aware, from the looks of things, that Beth
was an advisor to Ed's career in a really, really heavy way that
helped Ed get the fans and renown he now enjoys, right?
Therefore, whatever money "he" made while they were married is really
*their* money. That's what community property is all about. It's not
fair to a woman to give up everything to stick around and clean the
house or clean up an act and fill in as an unpaid advisor not to give
her her dues...and I suspect that in the Vedder/Leibling arrangement,
Beth was absolutely instrumental to Ed. No Beth, no Ed as we know him
and love him, I'm absolutely convinced.
--Jett
Laurie Hester
Laurie
Laurie Hester
JettKarma wrote:
> ...and I suspect that in the Vedder/Leibling arrangement,
> Beth was absolutely instrumental to Ed. No Beth, no Ed as we know him
> and love him, I'm absolutely convinced.
>
> --Jett
Yes, he made it through a very difficult few years there, when he could
easily have ended up like Kurt Cobain. I think we all owe a debt of
thanks to the lady.
Laurie
the happy squid
>Therefore, whatever money "he" made while they were married is really
>*their* money. That's what community property is all about. It's not
>fair to a woman to give up everything to stick around and clean the
>house or clean up an act and fill in as an unpaid advisor not to give
>her her dues...and I suspect that in the Vedder/Leibling arrangement,
>Beth was absolutely instrumental to Ed. No Beth, no Ed as we know him
>and love him, I'm absolutely convinced.
I agree. In 1993, Ed was mad and bad. In 1998, he was a kinder and
gentler guy who didn't growl all the time. I credit Beth for that
one.
=
!skwid
Melora
"the happy squid" <thecolo...@yahooNOSPAMDAMMIT.com> wrote
> blues wrote--
> >american divorse courts are so biased against men it's sick. Same for
family courts.
>
> I always thought that American divorce courts were biased toward whomever
gets custody of the children, if applicable. Typically that's the (ex)
wife, but not always. Since I've never been married (therefore never
divorced), I wonder what makes you say that the courts are biased against
men. Not flaming, just asking.
They are biased toward whoever has the better lawyer. My uncle cheated on my
aunt and they had been married about 25 years. He didn't have to pay any
alimony, and he got part ownership of the house. Their kids ended up helping
her buy his share.
tony
>
> Jett wrote--
> >Therefore, whatever money "he" made while they were married is really
> >*their* money. That's what community property is all about.
That makes perfect sense. Beth just sat at home and kept the dishes
neat and set the table that "seats just two." No, she was out doing her
thing with Hovercraft too... That's *her* money and whatever Ed made
with PJ is *his*. Maybe in a stereotypical 2.4 child family in the
burbs you could make that claim but I really don't see how it adheres in
this case.
> It's not
> >fair to a woman to give up everything to stick around and clean the
> >house or clean up an act and fill in as an unpaid advisor not to give
> >her her dues...and I suspect that in the Vedder/Leibling arrangement,
> >Beth was absolutely instrumental to Ed. No Beth, no Ed as we know him
> >and love him, I'm absolutely convinced.
Is there just a little bit of sarcasm in this :)
--
-tony
"It's not the world that's heavy, just the things that you save." -E.V.
Laurie Hester
Melora wrote:
> They are biased toward whoever has the better lawyer. My uncle cheated on my
> aunt and they had been married about 25 years. He didn't have to pay any
> alimony, and he got part ownership of the house. Their kids ended up helping
> her buy his share.
It's normal for the equity in the house to be split, but the one who gets the
kids gets to stay in it. As for alimony, if she is capable of supporting
herself and he is paying child support, why should she get alimony? Alimony
should be reserved for the situations where the wife has no education or job
skills, and should only be paid while she gets job training or goes to school.
Or if she's almost of retirement age anyway. These things have nothing to do
with the reasons why a marriage breaks up; whether or not he cheated on her. No
woman deserves her husband's half of the marital assets just because he cheated
on her.
I have a lot of sympathy for women in your aunt's position, though. Through
little fault of her own, her life is thrown into upheaval. If she had been a
housewife, then it's a very hard adjustment to make. But this is why I would
always recommend that women keep their independence in financial matters and not
depend completely on their husbands. Because he can leave you after 25 years
and you've got nothing.
In your aunt's case, I find it hard to believe that at her age (she must be
45-50, no?), IF she had been a housewife all those years, that she wouldn't get
alimony. It's hard to start to develop a career at that age.
Laurie
Laurie Hester
tony wrote:
> >
> > Jett wrote--
> > >Therefore, whatever money "he" made while they were married is really
> > >*their* money. That's what community property is all about.
>
> That makes perfect sense. Beth just sat at home and kept the dishes
> neat and set the table that "seats just two." No, she was out doing her
> thing with Hovercraft too... That's *her* money and whatever Ed made
> with PJ is *his*. Maybe in a stereotypical 2.4 child family in the
> burbs you could make that claim but I really don't see how it adheres in
> this case.
Because I'm sure she made many sacrifices, such as arranging tours around
PJ's tours, etc. If two people want to stay together, and they both have
full-blown careers that take them away from each other, one usually has to
sacrifice. Let's say 2 lawyers marry, and one moves up the ladder, being
transferred to another city, the spouse will have to then start over in
another company in that new city. So just having 2 careers, doesn't mean one
is not supporting, nurturing and sacrificing.
And I seriously doubt that Beth makes a whole lot of money from Hovercraft.
Small club tours barely break even, and their record sales are hardly
stellar.
Laurie
Saerah Schreiber
(my fiance) and i were to ever get divorced, i dont see how i could say i had a
right to any of his money.
Saerah
"Are we going to the same place? if so, can I come?" ~ Eddie Vedder
"The Almighty thinks he can get me out of this, but he's pretty sure you're
fucked."~Stephen (from Braveheart)
"Practice deliberate acts of kindness and purposeful acts of beauty"
the happy squid
>the happy squid wrote:
>>
>> Jett wrote--
>> >Therefore, whatever money "he" made while they were married is really
>> >*their* money. That's what community property is all about.
>
>That makes perfect sense. Beth just sat at home and kept the dishes
>neat and set the table that "seats just two." No, she was out doing her
>thing with Hovercraft too... That's *her* money and whatever Ed made
>with PJ is *his*. Maybe in a stereotypical 2.4 child family in the
>burbs you could make that claim but I really don't see how it adheres in
>this case.
I didn't write what you quoted.
=
!squid
tony
Laurie Hester wrote:
> Because I'm sure she made many sacrifices, such as arranging tours around
> PJ's tours, etc.
Of course, because Beth is a female she has made the sacrifices, she is
the victim. It's just so obvious. I don't think either of us know very
many specifics about their day to day lives together so why not drop the
man-hating mantra and let's dive into another tepid topic?
tony
>
> I didn't write what you quoted.
well aware, my friend.
Laurie Hester
tony wrote:
> Ah, how did I know you'd pop a return to me??
>
> Laurie Hester wrote:
> > Because I'm sure she made many sacrifices, such as arranging tours around
> > PJ's tours, etc.
>
> Of course, because Beth is a female she has made the sacrifices, she is
> the victim.
You said she wasn't a housewife and so she didn't deserve any money. I was
simply pointing out that just because she wasn't a housewife didn't mean she
didn't support her husband in his career. Another case of snipping out of
context here to twist my words.
> It's just so obvious. I don't think either of us know very
> many specifics about their day to day lives together
Of course not, and neither do you know whether or not she would deserve money.
> so why not drop the
> man-hating mantra and let's dive into another tepid topic?
What it man-hating about this subject or what I've said? I never said she was
a victim, you did. I'm only saying that when 2 people marry, and one of them
brings in money, or more money, they are a partnership, both contribute to the
family, and should split assets. That is only fair, and if you think that is
man-hating, you are more nuts than I thought!
Laurie
tony
>
> tony wrote:
>
> > Ah, how did I know you'd pop a return to me??
> >
> > Laurie Hester wrote:
> > > Because I'm sure she made many sacrifices, such as arranging tours around
> > > PJ's tours, etc.
> >
> > Of course, because Beth is a female she has made the sacrifices, she is
> > the victim.
>
> You said she wasn't a housewife and so she didn't deserve any money. I was
> simply pointing out that just because she wasn't a housewife didn't mean she
> didn't support her husband in his career. Another case of snipping out of
> context here to twist my words.
Her "supporting" Ed doesn't entitle her to jack s#it, I'm sorry to tell
you. A marriage is all about loving and being there for your
significant other. Upholding your vows does not entitle you to half of
the more successful party's goods just because the two are married. If
she had obviously given up some great opportunities to be there and
console her mate then, sure, fine but in the everyday case of divorce
both people should just walk away.
> > It's just so obvious. I don't think either of us know very
> > many specifics about their day to day lives together
>
> Of course not, and neither do you know whether or not she would deserve money.
But here you are demanding she should have half of his shit. What the
f**k is that??
> > so why not drop the
> > man-hating mantra and let's dive into another tepid topic?
>
> What it man-hating about this subject or what I've said? I never said she was
> a victim, you did.
You implied it loud and clear!
> I'm only saying that when 2 people marry, and one of them
> brings in money, or more money, they are a partnership, both contribute to the
> family, and should split assets.
That's just the socialism in you.
>That is only fair, and if you think that is
> man-hating, you are more nuts than I thought!
Bull-Fu**kin-s#it and shame on you if you believe that Laurie. Let's
cut out the equality garbage and realize once and for all people are
different and they have very different abilities. Ed is much more
successful (monetarily) than his wife, plain and simple. You, the
man-hating "money makes the world around" Miss should realize this but
oh, that's why you're bitter about it I'm sure.
Laurie Hester
tony wrote:
> Laurie Hester wrote:
>
> > You said she wasn't a housewife and so she didn't deserve any money. I was
> > simply pointing out that just because she wasn't a housewife didn't mean she
> > didn't support her husband in his career. Another case of snipping out of
> > context here to twist my words.
>
> Her "supporting" Ed doesn't entitle her to jack s#it, I'm sorry to tell
> you. A marriage is all about loving and being there for your
> significant other. Upholding your vows does not entitle you to half of
> the more successful party's goods just because the two are married.
Well, it sure does in California.
> If
> she had obviously given up some great opportunities to be there and
> console her mate then, sure, fine but in the everyday case of divorce
> both people should just walk away.
>
> > > It's just so obvious. I don't think either of us know very
> > > many specifics about their day to day lives together
> >
> > Of course not, and neither do you know whether or not she would deserve money.
>
> But here you are demanding she should have half of his shit. What the
> f**k is that??
Nowhere did I say she deserved half of his shit. But I think she deserves something
for standing by him instead of perhaps pursuing a successful career of her own.
>
>
> > > so why not drop the
> > > man-hating mantra and let's dive into another tepid topic?
> >
> > What it man-hating about this subject or what I've said? I never said she was
> > a victim, you did.
>
> You implied it loud and clear!
>
> > I'm only saying that when 2 people marry, and one of them
> > brings in money, or more money, they are a partnership, both contribute to the
> > family, and should split assets.
>
> That's just the socialism in you.
No, and I feel sorry for anyone who marries you. I guess she had better pursue her
own financial security, which rules out the housewife and at-home mom possibility,
since you aren't willing to share "your" money with her.
>
>
> >That is only fair, and if you think that is
> > man-hating, you are more nuts than I thought!
>
> Bull-Fu**kin-s#it and shame on you if you believe that Laurie.
Yes, I do, and it's the law in many states. Hate to disappoint you.
> Let's
> cut out the equality garbage
Yes, equality is garbage...
> and realize once and for all people are
> different and they have very different abilities. Ed is much more
> successful (monetarily) than his wife, plain and simple.
How do you know what she could have been?
> You, the
> man-hating "money makes the world around" Miss should realize this but
> oh, that's why you're bitter about it I'm sure.
Haha. That's rich. What makes you think I'm bitter? I've never been in that
position, and have always made more money than my ex. But I've seen others trapped
in the position of having to take abuse from their husband because they find
themselves unable to support themselves if they leave him. They agree with their
husband to be at-home moms, then find themselves having to start over when the
marriage falls apart.
And as for man-hating, I love men. My best friends have always been men, and the
only ones I hate are pigs. I certainly wouldn't say all men are pigs. So present a
coherent argument if you like, but attempting to put nasty labels on me just makes
you look like an ass.
Laurie
JettKarma
***********************************************
When I read posts like this, it makes me realize that although the
American court systems are not perfect, they are a *lot* more perfect
than the necessarily biased views of one human being.
The world is not perfect. Human devices enslave us, but they set us
free as well, in the wise words of one of my favorite humanists, Ed
Vedder. :))
--Jett
John Hansen
>Vedder. :))
now Ed is regarded a humanist?
come on now hes a singer / songwriter
thats about it.
John Hansen Sarasota Fl.
Jhans...@aol.com
oshuns
John Hansen <jhans...@aol.compost> wrote in message
news:20001222093823...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
> > in the wise words of one of my favorite humanists, Ed
> >Vedder. :))
>
> now Ed is regarded a humanist?
>
> come on now hes a singer / songwriter
> thats about it.
we are all more than our jobs.
s
tony
> > Her "supporting" Ed doesn't entitle her to jack s#it, I'm sorry to tell
> > you. A marriage is all about loving and being there for your
> > significant other. Upholding your vows does not entitle you to half of
> > the more successful party's goods just because the two are married.
>
> Well, it sure does in California.
Oh, then it must be true...
>
> > If
> > she had obviously given up some great opportunities to be there and
> > console her mate then, sure, fine but in the everyday case of divorce
> > both people should just walk away.
> >
> > > > It's just so obvious. I don't think either of us know very
> > > > many specifics about their day to day lives together
> > >
> > > Of course not, and neither do you know whether or not she would deserve money.
> >
> > But here you are demanding she should have half of his shit. What the
> > f**k is that??
>
> Nowhere did I say she deserved half of his shit. But I think she deserves something
> for standing by him instead of perhaps pursuing a successful career of her own.
Wow. You are so biased and yet you point your finger at me? Laurie, in
any female v male rights issue at the very least you are pessimistic
toward the male and overly optimistic toward the female. In your eyes
Beth isn't as successful as she could be. Why? Because she doesn't
earn as much as Ed?? (I know money really is the true indicator of
success in your eyes). Who are you to say she hasn't reached her
potential? Furthermore (and let me reiterate because you've glossed
over it as usual) *if* Beth had given up her band to follow Ed to the
ends of the earth then yes by all means she is entitled to being taken
care of. Did that happen? I don't think so. She was free to pursue
her own aspirations just as Ed was.
> > > I'm only saying that when 2 people marry, and one of them
> > > brings in money, or more money, they are a partnership, both contribute to the
> > > family, and should split assets.
> >
> > That's just the socialism in you.
>
> No, and I feel sorry for anyone who marries you. I guess she had better pursue her
> own financial security, which rules out the housewife and at-home mom possibility,
> since you aren't willing to share "your" money with her.
Money is much less important to me than it is to you, I'm quite
certain. But let's look at this block here, shall we? On one side you
have Ed who is a member of Pearl Jam. Pearl Jam was established before
the two wed. Beth was (is) a member of Hovercraft before the two wed.
That's clear, right? These are two distinct entities. There is no 6th
member of PJ named Beth. PJ's revenue belongs to the members of PJ and
Hovercrafts belongs to it's members. She has the means to support
herself but because Ed (due to his own abilities) makes more and
according to you he 'should' spilt it (in some manner) with Beth for the
reason that she somehow gave up a successful career in the unnamed
field. This is outrageous.
> Yes, I do, and it's the law in many states. Hate to disappoint you.
The law looks at the situation. It doesn't just say the male must in
every case give up his belongings for the crime of being a male.
>
> > Let's
> > cut out the equality garbage
>
> Yes, equality is garbage...
Hahaha, give a liberal the chance to show the mean conservative isn't
for equality and they will chomp at the bit. Read on...
> > and realize once and for all people are
> > different and they have very different abilities. Ed is much more
> > successful (monetarily) than his wife, plain and simple.
My point here is we all want equality (regardless of what you think).
The problem with the means is it gets tainted with the thought that
'well we're all equal *but* because you're a female you need an
additional helping hand.' That doesn't spell equality - that says
"subsidize." Having said that, and clarifying that equality truly means
equal opportunity, why did Beth not have an equal opportunity?
> How do you know what she could have been?
My point as well. You have no idea either so how can you carry on that
she isn't where she wants to be?
>
> > You, the
> > man-hating "money makes the world around" Miss should realize this but
> > oh, that's why you're bitter about it I'm sure.
>
> Haha. That's rich. What makes you think I'm bitter?
Because Laurie, and I've already gone over this, at the very least
you'll hold an optimistic view for the female and assume some ill intent
on the part of the male. That's been my experience from reading your
posts. You are a problem looking for a cause.
> I've never been in that position, and have always made more money than my ex. But > I've seen others trapped
> in the position of having to take abuse from their husband because they find
> themselves unable to support themselves if they leave him. They agree with their
> husband to be at-home moms, then find themselves having to start over when the
> marriage falls apart.
Ahhhh, yes, yes, yes, I said in cases like this a woman in the total
right to demand support. So now are we implying that Ed abused her?
Held her back because that's what all men obviously do. See, once again
you have taken the pessimistic view toward the man. Is this true in
some cases? Probably. Is this true with our favorite couple here?
Highly unlikely.
> And as for man-hating, I love men. My best friends have always been men, and the
> only ones I hate are pigs. I certainly wouldn't say all men are pigs. So present a
> coherent argument if you like, but attempting to put nasty labels on me just makes
> you look like an ass.
Well, if I had won your approval I'd be truly sad.
jamf...@my-deja.com
tony <jam...@netprince.net> wrote:
> the happy squid wrote:
> >
> > Jett wrote--
> > >Therefore, whatever money "he" made while they were married is
really
> > >*their* money. That's what community property is all about.
>
> That makes perfect sense. Beth just sat at home and kept the dishes
> neat and set the table that "seats just two." No, she was out doing
her
> thing with Hovercraft too... That's *her* money and whatever Ed made
> with PJ is *his*. Maybe in a stereotypical 2.4 child family in the
> burbs you could make that claim but I really don't see how it adheres
in
> this case.
Well, let's think about this. I'm sure he put up the money for
Hovercraft. In fact, I think we can be pretty certain of this. Also,
did they make any money? Probably not.
I agree that she is entitled to some portion of his assets, but
considerng that SHE cheated on him, how much should she get? IF she
had not cheated she would be entitled to half of it. But she did cheat
so personally, I don't think she should get half.
>
> > It's not
> > >fair to a woman to give up everything to stick around and clean the
> > >house or clean up an act and fill in as an unpaid advisor not to
give
> > >her her dues...and I suspect that in the Vedder/Leibling
arrangement,
> > >Beth was absolutely instrumental to Ed. No Beth, no Ed as we know
him
> > >and love him, I'm absolutely convinced.
>
> Is there just a little bit of sarcasm in this :)
>
> --
> -tony
>
> "It's not the world that's heavy, just the things that you save." -
E.V.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
jamf...@my-deja.com
the happy squid wrote:
> Jett wrote--
> >Therefore, whatever money "he" made while they were married is really
> >*their* money. That's what community property is all about. It's
not
> >fair to a woman to give up everything to stick around and clean the
> >house or clean up an act and fill in as an unpaid advisor not to give
> >her her dues...and I suspect that in the Vedder/Leibling arrangement,
> >Beth was absolutely instrumental to Ed. No Beth, no Ed as we know
him
> >and love him, I'm absolutely convinced.
>
> I agree. In 1993, Ed was mad and bad.
Ok. She probably had a lot to do with him getting through Kurt's
suicide etc
In 1998, he was a kinder and
> gentler guy who didn't growl all the time. I credit Beth for that
> one.
Now, I disagree with this. Accounts have their marriage in serious
trouble as far back as 1996. From then onward it appears to have been
hellish for him. I don't think you can credit Eddie's change in 1998
to Beth, I think you can credit his own growth and maturity for that
change.
> =
> !skwid
>
> to reply to me thru e-mail- thecolo...@yahoo.com
> __
> AIM- TheHappySquid
> _
> Today I accidently stepped on a snail on the sidewalk in front of my
house. And I thought, I too am like that snail. I build a defensive
wall around myself, a "shell" if
> you will. But my shell isn't made out of a hard, protective
substance. Mine is made out of tin foil and paper bags.
> _
> I hate SUVs. Apparently, so does this guy.
> http://poseur.4x4.org/
> __
> Funny stuff
> http://www.dilbert.com
> __
> END TRANSMISSION
>
Overfloater928
>Well, let's think about this. I'm sure he put up the money for
>Hovercraft. In fact, I think we can be pretty certain of this. Also,
>did they make any money? Probably not.
>
>I agree that she is entitled to some portion of his assets, but
>considerng that SHE cheated on him, how much should she get? IF she
>had not cheated she would be entitled to half of it. But she did cheat
>so personally, I don't think she should get half.
>
Is this Alessiana? If it is, please get a fucking life and stop slandering Beth
all over the Internet. You don't know Eddie or Beth and you sure as hell don't
know what happened in their personal life. This is pathetic.
the happy squid
>Well, let's think about this. I'm sure he put up the money for
>Hovercraft. In fact, I think we can be pretty certain of this. Also,
>did they make any money? Probably not.
>
>I agree that she is entitled to some portion of his assets, but
>considerng that SHE cheated on him, how much should she get? IF she
>had not cheated she would be entitled to half of it. But she did cheat
>so personally, I don't think she should get half.
I think it depends on who divorced whom and on what grounds. If
indeed Beth did cheat and Eddie divorced her, I doubt she'd get very
much cash in that case. And honestly, I'm not totally certain that
she's at all entitled to any. Shit, she cheated on Ed and he's
supposed to walk away AND give her money for doing so? "Years of
faithful service", my ass.
And I hate to bring this to everybody's attention, but the odds of a
band like Hovercraft selling millions of records is farfetched. An
instrumental band that features the wife of a rock & roll recluse?
Yeah, that'll getting 'em lining up. Bottom line-- I don't think that
Beth "supported" Eddie as much as she simply chose the path of least
resistance. And how difficult can it be to stay married to a guy that
loves you? Be there for him and don't do shit that will make him want
a divorce. Forget about a marriage like Ed and Beth's, this is a rule
for any relationship. If this why they got divorced, Beth should
blame no one but herself.
=
!squid
the happy squid
>> I agree. In 1993, Ed was mad and bad.
jamfan wrote--
>Ok. She probably had a lot to do with him getting through Kurt's
>suicide etc
It's more than Kurt's suicide, it's the lyrics he wrote at the time,
the way he sang, etc. At around '97-'98, that was all pretty much
gone. I credit Beth and the love a woman can give for that.
I wrote--
>>In 1998, he was a kinder and
>> gentler guy who didn't growl all the time. I credit Beth for that
>> one.
jamfan wrote--
>Now, I disagree with this. Accounts have their marriage in serious
>trouble as far back as 1996. From then onward it appears to have been
>hellish for him. I don't think you can credit Eddie's change in 1998
>to Beth, I think you can credit his own growth and maturity for that
>change.
Look dude, for all I know they may stil be together and this whole
thing could be a rumor. But Ed wrote songs like "Wishlist" for Beth,
which makes me wonder how hellish things could possibly have been for
him. If he feels that way about her, then how could his situation be
bad? I wasn't there for Ed to dump his problems on, so I can't
comment on where their relationship was back in '96. IMHO, anything
like that is pure speculation.
=
!squid
In Hiding
part of the reason why there is such a varied opinion on this subject is
because how the laws vary...not just country to country, but in the US, from
state to state. I know some states have a 'no fault' divorce law where you
don't have to specify a reason for the divorce, such as adultery. In some
states, however, I believe you have to file with a valid reason for the
divorce.
Whether anyone likes it or not, sexism also plays a part...it's not be
laundered from the courts. How good your lawyer is can also make or break
the settlement...people get taken to the cleaners in divorce court over
money, child custody, visitation, etc. because their lawyer couldn't go blow
for blow with the opposing counsel. Sad, but true.
I think Tony brought up a good point about Beth's "success." Beth worked
for a record company early in their relationship (Virgin Records? I don't
remember) and then she worked for Curtis Mgt when Ed came to Seattle. And
then she had her own band. I think it's certainly a possibility that she
did live her life with him to whatever potential she had and to whatever
degree of ambition she had. There's no clear cut case of spousal support --
like, she didn't put him through med school, and likewise, she didn't quit
any career aspirations to become a fulltime wife. From what I've seen and
heard about Beth, I would find it difficult to believe that she would
completely abandon whatever career goals she had for the past 17 years or
however long they were together.
I also think that no-fault divorce is a 'good thing. I used to live in
Iowa, which is a no-fault state, and at one point the governor and state
legislature talked about "making it harder to get a divorce" but it died on
the vine, thank goodness. Much like pregnancy, I don't think it does anyone
any good to force people to stay in a situation they desperately want out
of. And sometimes, in terms of whose at fault, it isn't so clear cut as
"oh, she committed adultery, this is entirely her fault." Someone very
close to me was the 'cheater' in her marriage and I can't say it was a smart
thing to do, but the other party had certainly done his share of measurable
damage to the relationship. Don't wanna push, but I'm being
shoved...sometimes people are driven to things that are stupid and wrong for
all the 'right' reasons.
And these are just some of the reasons why I am single for life...
LeAnn
--
"Let's just all fucking say how much we love music.
Let's risk being sweet." - Cameron Crowe, RS 10/12/00
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
my webpages with PJ related photos:
http://hometown.aol.com/tchmeimdck/mccready.html (Mike - Rockfords)
http://hometown.aol.com/tchmeimdck/myhomepage/photo.html ( PJ - Saratoga)
http://hometown.aol.com/mslily911/page1.html (PJ - Albuquerque)
http://hometown.aol.com/mslily911/pdx.html (PJ - Portland)
PS: Tony Hawk RULES. http://hometown.aol.com/mslily911/skate.html
Alessiana
news:20001222171811...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
wtf????
i don't have a problem, but you apparently do.
god man...
JettKarma
>
>John Hansen <jhans...@aol.compost> wrote in message
>news:20001222093823...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
>> > in the wise words of one of my favorite humanists, Ed
>> >Vedder. :))
>>
>> now Ed is regarded a humanist?
>>
>> come on now hes a singer / songwriter
>> thats about it.
>
>we are all more than our jobs.
>
>s
**********************************************
And it's not like being a singer and songwriter and being a humanist
at the same time are, like, mutually exclusive things! :))
A person can be a dog catcher and a humanist, a waitress and a
humanist, a scientist and a humanist, a clerk in a book shop and a
humanist, a doctor and a humanist....I mean, you get the picture, I'm
sure.
Humanism...a modern, nontheistic, rationalist movement that holds that
humanity is capable of self-fulfillment, ethical conduct, etc.,
without recourse to supernaturalism. Sounds like it might fit the Ed
man to a T. He certainly *acts* like a humanist, at any rate!
--Jett
Laurie Hester
tony wrote:
>
> > Nowhere did I say she deserved half of his shit. But I think she deserves something
> > for standing by him instead of perhaps pursuing a successful career of her own.
>
> Wow. You are so biased and yet you point your finger at me? Laurie, in
> any female v male rights issue at the very least you are pessimistic
> toward the male and overly optimistic toward the female.
If I seem biased, it is only because I'm constantly challenging your sexist comments.
> In your eyes
> Beth isn't as successful as she could be. Why? Because she doesn't
> earn as much as Ed?? (I know money really is the true indicator of
> success in your eyes). Who are you to say she hasn't reached her
> potential?
Who knows what her potential is, and I don't mean monetarily (when have I ever said monetary success is the only
kind?). At the very least, Beth's pursual of Hovercraft, and going on tour seems to have been a source of
contention between the two, and Eddie's own touring was curtailed because of his wish to spend more time with her.
I think she probably would have been headed for something in the way of record company work, since I believe she
worked for a record company or something before she moved up to Seattle to be with Ed. So she did give up at least
one "career". Other than that, I don't know if she reached her potential. I'm saying that in most cases, the
woman is the one who sacrifices her career for marriage, and you can't deny that. We can only quibble on how much
sacrifice Beth actually made. But your argument was that she had a band, so she hadn't made any sacrifice, and I
don't think you can make that conclusion.
>
> > No, and I feel sorry for anyone who marries you. I guess she had better pursue her
> > own financial security, which rules out the housewife and at-home mom possibility,
> > since you aren't willing to share "your" money with her.
>
> Money is much less important to me than it is to you, I'm quite
> certain.
Money is not that important to me; I don't know where you get that idea. And if it's not that important to you,
then why get so livid about a woman taking "your" money?
> But let's look at this block here, shall we? On one side you
> have Ed who is a member of Pearl Jam. Pearl Jam was established before
> the two wed. Beth was (is) a member of Hovercraft before the two wed.
> That's clear, right?
They were together as a couple for many years before they wed. And I don't think Hovercraft was around before they
wed.
> These are two distinct entities. There is no 6th
> member of PJ named Beth. PJ's revenue belongs to the members of PJ and
> Hovercrafts belongs to it's members. She has the means to support
> herself but because Ed (due to his own abilities) makes more and
> according to you he 'should' spilt it (in some manner) with Beth for the
> reason that she somehow gave up a successful career in the unnamed
> field. This is outrageous.
Not just give up a career. But be there to emotionally support him through thick and thin. That's what a
partnership is about. That's what a marriage is about. Single men don't live as long as married men; that's a
fact. And I doubt PJ would have made it through their dark period in '95 if Ed hadn't had her. She may well have
saved PJ.
>
>
> > Yes, I do, and it's the law in many states. Hate to disappoint you.
>
> The law looks at the situation. It doesn't just say the male must in
> every case give up his belongings for the crime of being a male.
Maybe in your state. What I'm saying is that in progressive states, community property is the law. They split
50/50 any money that came into the household during the marriage. And look at you whining about the "crime of
being a male"! There's no crime here. This law is based on recognizing that women do contribute to a household,
even if it's not monetarily. It doesn't mean the male is being "punished".
> My point here is we all want equality (regardless of what you think).
> The problem with the means is it gets tainted with the thought that
> 'well we're all equal *but* because you're a female you need an
> additional helping hand.'
No, the problem is, you think the existing situation is equal, and I think that women making 60 cents on the man's
dollar is not. Women need assistance to reach equality because the status quo is not equal.
> That doesn't spell equality - that says
> "subsidize." Having said that, and clarifying that equality truly means
> equal opportunity, why did Beth not have an equal opportunity?
Because she was at the very least limited to pursuing something in Seattle, where her husband chose to live, and
that would give her the freedom to work around his band schedule. That kind of rules out 99% of all jobs, doesn't
it?
>
>
> > How do you know what she could have been?
>
> My point as well. You have no idea either so how can you carry on that
> she isn't where she wants to be?
If she were all that happy, you'd think she might have stayed with Ed.
>
>
> >
> > > You, the
> > > man-hating "money makes the world around" Miss should realize this but
> > > oh, that's why you're bitter about it I'm sure.
> >
> > Haha. That's rich. What makes you think I'm bitter?
>
> Because Laurie, and I've already gone over this, at the very least
> you'll hold an optimistic view for the female and assume some ill intent
> on the part of the male. That's been my experience from reading your
> posts. You are a problem looking for a cause.
Again, I only end up arguing against sexist comments which people like you make, so it kind of looks like that's my
only focus in life. But hell, I'll argue most any subject under the sun which I'm passionate about. I don't go
around bashing males. I have two sons, and I'm very careful not to say anything that could be interpreted even by
you, as male bashing.
>
>
> > I've never been in that position, and have always made more money than my ex. But > I've seen others trapped
> > in the position of having to take abuse from their husband because they find
> > themselves unable to support themselves if they leave him. They agree with their
> > husband to be at-home moms, then find themselves having to start over when the
> > marriage falls apart.
>
> Ahhhh, yes, yes, yes, I said in cases like this a woman in the total
> right to demand support. So now are we implying that Ed abused her?
> Held her back because that's what all men obviously do. See, once again
> you have taken the pessimistic view toward the man. Is this true in
> some cases? Probably. Is this true with our favorite couple here?
> Highly unlikely.
You cut out that comment by you, which is what I responded to above. I responded to your comment that I was bitter
about this. So I was explaining why I was not bitter. I was not implying that there was any abuse in Ed's
marriage. You've once again put words in my mouth through selective snipping.
>
>
> > And as for man-hating, I love men. My best friends have always been men, and the
> > only ones I hate are pigs. I certainly wouldn't say all men are pigs. So present a
> > coherent argument if you like, but attempting to put nasty labels on me just makes
> > you look like an ass.
>
> Well, if I had won your approval I'd be truly sad.
You're obviously intelligent, so I'm just encouraging you to present good arguments, rather than resort to
name-calling and putting words in my mouth.
Laurie
Laurie Hester
the happy squid wrote:
> I think it depends on who divorced whom and on what grounds. If
> indeed Beth did cheat and Eddie divorced her, I doubt she'd get very
> much cash in that case. And honestly, I'm not totally certain that
> she's at all entitled to any. Shit, she cheated on Ed and he's
> supposed to walk away AND give her money for doing so? "Years of
> faithful service", my ass.
>
> And I hate to bring this to everybody's attention, but the odds of a
> band like Hovercraft selling millions of records is farfetched. An
> instrumental band that features the wife of a rock & roll recluse?
> Yeah, that'll getting 'em lining up. Bottom line-- I don't think that
> Beth "supported" Eddie as much as she simply chose the path of least
> resistance. And how difficult can it be to stay married to a guy that
> loves you? Be there for him and don't do shit that will make him want
> a divorce.
Come on, squid. It takes two to make a marriage fail. And no one knows who cheated on whom first. And most men who beat their wives love them very much (I'm not implying
that this is what happened here, but just to show that it can be very difficult to stay married to a guy that loves you).
Laurie Hester
the happy squid wrote:
> Look dude, for all I know they may stil be together and this whole
> thing could be a rumor. But Ed wrote songs like "Wishlist" for Beth,
> which makes me wonder how hellish things could possibly have been for
> him.
When I first heard Wishlist, I thought it was a desperate song, not a love song. "I wish I was the verb 'to trust' and never let you down." And I also thought Hail, Hail
was a song about a marriage in trouble, not an ode to love.
Laurie
tony
> > Wow. You are so biased and yet you point your finger at me? Laurie, in
> > any female v male rights issue at the very least you are pessimistic
> > toward the male and overly optimistic toward the female.
>
> If I seem biased, it is only because I'm constantly challenging your sexist comments.
That's a bold statement, Laurie. There is nothing sexist with calling
an unfair advantage bull*hit. That's common sense. Sorry you disagree
but that doesn't make anyone a sexist it only makes you appear to be
that problem looking for a cause.
>
> > In your eyes
> > Beth isn't as successful as she could be. Why? Because she doesn't
> > earn as much as Ed?? (I know money really is the true indicator of
> > success in your eyes). Who are you to say she hasn't reached her
> > potential?
>
> Who knows what her potential is, and I don't mean monetarily (when have I ever said monetary success is the only
> kind?).
That's my interpretation after reading your arguments in the
prostitution thread. When you said if you had run into Ed working at
that gas station your impression of him would be that he is/was a
loser. Sure, you tried to recover and say that what you really meant
was that he wasn't living up to his potential or the like.
Irrespective, my *opinion* of you is that money is a driving force in
what determines success and failure in your heart.
> At the very least, Beth's pursual of Hovercraft, and going on tour seems to have been a source of
> contention between the two, and Eddie's own touring was curtailed because of his wish to spend more time with her.
Ahhh, so then one could conclude that Ed has sustained a loss of
productivity through his marriage. He couldn't tour as much and was
"held back" as you claim Beth has been by the marriage. True or not?
> I think she probably would have been headed for something in the way of record company work, since I believe she
> worked for a record company or something before she moved up to Seattle to be with Ed. So she did give up at least
> one "career".
This is ridiculous. You are basing your argument on the possibilities
of a person you've never met or spoken with. You haven't a clue the
coulda, woulda, shoulda's in Beth's life.
> Other than that, I don't know if she reached her potential. I'm saying that in most cases, the
> woman is the one who sacrifices her career for marriage, and you can't deny that.
Maybe in the 50's but not today. You are from a different generation
that I am, Laurie. I will say that in the past this was the case but
not anymore, not in the year 2000. Any person, today, who says they've
been held back by their significant other is speaking out of their
apathetic ass. In the age of opportunity I am sick to death of hearing
of excuses as to why someone hasn't reached their potential. You are
responsible for you! If you are being f**ked with then change the
situation. Male, female, black, white, it doesn't matter. You control
your own destiny. There are things that I am unhappy with in my own
life but guess who's to blame? Me.
> We can only quibble on how much
> sacrifice Beth actually made. But your argument was that she had a band, so she hadn't made any sacrifice, and I
> don't think you can make that conclusion.
Ugh...I don't even remember every point made in this marathon thread.
I'm saying she didn't curl up into a ball whenever her "master" didn't
need servicing. She clearly did things for herself. You are basing
arguments on hypothetical could be's of Beth's life. At least I am
basing my argument on fact. I can and will draw conclusions based on
FACT :)
> > > No, and I feel sorry for anyone who marries you. I guess she had better pursue her
> > > own financial security, which rules out the housewife and at-home mom possibility,
> > > since you aren't willing to share "your" money with her.
> >
> > Money is much less important to me than it is to you, I'm quite
> > certain.
>
> Money is not that important to me; I don't know where you get that idea. And if it's not that important to you,
> then why get so livid about a woman taking "your" money?
Because of the past men are now demonized in the event of divorce. I am
speaking on ideals and fairness here. Money? Ha! I'm a college
student with a part time job. You want the money I have? Feel free but
uh, I'm arguing for all men when I say that just because in this case Ed
was more successful marketing his own product that he shouldn't be
*obligated* to give benefits received for writing songs and performing
his songs. His is the key word here. Ed and Beth didn't own a lemonade
stand where she poured the water and added the mix. Pearl Jam is Ed and
the guys, not Ed, the guys, and Beth. If that's the case then well, ya
know, I was there for the band over the years and I am owed some
compensation too. Ridiculous.
> > But let's look at this block here, shall we? On one side you
> > have Ed who is a member of Pearl Jam. Pearl Jam was established before
> > the two wed. Beth was (is) a member of Hovercraft before the two wed.
> > That's clear, right?
>
> They were together as a couple for many years before they wed. And I don't think Hovercraft was around before they
> wed.
I'm well aware that Ed and Beth were an item long before their 1994
marriage. Hovercraft came along during the marriage? News to me but it
only hurts your case. Her marriage to Ed has clearly benefited her in
artistic ways - which has resulted in a job.
> > These are two distinct entities. There is no 6th
> > member of PJ named Beth. PJ's revenue belongs to the members of PJ and
> > Hovercrafts belongs to it's members. She has the means to support
> > herself but because Ed (due to his own abilities) makes more and
> > according to you he 'should' spilt it (in some manner) with Beth for the
> > reason that she somehow gave up a successful career in the unnamed
> > field. This is outrageous.
>
> Not just give up a career. But be there to emotionally support him through thick and thin. That's what a
> partnership is about. That's what a marriage is about. Single men don't live as long as married men; that's a
> fact. And I doubt PJ would have made it through their dark period in '95 if Ed hadn't had her. She may well have
> saved PJ.
Sure, she *might* have but again, Laurie, you ae basing all of this on
the hypothetical issue again. You have no facts and your argument is
based on speculation. 'Tis a good thing you don't practice law ;)
> > The law looks at the situation. It doesn't just say the male must in
> > every case give up his belongings for the crime of being a male.
>
> Maybe in your state. What I'm saying is that in progressive states, community property is the law. They split
> 50/50 any money that came into the household during the marriage. And look at you whining about the "crime of
> being a male"! There's no crime here.
The crime is that men are being demonized in our society by people who
spout off like yourself and claim the tables are not slanted in the
woman's favor. The crime of being male is that a woman at any point, if
she feels like being malicious can ruin a man's career/life by claiming
sexual harassment (in the workplace) or abuse (in the home). Now hold
your horses here - I'm talking about someone wanting to intentionally
make false claims against another. Let me try and make a case that I
have been sexually harassed by a woman and see how far it goes. LOL.
That is what I am talking about. If the marriage fails it's assumed to
be the males fault - urban legend I suppose. If the woman makes less
money it's assumed it's the males fault because she has to hold his hand
all day long and can't possibly do anything to further her career goals.
> This law is based on recognizing that women do contribute to a household,
> even if it's not monetarily. It doesn't mean the male is being "punished".
I'm not arguing that they don't. You make it seem like a man cannot be
"successful" if there is not a woman propping him up. Hmmmm, what about
all of the non homeless single men out there. How'd they do it? How
are they getting by? Yes, both men and women contribute in both money
and love but the defining difference is what they do on their own. That
is separate and unique. A working couple who both work 9-5 jobs...maybe
one is an engineer and the other is a systems analyst. Let's say their
salaries are similar. The couple saves for and purchases a house, all
the things in it and raise a family. 20 years later the couple files
for divorce. Should things be spilt? Absolutely. They've both brought
in an approximately equal share of income so material things (things
purchased with said income) should be divided up equally. That's the
deciding factor. This is the common sense approach to my argument.
> > My point here is we all want equality (regardless of what you think).
> > The problem with the means is it gets tainted with the thought that
> > 'well we're all equal *but* because you're a female you need an
> > additional helping hand.'
>
> No, the problem is, you think the existing situation is equal, and I think that women making 60 cents on the man's
> dollar is not. Women need assistance to reach equality because the status quo is not equal.
I'm very interested in knowing about this society where women earn 3/5 a
males salary. Where I work all employees are responsible for what they
make. Women and men are free to earn what they can. If you need help
in figuring out what I am talking about I'll tell you, it's called
serving. I have no brothers or sister so I cannot speak of them. The
parents. My mother is an office manager in a hospital and runs the
operations for 5 doctors. She holds a job that was previously held by
another woman. Not exactly sure what her salary is but I think it's
necessary to state it is a "successful" position and she did this
without a college degree. My father is a foreman in one of the big
three auto companies. His hourly rate is bargained for by the UAW who
represents all employees, men, women, and ethnic minorities as well.
All will earn an amount based upon their seniority and position. How
about the university I attend. Both men and women teach various subject
at this institution. The pay is set based upon credit hours taught,
degree level and whether or not the professor/lecturer is tenured.
There is no male or female pay rate here either - or in any of the
places I've spoken about. Where is this vacuum where equally qualified
women earn 2/5 less than a man?
> > That doesn't spell equality - that says
> > "subsidize." Having said that, and clarifying that equality truly means
> > equal opportunity, why did Beth not have an equal opportunity?
>
> Because she was at the very least limited to pursuing something in Seattle, where her husband chose to live, and
> that would give her the freedom to work around his band schedule. That kind of rules out 99% of all jobs, doesn't
> it?
Obviously....(??)
> > > How do you know what she could have been?
> >
> > My point as well. You have no idea either so how can you carry on that
> > she isn't where she wants to be?
>
> If she were all that happy, you'd think she might have stayed with Ed.
Does anyone of us know the reasons behind their split? Is that even
relevant at this point?
> > Because Laurie, and I've already gone over this, at the very least
> > you'll hold an optimistic view for the female and assume some ill intent
> > on the part of the male. That's been my experience from reading your
> > posts. You are a problem looking for a cause.
>
> Again, I only end up arguing against sexist comments which people like you make, so it kind of looks like that's my
> only focus in life.
News flash: It's not sexist to recognize that you never give the
benefit of the doubt in a dispute between men and women to anyone but
the women in question. That's a statement based on observation and by
all means spark up a thread and ask the readers of ampj if I am off
base. Call me a sexist? Please! You might want to do a little
consulting so you can discover it is you with the narrow shades.
> But hell, I'll argue most any subject under the sun which I'm passionate about. I don't go
> around bashing males. I have two sons, and I'm very careful not to say anything that could be interpreted even by
> you, as male bashing.
True, Laurie, I've never read a thread authored by you that declares, "I
hate men, they suck..." but it's the subtleties and it's my opinion of
you in the event of a question of integrity or honesty and be it a
dispute between members of the opposite sex, you'll be there serving as
the ambulance chaser for the female of the species. Right or wrong.
> >
> > Ahhhh, yes, yes, yes, I said in cases like this a woman in the total
> > right to demand support. So now are we implying that Ed abused her?
> > Held her back because that's what all men obviously do. See, once again
> > you have taken the pessimistic view toward the man. Is this true in
> > some cases? Probably. Is this true with our favorite couple here?
> > Highly unlikely.
>
> You cut out that comment by you, which is what I responded to above. I responded to your comment that I was bitter
> about this. So I was explaining why I was not bitter. I was not implying that there was any abuse in Ed's
> marriage. You've once again put words in my mouth through selective snipping.
Every time I make a connection in your logic trail you call it putting
words into your mouth. I'm beginning to believe that anytime I find out
what's in your heart you call it "putting words into my mouth." What
did I say above, hmm? Let me bring it on down... "So now are we
implying that Ed abused her?" Oh, lookie there, that would be a
question. Can you say "question?" A question is not a declaration. I
did not diagnose. I asked you if you were implying something. Asking
is not putting words into anyone's mouth. One more thing. I snip
irrelevant portions and respond to the block. If it was snipped, I was
not commenting on that.
> > Well, if I had won your approval I'd be truly sad.
>
> You're obviously intelligent, so I'm just encouraging you to present good arguments, rather than resort to
> name-calling and putting words in my mouth.
I first read this and though, well, battle well fought but you still
want to hold onto this notion that I am putting words into your mouth
and name calling. Huh!? I see, but calling me a sexist for standing up
for equality, and that means equal treatment for ALL and not *just* the
female, is not? Oh dear, here it comes, the "H-word", hypocrite.
<Sigh>
I think I've sucked up enough bandwidth for one post.
love,
Laurie Hester
tony wrote:
>
> > Who knows what her potential is, and I don't mean monetarily (when have I ever said monetary success is the only
> > kind?).
>
> That's my interpretation after reading your arguments in the
> prostitution thread. When you said if you had run into Ed working at
> that gas station your impression of him would be that he is/was a
> loser. Sure, you tried to recover and say that what you really meant
> was that he wasn't living up to his potential or the like.
> Irrespective, my *opinion* of you is that money is a driving force in
> what determines success and failure in your heart.
Then why would I respect a struggling artist or musician who is not making money? But that's okay. I've explained my
thoughts on that thread so many times even LeAnn finally understood what I meant, but you just want to think bad about
me. It doesn't matter if you think that about me, but I will correct you if you say false things about me publicly.
>
>
> > At the very least, Beth's pursual of Hovercraft, and going on tour seems to have been a source of
> > contention between the two, and Eddie's own touring was curtailed because of his wish to spend more time with her.
>
> Ahhh, so then one could conclude that Ed has sustained a loss of
> productivity through his marriage. He couldn't tour as much and was
> "held back" as you claim Beth has been by the marriage. True or not?
Absolutely. Don't you agree that PJ would have been a lot bigger if they'd toured more? Regardless, they might not have
been at all, if not for Beth.
>
> > Other than that, I don't know if she reached her potential. I'm saying that in most cases, the
> > woman is the one who sacrifices her career for marriage, and you can't deny that.
>
> Maybe in the 50's but not today.
That's even more true today, with both of a couple having careers. If one gets transferred, it's usually the woman who
sacrifices. If one has to take a break to stay with the children while they are young, it's usually the woman.
> You are from a different generation
> that I am, Laurie. I will say that in the past this was the case but
> not anymore, not in the year 2000. Any person, today, who says they've
> been held back by their significant other is speaking out of their
> apathetic ass.
Not held back, but really, two careers is very difficult. Do you think that if I were married, my husband would be able
to pursue his career while following me to Scotland, Seattle or wherever I end up next? Or would I give up my promotions
to stay in the Bay Area with him?
> In the age of opportunity I am sick to death of hearing
> of excuses as to why someone hasn't reached their potential. You are
> responsible for you! If you are being f**ked with then change the
> situation. Male, female, black, white, it doesn't matter. You control
> your own destiny. There are things that I am unhappy with in my own
> life but guess who's to blame? Me.
Sometimes women are perfectly willing to make the sacrifice, because they make a pact with their husband out of love. If
that marriage falls apart, she deserves half of the yield of that marriage just as he does, because they both contribute
to the marriage. You seem to think it's punishment of the male to split the marital assets, but that's your chip on your
shoulder. It's not punishment, it's not blame, it's just acknowledging that both parties in a marriage are contributing,
even if the money is coming mostly from one party.
>
> > Money is not that important to me; I don't know where you get that idea. And if it's not that important to you,
> > then why get so livid about a woman taking "your" money?
>
> Because of the past men are now demonized in the event of divorce. I am
> speaking on ideals and fairness here. Money? Ha! I'm a college
> student with a part time job. You want the money I have? Feel free but
> uh, I'm arguing for all men when I say that just because in this case Ed
> was more successful marketing his own product that he shouldn't be
> *obligated* to give benefits received for writing songs and performing
> his songs. His is the key word here. Ed and Beth didn't own a lemonade
> stand where she poured the water and added the mix. Pearl Jam is Ed and
> the guys, not Ed, the guys, and Beth. If that's the case then well, ya
> know, I was there for the band over the years and I am owed some
> compensation too. Ridiculous.
I doubt seriously that Ed was aware of you...however, if he was on the verge of quitting the band and/or committing
suicide as Kurt did, and her love pulled him through this dark period, then I'd say she was pouring the water. If she
inspired many of his songs, then that is a contribution. Your problem is that you only think of a contribution to a
marriage as a financial one. There's more to a relationship.
>
> I'm well aware that Ed and Beth were an item long before their 1994
> marriage. Hovercraft came along during the marriage? News to me but it
> only hurts your case. Her marriage to Ed has clearly benefited her in
> artistic ways - which has resulted in a job.
I seriously doubt she has profited from Hovercraft. I think it was an attempt to have something of her own, something
which she could fit in PJ's down time.
> Sure, she *might* have but again, Laurie, you ae basing all of this on
> the hypothetical issue again. You have no facts and your argument is
> based on speculation. 'Tis a good thing you don't practice law ;)
Of course it's speculation, and Ed and Beth are probably a bad example. But the point is still true that women
contribute to a marriage, even if it's not monetarily.
>
> > Maybe in your state. What I'm saying is that in progressive states, community property is the law. They split
> > 50/50 any money that came into the household during the marriage. And look at you whining about the "crime of
> > being a male"! There's no crime here.
>
> The crime is that men are being demonized in our society by people who
> spout off like yourself and claim the tables are not slanted in the
> woman's favor.
By all statistics, the tables are extremely slanted in men's favor. Divorce women end up with something like 1/4 of the
income they previously had, while men enjoy 80% of their former income. That's why the welfare rolls are full of single
mothers, not divorced fathers. Sure, the odds are stacked against the men gaining custody of the children, but that's a
different argument. Financially, divorce benefits men much more than women, and in the work world, men have a great
advantage. How do you claim men are demonized and taken advantage of? What the heck are you talking about?
> The crime of being male is that a woman at any point, if
> she feels like being malicious can ruin a man's career/life by claiming
> sexual harassment (in the workplace) or abuse (in the home).
Right, like that happens one percent as much as women are *actually* harassed and abused. Poor men. No one is saying
that all men abuse their women, but tony, I hate to tell you...it happens quite often. If it bothers you, then why not
work to educate men. But don't accuse me, who is only stating facts, of demonizing men. They do it to themselves.
It's like I read a statistic that one third of all black males are in prison or on parole. That doesn't give policemen
the excuse to treat a black male like a criminal, but if black males don't like that statistic, it's not the
statistician's fault.
> Now hold
> your horses here - I'm talking about someone wanting to intentionally
> make false claims against another. Let me try and make a case that I
> have been sexually harassed by a woman and see how far it goes. LOL.
Because most women don't do that; it's hard to believe. It's like accusing Bill Gates of stealing a CD from a store.
Who's going to believe you?
>
> That is what I am talking about. If the marriage fails it's assumed to
> be the males fault - urban legend I suppose.
I don't think anyone believes that; unless the woman leaves because of abuse. If there's no abuse, then there's always
blame on both sides.
> If the woman makes less
> money it's assumed it's the males fault because she has to hold his hand
> all day long and can't possibly do anything to further her career goals.
>
> > This law is based on recognizing that women do contribute to a household,
> > even if it's not monetarily. It doesn't mean the male is being "punished".
>
> I'm not arguing that they don't. You make it seem like a man cannot be
> "successful" if there is not a woman propping him up.
Let's try just arguing what you and I say, instead of you putting words in my mouth?
> Hmmmm, what about
> all of the non homeless single men out there. How'd they do it? How
> are they getting by?
Not sure I see your point here.
> Yes, both men and women contribute in both money
> and love but the defining difference is what they do on their own. That
> is separate and unique. A working couple who both work 9-5 jobs...maybe
> one is an engineer and the other is a systems analyst. Let's say their
> salaries are similar. The couple saves for and purchases a house, all
> the things in it and raise a family. 20 years later the couple files
> for divorce. Should things be spilt? Absolutely. They've both brought
> in an approximately equal share of income so material things (things
> purchased with said income) should be divided up equally. That's the
> deciding factor. This is the common sense approach to my argument.
But that's not usually the case. Usually the woman will stay home a few years to raise the kids. Then she goes back to
her profession only to find that she's no longer on a track for promotion. Or the man gets transferred, and she's got to
start over in a new city, a new job. It's very disrupting to a career. Or let's say the woman makes much more money
than her husband. You seem to think that gives her control over the money. When I was married, I was making more than
twice what my husband was making, but I considered it our money, not mine, and we made financial decisions together. And
when we got divorced, we split our assets evenly, after subtracting what we both brought to the marriage. It's a
partnership, not a business.
>
>
> > > My point here is we all want equality (regardless of what you think).
> > > The problem with the means is it gets tainted with the thought that
> > > 'well we're all equal *but* because you're a female you need an
> > > additional helping hand.'
> >
> > No, the problem is, you think the existing situation is equal, and I think that women making 60 cents on the man's
> > dollar is not. Women need assistance to reach equality because the status quo is not equal.
>
> I'm very interested in knowing about this society where women earn 3/5 a
> males salary. Where I work all employees are responsible for what they
> make. Women and men are free to earn what they can. If you need help
> in figuring out what I am talking about I'll tell you, it's called
> serving.
I'm talking more about professionals, not unskilled labor. The statistics show that, even when you account for
experience, women make significantly less money for the same job. This is here, in America.
> I have no brothers or sister so I cannot speak of them. The
> parents. My mother is an office manager in a hospital and runs the
> operations for 5 doctors. She holds a job that was previously held by
> another woman. Not exactly sure what her salary is but I think it's
> necessary to state it is a "successful" position and she did this
> without a college degree. My father is a foreman in one of the big
> three auto companies. His hourly rate is bargained for by the UAW who
> represents all employees, men, women, and ethnic minorities as well.
> All will earn an amount based upon their seniority and position.
Well, I don't know if your mother has as much experience as your father, but it sounds like they have similar positions
as middle management. Does your father make more money? There are many ways to disguise the discrepancies. For
example, your mother may find that her position in another hospital, which has always been held by a man, would pay
more. In a company where I worked, the male project manager quit because he got a job paying more. The president only
interviewed women for his replacement, because he said he couldn't afford a man. And I believe it's true. That position
in other companies would have paid more than he had to offer. Now you could argue that the woman he hired didn't have to
work for less money because she's responsible for herself, but then it's harder for women to get managerial positions, so
they generally have to settle for less money.
> How
> about the university I attend. Both men and women teach various subject
> at this institution. The pay is set based upon credit hours taught,
> degree level and whether or not the professor/lecturer is tenured.
This is how it works in colleges. Women are denied tenure, so they earn less.
>
> There is no male or female pay rate here either - or in any of the
> places I've spoken about. Where is this vacuum where equally qualified
> women earn 2/5 less than a man?
In the real world.
>
>
> > > That doesn't spell equality - that says
> > > "subsidize." Having said that, and clarifying that equality truly means
> > > equal opportunity, why did Beth not have an equal opportunity?
> >
> > Because she was at the very least limited to pursuing something in Seattle, where her husband chose to live, and
> > that would give her the freedom to work around his band schedule. That kind of rules out 99% of all jobs, doesn't
> > it?
>
> Obviously....(??)
>
> > But hell, I'll argue most any subject under the sun which I'm passionate about. I don't go
> > around bashing males. I have two sons, and I'm very careful not to say anything that could be interpreted even by
> > you, as male bashing.
>
> True, Laurie, I've never read a thread authored by you that declares, "I
> hate men, they suck..." but it's the subtleties and it's my opinion of
> you in the event of a question of integrity or honesty and be it a
> dispute between members of the opposite sex, you'll be there serving as
> the ambulance chaser for the female of the species. Right or wrong.
Only in response to sexist statements.
>
> >
> > You're obviously intelligent, so I'm just encouraging you to present good arguments, rather than resort to
> > name-calling and putting words in my mouth.
>
> I first read this and though, well, battle well fought but you still
> want to hold onto this notion that I am putting words into your mouth
> and name calling. Huh!? I see, but calling me a sexist for standing up
> for equality, and that means equal treatment for ALL and not *just* the
> female, is not?
No, I call you a sexist when you make statements like "it's HIS money, why should she get some of it" or "the tables are
slanted in the woman's favor" or "men are being demonized" or that women don't contribute equally to a marriage; that it
only counts who earned the money. And that's only in this post.
Laurie
In Hiding
money? But that's okay. I've explained my
thoughts on that thread so many times even LeAnn finally understood what I
meant, but you just want to think bad about
me. It doesn't matter if you think that about me, but I will correct you if
you say false things about me publicly.
<<
(Even LeAnn? Oh, NICE ONE. And I'll take the bait...)
WHOA...I understood what you meant? I understood that you have a very
tangled path to your set of rules on what constitutes meaningful employment
and fulfilling one's potential; "potential" being an occupation you deem
worthy of that person based on what you happen to see them as capable of
doing and appropriate for that moment in their lives. If I remember
correctly, you found it honorable to be a struggling artist or musician
making little or no money, but not so honorable to work in a gas station --
even though that's precisely what gave EV the opportunity to chase his music
career -- until someone pointed out the...hypocrisy of that. (Are you trying
to say that one incident completely rewired the way you see people as
represented by their occupations?!) I refuse to discuss the modeling vs.
prostitution thing anymore because I find your opinions on that to be just
wrong in my eyes -- but you're certainly entitled to them as long as you
realize they are your opinions and not fact. No offense, Laurie, but you
really have a complex set of standards for what you consider to be an
acceptable way for people to make a living. And from what you've said here,
your son notwithstanding, it's pretty judgmental against jobs that aren't
extremely "successful," where success equals money.
And btw, I think it's interesting that much like myself, Tony seems to take
a lot of what you write "out of context" and "puts words in your mouth." I
find it hard to believe a person's words could become that twisted over and
over...unless what they were saying didn't make sense. Actually, in reading
some of your posts, it seems like you argue a point from a certain angle, so
it is implied or inferred that you believe in what you're saying. Then when
some poor fool comes along and reads your post and tries to put the pieces
together and attempts to interpret what you were saying in a broader sense,
we're always wrong. We've always misunderstood you, or taken you out of
context, or put words in your mouth. How odd.
[pardon me, tony, while I jump into this fray...]
>>Absolutely. Don't you agree that PJ would have been a lot bigger if
they'd toured more? Regardless, they might not have
been at all, if not for Beth.<<
Huh? Wha? PJ 'bigger' if they'd toured more? No. Not remarkably, anyway.
Maybe the would have sold a few more tshirts but that's not success, is it?
That's just money. They might have been bigger if they'd done videos or
marketed their music to radio or put themselves in the media spotlight more
intentionally, but touring? Naaah. And I don't think it was Beth who kept
them from doing videos. Or marketing themselves differently. And, btw, it
is PURE speculation on your part to give Beth credit for creating or
maintaining any part of Pearl Jam, and I find it incredibly disrespectful to
the people who actually ARE a part of that band. I gotta ask this
again...Laurie, do you know Beth or Ed personally? I don't believe you do.
And no amount of observation from the outside can BEGIN to explain the
intricacies of their relationship. No one in this newsgroup that I've seen
post could explain what kept them together or what broke them apart. And
yes, I know all about the "Beth cheated on him" explanation; and I even
believe it to be true. However, what I'm saying is, no one knows how it GOT
to that point. Maybe she's cheated all along. Maybe he has, too. Maybe
he's a jerk. Maybe she is too. Maybe, maybe, maybe.
LeAnn
JettKarma
>
>
>the happy squid wrote:
>
>> Look dude, for all I know they may stil be together and this whole
>> thing could be a rumor. But Ed wrote songs like "Wishlist" for Beth,
>> which makes me wonder how hellish things could possibly have been for
>> him.
>
>When I first heard Wishlist, I thought it was a desperate song, not a love song. "I wish I was the verb 'to trust' and never let you down." And I also thought Hail, Hail
>was a song about a marriage in trouble, not an ode to love.
>
>Laurie
>
***********************************************
Hail, Hail I always took to be about a relationship in trouble. The
line about being bound out of obligation is really powerful, and the
image of being bandaged hand-in-hand is the doubly so.
For some odd reason, I've always thought that the beautiful line about
being the verb "to trust" was really more of a self-commentary from
Ed. I mean, it doesn't come across as an observation about another.
Wishlist seems very Ed-centric--things he wishes he were, things he
wishes for himself. I don't know what kind of trust he's talking
about, but I really think that line applies to him. Trust involves a
lot more than sexual fidelity.....
Oh, well. My 2 cents' worth. :)
--Jett
tony
>
> Then why would I respect a struggling artist or musician who is not making money? But that's okay.
It's OK *if* you knew that about them. Would you have known that Ed was
in Bad Radio and working on his music career? Probably not unless he
asked you come and check out his gig after he asked, "regular or
premium?"
> I've explained my
> thoughts on that thread so many times even LeAnn finally understood what I meant, but you just want to think bad about
> me. It doesn't matter if you think that about me, but I will correct you if you say false things about me publicly.
Oh, please don't go out like a martyr. You're starting to sound like
OJ.
> > Ahhh, so then one could conclude that Ed has sustained a loss of
> > productivity through his marriage. He couldn't tour as much and was
> > "held back" as you claim Beth has been by the marriage. True or not?
>
> Absolutely. Don't you agree that PJ would have been a lot bigger if they'd toured more? Regardless, they might not have
> been at all, if not for Beth.
Yes. No. Maybe. It doesn't matter because this isn't a little choose
your own adventure book or a video game that you can just hit the
restart button. Speculating on this is pointless. Ed could have became
an actor and Beth might have gone into medicine and discovered a cure
for AIDS....
> > > Other than that, I don't know if she reached her potential. I'm saying that in most cases, the
> > > woman is the one who sacrifices her career for marriage, and you can't deny that.
> >
> > Maybe in the 50's but not today.
>
> That's even more true today, with both of a couple having careers. If one gets transferred, it's usually the woman who
> sacrifices.
You know Laurie, just where are these erroneous statistics coming from?
How many women do you know that this is the case with? I can think of a
handful of couples who had to make that choice and the tally isn't what
you profess here. It's pretty even steven. I'm open to accept that all
I know is wrong...but why is that I just don't see this phenomenon
happening *today*?
> If one has to take a break to stay with the children while they are young, it's > usually the woman.
That is up to the family to decide. If the woman decides to stay back
then it's her decision. If her husband demands that she stay back then,
uh, he's a real swell guy, eh? Maybe she should let him go his separate
way.
> > You are from a different generation
> > that I am, Laurie. I will say that in the past this was the case but
> > not anymore, not in the year 2000. Any person, today, who says they've
> > been held back by their significant other is speaking out of their
> > apathetic ass.
>
> Not held back, but really, two careers is very difficult. Do you think that if I were married, my husband would be able
> to pursue his career while following me to Scotland, Seattle or wherever I end up next? Or would I give up my promotions
> to stay in the Bay Area with him?
hmmm...I didn't think of that. Well you've got me. I didn't know that
life was uncertain and that things don't always operate like Fantasy
Island. What you do is what works for you. Perhaps if you have a
profession that is likely to require travel, consider that prior to
getting married. If you are married and take a job that may require
travel consider that too. What are the ramifications of me taking the
job in the traveling circus?? Will it cause strife? Don't start
whining over spilt milk then expect me to fold on what is still a
personal decision regarding your own destiny. Hammer it out between the
spouses.
> > In the age of opportunity I am sick to death of hearing
> > of excuses as to why someone hasn't reached their potential. You are
> > responsible for you! If you are being f**ked with then change the
> > situation. Male, female, black, white, it doesn't matter. You control
> > your own destiny. There are things that I am unhappy with in my own
> > life but guess who's to blame? Me.
>
> Sometimes women are perfectly willing to make the sacrifice, because they make a pact with their husband out of love.
Why are you so unwilling to say the same for the man? Is he not able to
make sacrifices for his wife? It's always a one way road with you. You
are not a critical thinker, Laurie. All you do is continue to bolster
your argument by providing a typical bias.
> If
> that marriage falls apart, she deserves half of the yield of that marriage just as he does, because they both contribute
> to the marriage.
They both contributed to the companionship in the end. That is it. He
should not get her family heirlooms nor should he get the house in the
Hamptons if he bags groceries.
> You seem to think it's punishment of the male to split the marital assets, but that's your chip on your
> shoulder.
No, it's your inability to engage in discussion and interpretation.
It not a chip it a fairness quotient. Mathematics? Yeah, it's my minor
but I know a thing or two about numbers. Read this carefully and ask
yourself if this is sooooo unfair of me to say. Enter a couple. If one
person
earns 100K per year and the other earns 20K is it fair to split the
assets evenly? Hell no! That's my point. If there are extenuating
circumstances which prove the lower wage earner gave up considerable
opportunities or that this person was directly responsible for the
spouses much higher income then *yes,* something more should be provided
to this trooper be it male or female.
> It's not punishment, it's not blame, it's just acknowledging that both parties in a marriage are contributing,
> even if the money is coming mostly from one party.
It's subsidizing a break up. You want to paint the picture that women
*always* earn less, that they *always* make *more* concessions. Laurie,
I think you are the sexist here.
> I doubt seriously that Ed was aware of you...however, if he was on the verge of quitting the band and/or committing
> suicide as Kurt did, and her love pulled him through this dark period, then I'd say she was pouring the water. If she
> inspired many of his songs, then that is a contribution. Your problem is that you only think of a contribution to a
> marriage as a financial one.
Not at all but when you want to split up material items which were
purchased not with love, not with companionship but with physical money,
it is a different issue. What is so wrong with saying you take your
stuff and I take my stuff. We bought this house house and you earn 20%
more then I do therefore you should get a larger share of the sale. How
is that unfair? How does this not make sense?
> >
> > I'm well aware that Ed and Beth were an item long before their 1994
> > marriage. Hovercraft came along during the marriage? News to me but it
> > only hurts your case. Her marriage to Ed has clearly benefited her in
> > artistic ways - which has resulted in a job.
>
> I seriously doubt she has profited from Hovercraft. I think it was an attempt to have > something of her own, something which she could fit in PJ's down time.
>
At this point I don't think I can do anything to convince you that Beth
was anything but in not control of her life and pursuits, can I? You
are hell-bent on believing that Beth's career has flopped because she
made great sacrifices for her husband. I'm telling you that all of your
arguments are hypothetical yet you want to see actual results based on
one word, "maybe."
> > Sure, she *might* have but again, Laurie, you ae basing all of this on
> > the hypothetical issue again. You have no facts and your argument is
> > based on speculation. 'Tis a good thing you don't practice law ;)
>
> Of course it's speculation, and Ed and Beth are probably a bad example. But the point is still true that women
> contribute to a marriage, even if it's not monetarily.
And why in the f**k doesn't the man contribute? Why is he just the all
consuming, big money making machine? This is exactly what I have been
saying. You never consider this. It's always the benefit of the doubt
to the female and the burden of proof lies on the man. I've stated that
you should look to the figures. You want to spilt up tangibles then
figure out who bought those tangibles and give them accordingly. The
woman gives love and care to the relationship. So does her husband,
does he not?
> > The crime is that men are being demonized in our society by people who
> > spout off like yourself and claim the tables are not slanted in the
> > woman's favor.
>
> By all statistics, the tables are extremely slanted in men's favor. Divorce women end up with something like 1/4 of the
> income they previously had, while men enjoy 80% of their former income.
So these divorced women all lose their jobs and are forced to start back
at a 75% pay cut? I'm not buying that for a second. This must exist in
the vacuum society you spoke of in the last post.
> That's why the welfare rolls are full of single mothers, not divorced fathers.
> Sure, the odds are stacked against the men gaining custody of the children, but that's > a different argument.
No it's probably a good for making a connection between welfare moms and
welfare dads. Quite simply put, the woman is supporting herself and her
children. If the man is not giving child support he is a piece of trash
for placing that burden on the woman and their children.
> Financially, divorce benefits men much more than women, and in the work world, men have a great
> advantage. How do you claim men are demonized and taken advantage of? What the heck are you talking about?
Read below from my last post...
> > The crime of being male is that a woman at any point, if
> > she feels like being malicious can ruin a man's career/life by claiming
> > sexual harassment (in the workplace) or abuse (in the home).
there we are :) Demonized.
I'd also like to add that yes, since you brought it up, the custody
issue. Why are men seemingly unfit to be a single parent unless the
mother is crack whore or something? This is the slanted table of which
I speak.
> Right, like that happens one percent as much as women are *actually* harassed and >abused. Poor men.
But it happens. And I don't really care about Lucy from Iowa who is too
afraid to call the leech out who is legitimately harassing her. Justice
could be served. What I direct my attention to is a situation where a
woman only needs to cry harassment and a truckload of lawsuits follows.
In a his word against her word in court how does that all play out?
That is the tilt (one of them) I am talking about. Can you deny
this?
> No one is saying
> that all men abuse their women, but tony, I hate to tell you...it happens quite often.
I agree, it happens sometimes. When you say "often" it implies more
likely than not. Do you mean to tell me that a majority of marriages
are abusive ones? I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm drawing on
your point and calling you out on a bulls#it statement. Do you believe
this is the case, that more often than not a marriage is an abusive one
at the hands of the male?
> If it bothers you, then why not work to educate men. But don't
>accuse me, who is only stating facts, of demonizing men. They do it to
> themselves.
They do it and you do. You do it by saying 'something' happens often
and
'that' happens all the time. Where are these facts? You begin to
create
this little profile of the male gender as more likely than not to act a
specific way. When you try to show that this act is a negative or
destructive one that is
the demonization process. When you unfairly characterize an entire
group of people in a negative way you are demonizing them.
> It's like I read a statistic that one third of all black males are in prison or on parole. That doesn't give policemen
> the excuse to treat a black male like a criminal, but if black males don't like that statistic, it's not the
> statistician's fault.
True. But I think you are doing just what the racist cop is only toward
men in general. Wake up and smell your own sexist attitude.
>
> > Now hold
> > your horses here - I'm talking about someone wanting to intentionally
> > make false claims against another. Let me try and make a case that I
> > have been sexually harassed by a woman and see how far it goes. LOL.
>
> Because most women don't do that; it's hard to believe.
Ahhhh...here is another case of you being so unbelievably optimistic for
all women without consideration. A woman would never do that because we
operate with a much higher standard of integrity, she thinks. There are
never any incidents like the ones from the movie Disclosure, are there?
I'm willing to say it happens on both sides, but not you. Again, who is
the sexist, Laurie? Who is the one only seeing one side of the story?
> It's like accusing Bill Gates of stealing a CD from a store.
> Who's going to believe you?
Because you've already demonized men to be the perpetrator and never
the victim.
> > If the woman makes less
> > money it's assumed it's the males fault because she has to hold his hand
> > all day long and can't possibly do anything to further her career goals.
> >
> > > This law is based on recognizing that women do contribute to a household,
> > > even if it's not monetarily. It doesn't mean the male is being "punished".
> >
> > I'm not arguing that they don't. You make it seem like a man cannot be
> > "successful" if there is not a woman propping him up.
>
> Let's try just arguing what you and I say, instead of you putting words in my mouth?
There were no words put anywhere but on the screens of these computers.
Again, let me point out what I've said. Ya know, this is becoming
rather annoying. "You make it seem like a man cannot be "successful" if
there is not a woman propping him up." That is anything but putting
words in your mouth. I have to wonder about your education when you get
so pissy about someone stating a hypothesis.
> > Hmmmm, what about
> > all of the non homeless single men out there. How'd they do it? How
> > are they getting by?
>
> Not sure I see your point here.
It will be lost I'm sure. Forget it.
>
> > Yes, both men and women contribute in both money
> > and love but the defining difference is what they do on their own. That
> > is separate and unique. A working couple who both work 9-5 jobs...maybe
> > one is an engineer and the other is a systems analyst. Let's say their
> > salaries are similar. The couple saves for and purchases a house, all
> > the things in it and raise a family. 20 years later the couple files
> > for divorce. Should things be spilt? Absolutely. They've both brought
> > in an approximately equal share of income so material things (things
> > purchased with said income) should be divided up equally. That's the
> > deciding factor. This is the common sense approach to my argument.
>
> But that's not usually the case. Usually the woman will stay home a few years to raise the kids. Then she goes back to
> her profession only to find that she's no longer on a track for promotion. Or the man gets transferred, and she's got to
> start over in a new city, a new job. It's very disrupting to a career.
I realize you are from a different time and an 'old skool' approach but
that is not the norm anymore. Typically a woman will have her child,
take 3 months off and then it's back to her same job/position. The
child
spends his or her day with a nanny. This is what I know to be a
reality. Most people my age who are having kids operate like this. Was
I raised like that? No, but I was a child in the 70s/80s too.
> Or let's say the woman makes much more money
> than her husband. You seem to think that gives her control over the money.
Not *the* money but control over her share of it and her share of things
bought over the course of time. See, if that had been my statement this
is where you'd cry, "but you are putting words into my mouth..." It's a
talking point and I'm apparently a better sport then you :)
> When I was married, I was making more than
> twice what my husband was making, but I considered it our money, not mine, and we made > financial decisions together. And when we got divorced, we split our assets evenly, > after subtracting what we both brought to the marriage. It's a partnership, not a > business.
That's mighty nifty of you to do and is all well and good. Thing is
there shouldn't be a law requiring *you,* the trump holding, big bank
girl to subsidize the other. The law should be a firm guideline with
you and yours to fill in the rest.
> > > No, the problem is, you think the existing situation is equal, and I think that women making 60 cents on the man's
> > > dollar is not. Women need assistance to reach equality because the status quo is not equal.
> >
> > I'm very interested in knowing about this society where women earn 3/5 a
> > males salary. Where I work all employees are responsible for what they
> > make. Women and men are free to earn what they can. If you need help
> > in figuring out what I am talking about I'll tell you, it's called
> > serving.
>
> I'm talking more about professionals, not unskilled labor. The statistics show that, even when you account for
> experience, women make significantly less money for the same job. This is here, in America.
I still disagree that it's all that polar in the professional world but
still, your statement about the status quo didn't mention the other
sector of the workforce. You made a sweeping statement about the
climate of pay in society as a whole. Bravo, bravo... Last time,
OK....demonization. Why? Because some half wit reading the last post
might accept your statement as fact and tell someone else how women earn
sixty cents on the male dollar. And so it goes...
> > I have no brothers or sister so I cannot speak of them. The
> > parents. My mother is an office manager in a hospital and runs the
> > operations for 5 doctors. She holds a job that was previously held by
> > another woman. Not exactly sure what her salary is but I think it's
> > necessary to state it is a "successful" position and she did this
> > without a college degree. My father is a foreman in one of the big
> > three auto companies. His hourly rate is bargained for by the UAW who
> > represents all employees, men, women, and ethnic minorities as well.
> > All will earn an amount based upon their seniority and position.
>
> Well, I don't know if your mother has as much experience as your father,
no
> but it sounds like they have similar positions
> as middle management. Does your father make more money?
To be honest I think they are very similar. I'll wager that my dad
earns more but these are different industries so comparing the two as
simply "middle management" isn't very accurate. His job involves a
greater health risk, is physically demanding, and is hourly. Hers is
salaried and very antiseptic.
> There are many ways to disguise the discrepancies. For
> example, your mother may find that her position in another hospital, which has always been held by a man, would pay
> more.
Maybe I'll shoot her an email and ask. I play fair.
> In a company where I worked, the male project manager quit because he got a job paying > more. The president only interviewed women for his replacement, because he said he > couldn't afford a man. And I believe it's true.
What's wrong with just paying anyone the same rate that the guy was
making? If this guy was earning rate X and he was a man, that's a man
making the same rate X that is being offered to a new hire - obviously
one of the all female applicants.
> That position
> in other companies would have paid more than he had to offer. Now you could argue that the woman he hired didn't have to
> work for less money because she's responsible for herself, but then it's harder for women to get managerial positions, so
> they generally have to settle for less money.
Until I see a respectable study done that is not covered with bias I'm
not believing it.
> > How
> > about the university I attend. Both men and women teach various subject
> > at this institution. The pay is set based upon credit hours taught,
> > degree level and whether or not the professor/lecturer is tenured.
>
> This is how it works in colleges. Women are denied tenure, so they earn less.
What colleges have you gone to? One of those degree overnight
operations? This is not true, there are a number of tenured female
professors at my University.
> >
> > There is no male or female pay rate here either - or in any of the
> > places I've spoken about. Where is this vacuum where equally qualified
> > women earn 2/5 less than a man?
>
> In the real world.
I doubt it (going back to playing with Legos in my fake world). At
least not on the large scale you project. Maybe at Bubba's Archery in
the hills but not in the "real world."
> > True, Laurie, I've never read a thread authored by you that declares, "I
> > hate men, they suck..." but it's the subtleties and it's my opinion of
> > you in the event of a question of integrity or honesty and be it a
> > dispute between members of the opposite sex, you'll be there serving as
> > the ambulance chaser for the female of the species. Right or wrong.
>
> Only in response to sexist statements.
In response to any statement that basically says men have rights too,
you are there to declare it a sexist statement. Yes, you are there to
show us
we are evil glass ceiling installing beasts who will not allow women to
reach their career goals. How dare I stand up and say that's not true.
Please, smack my hand again...
> > >
> > > You're obviously intelligent, so I'm just encouraging you to present good arguments, rather than resort to
> > > name-calling and putting words in my mouth.
> >
> > I first read this and though, well, battle well fought but you still
> > want to hold onto this notion that I am putting words into your mouth
> > and name calling. Huh!? I see, but calling me a sexist for standing up
> > for equality, and that means equal treatment for ALL and not *just* the
> > female, is not?
>
> No, I call you a sexist when you make statements like "it's HIS money, why should she get some of it"
Did I say that, *verbatim?* Please find the message for me. Thank
you! Ok, now that you're back and you didn't find it I'll tell you
something. I didn't say that, Laurie "Slandering" Hester. So tell me
again, who is name calling here? Who is making an ill equipted argument
based on the hypotheticals of her emotions? Who is unwilling to
consider the other side of the coin. Hi, my name is Laurie!
> or "the tables are
> slanted in the woman's favor" or "men are being demonized"
That is not being sexist. That is simply a response to an observation.
I qualified each of those statements with clear situations. I told you
exactly why I felt that way. That is not sexist, that is saying what is
IS. Tables are slanted because a woman can claim sexual harassment
even if there wasn't any and succeed in a malicious endeavor if she
wishes. Men are being demonized because people like you spout off and
characterize them by saying things such as 'most,' 'usually,' and
"often" when
speaking of males and in a negative light.
>or that women don't contribute equally to a marriage; that it
> only counts who earned the money. And that's only in this post.
I never.. you are really pissing me off at this point Laurie.
I never said women don't contribute equally to a marriage but your head
is so far up your a*s you
can't even see the screen in front of you. The money only counts as so
far as who should get what MATERIAL GOOD THAT WERE PURCHASED WITH
MONEY. It
doesn't matter if the man makes more or if the woman makes more. When I
argue I
make a case covering both men and women equally, that is not sexist.
That is quite fair. You on the other hand do just the opposite. I
think you are the sexist
Laurie. Maybe the
problem here is you don't want things to be fair. If they were fair
what in the hell could you be so bitter about? I mean face up to the
fact that life is not always fair but the most fair thing when
determining who gets what is who bought what.
Now that I'm finished replying to your post I'd like to say something
directly to you and not just your thoughts. You have issues. You
chastise someone for name calling and then twist the facts around so
that you can do just that but taking it a notch higher. I am not
a sexist and am highly offended by your motivation to paint me as such.
You are off base and you've crossed a line of decency.
Laurie Hester
In Hiding wrote:
> >>Then why would I respect a struggling artist or musician who is not making
> money? But that's okay. I've explained my
> thoughts on that thread so many times even LeAnn finally understood what I
> meant, but you just want to think bad about
> me. It doesn't matter if you think that about me, but I will correct you if
> you say false things about me publicly.
> <<
>
> (Even LeAnn? Oh, NICE ONE. And I'll take the bait...)
>
> WHOA...I understood what you meant?
Hmm, maybe I was wrong.
> I understood that you have a very
> tangled path to your set of rules on what constitutes meaningful employment
> and fulfilling one's potential; "potential" being an occupation you deem
> worthy of that person based on what you happen to see them as capable of
> doing and appropriate for that moment in their lives. If I remember
> correctly, you found it honorable to be a struggling artist or musician
> making little or no money, but not so honorable to work in a gas station --
> even though that's precisely what gave EV the opportunity to chase his music
> career -- until someone pointed out the...hypocrisy of that. (Are you trying
> to say that one incident completely rewired the way you see people as
> represented by their occupations?!)
No, but I did admit to being a snob. :p Fact is, if I see a gas station
attendant, it really doesn't cross my mind as to whether he's an aspiring
musician or not; if I thought about him at all, I would think he doesn't have
much to offer. I admit that's wrong, because it could be someone like Ed, who
is pursuing his dream elsewhere.
But it's not about money, which is what Tony was implying. I personally am
motivated in my career by wanting to travel. If I were motivated by money, I'm
quite sure I would be doing something else. Teaching is a profession which
attracts dedicated, intelligent people but doesn't pay well. And it matters not
whether I "approve" of an occupation. There are no "rules" and perhaps that's
why you can't understand my thoughts on this. If a person is intelligent and
happy with what they're doing, then who am I to criticize? Jeez, I throw out
(in the context of admitting I was being too harsh on those youngsters choosing
the modeling profession) an off-the-cuff comment that if I saw Ed in a gas
station, I would have thought "loser" and that I would have obviously been wrong
to think that about Ed, and now you're asking me to define what's a loser job.
You know, LeAnn, I'm willing to bet that you've been described as being
"detail-oriented" and "not seeing the bigger picture" in the context of your
job.
> I refuse to discuss the modeling vs.
> prostitution thing anymore because I find your opinions on that to be just
> wrong in my eyes -- but you're certainly entitled to them as long as you
> realize they are your opinions and not fact. No offense, Laurie, but you
> really have a complex set of standards for what you consider to be an
> acceptable way for people to make a living. And from what you've said here,
> your son notwithstanding, it's pretty judgmental against jobs that aren't
> extremely "successful," where success equals money.
Not true.
>
>
> And btw, I think it's interesting that much like myself, Tony seems to take
> a lot of what you write "out of context" and "puts words in your mouth." I
> find it hard to believe a person's words could become that twisted over and
> over...unless what they were saying didn't make sense.
Well, I discuss things with lots of people, and you two seem to do it
consistently. I think in Tony's case, it's just that he's young, and trying to
fit me into this mold of "feminazi", so he makes conclusions based on that
stereotype. I think you do it because you don't really listen to what I say and
try to understand. It's like if you don't agree with someone, you can't let go
and accept the fact that people think differently from you. Even when I try to
meet you on common ground, you keep at it like a bulldog, trying to get me in a
corner.
> Actually, in reading
> some of your posts, it seems like you argue a point from a certain angle, so
> it is implied or inferred that you believe in what you're saying. Then when
> some poor fool comes along and reads your post and tries to put the pieces
> together and attempts to interpret what you were saying in a broader sense,
> we're always wrong. We've always misunderstood you, or taken you out of
> context, or put words in your mouth. How odd.
This is why people discuss things; to figure out what each other mean. I have
nothing against broadening a discussion, but that usually means further defining
my thoughts. What's wrong with that?
>
>
> [pardon me, tony, while I jump into this fray...]
>
> >>Absolutely. Don't you agree that PJ would have been a lot bigger if
> they'd toured more? Regardless, they might not have
> been at all, if not for Beth.<<
>
> Huh? Wha? PJ 'bigger' if they'd toured more? No. Not remarkably, anyway.
> Maybe the would have sold a few more tshirts but that's not success, is it?
> That's just money.
I think that because they didn't tour much off the success of Vs., they did lose
a lot of fans. However, I said, regardless (meaning, whether or not that's
true), they might have broken up.
> They might have been bigger if they'd done videos or
> marketed their music to radio or put themselves in the media spotlight more
> intentionally, but touring? Naaah. And I don't think it was Beth who kept
> them from doing videos. Or marketing themselves differently.
I don't either. I think her role was in keeping Eddie grounded. If Eddie came
that close to chucking the whole thing, *maybe* she played a role in helping him
through that difficult period. Maybe she was trying to get him to quit; I don't
really know. But based on what I see coming out of Eddie's lyrics, I believe
she did help him be able to continue with PJ.
> And, btw, it
> is PURE speculation on your part to give Beth credit for creating or
> maintaining any part of Pearl Jam, and I find it incredibly disrespectful to
> the people who actually ARE a part of that band.
See above. Do I need to reiterate that everything I say is my opinion? That
goes without saying. I don't see how it is disrespectful to the band to say
that Beth helped keep Eddie grounded.
> I gotta ask this
> again...Laurie, do you know Beth or Ed personally? I don't believe you do.
> And no amount of observation from the outside can BEGIN to explain the
> intricacies of their relationship. No one in this newsgroup that I've seen
> post could explain what kept them together or what broke them apart.
I have never attempted to do so, nor imply that I knew why they broke up. I'm
saying that, as many couples do, they supported each other, and that she
probably contributed to their relationship in a supportive sense, and would
therefore deserve to keep some of the marital assets. Not based on my knowing
them personally, but based on general knowledge.
> And
> yes, I know all about the "Beth cheated on him" explanation; and I even
> believe it to be true. However, what I'm saying is, no one knows how it GOT
> to that point. Maybe she's cheated all along. Maybe he has, too. Maybe
> he's a jerk. Maybe she is too. Maybe, maybe, maybe.
I don't know who this comment is directed to. I don't believe I have ever
discussed this in the newsgroup, and Tony certainly wasn't discussing it.
Laurie
Laurie Hester
tony wrote:
> Laurie Hester wrote:
> >
> > Then why would I respect a struggling artist or musician who is not making money? But that's okay.
>
> It's OK *if* you knew that about them. Would you have known that Ed was
> in Bad Radio and working on his music career? Probably not unless he
> asked you come and check out his gig after he asked, "regular or
> premium?"
Of course I wouldn't know that. And I've admitted I'm a snob, because I'd look at someone in a menial job without considering that there may be other circumstances. But my point is, it's not about money. For instance, a factory worker most likely makes more money than a
teacher, yet my snobbishness would make me think more highly of the teacher. But when it comes down to it, if someone is happy with their profession, then it is a failing on my part to look down on them.
>
>
> > I've explained my
> > thoughts on that thread so many times even LeAnn finally understood what I meant, but you just want to think bad about
> > me. It doesn't matter if you think that about me, but I will correct you if you say false things about me publicly.
>
> Oh, please don't go out like a martyr. You're starting to sound like
> OJ.
hahahaha. It's just that at some point, if we can't reach consensus, I have to limit myself to corrections on misstatements.
> Yes. No. Maybe. It doesn't matter because this isn't a little choose
> your own adventure book or a video game that you can just hit the
> restart button. Speculating on this is pointless. Ed could have became
> an actor and Beth might have gone into medicine and discovered a cure
> for AIDS....
Let's not lose sight of the argument, which is Beth's contribution to PJ's continued success. Of course it's speculation, but based on Ed's lyrics and things we've heard, he did make it through a difficult time when the band almost broke up. I would imagine that his love
for
Beth kept him grounded through that. Maybe you disagree.
>
> > That's even more true today, with both of a couple having careers. If one gets transferred, it's usually the woman who
> > sacrifices.
>
> You know Laurie, just where are these erroneous statistics coming from?
> How many women do you know that this is the case with?
Several, including my sisters.
> I can think of a
> handful of couples who had to make that choice and the tally isn't what
> you profess here. It's pretty even steven. I'm open to accept that all
> I know is wrong...but why is that I just don't see this phenomenon
> happening *today*?
Well, I'm sure it's changing as more women are becoming professionals. The number of these choices is going up for the same reason, but perhaps the ratio of women to men who are making the sacrifices is changing. That's a good thing.
>
>
> > If one has to take a break to stay with the children while they are young, it's > usually the woman.
>
> That is up to the family to decide. If the woman decides to stay back
> then it's her decision. If her husband demands that she stay back then,
> uh, he's a real swell guy, eh? Maybe she should let him go his separate
> way.
See, I think it's both their decision, and if the reality is that one stays home, then they don't sacrifice their share of the marital assets.
>
> >
> > Not held back, but really, two careers is very difficult. Do you think that if I were married, my husband would be able
> > to pursue his career while following me to Scotland, Seattle or wherever I end up next? Or would I give up my promotions
> > to stay in the Bay Area with him?
>
> hmmm...I didn't think of that. Well you've got me. I didn't know that
> life was uncertain and that things don't always operate like Fantasy
> Island. What you do is what works for you. Perhaps if you have a
> profession that is likely to require travel, consider that prior to
> getting married. If you are married and take a job that may require
> travel consider that too. What are the ramifications of me taking the
> job in the traveling circus?? Will it cause strife? Don't start
> whining over spilt milk then expect me to fold on what is still a
> personal decision regarding your own destiny. Hammer it out between the
> spouses.
Sure, it would have to be hammered out. But if we were to decide as a couple that he would quit his job and come with me, then I wouldn't expect him to be forfeiting his share of OUR money (which I would be making) by making that choice. You seem to be saying that if he
made that decision, it would be a decision to forfeit his share of OUR money.
>
> >
> > Sometimes women are perfectly willing to make the sacrifice, because they make a pact with their husband out of love.
>
> Why are you so unwilling to say the same for the man? Is he not able to
> make sacrifices for his wife?
Of course the man sometimes makes the sacrifice. I have only said that *usually* it is the woman. And that seems to be changing, as you've said yourself.
> It's always a one way road with you. You
> are not a critical thinker, Laurie. All you do is continue to bolster
> your argument by providing a typical bias.
I don't think that's true. Where have I said that men won't or don't ever make the sacrifice. That's not the point. The point where we disagree, is that I say if one spouse sacrifices their career in some way, they are still entitled to half the marital assets. I even
gave the example of me and my husband, if I had one, so you can't say that I'm biased.
>
>
> > If
> > that marriage falls apart, she deserves half of the yield of that marriage just as he does, because they both contribute
> > to the marriage.
>
> They both contributed to the companionship in the end. That is it. He
> should not get her family heirlooms nor should he get the house in the
> Hamptons if he bags groceries.
Well, I agree about the heirlooms. And the house just depends. If they bought it during their marriage, he contributed to it, whether they decided they could afford a slightly bigger house because of his grocery bagging money, or whether he kept it clean and neat and took
care of the children. He deserves half of it. If it were inherited by one or the other, then they should keep it. This is built into the California community property law as well. Only assets acquired *during* the marriage are split evenly.
>
>
> > You seem to think it's punishment of the male to split the marital assets, but that's your chip on your
> > shoulder.
>
> No, it's your inability to engage in discussion and interpretation.
Come on, Tony. Using terms like "men are demonized in divorce" is critical thinking?
>
>
> It not a chip it a fairness quotient. Mathematics? Yeah, it's my minor
> but I know a thing or two about numbers. Read this carefully and ask
> yourself if this is sooooo unfair of me to say. Enter a couple. If one
> person
> earns 100K per year and the other earns 20K is it fair to split the
> assets evenly? Hell no! That's my point. If there are extenuating
> circumstances which prove the lower wage earner gave up considerable
> opportunities or that this person was directly responsible for the
> spouses much higher income then *yes,* something more should be provided
> to this trooper be it male or female.
A marriage is more than the sum of the two salaries. It is two people coming together and sharing. If the one making substantially more is concerned about money, they should have the spouse sign a pre-nup. At least then, the spouse would know what they are getting into
with this person who is unwilling to share.
>
>
> > It's not punishment, it's not blame, it's just acknowledging that both parties in a marriage are contributing,
> > even if the money is coming mostly from one party.
>
> It's subsidizing a break up. You want to paint the picture that women
> *always* earn less, that they *always* make *more* concessions. Laurie,
> I think you are the sexist here.
That's simply not true. I have said many times that it's *usually* the woman. But it makes no difference to our argument. My point that the assets are shared applies as well if the man earns less. And I have stated this, as well as used my ex as an example, so you calling
me a sexist is unfounded.
>
>
> > I doubt seriously that Ed was aware of you...however, if he was on the verge of quitting the band and/or committing
> > suicide as Kurt did, and her love pulled him through this dark period, then I'd say she was pouring the water. If she
> > inspired many of his songs, then that is a contribution. Your problem is that you only think of a contribution to a
> > marriage as a financial one.
>
> Not at all but when you want to split up material items which were
> purchased not with love, not with companionship but with physical money,
> it is a different issue. What is so wrong with saying you take your
> stuff and I take my stuff. We bought this house house and you earn 20%
> more then I do therefore you should get a larger share of the sale. How
> is that unfair? How does this not make sense?
That would be fair if neither party had had to sacrifice any career goals. Is this our common ground?
>
>
> At this point I don't think I can do anything to convince you that Beth
> was anything but in not control of her life and pursuits, can I? You
> are hell-bent on believing that Beth's career has flopped because she
> made great sacrifices for her husband. I'm telling you that all of your
> arguments are hypothetical yet you want to see actual results based on
> one word, "maybe."
I agree that Ed and Beth are a poor example for our discussion. Oh wait, I already said that below.
>
> > Of course it's speculation, and Ed and Beth are probably a bad example. But the point is still true that women
> > contribute to a marriage, even if it's not monetarily.
>
> And why in the f**k doesn't the man contribute?
Sorry, I meant the spouse who sacrifices.
> Why is he just the all
> consuming, big money making machine? This is exactly what I have been
> saying. You never consider this. It's always the benefit of the doubt
> to the female and the burden of proof lies on the man. I've stated that
> you should look to the figures. You want to spilt up tangibles then
> figure out who bought those tangibles and give them accordingly. The
> woman gives love and care to the relationship. So does her husband,
> does he not?
Of course, but I'm talking about one of the spouses sacrificing career for the other or for the children.
>
> > By all statistics, the tables are extremely slanted in men's favor. Divorce women end up with something like 1/4 of the
> > income they previously had, while men enjoy 80% of their former income.
>
> So these divorced women all lose their jobs and are forced to start back
> at a 75% pay cut? I'm not buying that for a second. This must exist in
> the vacuum society you spoke of in the last post.
No, I'm talking about household income, which is *usually* higher for the man, or the woman had been an at-home mom.
>
>
> > That's why the welfare rolls are full of single mothers, not divorced fathers.
> > Sure, the odds are stacked against the men gaining custody of the children, but that's > a different argument.
>
> No it's probably a good for making a connection between welfare moms and
> welfare dads. Quite simply put, the woman is supporting herself and her
> children. If the man is not giving child support he is a piece of trash
> for placing that burden on the woman and their children.
>
> > Financially, divorce benefits men much more than women, and in the work world, men have a great
> > advantage. How do you claim men are demonized and taken advantage of? What the heck are you talking about?
>
> Read below from my last post...
>
> > > The crime of being male is that a woman at any point, if
> > > she feels like being malicious can ruin a man's career/life by claiming
> > > sexual harassment (in the workplace) or abuse (in the home).
>
> there we are :) Demonized.
> I'd also like to add that yes, since you brought it up, the custody
> issue. Why are men seemingly unfit to be a single parent unless the
> mother is crack whore or something? This is the slanted table of which
> I speak.
I believe that men should and do have an equal chance at custody when both spouses are working. However, the mothers who stay at home part or all of the time are usually closer to their children than the father. Mothers usually have more time invested in the children,
including at minimum, an extra nine months. There is a bonding that goes on between mother and child which is stronger than the one between father and child, usually. I'm sure you've heard stories about mothers lifting cars off their children. I've seen many great fathers,
but I've also seen some who let their 3 year old wander in a parking lot or play with a swinging door and smash their fingers or shake them, causing brain damage. And many fathers in previous generations have never changed a diaper. Of course, this is changing today, and
the laws about custody are also changing. It has to depend on circumstances. I think that the best thing, if the father is nurturing, is to have joint custody, if both parents are working. If that can't be arranged because they don't live in the same area, then you have to
choose, don't you? If all else is equal, since children can't be split in two, you give them to the mother. This is not sexism, it is biological. Children need their mother. I made the sacrifice for my kids' sake and refused to leave the area so that they could see their
father every week, and that is ideal. They need him for some things. But I tell ya, they are both living with him now, and even though they are grown, he sees his contribution as giving them food and shelter. He has ignored the fact that they (well, the older one should be
taking care of these things himself) have other needs, like dental care, eye care, help with choosing and applying to college, help with learning how to budget, etc. He's a loving and caring father, but god forbid if he'd had custody all these years. And I know that some
fathers can and do provide this kind of care. But if it's a choice between living only with their father or only with their mother, then I believe they need their mother more. And before you jump all over me, kids have been surviving just fine for many, many generations
where their fathers left all care to the mother, and where the father was killed in war, etc. Kids who lose their mothers at an early age don't fare as well. Kids who lose their fathers manage fairly well, although having a father is the ideal.
>
>
> > Right, like that happens one percent as much as women are *actually* harassed and >abused. Poor men.
>
> But it happens. And I don't really care about Lucy from Iowa who is too
> afraid to call the leech out who is legitimately harassing her. Justice
> could be served. What I direct my attention to is a situation where a
> woman only needs to cry harassment and a truckload of lawsuits follows.
> In a his word against her word in court how does that all play out?
Like in 90% of all rape cases? If you knew the conviction rate of rape cases, you would know how difficult it is to convict based on a woman's word. Women know this very well, which is why many/most rapes go unreported, and why I find it hard to believe a woman would
falsely accuse a man of something; it may happen once in a blue moon, but what's the point, when her word is not good enough even in a real case?
>
> That is the tilt (one of them) I am talking about. Can you deny
> this?
Nonsense. Like I say, the potential of abuse is there, sure, but it actually happens one for 100 times a woman *is* harassed or raped and can't convict. What utter nonsense to think that these laws favor women.
>
>
> > No one is saying
> > that all men abuse their women, but tony, I hate to tell you...it happens quite often.
>
> I agree, it happens sometimes. When you say "often" it implies more
> likely than not.
No, it doesn't. "Most" implies more likely than not.
> Do you mean to tell me that a majority of marriages
> are abusive ones?
No.
> I'm not putting words in your mouth,
Yes you are. I said "often" and you said I'm implying more likely than not.
> I'm drawing on
> your point and calling you out on a bulls#it statement. Do you believe
> this is the case, that more often than not a marriage is an abusive one
> at the hands of the male?
Asked and answered.
>
>
> > If it bothers you, then why not work to educate men. But don't
> >accuse me, who is only stating facts, of demonizing men. They do it to
> > themselves.
>
> They do it and you do. You do it by saying 'something' happens often
> and
> 'that' happens all the time. Where are these facts? You begin to
> create
> this little profile of the male gender as more likely than not to act a
> specific way. When you try to show that this act is a negative or
> destructive one that is
> the demonization process. When you unfairly characterize an entire
> group of people in a negative way you are demonizing them.
I'm sorry, but the fact is that men are more likely than women to be violent to their spouses, to commit crimes, to get in fights, to murder, etc. That's just reality. I'm not saying "most" men are like that. I have never characterized an entire group of people in a
negative way, unless it is fact. Like all KKK members are racist.
>
>
> > It's like I read a statistic that one third of all black males are in prison or on parole. That doesn't give policemen
> > the excuse to treat a black male like a criminal, but if black males don't like that statistic, it's not the
> > statistician's fault.
>
> True. But I think you are doing just what the racist cop is only toward
> men in general. Wake up and smell your own sexist attitude.
You can call me sexist all you want, Tony, but I have never prejudged a man or all men. I wait at least until they open their mouth and see if they spout the kind of nonsense that you have..."men are so picked on in this society". That's just not true.
>
>
> >
> > > Now hold
> > > your horses here - I'm talking about someone wanting to intentionally
> > > make false claims against another. Let me try and make a case that I
> > > have been sexually harassed by a woman and see how far it goes. LOL.
> >
> > Because most women don't do that; it's hard to believe.
>
> Ahhhh...here is another case of you being so unbelievably optimistic for
> all women without consideration. A woman would never do that because we
> operate with a much higher standard of integrity, she thinks.
No, because harassment is unwanted sexual attention. Most men like sexual attention, and so that isn't harassment. Even if you take the man's claim of harassment seriously, the fact remains, the complaints by women FAR outnumber the complaints by men. You're just being
silly is you're trying to argue that men don't harass much more than women. I never said it doesn't ever happen. See that word up there in my sentence spelled M..O..S..T?
> There are
> never any incidents like the ones from the movie Disclosure, are there?
> I'm willing to say it happens on both sides, but not you. Again, who is
> the sexist, Laurie? Who is the one only seeing one side of the story?
You are putting words in my mouth again. Sure, it happens, but probably 1 percent of the number of times men do it to women.
>
>
> > It's like accusing Bill Gates of stealing a CD from a store.
> > Who's going to believe you?
>
> Because you've already demonized men to be the perpetrator and never
> the victim.
No, you have done that yourself. Fact is, it *is* usually the man who is the perpetrator, that's a fact. When I report facts, I'm not implying that *all* men do it, nor demonizing men in general.
>
> > Let's try just arguing what you and I say, instead of you putting words in my mouth?
>
> There were no words put anywhere but on the screens of these computers.
> Again, let me point out what I've said. Ya know, this is becoming
> rather annoying. "You make it seem like a man cannot be "successful" if
> there is not a woman propping him up." That is anything but putting
> words in your mouth. I have to wonder about your education when you get
> so pissy about someone stating a hypothesis.
If you'd ever taken a logic class, you'll know that you can't conclude the negative from the positive. If I say "a woman can help a man become successful" you cannot draw the conclusion that "a man can't become successful without a woman's help" yet that is what you are
doing to me. You are taking my sentences and drawing illogical conclusions and putting those words in my mouth. Be careful before you criticize my logic, honey.
> > When I was married, I was making more than
> > twice what my husband was making, but I considered it our money, not mine, and we made > financial decisions together. And when we got divorced, we split our assets evenly, > after subtracting what we both brought to the marriage. It's a partnership, not a > business.
>
> That's mighty nifty of you to do and is all well and good. Thing is
> there shouldn't be a law requiring *you,* the trump holding, big bank
> girl to subsidize the other. The law should be a firm guideline with
> you and yours to fill in the rest.
The laws are there to protect spouses from being screwed. Usually there are hard feelings, and people tend to forget the nice agreements they had with their spouse. Not everyone is as nice and generous as I when it comes to a divorce.
>
> > I'm talking more about professionals, not unskilled labor. The statistics show that, even when you account for
> > experience, women make significantly less money for the same job. This is here, in America.
>
> I still disagree that it's all that polar in the professional world but
> still, your statement about the status quo didn't mention the other
> sector of the workforce. You made a sweeping statement about the
> climate of pay in society as a whole. Bravo, bravo... Last time,
> OK....demonization. Why? Because some half wit reading the last post
> might accept your statement as fact and tell someone else how women earn
> sixty cents on the male dollar. And so it goes...
I don't believe that statistic, which is widely used, and rarely questioned, specifies only professional jobs. It is an average, and some professions, perhaps those controlled by unions, are fairly equal, and others are not.
>
> > Well, I don't know if your mother has as much experience as your father,
>
> no
>
> > but it sounds like they have similar positions
> > as middle management. Does your father make more money?
>
> To be honest I think they are very similar. I'll wager that my dad
> earns more but these are different industries so comparing the two as
> simply "middle management" isn't very accurate. His job involves a
> greater health risk, is physically demanding, and is hourly. Hers is
> salaried and very antiseptic.
Okay, then it's not a good example.
>
>
> > There are many ways to disguise the discrepancies. For
> > example, your mother may find that her position in another hospital, which has always been held by a man, would pay
> > more.
>
> Maybe I'll shoot her an email and ask. I play fair.
How would she know what someone would earn in a similar position, unless she knows someone personally and knows how much they make? I have many male friends who are in my profession, and they have told me what they make, so I know that I am making the same. But my job is
not management per se. In my experience though, the computer programming profession is fairly gender blind, until you get into management.
>
>
> > In a company where I worked, the male project manager quit because he got a job paying > more. The president only interviewed women for his replacement, because he said he > couldn't afford a man. And I believe it's true.
>
> What's wrong with just paying anyone the same rate that the guy was
> making? If this guy was earning rate X and he was a man, that's a man
> making the same rate X that is being offered to a new hire - obviously
> one of the all female applicants.
The point being that most other jobs pay men more than our company could offer, which is why he left. Similar job for a man pays more than this job for a woman.
>
>
> > That position
> > in other companies would have paid more than he had to offer. Now you could argue that the woman he hired didn't have to
> > work for less money because she's responsible for herself, but then it's harder for women to get managerial positions, so
> > they generally have to settle for less money.
>
> Until I see a respectable study done that is not covered with bias I'm
> not believing it.
Fair enough. But I didn't make up "the glass ceiling".
>
>
> > This is how it works in colleges. Women are denied tenure, so they earn less.
>
> What colleges have you gone to? One of those degree overnight
> operations? This is not true, there are a number of tenured female
> professors at my University.
I went to UC Berkeley, have you heard of it? I have read about lawsuits by women being denied tenure over a man with less experience. Again, I didn't imply that women *never* achieve tenure.
>
> > Only in response to sexist statements.
>
> In response to any statement that basically says men have rights too,
No, in response to your statements that men are demonized and treated unfairly by laws which don't even go far enough to protect the real victims, women who are raped or harassed. If that isn't sexist, I don't know what is.
>
> you are there to declare it a sexist statement. Yes, you are there to
> show us
> we are evil glass ceiling installing beasts who will not allow women to
> reach their career goals. How dare I stand up and say that's not true.
> Please, smack my hand again...
>
> > No, I call you a sexist when you make statements like "it's HIS money, why should she get some of it"
>
> Did I say that, *verbatim?* Please find the message for me.
Not verbatim, in reference #10 above, you said, Her "supporting" Ed doesn't entitle her to jack s#it, I'm sorry to tell
you.
And...
But here you are demanding she should have half of his shit. What the
f**k is that??
> Thank
> you!
Welcome.
> Ok, now that you're back and you didn't find it I'll tell you
> something.
I did, but go ahead.
> I didn't say that, Laurie "Slandering" Hester. So tell me
> again, who is name calling here?
Looks like you.
> Who is making an ill equipted argument
> based on the hypotheticals of her emotions?
Huh?
> Who is unwilling to
> consider the other side of the coin. Hi, my name is Laurie!
>
> > or "the tables are
> > slanted in the woman's favor" or "men are being demonized"
>
> That is not being sexist. That is simply a response to an observation.
A very biased one, not based on reality.
>
> Men are being demonized because people like you spout off and
> characterize them by saying things such as 'most,' 'usually,' and
> "often" when
> speaking of males and in a negative light.
I use those words exactly instead of saying "all" because I am not demonizing all men.
> I am not
> a sexist and am highly offended by your motivation to paint me as such.
I'm sorry, but you have, from the beginning, called me a man-hater, and such. I think that alone, when you use it as an insult just because you don't agree with me, is a sexist thing to do. You have also called me sexist, which is really unfounded. You resorted to this
many times in this last post of yours, just when I thought we were finally reaching some common ground in the main argument.
>
> You are off base and you've crossed a line of decency.
I have crossed that line, but you haven't? Go figure.
Laurie
Carl
to regularly scheduled "debating"
--
CjS
::Sigh::
the happy squid
>Come on, squid. It takes two to make a marriage fail.
Right, it takes two to make any relationship fall apart, but
communication is essential in any relationship. Obviously I'm not
privy to the ins and outs of Ed and Beth's marriage, but shit if Beth
had a problem, would it really have been so difficult to discuss it
with Ed? Ed may have slipped up on a few things, but I can't help but
think it's a bit drastic for Beth (again ASSUMING that this happened)
went out and popped some guy simply b/c Ed didn't ask her how her day
was on Monday or whatever.
>And no one knows who cheated on whom first.
Am I supposed to infer that Ed cheated too in all this mess?
>And most men who beat their wives love them very much (I'm not implying
>that this is what happened here, but just to show that it can be very difficult to stay married to a guy that loves you).
Just to nitpick, I have to question the love and faith of someone who
would abuse someone they claim to love. I love my beautiful g/f and
I'd never hurt her delibirately. I don't think I'm an abusive person.
Her friend, on the other hand, gets smacked around a bit by her
respective b/f. If you asked either of them, they'd say that he loves
her, but how the fuck can he when he does shit like that?
the happy squid
>When I first heard Wishlist, I thought it was a desperate song, not a love song. "I wish I was the verb 'to trust' and never let you down." And I also thought Hail, Hail
>was a song about a marriage in trouble, not an ode to love.
Well, from that same point of view, couldn't "Porch" be taken in a
similar way? "What the fuck is the world coming to you didn't leave a
message at least I could've heard your voice one last time"? Or how
about "Black"? To mention those songs (all of which might I add are
written from first person POV) does really relate to "Wishlist" IMHO.
I think you WL was a love song, not a love-that's-in-trouble song. I
guess that part's up for interpretation.
Laurie Hester
the happy squid wrote:
> Laurie wrote--
> >Come on, squid. It takes two to make a marriage fail.
>
> Right, it takes two to make any relationship fall apart, but
> communication is essential in any relationship. Obviously I'm not
> privy to the ins and outs of Ed and Beth's marriage, but shit if Beth
> had a problem, would it really have been so difficult to discuss it
> with Ed? Ed may have slipped up on a few things, but I can't help but
> think it's a bit drastic for Beth (again ASSUMING that this happened)
> went out and popped some guy simply b/c Ed didn't ask her how her day
> was on Monday or whatever.
Marriages fall apart, even with the best of intentions.
>
>
> >And no one knows who cheated on whom first.
>
> Am I supposed to infer that Ed cheated too in all this mess?
Who knows? I just wouldn't go by the rantings of people in love with Eddie.
>
>
> >And most men who beat their wives love them very much (I'm not implying
> >that this is what happened here, but just to show that it can be very difficult to stay married to a guy that loves you).
>
> Just to nitpick, I have to question the love and faith of someone who
> would abuse someone they claim to love. I love my beautiful g/f and
> I'd never hurt her delibirately. I don't think I'm an abusive person.
> Her friend, on the other hand, gets smacked around a bit by her
> respective b/f. If you asked either of them, they'd say that he loves
> her, but how the fuck can he when he does shit like that?
It doesn't make sense, does it?
Laurie
In Hiding
>>No, but I did admit to being a snob. :p <<
I get the impression that you've not only admitted to it, but you're also
proud of it? I am having a hard time understanding that.
>>Fact is, if I see a gas station
attendant, it really doesn't cross my mind as to whether he's an aspiring
musician or not; if I thought about him at all, I would think he doesn't
have
much to offer. I admit that's wrong, because it could be someone like Ed,
who
is pursuing his dream elsewhere.<<
But if it's not someone like Ed...and it's just a guy who's working in a gas
station, are you saying he wouldn't have much to offer? I'd like to clarify
use of the word "because" and "could be." (Jesus, now I know why Clinton
wanted to clarify use of the word "is"...)
>>But it's not about money, which is what Tony was implying. I personally
am
motivated in my career by wanting to travel. If I were motivated by money,
I'm
quite sure I would be doing something else. Teaching is a profession which
attracts dedicated, intelligent people but doesn't pay well. And it matters
not
whether I "approve" of an occupation. <<
Are you a teacher? I couldn't tell from your comments. Do you travel for
your job, or are you saying you're motivated to work so that you can travel
for leisure?
Some teachers are dedicated and intelligent, and some aren't. What's your
point?
Can I ask... do you think the pursuit of money is evil? It seems as though
from things you've said that you think being motivated by money is a bad
thing. I'm interested in why you think that, if you do.
And it does matter if you "approve" of an occupation if the occupation is
being discussed, because you have expressed an opinion about jobs you think
are worthwhile and jobs you think are not. And I have yet to see a rational
pattern. Or a pattern, period.
>>You know, LeAnn, I'm willing to bet that you've been described as being
"detail-oriented" and "not seeing the bigger picture" in the context of your
job.<<
Another broad assumption of yours, considering you don't know what I do for
a living and you don't know me. But chances are my job doesn't meet your
requirements of 'worthiness' anyway. I can assure you I describe myself as
detail oriented but that doesn't preclude me from being able to see the big
picture. Some of us don't fit into your little categories and stereotypes.
I haven't received any criticism about my job performance but I've only been
there for three years; maybe they don't know me as well as you. At my next
review I'll be sure and include you in my peer assessment candidate list so
you can voice your concerns to my employers. My last review came right after
a promotion and being appointed to an actual rung in the company ladder, so
they basically said, "Nice job; keep up the good work" but I'll bet they
MEANT to say, "Lay off the details; work on that big picture thing."
Meanwhile, you ought to consider thinking out of the box. Oooh, I love to
throw around corporate rhetoric...it's SO productive...
I have to wonder (out loud)...why do you feel such a need to personally
judge people? I mean, you express opinions about me in relationship to my
JOB? What has that got to do with THIS? This makes about as much sense as
you making assumptions about Beth's part in Ed's band...OH WAIT! I SEE A
FUCKING PATTERN HERE! hahahaha!
And another thing...why do you feel it necessary to occasionally point out
to people that you do find them intelligent? Like we care whether YOU find
us smart enough for you! I'm sure you'd claim to mean it as a compliment,
but it comes off VERY condescending. You accuse me of being condescending
but at least when I do it, it's ON PURPOSE.
>>. I think you do it because you don't really listen to what I say and
try to understand. It's like if you don't agree with someone, you can't let
go
and accept the fact that people think differently from you. Even when I try
to
meet you on common ground, you keep at it like a bulldog, trying to get me
in a
corner.<<
I can't imagine how my own opinions could get me into a corner. I mean,
they're my opinions; either I can explain them or I can't but I at least
ought to be comfortable with them. If I felt trapped by them (and I have on
many occasions, and no, I don't mean exclusively in here, haha), I guess it
would be time to rethink my processes. Hmmm...
I listen/read fairly intently most of the time...this isn't a reading
comprehension test, though, so maybe I'm not giving it my best effort, haha.
I can totally accept people who think differently from me. Unlike some
people, I also avoid lecturing them. One of my best friends shares your
position on the whole model/prostitute thing. If I couldn't deal with
people who think differently from me, I'd be posting on this newsgroup a lot
more, hahaha. Or I would stay in the AOL folder and attempt to 'convert'
all of them. (Except Dana. And Will.) Or, I'd never bother to read/post
in either place. What I have trouble with is people who express such strong
opinions but they seem to be random judgment calls to fit what they would
like to think is a set of values...but it's really just a variety of
opinions based on narrow, specific circumstances. MAYBE it's because I
don't give so much thought to what people do in terms of how it relates to
who they are. I think that's what has 'set me off' in a lot of these
conversations...because I've met people who worked at a grocery store
checkstand and thought they were funny or engaging; likewise I've met people
who were musicians and though they were complete drips. I used to work on a
fanzine for a band in the 80's and had worked with one of the band member's
wives on some of our material; we'd always gotten along well and I genuinely
liked her. A few years later I met her at a party; she didn't remember me,
and upon our introduction, she said, "And what do you do?" And I
thought...what the fuck difference does that make? What do YOU do? (She
was a stay-at-home wife and mother; so if she was occupation driven, I found
it ODD.) It seems to me as though people who immediately want to know what
you do for a living use it as a means to assess you as a person if they have
no other immediately way to figure out 'who' or 'what' you are. To me, it's
an insecure reaction. In some cases, it's a sly way of asking, "How much
money do you make?" It has been my experience that people who need to know
what you do for a living right off the bat are hung up on social and
financial ranking. For a lot of people, what they do for a living has very
little to do with whether or not they are fun, or funny, or intelligent, or
interesting, or nice, or clever, or a thousand other qualities that are more
interesting to me than what their job might be.
I have a friend who is an artist with a lot of talent and she works pretty
ordinary jobs because she refused to take a beginning position as an
animator for Disney...because in her opinion, they get treated poorly; she
didn't want to work in a field she loved in a position she hated. Even
though it would have been a good starting point for a career in art...even
though she would have had a bigger paycheck and better benefits...she
preferred to keep her job at a cosmetics counter and sketch and paint on her
own time for no pay. I personally thought that she was making the wrong
sacrifice -- if she wants to be an artist, taking the job in her field is a
better long term decision, IMO. But I don't get to make her career choices
and frankly, I wouldn't want to. And it doesn't make me see her any
differently as a person. I have another friend who is very accomplished and
well educated; she had a bachelor's and went back and got her master's and
has a high-powered, high-paying job in the communications field...she is one
of those people who does often judge people by what they do and you know
what? Her personal life is miserable. She's not motivated by money per se,
but she's poured every ounce of energy into building a career for herself
that made her feel professionally fulfilled and respected by her peers and
she is one of the most perpetually unhappy people I know.
I'm staying out of the whole male vs female thing... I see a lot of
dangerous stuff going by but I don't have the strength to even start. ; )
LeAnn
--
tony
<snip>
This thing is getting so huge...unless I'm getting academic credits I'm
slimming this down. Only the important stuff.
>
> > No, it's your inability to engage in discussion and interpretation.
>
> Come on, Tony. Using terms like "men are demonized in divorce" is critical thinking?
That's not a term but a statement. Why must I continually repeat this
little node to you? It is critical thinking because I have considered
both sides. I have formed an opinion based on history and the present
situation. That is what critical thinking is. By all means, feel free
to disagree...
> > It's subsidizing a break up. You want to paint the picture that women
> > *always* earn less, that they *always* make *more* concessions. Laurie,
> > I think you are the sexist here.
>
> That's simply not true. I have said many times that it's *usually* the woman. But it makes no difference to our argument. My point that the assets are shared applies as well if the man earns less. And I have stated this, as well as used my ex as an example, so you calling
> me a sexist is unfounded.
No, not at all. You used your ex as an example to show what a grand
humanitarian you are & I believe I commended you on that. I honestly
don't recall you covering the ground of a male earning less (your ex
excluded). You believe what you want, I'm telling you I don't agree
with subsidizing a divorce. A pre nup should be the norm without ever
signing a pre nup. In fact it should be taken one step further to
ensure that whatever is acquired during the marriage (and in the event
of a break up) is *not* community property.
> > Not at all but when you want to split up material items which were
> > purchased not with love, not with companionship but with physical money,
> > it is a different issue. What is so wrong with saying you take your
> > stuff and I take my stuff. We bought this house house and you earn 20%
> > more then I do therefore you should get a larger share of the sale. How
> > is that unfair? How does this not make sense?
>
> That would be fair if neither party had had to sacrifice any career goals. Is this our common ground?
Common ground with the following conditions:
Neither party means just that.
We make no assumptions that either had given up anything based upon
their gender alone.
> > > By all statistics, the tables are extremely slanted in men's favor. Divorce women end up with something like 1/4 of the
> > > income they previously had, while men enjoy 80% of their former income.
> >
> > So these divorced women all lose their jobs and are forced to start back
> > at a 75% pay cut? I'm not buying that for a second. This must exist in
> > the vacuum society you spoke of in the last post.
>
> No, I'm talking about household income, which is *usually* higher for the man, or the woman had been an at-home mom.
Well of course her income is going to fall if she was a housewife and
got all of her income from her husband. You didn't intend to state that
at all on the first time around. You tried to assert that after a
divorce a woman previously earning $20 an hour will now make $5. I
don't understand where you are going with this now/
> > But it happens. And I don't really care about Lucy from Iowa who is too
> > afraid to call the leech out who is legitimately harassing her. Justice
> > could be served. What I direct my attention to is a situation where a
> > woman only needs to cry harassment and a truckload of lawsuits follows.
> > In a his word against her word in court how does that all play out?
>
> Like in 90% of all rape cases?
Where did "rape" come from? I'm speaking about sexual harassment cases
and you avoided that totally to talk about rape. WTF??
>If you knew the conviction rate of rape cases, you would know how difficult it is to >convict based on a woman's word.
As well as it should be. If a rape occurred there will be PHYSICAL
evidence to corroborate the complaint.
> Women know this very well, which is why many/most rapes go unreported, and why I find > it hard to believe a woman would
> falsely accuse a man of something; it may happen once in a blue moon, but what's the > point, when her word is not good enough even in a real case?
Well f*ck!! Rape is a capital offense. They can hand out the death
penalty for rape so I sure as damn well hope someone's word and their
word alone doesn't equal a conviction.
> >
> > That is the tilt (one of them) I am talking about. Can you deny
> > this?
>
> Nonsense. Like I say, the potential of abuse is there, sure, but it actually happens >one for 100 times a woman *is* harassed or raped and can't convict. What utter
> nonsense to think that these laws favor women.
Congrats for actually bringing back the idea of harassment. I mean it
was the thing I commented on in the first place but let's get back to
it. Again, here you are providing stats from the back of your hand to
gloss over a very real premise. Truth is if a woman says a man touched
her in an unwanted fashion and he denies it (assuming this is the only
evidence) you know as well as I do the system will believe her over the
man. Rape, that is a different story because rape will leave physical
evidence. That is something very real (hard physical evidence) for a
court to examine.
> > I'm not putting words in your mouth,
>
> Yes you are. I said "often" and you said I'm implying more likely than not.
Often is synonymous with frequent. To me that's saying a lot more than
say...sporatic? OK, I'll give you this one. Often is yours now.
> > I'm drawing on
> > your point and calling you out on a bulls#it statement. Do you believe
> > this is the case, that more often than not a marriage is an abusive one
> > at the hands of the male?
>
> Asked and answered.
Not really because often is preceded by an adjective qualifying it.
That changes it a bit.
> No, because harassment is unwanted sexual attention. Most men like sexual attention, > and so that isn't harassment.
Maybe from someone they are "interested" in but "most" of us don't want
sexual attention from anyone who gives it. I already feel your thoughts
here but dare I say them and be scolded with another 'words in my mouth'
claim... See, no one care have a fair argument with you because if you
discover you've left a door open and we find it you cry we are putting
words in your mouth. I could have a better conversation with the birds.
> > There are
> > never any incidents like the ones from the movie Disclosure, are there?
> > I'm willing to say it happens on both sides, but not you. Again, who is
> > the sexist, Laurie? Who is the one only seeing one side of the story?
>
> You are putting words in my mouth again. Sure, it happens, but probably 1 percent of the number of times men do it to women.
Here are more of your crazy numbers. Do you work as a statician because
I swear I'm not seeing any documentation of these figures...
> > There were no words put anywhere but on the screens of these computers.
> > Again, let me point out what I've said. Ya know, this is becoming
> > rather annoying. "You make it seem like a man cannot be "successful" if
> > there is not a woman propping him up." That is anything but putting
> > words in your mouth. I have to wonder about your education when you get
> > so pissy about someone stating a hypothesis.
>
> If you'd ever taken a logic class, you'll know that you can't conclude the negative from the positive.
Intro to Logic and Business Ethics, both.
Can you conclude the negative from the positive? Um, yes you can and
here is how. You show where the premise is not true thereby obtaining
the negative from the truth table of the premise. Conditional
statements, remember those? I'm not talking about Reductio Ad Absurdum
aka proof by contradiction. How long has it been Laurie? Anyway, I
wasn't arguing that in *this* situation.
>If I say "a woman can help a man become successful" you cannot draw the conclusion that "a man can't become successful without a woman's help" yet that is what you are
> doing to me. You are taking my sentences and drawing illogical conclusions and putting those words in my mouth.
Quite frankly, honey, your logic is flawed. We'll need some if/then
statements. You know all about those from programming, right?
Think back to your logic class. Do you remember what a 'contrapositive'
is?
P -> Q <==> ~Q -> ~P
Those are equivalent statements.
let P = "a woman can help" (or just 'a woman's help')
let Q = "a successful man" (becoming a successful man)
If P then Q follows
If (a woman can help) then (a successful man)
[if a woman helps then a man is successful] // english translation
If ~Q then ~P follows
If (not a successful man) then (not a woman can help)
[if unsuccessful man then no help from a woman] // english translation
It's rough but your challenge wasn't very textbook. Still, I have given
you the proof based upon the sentence.
> Be careful before you criticize my logic, honey.
Uh... LOL I feel like ultra nerd after that demo but don't assume
things, kid.
> > > This is how it works in colleges. Women are denied tenure, so they earn less.
> >
> > What colleges have you gone to? One of those degree overnight
> > operations? This is not true, there are a number of tenured female
> > professors at my University.
>
> I went to UC Berkeley, have you heard of it? I have read about lawsuits by women
> being denied tenure over a man with less experience. Again, I didn't imply that women > *never* achieve tenure.
UC, what's that? Anyways...
No, you didn't say they "never" achieve a tenured position you just
said, "Women are denied tenure.." which implies what? You tell me...
Men too are denied tenure so those men earn less. Feel a rotation
here? I'm banking that you meant more women are denied tenure then men
are.
> > > Only in response to sexist statements.
> >
> > In response to any statement that basically says men have rights too,
>
> No, in response to your statements that men are demonized and treated unfairly by laws > which don't even go far enough to protect the real victims, women who are raped or > harassed. If that isn't sexist, I don't know what is.
Now you're ready to discuss both topics at once? Both rape and
harassment? OK. Rape. Physical evidence required. Done. He touched
my ass. Can't prove that unless someone videotaped it or the man
confesses but will he be convicted? It happens..."often."
> > > No, I call you a sexist when you make statements like "it's HIS money, why should she get some of it"
> >
> > Did I say that, *verbatim?* Please find the message for me.
>
> Not verbatim, in reference #10 above, you said, Her "supporting" Ed doesn't entitle
> her to jack s#it, I'm sorry to tell you.
how clever of you! You took this out of context...well here is the rest
of it which explains the sentence:
"Her "supporting" Ed doesn't entitle her to jack s#it, I'm sorry to tell
you. A marriage is all about loving and being there for your
significant other. Upholding your vows does not entitle you to half of
the more successful party's goods just because the two are married.
[important part there!!] If
she had obviously given up some great opportunities to be there and
console her mate then, sure, fine but in the everyday case of divorce
both people should just walk away."
Pretty low of you! Yup. You'll stop at nothing.
>
> And...
>
> But here you are demanding she should have half of his shit. What the
> f**k is that??
Another great example of your tactics to paint a different picture.
I wrote:
> > It's just so obvious. I don't think either of us know very
> > many specifics about their day to day lives together
you responded:
> Of course not, and neither do you know whether or not she would deserve money.
"But here you are demanding she should have half of his shit. What the
f**k is that??"
-----
OK. We more or less agreed that neither of us knew the specifics of
their marriage and daily lives. I claim that you cannot assume she is
owed more then her share of material items. Her share - I mean what she
purchased with her money earned from her career and her career alone.
Clear?
> > Ok, now that you're back and you didn't find it I'll tell you
> > something.
>
> I did, but go ahead.
No, Laurie, through your own weaseling ways you've brought up something
I've said and formatted it to suit your needs. Pretty, pretty low.
> > > or "the tables are
> > > slanted in the woman's favor" or "men are being demonized"
> >
> > That is not being sexist. That is simply a response to an observation.
>
> A very biased one, not based on reality.
I gave you the reality of it. You try to say reality is some stat from
the back of your hand. If anyone here is biased it's U. "Oh it's U, U,
U."
> > I am not
> > a sexist and am highly offended by your motivation to paint me as such.
>
> I'm sorry, but you have, from the beginning, called me a man-hater, and such. I think > that alone, when you use it as an insult just because you don't agree with me, is a > sexist thing to do.
The two are not related at all. I disagree with you and I think you
have issues with men in general.
> You have also called me sexist, which is really unfounded.
Only after you said it first which was rather shocking considering your
bread is only buttered on one side.
> You > resorted to this
> many times in this last post of yours, just when I thought we were finally reaching > some common ground in the main argument.
We have very little common ground and actually I don't even care about
this thread anymore. The only part of it I will further respond to is
your twists and turns or personal attacks. I really hope some day
you'll realize that you are reluctant to see the flip side of things and
are very biased into thinking a great majority of men are to blame for
female woes.
> > You are off base and you've crossed a line of decency.
>
> I have crossed that line, but you haven't? Go figure.
Drastic times call for drastic measures. You were the first to make the
sexist claim oh dear pot (as in pot & kettle).
tony
> Well, I discuss things with lots of people, and you two seem to do it
> consistently. I think in Tony's case, it's just that he's young, and trying to
> fit me into this mold of "feminazi", so he makes conclusions based on that
> stereotype.
Please don't drag me into your personal hell, Laurie. There is no mold
nor is there a stereotype I am "trying" to fit you into. You've slid
yourself into one all by yourself and it has nothing to do with
'feminazi.'
Laurie Hester
In Hiding wrote:
>>No, but I did admit to being a snob. :p <<I get the impression that you've not only admitted to it, but you're also
proud of it? I am having a hard time understanding that.
Lord have mercy on my soul. I admit a failing in myself, and you still won't let it go. Are you having a hard time understanding it because you would never admit a failing in yourself?
>>Fact is, if I see a gas station
attendant, it really doesn't cross my mind as to whether he's an aspiring
musician or not; if I thought about him at all, I would think he doesn't
have
much to offer. I admit that's wrong, because it could be someone like Ed,
who
is pursuing his dream elsewhere.<<But if it's not someone like Ed...and it's just a guy who's working in a gas
station, are you saying he wouldn't have much to offer? I'd like to clarify
use of the word "because" and "could be." (Jesus, now I know why Clinton
wanted to clarify use of the word "is"...)
Ummm, I only know one meaning of "because" and "could be". Sorry, perhaps you could look them up in the dictionary....or better yet, if you don't understand my words, drop it!
>>But it's not about money, which is what Tony was implying. I personally
am
motivated in my career by wanting to travel. If I were motivated by money,
I'm
quite sure I would be doing something else. Teaching is a profession which
attracts dedicated, intelligent people but doesn't pay well. And it matters
not
whether I "approve" of an occupation. <<Are you a teacher?
No
I couldn't tell from your comments. Do you travel for
your job, or are you saying you're motivated to work so that you can travel
for leisure?
yes
Some teachers are dedicated and intelligent, and some aren't. What's your
point?
Well, let's see. You were intensely interested in great detail about which professions I "approve of" and you and Tony implied that I only defined a good job as one which makes a lot of money. So that was an example to show you that it isn't about money. Oh, wait, I already said that, and you didn't understand it. Oh well.
Can I ask... do you think the pursuit of money is evil? It seems as though
from things you've said that you think being motivated by money is a bad
thing. I'm interested in why you think that, if you do.
Sure you are.
And it does matter if you "approve" of an occupation if the occupation is
being discussed, because you have expressed an opinion about jobs you think
are worthwhile and jobs you think are not. And I have yet to see a rational
pattern. Or a pattern, period.
See my comment below.
>>You know, LeAnn, I'm willing to bet that you've been described as being
"detail-oriented" and "not seeing the bigger picture" in the context of your
job.<<Another broad assumption of yours, considering you don't know what I do for
a living and you don't know me. But chances are my job doesn't meet your
requirements of 'worthiness' anyway. I can assure you I describe myself as
detail oriented but that doesn't preclude me from being able to see the big
picture. Some of us don't fit into your little categories and stereotypes.
I haven't received any criticism about my job performance but I've only been
there for three years; maybe they don't know me as well as you. At my next
review I'll be sure and include you in my peer assessment candidate list so
you can voice your concerns to my employers. My last review came right after
a promotion and being appointed to an actual rung in the company ladder, so
they basically said, "Nice job; keep up the good work" but I'll bet they
MEANT to say, "Lay off the details; work on that big picture thing."
Meanwhile, you ought to consider thinking out of the box. Oooh, I love to
throw around corporate rhetoric...it's SO productive...I have to wonder (out loud)...why do you feel such a need to personally
judge people?
Like
OrAnd I have yet to see a rational pattern.
Orbut you really have a complex set of standards for what you consider to be an acceptable way for people to make a living
"You're very condescending"
Or
"You're always trying to tell people what to do"
I mean, you express opinions about me in relationship to my
JOB? What has that got to do with THIS?
Because you pick apart each sentence and even each word I say, and therefore miss the whole thought. And because you miss the thought, you keep asking me the same things over and over and over and over....
I can't imagine how my own opinions could get me into a corner. I mean,
they're my opinions; either I can explain them or I can't but I at least
ought to be comfortable with them. If I felt trapped by them (and I have on
many occasions, and no, I don't mean exclusively in here, haha), I guess it
would be time to rethink my processes. Hmmm...
I listen/read fairly intently most of the time...this isn't a reading
comprehension test, though, so maybe I'm not giving it my best effort, haha.
I can totally accept people who think differently from me. Unlike some
people, I also avoid lecturing them.
Your entire post is a lecture! lol
One of my best friends shares your
position on the whole model/prostitute thing. If I couldn't deal with
people who think differently from me, I'd be posting on this newsgroup a lot
more, hahaha. Or I would stay in the AOL folder and attempt to 'convert'
all of them. (Except Dana. And Will.) Or, I'd never bother to read/post
in either place. What I have trouble with is people who express such strong
opinions but they seem to be random judgment calls to fit what they would
like to think is a set of values...but it's really just a variety of
opinions based on narrow, specific circumstances. MAYBE it's because I
don't give so much thought to what people do in terms of how it relates to
who they are. I think that's what has 'set me off' in a lot of these
conversations...because I've met people who worked at a grocery store
checkstand and thought they were funny or engaging; likewise I've met people
who were musicians and though they were complete drips.
Well, aren't you non-judgemental.
I used to work on a
fanzine for a band in the 80's and had worked with one of the band member's
wives on some of our material; we'd always gotten along well and I genuinely
liked her. A few years later I met her at a party; she didn't remember me,
and upon our introduction, she said, "And what do you do?" And I
thought...what the fuck difference does that make? What do YOU do? (She
was a stay-at-home wife and mother; so if she was occupation driven, I found
it ODD.) It seems to me as though people who immediately want to know what
you do for a living use it as a means to assess you as a person if they have
no other immediately way to figure out 'who' or 'what' you are.
Or perhaps it's someone's way of making conversation with a stranger...
To me, it's
an insecure reaction. In some cases, it's a sly way of asking, "How much
money do you make?" It has been my experience that people who need to know
what you do for a living right off the bat are hung up on social and
financial ranking. For a lot of people, what they do for a living has very
little to do with whether or not they are fun, or funny, or intelligent, or
interesting, or nice, or clever, or a thousand other qualities that are more
interesting to me than what their job might be.
Wow, you've got quite a chip on your shoulder. Perhaps you'd rather have a stranger meet you for the first time and say, are you funny? Can you show me?
I have a friend who is an artist with a lot of talent and she works pretty
ordinary jobs because she refused to take a beginning position as an
animator for Disney...because in her opinion, they get treated poorly; she
didn't want to work in a field she loved in a position she hated. Even
though it would have been a good starting point for a career in art...even
though she would have had a bigger paycheck and better benefits...she
preferred to keep her job at a cosmetics counter and sketch and paint on her
own time for no pay. I personally thought that she was making the wrong
sacrifice -- if she wants to be an artist, taking the job in her field is a
better long term decision, IMO. But I don't get to make her career choices
and frankly, I wouldn't want to. And it doesn't make me see her any
differently as a person. I have another friend who is very accomplished and
well educated; she had a bachelor's and went back and got her master's and
has a high-powered, high-paying job in the communications field...she is one
of those people who does often judge people by what they do and you know
what? Her personal life is miserable. She's not motivated by money per se,
but she's poured every ounce of energy into building a career for herself
that made her feel professionally fulfilled and respected by her peers and
she is one of the most perpetually unhappy people I know.
So, I guess the moral is, ambitious people are unhappy people, and those who work at cosmetic counters are the happy ones. And LeAnn must be one of the happy ones, because she only judges certain people. Did I get your point right?
Laurie Hester
tony wrote:
> Laurie Hester wrote:
>
> <snip>
> This thing is getting so huge...unless I'm getting academic credits I'm
> slimming this down. Only the important stuff.
I'll give you 2 credits; this is very time-consuming.
>
> > That's simply not true. I have said many times that it's *usually* the woman. But it makes no difference to our argument. My point that the assets are shared applies as well if the man earns less. And I have stated this, as well as used my ex as an example, so you calling
> > me a sexist is unfounded.
>
> No, not at all. You used your ex as an example to show what a grand
> humanitarian you are & I believe I commended you on that. I honestly
> don't recall you covering the ground of a male earning less (your ex
> excluded).
Since we started out discussing females supporting males, I was using gender-based terminology at first. My mistake, but I assure you that it goes both ways, which is why I gave you my example of when the male is earning less.
>
> > That would be fair if neither party had had to sacrifice any career goals. Is this our common ground?
>
> Common ground with the following conditions:
> Neither party means just that.
> We make no assumptions that either had given up anything based upon
> their gender alone.
Sounds good to me!!
>
>
> > > > By all statistics, the tables are extremely slanted in men's favor. Divorce women end up with something like 1/4 of the
> > > > income they previously had, while men enjoy 80% of their former income.
> > >
> > > So these divorced women all lose their jobs and are forced to start back
> > > at a 75% pay cut? I'm not buying that for a second. This must exist in
> > > the vacuum society you spoke of in the last post.
> >
> > No, I'm talking about household income, which is *usually* higher for the man, or the woman had been an at-home mom.
>
> Well of course her income is going to fall if she was a housewife and
> got all of her income from her husband. You didn't intend to state that
> at all on the first time around. You tried to assert that after a
> divorce a woman previously earning $20 an hour will now make $5. I
> don't understand where you are going with this now/
You had stated that the tables are slanted in the women's favor, and I was making the point that women are invariably worse off after a divorce, and many slide into the poverty/welfare cycle. Fact is, after a divorce, the women almost always are worse off financially, and men are
better off. It doesn't sound like men are getting the raw deal from divorce.
>
>
> > > But it happens. And I don't really care about Lucy from Iowa who is too
> > > afraid to call the leech out who is legitimately harassing her. Justice
> > > could be served. What I direct my attention to is a situation where a
> > > woman only needs to cry harassment and a truckload of lawsuits follows.
> > > In a his word against her word in court how does that all play out?
> >
> > Like in 90% of all rape cases?
>
> Where did "rape" come from? I'm speaking about sexual harassment cases
> and you avoided that totally to talk about rape. WTF??
>
> >If you knew the conviction rate of rape cases, you would know how difficult it is to >convict based on a woman's word.
>
> As well as it should be. If a rape occurred there will be PHYSICAL
> evidence to corroborate the complaint.
Very rarely. Most raped women are so embarassed and shamed and humiliated, they go home, clean up, and let days go by before they'll even tell anyone about it. Most women I've known that have been raped never go to the police, because they know what a horrible experience it is to
live through it for months, and then the guy gets off anyway because it's her word against his. My point in bringing this up, is that women know how difficult it is to prove rape or harassment even when it's true, so why would they think they have a chance when it isn't true?
>
>
> > Women know this very well, which is why many/most rapes go unreported, and why I find > it hard to believe a woman would
> > falsely accuse a man of something; it may happen once in a blue moon, but what's the > point, when her word is not good enough even in a real case?
>
> Well f*ck!! Rape is a capital offense. They can hand out the death
> penalty for rape so I sure as damn well hope someone's word and their
> word alone doesn't equal a conviction.
I don't know what state you live in, but rape is not a capital offense, unless the woman is killed. Murder with the complication of rape is a capital offense, as opposed to plain old murder, which would just get you a life term. Rapists, even if convicted, usually get out to do
it again. And you have a good point, which is why rape *isn't* a capital offense. It is so rare to have evidence in a rape case, and it usually comes down to credibility. Under those circumstances, no, you don't want to put someone to death. By the way, even if there *is*
physical evidence, such as semen, the guy merely has to claim the sex was consensual. Very difficult to prove rape unless the guy is caught in the act.
>
> > Nonsense. Like I say, the potential of abuse is there, sure, but it actually happens >one for 100 times a woman *is* harassed or raped and can't convict. What utter
> > nonsense to think that these laws favor women.
>
> Congrats for actually bringing back the idea of harassment. I mean it
> was the thing I commented on in the first place but let's get back to
> it. Again, here you are providing stats from the back of your hand to
> gloss over a very real premise. Truth is if a woman says a man touched
> her in an unwanted fashion and he denies it (assuming this is the only
> evidence) you know as well as I do the system will believe her over the
> man.
How can you honestly say that? The system will take her seriously, and charges will be filed, but proved in a court of law? No way.
>
> > Yes you are. I said "often" and you said I'm implying more likely than not.
>
> Often is synonymous with frequent. To me that's saying a lot more than
> say...sporatic? OK, I'll give you this one. Often is yours now.
Trust me, Tony, I choose very carefully between often, usually, most, etc when I am discussing things with you!
>
>
> > > I'm drawing on
> > > your point and calling you out on a bulls#it statement. Do you believe
> > > this is the case, that more often than not a marriage is an abusive one
> > > at the hands of the male?
> >
> > Asked and answered.
>
> Not really because often is preceded by an adjective qualifying it.
> That changes it a bit.
No, the majority of marriages are not abusive ones. I don't know what the statistics are here, but in Scotland, there was a really hard-hitting TV commercial stating that 1 in 5 Scottish women live with constant abuse. Wow. That's not often, or more often than not or most or
even frequent, but it sure is way too many. But look at the bright side; 4 out of 5 Scottish men don't beat their wives!
>
>
> > No, because harassment is unwanted sexual attention. Most men like sexual attention, > and so that isn't harassment.
>
> Maybe from someone they are "interested" in but "most" of us don't want
> sexual attention from anyone who gives it. I already feel your thoughts
> here but dare I say them and be scolded with another 'words in my mouth'
> claim... See, no one care have a fair argument with you because if you
> discover you've left a door open and we find it you cry we are putting
> words in your mouth. I could have a better conversation with the birds.
Ha! Just ask questions, don't make statements about what you think I'm thinking! The point is, harassment, whether by males or females, must be unwanted. I think it's bullshit when women say they are intimidated. At the very least, they should say NO! very loudly. If the
behavior continues, then it becomes harassment. But if she doesn't say NO! I don't believe harassment has occured. For either sex. And I hear you that sometimes men get unwanted sexual advances, but I'm just saying, how often has that ever happened to you? Women don't often
play the part of the agressor, particularly when they aren't 100% certain their advance is wanted. Does it sometimes happen? Sure. I've never done it to a man, but have had men I don't like come on to me 20-30 times in my lifetime. Maybe I'm an exception to the rule (I know I'm
old)!
>
> > You are putting words in my mouth again. Sure, it happens, but probably 1 percent of the number of times men do it to women.
>
> Here are more of your crazy numbers. Do you work as a statician because
> I swear I'm not seeing any documentation of these figures...
That's why I said "probably". Just a guess. Do you disagree? Do you often (or ever) have women make a sexual advance to you, wanted or unwanted, excluding a girlfriend?
> >If I say "a woman can help a man become successful" you cannot draw the conclusion that "a man can't become successful without a woman's help" yet that is what you are
> > doing to me. You are taking my sentences and drawing illogical conclusions and putting those words in my mouth.
>
> Quite frankly, honey, your logic is flawed. We'll need some if/then
> statements. You know all about those from programming, right?
>
> Think back to your logic class. Do you remember what a 'contrapositive'
> is?
> P -> Q <==> ~Q -> ~P
> Those are equivalent statements.
>
> let P = "a woman can help" (or just 'a woman's help')
> let Q = "a successful man" (becoming a successful man)
>
> If P then Q follows
> If (a woman can help) then (a successful man)
> [if a woman helps then a man is successful] // english translation
Here's where you go wrong. The correct translation of "a woman *can* help" is "it is possible for a woman to help". You are assuming that it is always the case.
>
>
> If ~Q then ~P follows
> If (not a successful man) then (not a woman can help)
> [if unsuccessful man then no help from a woman] // english translation
>
> It's rough but your challenge wasn't very textbook. Still, I have given
> you the proof based upon the sentence.
>
> > Be careful before you criticize my logic, honey.
>
> Uh... LOL I feel like ultra nerd after that demo but don't assume
> things, kid.
Nice try, though!
>
>
> > > > No, I call you a sexist when you make statements like "it's HIS money, why should she get some of it"
> > >
> > > Did I say that, *verbatim?* Please find the message for me.
> >
> > Not verbatim, in reference #10 above, you said, Her "supporting" Ed doesn't entitle
> > her to jack s#it, I'm sorry to tell you.
>
> how clever of you! You took this out of context...well here is the rest
> of it which explains the sentence:
>
> "Her "supporting" Ed doesn't entitle her to jack s#it, I'm sorry to tell
> you. A marriage is all about loving and being there for your
> significant other. Upholding your vows does not entitle you to half of
> the more successful party's goods just because the two are married.
> [important part there!!] If
> she had obviously given up some great opportunities to be there and
> console her mate then, sure, fine but in the everyday case of divorce
> both people should just walk away."
>
> Pretty low of you! Yup. You'll stop at nothing.
It still doesn't change the meaning of the sentence when you put it back in that sentence.
>
>
> >
> > And...
> >
> > But here you are demanding she should have half of his shit. What the
> > f**k is that??
>
> Another great example of your tactics to paint a different picture.
>
> I wrote:
> > > It's just so obvious. I don't think either of us know very
> > > many specifics about their day to day lives together
>
> you responded:
> > Of course not, and neither do you know whether or not she would deserve money.
>
> "But here you are demanding she should have half of his shit. What the
> f**k is that??"
You're still claiming it's his shit. But you're right, that's not sexist at all. It's just mean and stingy! I stand corrected.
> > You > resorted to this
> > many times in this last post of yours, just when I thought we were finally reaching > some common ground in the main argument.
>
> We have very little common ground and actually I don't even care about
> this thread anymore. The only part of it I will further respond to is
> your twists and turns or personal attacks.
Now who's sounding like a martyr?
> I really hope some day
> you'll realize that you are reluctant to see the flip side of things and
> are very biased into thinking a great majority of men are to blame for
> female woes.
Perhaps someday you'll see that *some* men, not all, but *some* men really do treat women badly, and that their claims are not all false, and they are not "out to get men or demonize them". Tony, I realize that I argue these subjects quite often. But that's probably only because
no one else does. I assure you, I am well balanced in my life, and I don't have "issues" with men. But there are certain things which push my buttons, and I'm sure you have those buttons as well. The biggest one is when a white male claims white males are treated unfairly or
"demonized" as you put it, when the white male has all the advantages in this society. I think that's a very sexist point of view. I don't dwell on this, mainly because I have competed very well in my field against white males. But it does stick in my craw to hear this, and I
will always attempt to get the man who says this to see the other side. I do think I understand you a little better, and I've made some mistakes in this argument as well. For example, your position on handling assets in a marriage, I still don't agree with, but I understand that
it comes more of a selfishness or unwillingness to share, than sexism. But other than calling you a sexist, I don't believe I have ever personally attacked you.
>
Laurie
In Hiding
In Hiding wrote:
>>Ummmm, I only know one meaning of "because" and "could be". Sorry, perhaps you could look them up in the dictionary....or better yet, if you don't understand my words, drop it! <<
Well, in that case, I interpret your words to mean a gas station attendant only has something to offer if he's an aspiring musician on the side. Thank you for clarifying that.
Re: being able to travel for leisure...I like to do that too. But it takes money. So isn't your motivation for working in part related to the pursuit of money? For once, Laurie, I am seriously not trying to yank your chain here. I thought you meant that what motivates you to work is the ability to travel (non-work related) and that's one of the things that motivates me, too. But I also see it as the ability to have extra money to do stuff I want to do...buy stuff, go places, eat in restaurants that are stupidly expensive, etc. So I see myself as someone who actually does LIKE money. That's why I was asking you about it. I am MOTIVATED by money, but not always in a good way. I'm a fairly lazy person, meaning I would like to get the most money with the least amount of effort.God, that's an ugly little portrait of me, isn't it? But it's true. So anyway, I wondered if you thought the pursuit of 'money' was inherently bad or if it was more specific than that. And if it's specific, that's cool; I don't need an explanation.>>Well, let's see. You were intensely interested in great detail about which professions I "approve of" and you and Tony implied that I only defined a good job as one which makes a lot of money. So that was an example [teaching] to show you that it isn't about money. Oh, wait, I already said that, and you didn't understand it. Oh well. <<
Re: stuff I said that you thought was judgmental...I thought I was making observations about your posts...are our posts "us"? If I said, "people who post on more than 15 topics are losers" or "people who post responses that are more than 10 lines long like the sound of their own voice too much" that would be judgmental. But I am probably splitting hairs here, so never mind.
>>Because you pick apart each sentence and even each word I say, and therefore miss the whole thought. And because you miss the thought, you keep asking me the same things over and over and over and over.... <<
No, it seems that the more we try to define our words, the more confusing it gets. Or so it is for me. I don't know if you truly can't understand me sometimes or if you're mimicking me.
Re: 'what do you do for a living' --
>>Or perhaps it's someone's way of making conversation with a stranger... <<
Yes, it can be...it depends on the reaction you get out of people after you answer.
>>Wow, you've got quite a chip on your shoulder. Perhaps you'd rather have a stranger meet you for the first time and say, are you funny? Can you show me? <<
Does it seem that way? I see it more of me always worrying about the weaklings...the underdogs...the ones who weren't ever first or best or most at anything. ; ) It seems like socially, people always sift into layers, and some people end up at the proverbial bottom through no actual fault of their own. I guess I felt like I was defending others more than myself -- which makes me what? I have no idea.I'm trying to think of what I might have asked a person when I met them for the first time. I think I usually ask people where they're from or more personal stuff than what their job is. But it's a hangup I have because of people I've known who were asking it for the wrong reasons, I guess. Eventually it is a good idea to know what they do for a living so you don't say something
>>So, I guess the moral is, ambitious people are unhappy people, and those who work at cosmetic counters are the happy ones. And LeAnn must be one of the happy ones, because she only judges certain people. Did I get your point right? <<
No, but you're not really trying. My point, which don't seem to want to acknowledge, is that a person's job isn't always the sum of who they are. Sometimes it has nothing to do with the kind of person they are.LeAnn
Laurie Hester
In Hiding wrote:
In Hiding wrote:
Re: being able to travel for leisure...I like to do that too. But it takes money. So isn't your motivation for working in part related to the pursuit of money? For once, Laurie, I am seriously not trying to yank your chain here. I thought you meant that what motivates you to work is the ability to travel (non-work related) and that's one of the things that motivates me, too. But I also see it as the ability to have extra money to do stuff I want to do...buy stuff, go places, eat in restaurants that are stupidly expensive, etc. So I see myself as someone who actually does LIKE money. That's why I was asking you about it. I am MOTIVATED by money, but not always in a good way. I'm a fairly lazy person, meaning I would like to get the most money with the least amount of effort.
Obviously, I don't hate money. I kind of like it. It allows
me to do things like tour with PJ. I don't think money is evil, although
I do believe obsession over it is evil. It's not my main motivation
in choosing my jobs, although I would not work for less than what my skills
are worth on the market. What I dislike is when someone is obsessed
with money, making it, spending it on useless things, on status-symbol
cars, etc. When someone has millions, but sells themselves to do
a commercial. When someone has 10s of millions and tries to deny
having married his wife and mother of 4 of his children so that he doesn't
have to give her any of it. That kind of person. I think you
and I are safe, LeAnn.
I'm trying to think of what I might have asked a person when I met them for the first time. I think I usually ask people where they're from or more personal stuff than what their job is. But it's a hangup I have because of people I've known who were asking it for the wrong reasons, I guess. Eventually it is a good idea to know what they do for a living so you don't say something
It's interesting that among Blacks in this country, it is considered almost rude to ask someone what they do for a living. Just as in Japan, it is NOT considered rude to ask someone how old they are or how much they weigh when you first meet them!
Laurie
tony
> > As well as it should be. If a rape occurred there will be PHYSICAL
> > evidence to corroborate the complaint.
>
> Very rarely. Most raped women are so embarassed and shamed and humiliated, they go > home, clean up, and let days go by before they'll even tell anyone about it. Most > women I've known that have been raped never go to the police, because they know what a > horrible experience it is to live through it for months, and then the guy gets off > anyway because it's her word against his.
I know it sounds heartless but now whose problem is that? It's
undoubtedly a horrid thing to endure but she *should* go to the
authorities asap. First priority should be to get to a hospital.
Wouldn't an officer be able to come down at the same time she is being
looked over? The evidence could be collected and everything taken care
of at once. Everything in this life has limitations. We should do our
best within those boundaries to see that the right thing is done.
> My point in bringing this up, is that women know how difficult it is to prove rape
> or harassment even when it's true, so why would they think they have a chance when
> it isn't true?
Rape? Sure, difficult to prove without witnesses or physical evidence.
Sexual harassment? The whole claim is "unwanted attention in a sexual
manner" - be it frank, or lose innuendoes. It may be hard to "prove"
yet it's much harder to disprove a claim and the following stigma
attached to being an alleged harasser.
> I don't know what state you live in, but rape is not a capital offense, unless the > woman is killed.
Rape *is* a capital offense. Murder isn't the only capital offense.
I'll be honest, I don't think I've heard of any rapist getting the chair
yet all capital crimes are subject to capital punishment. All it would
take is a judge to decide.
> By the way, even if there *is*
> physical evidence, such as semen, the guy merely has to claim the sex was consensual. > Very difficult to prove rape unless the guy is caught in the act.
True, but at least now you can positively conclude sex did happen. It's
a far cry closer to justice than just a word.
> No, the majority of marriages are not abusive ones. I don't know what the statistics > are here, but in Scotland, there was a really hard-hitting TV commercial stating that > 1 in 5 Scottish women live with constant abuse.
That's a pretty steep figure. Reflect on that and ask yourself if you
can honestly accept that as an indisputable fact. I can't. At least
not in the sense that 1 in 5 Scottish women are *physcially* abused
*constantly.* And you yourself qualified it with your joke about 4 out
of 5 Scottish men...
> Ha! Just ask questions, don't make statements about what you think I'm thinking! The > point is, harassment, whether by males or females, must be unwanted. I think it's
> bullshit when women say they are intimidated. At the very least, they should say NO! > very loudly. If the behavior continues, then it becomes harassment. But if she
> doesn't say NO! I don't believe harassment has occured. For either sex.
I can't agree with you more! See, I think a problem lies in and around
just that. Perhaps you've got a case where a guy believes he's flirting
with a girl whom he thinks is "playing hard to get" while she is just
plain annoyed - yet says nothing to deter him.
> And I hear you that sometimes men get unwanted sexual advances, but I'm just saying,
> how often has that ever happened to you? Women don't often
> play the part of the agressor, particularly when they aren't 100% certain their
> advance is wanted.
You're assuming that *only* women have the possibility of making an
unwanted pass toward me. Truth is I've had a number of gay men express
their interest. That's a little difficult to dismiss as random when it
comes more often from men than women - when you're a heterosexual male
;) I'm not homophobic but it does make you question the signals you
send, ya know. Still, yes I've felt very uncomfortable when a girl I
wasn't interested in continually pandered for my attention. It's not an
easy thing to explain but you know when someone is doing that. How do
you respond? If you carry on like everything is peachy then you can't
cry harassment. I think our discussion is drifting away from it's
origin. I still hold that it is easy for women, if they wanted revenge
or had some other vendetta, to make a false claim and succeed in a
harassment case.
> That's why I said "probably". Just a guess. Do you disagree? Do you often (or ever) > have women make a sexual advance to you, wanted or unwanted, excluding a girlfriend?
>
Not often but probably about 8 times that I can clearly remember.
> > >If I say "a woman can help a man become successful" you cannot draw the conclusion that "a man can't become successful without a woman's help" yet that is what you are
> > > doing to me. You are taking my sentences and drawing illogical conclusions and putting those words in my mouth.
> >
> > Quite frankly, honey, your logic is flawed. We'll need some if/then
> > statements. You know all about those from programming, right?
> >
> > Think back to your logic class. Do you remember what a 'contrapositive'
> > is?
> > P -> Q <==> ~Q -> ~P
> > Those are equivalent statements.
> >
> > let P = "a woman can help" (or just 'a woman's help')
> > let Q = "a successful man" (becoming a successful man)
> >
> > If P then Q follows
> > If (a woman can help) then (a successful man)
> > [if a woman helps then a man is successful] // english translation
>
> Here's where you go wrong. The correct translation of "a woman *can* help" is "it is possible for a woman to help". You are assuming that it is always the case.
"Can" is used to say that someone or something has the capacity to do
something. If you really meant "it is *possible* for a woman to help"
then you should have said just that instead of "a woman *can* help."
When your boss asks you to do something and you reply I *can* do that
you mean you will do that. When someone asks you if you are going to
concert and you reply "I may go" you mean it's possible but not
certain. In the situation of proving and disproving arguments using
symbolic logic you must assume some things. If everything is a variable
you won't be able to conclude a thing but probability. I've acted
within the constraints of using symbolic logic to derive a contrapositve
of your original statement.
> > Pretty low of you! Yup. You'll stop at nothing.
> You're still claiming it's his shit. But you're right, that's not sexist at all. > It's just mean and stingy! I stand corrected.
I'm claiming his stuff is his stuff. Not his stuff is all of his stuff
plus anything she brought in. It's not mean and stingy either. It's
fair and equitable.
> > We have very little common ground and actually I don't even care about
> > this thread anymore. The only part of it I will further respond to is
> > your twists and turns or personal attacks.
>
> Now who's sounding like a martyr?
Hey, I'm just saying these are getting entirely to long and I don't
expect to be chastised for snipping out relevant info that has become
trivial at this point.
>
> Perhaps someday you'll see that *some* men, not all, but *some* men really do treat
> women badly, and that their claims are not all false,
I've never said the contrary to this. I still get the impression that
you feel it's more than just some, however. This is why we battle so
much over your most, some, ect.
> and they are not "out to get men or demonize them".
Sometimes those who speak the most speak the loudest. It doesn't take
much to create a lasting impression. For instance, you buy a car. You
have problems with it and swear you'll never own another century widget
in your life. When your friends, family, and co-workers consider buying
a new car they'll have a negative view of that model because someone
they know and respect dislikes it. They'll think, "I've heard that's a
bad one..." Same thing here. You are creating a bias - a prejudice.
Talk show hosts do, radio personalities do it. A mother talking to her
young daughter can do it as well. Sometimes we, as humans, get a rough
time and it's very easy to pass that attitude along - that's all I'm
saying.
> Tony, I realize that I argue these subjects quite often. But
> that's probably only because no one else does. I assure you, I am well balanced in my > life, and I don't have "issues" with men. But there are certain things which push my > buttons, and I'm sure you have those buttons as well.
If something pushes your button then you have an issue with that
stimulus. Yes, I have issues too but I'm not ranting on and projecting
an image over an entire class as probably acting one way or another. I
understand that you disagree with my interpretation but that's just it,
my interpretation.
The biggest one is when a white > male claims white males are treated
unfairly or
> "demonized" as you put it, when the white male has all the advantages in this society.
All of these advantages in society? Are you joking? If I were an
underrepresented minority it would be much easier to get business
loans. It would be easier to get into a school of choice and it would
be easier to get into a company whose numbers are out of sync. I know,
no liberal can fathom that quotas exist but they do... Sounds like I
have the distinct disadvantage in comparison in many cases by being a
white male.
> I think that's a very sexist point of view.
It's a rational point of view to dismiss gender and race and look at the
individual.
> I don't dwell on this, mainly because I have competed very well in my field against white males.
Perhaps that is the problem. If you always consider it a competition
and a rat race...
> But it does stick in my craw to hear this, and I
> will always attempt to get the man who says this to see the other side. I do think I > understand you a little better, and I've made some mistakes in this argument as well. > For example, your position on handling assets in a marriage, I still don't agree with, > but I understand that
> it comes more of a selfishness or unwillingness to share, than sexism.
Why I've argued this so much is because you seem to feel that the
general rule should just be to evenly split everything. This is fine if
everything was bought with an equal share coming from both husband &
wife. My issue is what about 2 people who are happy in their unfettered
careers yet one earns substantially more then the other. They get a
divorce and what happens? Is it fair for them to split everything down
the middle? I say no. That's fair, that's common sense economics. You
feel that the act of marriage buys into those bank accounts and I don't
feel they do. Let's face it, when 2 people get a divorce they are
really not worried about being overly generous to the other.
> But other than > calling you a sexist, I don't believe I have ever personally attacked you.
Well, now you've decided I am not a sexist rather a stingy, selfish
individual. Thank you for jumping to conclusions because your claims of
"sexism" is still alive on the internet. Very uncool..
Laurie Hester
tony wrote:
> > No, the majority of marriages are not abusive ones. I don't know what the statistics > are here, but in Scotland, there was a really hard-hitting TV commercial stating that > 1 in 5 Scottish women live with constant abuse.
>
> That's a pretty steep figure. Reflect on that and ask yourself if you
> can honestly accept that as an indisputable fact. I can't. At least
> not in the sense that 1 in 5 Scottish women are *physcially* abused
> *constantly.* And you yourself qualified it with your joke about 4 out
> of 5 Scottish men...
This was a commercial from the government, so I don't think they were exaggerating. And yes, I do believe it. Mainly because women are not very liberated there and because there is a lot of alcoholism and hard drinking on weekends which is usually a factor in spousal abuse.
> The biggest one is when a white > male claims white males are treated
> unfairly or
> > "demonized" as you put it, when the white male has all the advantages in this society.
>
> All of these advantages in society? Are you joking? If I were an
> underrepresented minority it would be much easier to get business
> loans.
That makes no sense whatsoever. If minorities and females are underrepresented, then doesn't that imply that the majority of loans are given to white males? That minority, if he gets the job, will be a rare success in his minority group. The white male he replaces is but one of many, many who will also get jobs. So if you're talking 50 employees and 45 of them are white males, the one
white male individual who doesn't get the job doesn't have the advantage, but white males in general still have quite the advantage.
> It would be easier to get into a school of choice and it would
> be easier to get into a company whose numbers are out of sync.
Again, white males are overrepresented in those areas, so that means they have the advantage overall.
> I know,
> no liberal can fathom that quotas exist but they do... Sounds like I
> have the distinct disadvantage in comparison in many cases by being a
> white male.
99% of all CEOs are white males, and the vast majority of upper management in general are white males. "He won the lottery...a big hand slapped the white male American." There is no more privileged segment of society than white males. But hey, I don't hold that against you, if you don't hold it against the women and minorities who are trying to change that.
Laurie
tony
> > All of these advantages in society? Are you joking? If I were an
> > underrepresented minority it would be much easier to get business
> > loans.
>
> That makes no sense whatsoever. If minorities and females are underrepresented, then > doesn't that imply that the majority of loans are given to white males?
Being underrepresented doesn't always mean 'having been discriminated
against.' Is there any real proof that women and minorities either
worked for that position and/or have the qualifications for it and were
denied on the basis of not being a 'white male'?
> That minority, if he gets the job, will be a rare success in his minority group.
If based on merit, yes. If based on race he has become a figure for
feel gooders such as yourself.
> The white male he replaces is but one of many, many who will also get jobs.
Why is it this a one way deal? Why do you feel it is fair for the white
male to simply try again elsewhere?
> So if you're talking 50 employees and 45 of them are white males, the one
> white male individual who doesn't get the job doesn't have the advantage, but white
> males in general still have quite the advantage.
Why? You seem to think that every company should bear a representative
slice of the American population. For argument sake, let's assume 2
groups of people, X and Y. X will be the majority at 85% of the
population and Y represents the minority at 15%. A new company, Co Inc.
advertises for a job in any such department with strict educational and
work history requirements. Again, for argument sake, let's assume 1000
applications are submitted for the 100 positions of this new company.
The company would like to maintain the 85/15 split of the American
population with it's employees. You can easily see the ratio of
applications to positions is 10:1 so most will be turned away. What you
don't know before looking at the applications are how many were
submitted
from each group and how many possess the stated qualifications. What if
only 15 were submitted from Y? Must they hire all 15 irrespective of
qualifications? The number one goal of any company is to earn a profit
and to maximize that profit. What is in the best interest for the
company? Hire the people with the best skills or play a numbers game?
Sure, they could try again and only accept Y applicants for the 15 (or
remainder of 15) positions but this is at an added cost in both time and
money for the company. If the best is hiring 100 Y then hire 100 Y.
Why can't we just have a hiring practice that
looks at a résumé absent of gender and racial background? Hell, let's
even eliminate the name and assign a random number to individuals.
Critique the résumé and interview after cutting away the under
qualified.
> > It would be easier to get into a school of choice and it would
> > be easier to get into a company whose numbers are out of sync.
>
> Again, white males are overrepresented in those areas, so that means they have the advantage overall.
This is by far the most ludicrous thing I've ever read by you. This
isn't the House or Senate where a majority rules so how do they have the
advantage? Are you implying that being a white male will place you a
foot ahead of others only because of their race & gender? White males
are 'over represented'? (which is a bullshit term anyway) Just what does
that mean to you?
> 99% of all CEOs are white males, and the vast majority of upper management in general > are white males. "He won the lottery...a big hand slapped the white male American."
And of those 99% a vast majority are college educated (often times at
the graduate level) middle aged men who have been working in their
career for 3 or 4 decades by now. 3 or 4 decades ago was it *as common*
as it is today for "underrepresented" minorities to get a college
education? Was it common for them in the midst and aftermath of the
Civil Rights movement to jump into the fast track? Was it common for
women in the 60s to forgo a 60s style traditional family and chase her
dreams? It's absurd to analyze the bottom line by drawing the
conclusion that because the numbers don't equate to the same as the
American demographic then something is wrong. If you do a little
research you'll find that these "lottery winners" have paid their dues.
> There is no more privileged segment of society than white males. But hey, I don't hold > that against you, if you don't hold it against the women and minorities who are trying > to change that.
I don't hold anything against anyone unless it's blatantly unfair.
There is no free ticket to ride given to each white male born in
America. What I feel is unfair it the free ticket has been designed for
a group within a minority who don't quite measure up on the merit scale.
You tell me if this is fair: By being a member of an "under
represented"
minority, it has the effect of raising ones cumulative gpa by one full
point. That is one rung of the application process at one public
university. Care to explain how this is all in the name of fairness?
If you answer only one question let it be this one. Do you feel that a
group being "over represented" is bad and that it should be corrected
through affirmative action or the like?
--
-tony
"nothing in life is turning me on but I still see clearly when I see you
smiling." -R.Ashcroft
Laurie Hester
tony wrote:
> Laurie Hester wrote:
> > > All of these advantages in society? Are you joking? If I were an
> > > underrepresented minority it would be much easier to get business
> > > loans.
> >
> > That makes no sense whatsoever. If minorities and females are underrepresented, then > doesn't that imply that the majority of loans are given to white males?
>
> Being underrepresented doesn't always mean 'having been discriminated
> against.' Is there any real proof that women and minorities either
> worked for that position and/or have the qualifications for it and were
> denied on the basis of not being a 'white male'?
No, there probably isn't any "proof". How would you go about proving something like that? However, racism and sexism do exist in this society, whether you want to admit it or not.
>
>
> > That minority, if he gets the job, will be a rare success in his minority group.
>
> If based on merit, yes. If based on race he has become a figure for
> feel gooders such as yourself.
>
> > The white male he replaces is but one of many, many who will also get jobs.
>
> Why is it this a one way deal? Why do you feel it is fair for the white
> male to simply try again elsewhere?
You seem to be starting from the presumption that that one job is the white male's to begin with. If he doesn't get it, he's being "denied". It means to me that he is the bottom of the barrel if he
didn't get the job even with the advantages he has. You know, we are going down the path here that we did with the argument about divorce. This is not black and white (no pun intended), and I don't
have the energy to examine one case at a time.
For one thing, blacks and women aren't as likely to apply to a company or school where they are underrepresented. For example, when UC Berkeley changed it's policy from affirmative action based on
race to affirmative action based on economic background, it was perceived as a slap in the face, and the following year, applications from blacks dropped way down. The law school only had one black
applicant, and he decided not to go to Berkeley even though he was accepted. In an interview, he said he decided not to go to Berkeley because he felt unwelcome because of their policy changes and
lack of diversity.
Secondly, the vast majority of blacks grow up in disadvantaged areas. Their schools are poor. This is why I feel UC Berkeley's change to economic disadvantage was a move in the right direction; all
blacks did not grow up disadvantaged, and not all poor people are black. However, if we as a society, don't provide decent schooling for ALL of our members, then I don't think it's wrong to factor
that in when deciding whether someone is qualified or not. If that black kid has managed to work hard and qualify for UC Berkeley with a 4.0 GPA (his school didn't offer college prep classes), then
why should we only take those students with more than 4.0 (which can be obtained only by taking college prep classes)? There are enough applicants to fill the freshman class with over 4.0 GPA. The
minimum qualification is 3.8, so the black kid DID qualify; he just didn't have as high of a GPA as many of the Asians.
Same applies to job applicants. Like it or not, Tony, prejudice does exist. And a racist manager may not show it outwardly, but you can bet that his racism will be reflected in job performance
ratings, promotions, etc. So that black person, when applying for a new job, may not have as good a resume as the white person. I know I'm simplifying this, but my point is, racism and sexism does
exist, and because of that, it is unfair to go by standards that benefit white males. Why not include other qualities that make a good student or employee, and put emphasis on those, instead of
simply GPA or test scores or experience? Why not put equal emphasis on loyalty, easy-going personality, willingness to help, or a myriad of other qualities which go into making a good employee? No
race or sex has a lock on those qualitites, so they would be able to compete fairly. It is only "unfair" to white males to hire that woman who has less managerial experience than the male, if you
make the rules of the game benefit the white male. If you make the rules themselves fair, and include other experience (like, say, managing a household counts as much as managing an office), then
the woman actually may have MORE experience than the male. The point is, the rules, perhaps not intentionally, now favor white males. Let's change the rules so that they are more fair for all. If
you perceive that as being less fair for white males, then you are presuming that the jobs are supposed to be for white males and are "being taken away". The net result of making a system be more
equitable for everyone, is that there *will* be fewer jobs for white males. I don't see that as being unfair; it's simply making white males compete on the same basis as anyone else. The better
qualified white males will still get jobs.
>
> This is by far the most ludicrous thing I've ever read by you. This
> isn't the House or Senate where a majority rules so how do they have the
> advantage? Are you implying that being a white male will place you a
> foot ahead of others only because of their race & gender? White males
> are 'over represented'? (which is a bullshit term anyway) Just what does
> that mean to you?
It means that humans tend to hire those they are most comfortable with. And since most humans in a position to hire are white males, they do have an advantage, even if the hirer isn't racist or
sexist. And sometimes they are. When I see an IT department which is all male, given the fact that females represent somewhere around 30% of programmers now, I think to myself, something is wrong
here. Might be just chance. Might be that the manager is sexist, might be that there is a higher attrition rate for females, because it is an environment which is hostile to females in general.
>
>
> > 99% of all CEOs are white males, and the vast majority of upper management in general > are white males. "He won the lottery...a big hand slapped the white male American."
>
> And of those 99% a vast majority are college educated (often times at
> the graduate level) middle aged men who have been working in their
> career for 3 or 4 decades by now. 3 or 4 decades ago was it *as common*
> as it is today for "underrepresented" minorities to get a college
> education? Was it common for them in the midst and aftermath of the
> Civil Rights movement to jump into the fast track? Was it common for
> women in the 60s to forgo a 60s style traditional family and chase her
> dreams? It's absurd to analyze the bottom line by drawing the
> conclusion that because the numbers don't equate to the same as the
> American demographic then something is wrong. If you do a little
> research you'll find that these "lottery winners" have paid their dues.
I'm sure they have. However, they will tend to hire middle managers who are like them. And some of them will be downright racist/sexist. It is still an advantage for white males, and until females
and blacks break through that barrier to the CEO level, it will continue.
>
>
> > There is no more privileged segment of society than white males. But hey, I don't hold > that against you, if you don't hold it against the women and minorities who are trying > to change that.
>
> I don't hold anything against anyone unless it's blatantly unfair.
> There is no free ticket to ride given to each white male born in
> America.
What does that line from WMA mean to you? Or do you think Eddie is crazy like me to have written such a line? This is not just my opinion here, even though I may be the only one arguing with you.
> What I feel is unfair it the free ticket has been designed for
> a group within a minority who don't quite measure up on the merit scale.
The one designed to advantage white males.
>
> You tell me if this is fair: By being a member of an "under
> represented"
> minority, it has the effect of raising ones cumulative gpa by one full
> point. That is one rung of the application process at one public
> university. Care to explain how this is all in the name of fairness?
I did above. There are other qualities besides GPA that make a good student. GPA is directly affected by poor schools in poor areas and is inherently unfair as a measure.
>
>
> If you answer only one question let it be this one. Do you feel that a
> group being "over represented" is bad and that it should be corrected
> through affirmative action or the like?
Yes, I do. I lived all my adult life in El Cerrito, CA, until recently. I have racially mixed children and I would never bring them up in a white neighborhood in the Bay Area. I've spent some time
in those places, and the very fact that white suburbs exist is a reflection upon the racism inherent in those neighborhoods. And don't get me wrong; those people in the white suburbs probably deny
being racist, yet they just feel more "comfortable" in white neighborhoods. El Cerrito is very racially mixed, with my son's high school about one third black, one third asian, and one third white.
And I feel that not only avoiding racism is a plus, but the diversity itself teaches them that the world is made up of many different kinds of people. That different cultures have different
practices, some of which make us uncomfortable, but it is just their way; they are not making whites uncomfortable on purpose. That racial stereotypes usually have their roots in cultural practices
and can be explained in context. That other races are human just like you and me, and that when you have a friend of another race, it helps you understand their culture. People become extremely
narrow-minded when surrounded by people of their own culture. People surrounded by diversity become open-minded and accepting of others. And I believe this is an essential skill in this world
today, which is shrinking to the point where you cannot avoid those of other cultures.
And then I took my son to Scotland, where there are few minorities. There were a couple of Indians and a couple Chinese in his school there of about 300. The lack of diversity in itself was a
learning experience for my son (and myself). This lack of diversity has become so extreme in Scotland and Ireland, that you have narrow-minded people discriminating based on different religions or
accents, not race. People without diversity grow inward to the point where they imagine enemies in the next village or even the next neighborhood.
Laurie
Also Sprach Zarathustra
herein are based on whatever I learned about the Constitution at the hands
of our public education system.
>>There is no free ticket to ride given to each white male born in America.
<<
There was initially in this country; from a historical perspective it wasn't
that long ago! Only white males could vote or own property, etc. The
Constitution was set up to specifically protect white males; it didn't give
blacks or women any mention about the same rights until amendments were
attached, decades later. The precedent was set a long time ago that white
males were superior in this country...they were entitled to many privileges
that women and blacks were not. You can't just even the playing field by
announcing that now minorities and women will be protected as well. There
is, in fact, no way to level the playing field unless you specifically
excluded white males for an equal number of years and allowed minorities and
women to flourish the way while males were allowed to; most of this country
is still trying to overcome the idea that white males represent "everyone"
or that the 'right' person for a position of wealth, power, or
accomplishment is a white male. Years of conditioning are hard to give up.
Do you think that during the years where white males were the only
race/gender allowed to accumulate any wealth or power in this country that
they were also exclusively the smartest, the best, and the brightest? That
no woman or man of color could have matched them in terms of business
acumen, or intelligence or ability, or political savvy? They had the
advantage and privilege of education but college doesn't make everyone
smarter; look at Dan Quayle or George Bush.
And please don't think I'm man-bashing or anything...women have been their
own worst enemy in perpetuating their oppression, particularly in the last
20+ years. Women as a gender are far more supportive of men than they are
each other. While I think that minorities still face prejudices they would
be incapable of overcoming without help, women could do a lot more for
themselves if they realized (a) they are the MAJORITY in this country and
(b) used that power of numbers accordingly.
karend...@my-deja.com
admit it or not.
>>
they exist and are doing very well !
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
karend...@my-deja.com
<<And please don't think I'm man-bashing
or anything...women have been their own
worst enemy in perpetuating their
oppression, particularly in the last 20+
years. >>
this is very true.
<< Women as a gender are far more
supportive of men than they are each
other. While I think that minorities
still face prejudices they would be
incapable of overcoming without help,
women could do a lot more for themselves
if they realized (a) they are the
MAJORITY in this country and (b) used
that power of numbers accordingly>>
I agree.One thing women need to do(among many things) is to stand up for each
other here and in other countries where the women are really abusively walked
on.If we would stand together we could make a world of difference,literally.
I watched a disgusting display (on Oprah) of how women and girls are treated
in other countries.From FGM to getting acid thrown in their faces.They are
being killed for being raped,children are being mutilated ....Women in some
other countries are treated far worse than i ever imagined. Here's a few
websites... www.equalitynow.org..... www.Rawa.org....and womenforwomen.org
that you can read a bit about these things and help them to have a voice.
possibly even help them to escape the unfair torture.Hopefully help put an
end to such abuse.
tony
>
> > Being underrepresented doesn't always mean 'having been discriminated
> > against.' Is there any real proof that women and minorities either
> > worked for that position and/or have the qualifications for it and were
> > denied on the basis of not being a 'white male'?
>
> No, there probably isn't any "proof". How would you go about proving something like > that? However, racism and sexism do exist in this society, whether you want to admit > it or not.
It's not a matter of admitting it or denying it; I know it exists. The
problem is when people wish to enact all encompassing programs that
effect everyone but only have the potential for benefiting some. And
of those some it helps in few instances - those where racism and sexism
*do* exist. I've always been and always will favor the utilitarian
argument.
> > > The white male he replaces is but one of many, many who will also get jobs.
> >
> > Why is it this a one way deal? Why do you feel it is fair for the white
> > male to simply try again elsewhere?
>
> You seem to be starting from the presumption that that one job is the white male's to > begin with.
Not at all but you are saying (more or less) better luck next time to
the white male. The job is there and the person with the best
abilities should win the toss, not the person who fits a racial profile.
> If he doesn't get it, he's being "denied".
As I've stated before, there is no possible way 2 candidates for a job
will be equal in all respects of abilities, intelligence, work ethic,
and work history. Somewhere in all of that one of the two will pull
ahead. If race (or gender) is *ever* considered then everyone looses.
Black, white, male, female, etc.
> For one thing, blacks and women aren't as likely to apply to a company or school where > they are underrepresented.
How is that anyone's fault but that person alone? If they have
inhibitions about going to an institution they feel they are under
represented at then host a rally to bolster support. How is this the
stereotypical 'white man's' fault?
> For example, when UC Berkeley changed it's policy from
> affirmative action based on race to affirmative action based on economic background, > it was perceived as a slap in the face, and the following year, applications from > blacks dropped way down. The law school only had one black
> applicant, and he decided not to go to Berkeley even though he was accepted. In an > interview, he said he decided not to go to Berkeley because he felt unwelcome because > of their policy changes and lack of diversity.
And that's obviously his decision and his ultimate loss. What ever
happened to the idea of rising above the so called opposition? He could
have been a pioneer and made a shinning example of perseverance, yet he
appears to have taken the easy way out and cried oh poor me about it
later...
> Secondly, the vast majority of blacks grow up in disadvantaged areas. Their schools are poor.
A vast majority? Do you believe the vast majority of African Americans
grow up in the ghetto?
> This is why I feel UC Berkeley's change to economic disadvantage was a move in the right direction; all
> blacks did not grow up disadvantaged, and not all poor people are black.
just a "vast majority", eh?
> However, if we as a society, don't provide decent schooling for ALL of our members, > then I don't think it's wrong to factor
> that in when deciding whether someone is qualified or not.
Then are you willing to extend the same helping hand to non ethnic
minorities who were also brought up in poor & disadvantaged areas? You
recognize that "not all poor people are black" but I haven't seen you
address poor whites either.
> If that black kid has managed to work hard and qualify for UC Berkeley with a 4.0 GPA (his school didn't offer college prep classes), then
> why should we only take those students with more than 4.0 (which can be obtained only by taking college prep classes)? There are enough applicants to fill the freshman class with over 4.0 GPA.
I'm going to call you on this. I don't believe there are more 4.0+ gpa
candidates for the freshman class at UC then they can accept. Graduate
schools, yes, too many qualified applicants from a gpa prospective but
not at the undergrad level. Point me to an article or university based
statistic.
> The minimum qualification is 3.8, so the black kid DID qualify; he just didn't have > as high of a GPA as many of the Asians.
Are Asian Americans not considered a minority in this country? I
believe from a political prospective they are. Do you only favor women
and African Americans in your pro affirmative action stance? Or do you
wish to help all disadvantaged people regardless of their race or
gender?
>
> Same applies to job applicants. Like it or not, Tony, prejudice does exist. And a > racist manager may not show it outwardly, but you can bet that his racism will be
> reflected in job performance ratings, promotions, etc. So that black person, when
> applying for a new job, may not have as good a resume as the white person.
Why do ultra liberals assume that only whites can be racist? I went to
a middle, middle-class high school with about 1800 students. Maybe
8-10% of the student body were African American and there was a huge
problem with back against white racist attacks and slurs. Was it
unprovoked? I can say as an observer yes, many times. Were there cases
of white aggressions toward the blacks? Yes. Conclusion? Anyone can
be racist but here we are arguing the white racist attitude as if it is
the only one in existence in America.
> I know I'm > simplifying this, but my point is, racism and sexism does
> exist, and because of that, it is unfair to go by standards that benefit white males.
If you show me a situation where checking the box "African American" has
led to a denial in acceptance to any school or job then I will stand
behind you and say, yes, that has unfairly benefited all people who are
not African American. I will remind you that this is 2001 and not
1865. I'm well aware of this nations past but we are both talking about
today.
> Why not include other qualities that make a good student or employee,
and put emphasis > on those, instead of simply GPA or test scores or
experience?
Sure, because we all know scholastic performance is totally
unimportant...
> Why not put equal emphasis on loyalty, easy-going personality, willingness to help, or > a myriad of other qualities which go into making a good employee?
When I asked one of my professors last semester why programming only
counted for 35% of the grade and tests accounted for remaining 65% he
said, "because I can't be sure all programming assignments are done on
an individual basis. Test, however, *are* done individually and shows
me what *you* know." Laurie, can we gauge loyalty? Can we fairly and
accurately predict one's willingness to do something in the future? No,
we can't. Can someone's history be observed? Can we derive the
personality and other qualifications from their grades and letters of
recommendation? Yes. I agree, consider all of them but to not make
test scores and gpa the top consideration then you are allowing for
abuse with the ever popular "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine"
- with a sparkling and exaggerated letter of recommendation. Same
conflict as the programming vs. test analogy. I can't be sure that you
really did those things but I can test your intelligence at any time.
> No
> race or sex has a lock on those qualitites, so they would be able to compete fairly. It is only "unfair" to white males to hire that woman who has less managerial experience than the male, if you
> make the rules of the game benefit the white male. If you make the rules themselves fair, and include other experience (like, say, managing a household counts as much as managing an office), then
> the woman actually may have MORE experience than the male.
Possibly but again, I have to alert you to the fact that this is now
2001 and the majority of the American families are dual wage earners.
The household of the stay at home mom is becoming endangered. And, if
you want to claim that sure, both work outside of the home but the woman
bears the brunt of raising the child then doesn't the man likely assume
the position of the house handyman? She might manage the people skills
and he might manage the ranch. Is one less important? Delegation of
duties in my book.
> The point is, the rules, perhaps not intentionally, now favor white males. Let's > change the rules so that they are more fair for all.
I don't agree with your sentiments on the cause but I'm for making it
equally fair for *all.*
> If
> you perceive that as being less fair for white males, then you are presuming that the > jobs are supposed to be for white males and are "being taken away".
The only time I presume a job is taken away from a "white male" is when
a white male is denied in favor of a *lesser qualified* non-white for
whatever reasons. It doesn't assume the job belongs to any race. It
assumes that the job belongs to the most objectively qualified
*individual.* If two whites apply and the lesser qualified is hired
it's the same situation. This is not about race until one gains a job
based solely upon race.
> The net result of > making a system be more
> equitable for everyone, is that there *will* be fewer jobs for white males. I don't > see that as being unfair; it's simply making white males compete on the same basis as > anyone else. The better
> qualified white males will still get jobs.
If you were to never examine a person's race or gender and look only at
skills, aptitude, personality, etc., then that's fair.
> > foot ahead of others only because of their race & gender? White males
> > are 'over represented'? (which is a bullshit term anyway) Just what does
> > that mean to you?
>
> It means that humans tend to hire those they are most comfortable with.
Ever hear of separating the personal from the business life?
> And since > most humans in a position to hire are white males, they do have an advantage, even if > the hirer isn't racist or
> sexist.
But you totally imply that these people are acting racist, be
unconsciously, through their hiring practices. Since the majority of
the people doing the hiring are white males as you say, then you assert
the majority *is* by virtue acting in a racist manner. Can I infer that
from your statement or will you claim I am making illogical
conclusions? Or will it be that I am putting words in you mouth?
> And sometimes they are. When I see an IT department which is all male, given > the > fact that females represent somewhere around 30% of programmers now, I think to > > myself, something is wrong
> here.
Your 30% figure is probably accurate but traditionally the scientific
fields of engineering, mathematics and computers have been male
dominated. Not due to a bias but because women haven't typically been
interested in these fields in the past. You never seem to allow for
attrition. Allow things to run their course.
> Might be just chance. Might be that the manager is sexist, might be that there > is a higher attrition rate for females, because it is an environment which is hostile > to females in general.
Ah, good. You've mentioned attrition! (See, I don't read ahead - reply
as I read) I think you should allow for the old stigma to wear out
through attrition instead of assuming as the women go they stay gone.
Today there are more, qualified females competing for these positions so
as the thick male IT department moves along or retires, if more women
are not hired (assuming an influx in qualified female applicants) then
maybe you could conclude your manager is sexist. I don't think based
upon what you've stated that a ration conclusion is women are
discriminated in your department. It's possibly but not probable IMO.
> > dreams? It's absurd to analyze the bottom line by drawing the
> > conclusion that because the numbers don't equate to the same as the
> > American demographic then something is wrong. If you do a little
> > research you'll find that these "lottery winners" have paid their dues.
>
> I'm sure they have. However, they will tend to hire middle managers who are like > them. And some of them will be downright racist/sexist. It is still an advantage for > white males, and until females
> and blacks break through that barrier to the CEO level, it will continue.
Says who? And who says that *all* would do this anyway? You propose a
lot of "this *might* happen so we *must* do this to counteract it -type"
scenarios. This is why we disagree so much on this and the divorce
topic, Laurie. You (seem to) wish to make all encompassing catch all
laws to counterbalance what MIGHT happen. That's just so unfair for the
majority of times the evil in which you wish to correct is not
present.
> What does that line from WMA mean to you? Or do you think Eddie is crazy like me to
> have written such a line? This is not just my opinion here, even though I may be the > only one arguing with you.
Ed writes a lot about mistreated women but does that mean that a
majority of women are mistreated? How many times through no fault of my
own have I felt the heartbreak of a manipulative girlfriend? A one-time
fiancé I can add as well. I don't think all women are mean like that -
joke as I do ;) He speaks out on situations from places and time.
Wasn't that song about Malice Green? That happened right here in
Detroit. Eddie didn't know everything. I don't know everything
either. Do a keyword search on Malice Green and think about it before
you jump at the chance to exploit this.
> > What I feel is unfair it the free ticket has been designed for
> > a group within a minority who don't quite measure up on the merit scale.
>
> The one designed to advantage white males.
What??? The white male is not the minority! What are you trying to
say...?
(In response to your retort) -> The one designed to help under qualified
people within a minority because they can't compete on a scholastic
level.
> I did above. There are other qualities besides GPA that make a good student. GPA is > directly affected by poor schools in poor areas and is inherently unfair as a measure.
Test scores are not inherently unfair. Allowing us to believe someone
cannot rise above a difficult situation (such as living in an
economically disadvantaged district therefore attending substandard
schools) is unfair.
> > If you answer only one question let it be this one. Do you feel that a
> > group being "over represented" is bad and that it should be corrected
> > through affirmative action or the like?
>
> Yes, I do.
Then I do not need to read any further. Why do you not speak of
professional sports? Are African Americans not "over represented" (as
compared to the American population) in the NBA? Are whites not "over
represented" in the NHL? Why are these clear cases of outright
discrimination not at the top of your list? A little bit of sarcasm
there. I don't feel it is discrimination because these people are where
they are due to their immediate and observable abilities. I'm not
making $10 million a year for the Lakers because I couldn't shoot a
three-pointer if a PJ concert in my backyard depended on it. Why don't
you think the same holds true for typical 9-5 jobs?
Laurie Hester
tony wrote:
As I've stated before, there is no possible way 2 candidates for a job
will be equal in all respects of abilities, intelligence, work ethic,
and work history. Somewhere in all of that one of the two will pull
ahead. If race (or gender) is *ever* considered then everyone looses.
Black, white, male, female, etc.
You're right. And it happens very often. You make it sound like it's a rare thing.
> For example, when UC Berkeley changed it's policy from
> affirmative action based on race to affirmative action based on economic background, > it was perceived as a slap in the face, and the following year, applications from > blacks dropped way down. The law school only had one black
> applicant, and he decided not to go to Berkeley even though he was accepted. In an > interview, he said he decided not to go to Berkeley because he felt unwelcome because > of their policy changes and lack of diversity.And that's obviously his decision and his ultimate loss.
It's the loss of the law school as well.
What ever
happened to the idea of rising above the so called opposition? He could
have been a pioneer and made a shinning example of perseverance, yet he
appears to have taken the easy way out and cried oh poor me about it
later...
No, he went to Stanford, I believe, which wasn't in the middle of an affirmative action backlash. He's certainly not crying about it.
> Secondly, the vast majority of blacks grow up in disadvantaged areas. Their schools are poor.
A vast majority? Do you believe the vast majority of African Americans
grow up in the ghetto?
How about addressing my point, rather than my language? Yes, I believe the majority of African Americans in this country grow up in disadvantaged areas, not necessarily the ghetto. Places like Oakland, where most neighborhoods are lower middle class, with outdated and falling apart schools. I sure haven't seen many blacks in middle or upper class neighborhoods.
> This is why I feel UC Berkeley's change to economic disadvantage was a move in the right direction; all
> blacks did not grow up disadvantaged, and not all poor people are black.just a "vast majority", eh?
> However, if we as a society, don't provide decent schooling for ALL of our members, > then I don't think it's wrong to factor
> that in when deciding whether someone is qualified or not.Then are you willing to extend the same helping hand to non ethnic
minorities who were also brought up in poor & disadvantaged areas? You
recognize that "not all poor people are black" but I haven't seen you
address poor whites either.
If you had read my entire paragraph rather than taking it apart sentence by sentence in order to attack my language or use of "majority", you would see that that is exactly the point I was making; that it should be not by race, but by background, at least for schools. Jobs gets a little more complicated, because you can't really ask about background.
> If that black kid has managed to work hard and qualify for UC Berkeley with a 4.0 GPA (his school didn't offer college prep classes), then
> why should we only take those students with more than 4.0 (which can be obtained only by taking college prep classes)? There are enough applicants to fill the freshman class with over 4.0 GPA.I'm going to call you on this. I don't believe there are more 4.0+ gpa
candidates for the freshman class at UC then they can accept. Graduate
schools, yes, too many qualified applicants from a gpa prospective but
not at the undergrad level. Point me to an article or university based
statistic.
I looked, but could not find on-line. I read this in a letter sent out to alumni several years back when they were explaining their system of admissions. They then multiplied the GPA by 1000 and added to it your SAT score. The top score without honors classes would be 5600, but if you had a 4.2 GPA and 1400 on the SAT, it would give you the same. The number of applicants with Berkeley as their first choice that had more than 5600 score would have more than filled the spots. It's not so difficult to do that. I no longer have the letter, and although the website refers to the fact that because *certain* campuses (Berkeley, UCLA) have many more applicants, they use a higher standard for those campuses than that which qualifies you for the UC system. I guess they don't want to discourage people who might have something to offer other than a 4.5 GPA.
As I read the website, it seems they have changed their policies, and only 50 to 75% of freshman spaces are filled with "score-based" applicants. The top 4% of each individual high school is guaranteed admission. (Note, that is to the UC system of something like 15 campuses, not just UC Berkeley). This is their way of ensuring that the top students at disadvantaged schools have an advantage, and I believe this is better than using race as a guide.
> The minimum qualification is 3.8, so the black kid DID qualify; he just didn't have > as high of a GPA as many of the Asians.
Are Asian Americans not considered a minority in this country?
In this country, yes, but they comprise around 40% of the freshman at UC Berkeley and would comprise more, I'm sure, if admissions were simply score based.
I
believe from a political prospective they are. Do you only favor women
and African Americans in your pro affirmative action stance? Or do you
wish to help all disadvantaged people regardless of their race or
gender?
Again, you are nit-picking my language. I'm using "blacks" instead of "minorities", however, I would include all disadvantaged people. However, I do not believe that Asians are as discriminated against in jobs or in school. And of course, poor whites aren't victims of racism at all.
>
> Same applies to job applicants. Like it or not, Tony, prejudice does exist. And a > racist manager may not show it outwardly, but you can bet that his racism will be
> reflected in job performance ratings, promotions, etc. So that black person, when
> applying for a new job, may not have as good a resume as the white person.Why do ultra liberals assume that only whites can be racist? I went to
a middle, middle-class high school with about 1800 students. Maybe
8-10% of the student body were African American and there was a huge
problem with back against white racist attacks and slurs. Was it
unprovoked? I can say as an observer yes, many times. Were there cases
of white aggressions toward the blacks? Yes. Conclusion? Anyone can
be racist but here we are arguing the white racist attitude as if it is
the only one in existence in America.
I have met a few racist blacks, yes. However, what you are describing sounds like a backlash against racism. Regardless, racist blacks are not the ones in power.
> I know I'm > simplifying this, but my point is, racism and sexism does
> exist, and because of that, it is unfair to go by standards that benefit white males.If you show me a situation where checking the box "African American" has
led to a denial in acceptance to any school or job then I will stand
behind you and say, yes, that has unfairly benefited all people who are
not African American. I will remind you that this is 2001 and not
1865. I'm well aware of this nations past but we are both talking about
today.
You are very naive to believe racism is any better now than in 1865. It's just not as overt.
The only time I presume a job is taken away from a "white male" is when
a white male is denied in favor of a *lesser qualified* non-white for
whatever reasons. It doesn't assume the job belongs to any race. It
assumes that the job belongs to the most objectively qualified
*individual.* If two whites apply and the lesser qualified is hired
it's the same situation. This is not about race until one gains a job
based solely upon race.
But people who hire *aren't* objective. They don't go by who is "most qualified". An applicant who has just finished college at age 30, taking 8 years to do it because she went to school part-time after raising her children, who has 10 years of experience managing a household, will have a much more difficult time getting a job than the man who is fresh out of college at age 21, even though on paper they have the same qualifications, and she actually has more "work experience" than he does. Face it, biases exist.
> The net result of > making a system be more
> equitable for everyone, is that there *will* be fewer jobs for white males. I don't > see that as being unfair; it's simply making white males compete on the same basis as > anyone else. The better
> qualified white males will still get jobs.If you were to never examine a person's race or gender and look only at
skills, aptitude, personality, etc., then that's fair.
Right, that would be fair, but in practice, it doesn't always work that way. Sometimes you have to give white males a little nudge to consider hiring females or minorities. Such a nudge is affirmative action, which is simply a goal, not a quota.
> It means that humans tend to hire those they are most comfortable with.Ever hear of separating the personal from the business life?
> And since > most humans in a position to hire are white males, they do have an advantage, even if > the hirer isn't racist or
> sexist.But you totally imply that these people are acting racist, be
unconsciously, through their hiring practices.
No, I'm saying they feel more comfortable with males (or whites, or the same class)
Since the majority of
the people doing the hiring are white males as you say, then you assert
the majority *is* by virtue acting in a racist manner. Can I infer that
from your statement or will you claim I am making illogical
conclusions? Or will it be that I am putting words in you mouth?
No, I'm not saying that. See above.
> Might be just chance. Might be that the manager is sexist, might be that there > is a higher attrition rate for females, because it is an environment which is hostile > to females in general.Ah, good. You've mentioned attrition! (See, I don't read ahead - reply
as I read)
Perhaps you *should* read my whole thought and respond, rather than to each sentence.
I think you should allow for the old stigma to wear out
through attrition instead of assuming as the women go they stay gone.
Today there are more, qualified females competing for these positions so
as the thick male IT department moves along or retires, if more women
are not hired (assuming an influx in qualified female applicants) then
maybe you could conclude your manager is sexist. I don't think based
upon what you've stated that a ration conclusion is women are
discriminated in your department. It's possibly but not probable IMO.
Again, the statistic of women earning 65 cents to the man's $1 hasn't changed in a generation, so obviously attrition isn't working!
> I'm sure they have. However, they will tend to hire middle managers who are like > them. And some of them will be downright racist/sexist. It is still an advantage for > white males, and until females
> and blacks break through that barrier to the CEO level, it will continue.Says who? And who says that *all* would do this anyway? You propose a
lot of "this *might* happen so we *must* do this to counteract it -type"
scenarios. This is why we disagree so much on this and the divorce
topic, Laurie. You (seem to) wish to make all encompassing catch all
laws to counterbalance what MIGHT happen. That's just so unfair for the
majority of times the evil in which you wish to correct is not
present.
Aren't you doing the same thing by saying that in the "majority" of times, the evil doesn't exist?
> What does that line from WMA mean to you? Or do you think Eddie is crazy like me to
> have written such a line? This is not just my opinion here, even though I may be the > only one arguing with you.Ed writes a lot about mistreated women but does that mean that a
majority of women are mistreated? How many times through no fault of my
own have I felt the heartbreak of a manipulative girlfriend? A one-time
fiancé I can add as well. I don't think all women are mean like that -
joke as I do ;) He speaks out on situations from places and time.
Wasn't that song about Malice Green? That happened right here in
Detroit. Eddie didn't know everything. I don't know everything
either. Do a keyword search on Malice Green and think about it before
you jump at the chance to exploit this.
Well, I didn't see an answer to my question, other than Eddie isn't right. I'm not saying he is, but you are attacking me as though I was the only person in the world to think that white males have advantages! You may not agree, but asking me to prove that white males have the advantage is not necessary. Even some white males admit that.
> I did above. There are other qualities besides GPA that make a good student. GPA is > directly affected by poor schools in poor areas and is inherently unfair as a measure.Test scores are not inherently unfair. Allowing us to believe someone
cannot rise above a difficult situation (such as living in an
economically disadvantaged district therefore attending substandard
schools) is unfair.
I think it is, from the fact that poor schools can't offer the honors courses, to the fact that there isn't a cultural bias towards excelling in schools, to the fact that poor districts can't afford to pay good teachers, to the fact that it's difficult to learn in a classroom where the roof leaks, and on and on. Sure, some individuals do overcome. But a lot don't.
> > If you answer only one question let it be this one. Do you feel that a
> > group being "over represented" is bad and that it should be corrected
> > through affirmative action or the like?
>
> Yes, I do.Then I do not need to read any further.
I think you do. Here it is again. And I would like to
hear your comments. You asked me if/why I thought diversity was good,
and I took a lot of time to answer as best I could. And then you
dismiss my explanation? Tony, I am really surprised at you.
tony
> > Why do ultra liberals assume that only whites can be racist? I went to
> > a middle, middle-class high school with about 1800 students. Maybe
> > 8-10% of the student body were African American and there was a huge
> > problem with back against white racist attacks and slurs. Was it
> > unprovoked? I can say as an observer yes, many times. Were there cases
> > of white aggressions toward the blacks? Yes. Conclusion? Anyone can
> > be racist but here we are arguing the white racist attitude as if it is
> > the only one in existence in America.
>
> I have met a few racist blacks, yes. However, what you are describing
> sounds like a backlash against racism. Regardless, racist blacks are
> not the ones in power.
Backlash? We're talking about high school. The kids in high school are
in no position of power! You are unwilling to assume that the blacks
might have been the aggressor in the first place - which was indicated
above
by saying many times it was unprovoked. I knew just about everybody
back then. It wasn't a secret. I described a
situation where it was clear that racism was prominent from both blacks
and whites but what do you do with that information? You justify the
racism
by calling it a "backlash." That's pathetic.
> > > > If you answer only one question let it be this one. Do you feel that a
> > > > group being "over represented" is bad and that it should be corrected
> > > > through affirmative action or the like?
> > >
> > > Yes, I do.
> >
> > Then I do not need to read any further.
>
> I think you do. Here it is again. And I would like to hear your
> comments. You asked me if/why I thought diversity was good, and I took
> a lot of time to answer as best I could. And then you dismiss my
> explanation? Tony, I am really
> surprised at you.
Nowhere did I say or imply that diversity was bad or not a good thing.
It's the means in which you feel diversity must be achieved by, that's
what I disagree with. I did NOT ask you if/why you thought diversity is
good. What I asked you was quoted above. I've read your lengthy
passage and I know you feel passionately about this, the thing is you
fit the liberal mold to a tee and I wonder if you even are aware of a
rational thought on this matter. You say you are for equality but you
don't feel racism exists toward whites so how are are willing to protect
them as well? You think any group being over represented as compared to
national statistics is bad and should be corrected. That is also quoted
above. Why do pro sports not fit into your cure all prescription?
Bottom line...I don't care. I'm finished with this thread. Be upset
with me if you wish - I just don't care. You are ultra biased and
unwilling to allow people to be responsible for themselves. You will
allow people to use the past as a constant crutch. You feel that at any
given situation this invisible hand is guiding even the most open-minded
white male as he looks over your job app. These are of course my
interpretations but in the end is why I am drawing to a close. There is
nothing left to discuss...
Laurie Hester
tony wrote:
> > Laurie wrote:
>
> > I have met a few racist blacks, yes. However, what you are describing
> > sounds like a backlash against racism. Regardless, racist blacks are
> > not the ones in power.
>
> Backlash? We're talking about high school. The kids in high school are
> in no position of power! You are unwilling to assume that the blacks
> might have been the aggressor in the first place - which was indicated
> above
> by saying many times it was unprovoked.
How do you know what is going on in their private lives or away from school, which
might have caused their hatred? It may seem unprovoked, but how do you know they
aren't responding to racist comments they found in the bathroom that morning at
school, or something like that? I didn't mean to imply that the blacks are never
the aggressor, as a matter of fact, I mentioned that I have known some racist
blacks.
> I knew just about everybody
> back then. It wasn't a secret. I described a
> situation where it was clear that racism was prominent from both blacks
> and whites but what do you do with that information? You justify the
> racism
> by calling it a "backlash." That's pathetic.
I'm not justifying anything, but you fail to see there are two sides to
everything. That's pathetic.
>
>
> > > > > If you answer only one question let it be this one. Do you feel that a
> > > > > group being "over represented" is bad and that it should be corrected
> > > > > through affirmative action or the like?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I do.
> > >
> > > Then I do not need to read any further.
> >
> > I think you do. Here it is again. And I would like to hear your
> > comments. You asked me if/why I thought diversity was good, and I took
> > a lot of time to answer as best I could. And then you dismiss my
> > explanation? Tony, I am really
> > surprised at you.
>
> Nowhere did I say or imply that diversity was bad or not a good thing.
> It's the means in which you feel diversity must be achieved by, that's
> what I disagree with. I did NOT ask you if/why you thought diversity is
> good. What I asked you was quoted above. I've read your lengthy
> passage and I know you feel passionately about this, the thing is you
> fit the liberal mold to a tee
Well, thank you. I fit the mold of "open-mindedness, generosity", etc.
> and I wonder if you even are aware of a
> rational thought on this matter.
You say this after the very personal explanation of how/why I feel that way about
diversity? You say I'm just spouting pre-formed thought? I'm sorry, but I've never
ever heard anyone describe the value of diversity in the way I did. And if you
have, please let me know where, because someone stole my life! Again, instead of
responding to my comments, you try to insult me with the above comment, but it
makes no sense whatsoever.
> You say you are for equality but you
> don't feel racism exists toward whites so how are are willing to protect
> them as well?
Come on, Tony. Racist whites are hated, sure, but you can't be serious about
saying that whites are victims, except in isolated cases. That's just ridiculous
and an attempt to blame the real victim.
> You think any group being over represented as compared to
> national statistics is bad and should be corrected. That is also quoted
> above. Why do pro sports not fit into your cure all prescription?
> Bottom line...I don't care. I'm finished with this thread. Be upset
> with me if you wish - I just don't care. You are ultra biased
I hate to break it to you, but you are extremely biased. You cannot see the forest
for the trees. If one white male is treated unfairly, you use that case to ignore
the daily, constant unfairness that certain segments of society have to deal with.
> and
> unwilling to allow people to be responsible for themselves.
Someone posted a comment about Dubbya being born on third base and he thinks he hit
a triple. This is you, and now that people are trying to say, let's make
*everyone* start at home plate, you cry that "they're trying to change the rules of
the game, unfair, unfair."
> You will
> allow people to use the past as a constant crutch.
You fail to see that racism and sexism are alive and well; of course not, you never
see it because you are white male. I truly believe you are not racist, Tony, but
that seems to be blinding you to the fact that it still very much exists in our
society. It is something which may be less overt than 100 years ago, but it's
still there. And the society it has built needs a radical overhaul. The net
result is going to be that the white male has less power and prestige and advantage
than he has had. But making the white male compete on a level playing field is not
unfair. It may seem unfair to the individual white males which cannot compete and
lose their privilege, but that is the price to be paid.
Laurie
Bob
and maybe I'd even consider myself an "ultra-liberal". But in fact i
acknowledge there is racism on all fronts, and none of it is a good thing.
I think the reason "liberals" concentrate on the issue of racism against
blacks is because it is one of the most prevalent. Racism against whites
does exist, and in no way is it justified, but other types of racism are
larger problems currently. So tell me, is someone who refuses to
acknowledge that there is racism against whites open-minded? Of course not.
And considering an open mind goes hand and hand with being "liberal", the
opinion of "ultra-liberals" that you describe is not in fact a liberal
opinion. One of the major problems when debating politics in this newsgroup
and elsewhere is this kind of "Us and Them" (to steal from Pink Floyd)
attitude. Let's try to get rid of this liberal vs conservative bullshit and
just talk ideas.
- Bob
"tony" <jam...@netprince.net> wrote in message
news:3A53F94B...@netprince.net...
Saerah Schreiber
> and I was making the point that women are invariably worse off after a
>divorce, and many slide into the poverty/welfare cycle. Fact is, after a
>divorce, the women almost always are worse off financially, and men are
>better off. It doesn't sound like men are getting the raw deal from divorce.
>
well, no one forced the woman to be the one who leeched off her spouse for
years.
Saerah
"Are we going to the same place? if so, can I come?" ~ Eddie Vedder
"The Almighty thinks he can get me out of this, but he's pretty sure you're
fucked."~Stephen (from Braveheart)
"Practice deliberate acts of kindness and purposeful acts of beauty"
Laurie Hester
Saerah Schreiber wrote:
> laurie remarked:
> > and I was making the point that women are invariably worse off after a
> >divorce, and many slide into the poverty/welfare cycle. Fact is, after a
> >divorce, the women almost always are worse off financially, and men are
> >better off. It doesn't sound like men are getting the raw deal from divorce.
> >
>
> well, no one forced the woman to be the one who leeched off her spouse for
> years.
Wow, how about couples who decide together that one of them should stay home with
the kids while they are young? Is that leeching? You and Tony should get
together here. You both seem to have the same view of marriage; that it's
formalized roommates (this is yours and that is mine), instead of two people
coming together to share their lives and create a family. ;)
Laurie
tony
>
> Saerah Schreiber wrote:
>
> > laurie remarked:
> > > and I was making the point that women are invariably worse off after a
> > >divorce, and many slide into the poverty/welfare cycle. Fact is, after a
> > >divorce, the women almost always are worse off financially, and men are
> > >better off. It doesn't sound like men are getting the raw deal from divorce.
> > >
> >
> > well, no one forced the woman to be the one who leeched off her spouse for
> > years.
>
> Wow, how about couples who decide together that one of them should stay home with
> the kids while they are young? Is that leeching? You and Tony should get
> together here. You both seem to have the same view of marriage; that it's
> formalized roommates (this is yours and that is mine), instead of two people
> coming together to share their lives and create a family. ;)
I think she is referring to the "I never want to work please take care
of meeeeee" brand of leaches. Oh, there are a few out there. Anywho, I
don't think you can infer that Saerah and I have the same view on
marriage from one sentence.
Saerah Schreiber
>formalized roommates (this is yours and that is mine), instead of two people
>coming together to share their lives and create a family. ;)
no, what im saying is that if the woman chooses to stay home, its her own fault
if she cant get a job at the same level later. why cant her husband not work
outside of the home?
JettKarma
>laurie remarked:
>> and I was making the point that women are invariably worse off after a
>>divorce, and many slide into the poverty/welfare cycle. Fact is, after a
>>divorce, the women almost always are worse off financially, and men are
>>better off. It doesn't sound like men are getting the raw deal from divorce.
>>
>
>well, no one forced the woman to be the one who leeched off her spouse for
>years.
>Saerah
********************************************
As a generalization, that's an incredibly sexist comment when you get
right down to it.
--Jett