General Music Chat

Now, Craig, you have once again assumed much more than I have said.

For example - "It is "YOU" who demeans women by asserting they are incapable of making good political leaders or CEO's."

I'd like you to point to exactly where I made that remark. I can't find it. Please read what I write, once again, & quit putting your over-emotional twist on my words. I DID indeed say that getting more women in positins of power was effing wrong, but that was because of the way you presented it - as if it needed to be done just to get more women into the mix.

I'll try to clarify things for you....



1) Actually, Craig, I don't really have a problem with a female in a leadership role, but I'm not gonna say that we need more of them just to up the numbers & make everyone equal, here. That is pure & simple stupidity.

2) I also have no huge problem with a father being the parent in the home, if the wife is more adapted to the working environment, but that also doesn't mean that I wuold encourage this switch of traditional roles for the mere sake of it. I do believe that boys & girls should be brought up in more traditional ways, but if they decide to reject them, it's perfectly okay with me. You have once again forgotten my views concerning personal freedoms & choice.

3) I find it repulsive that we are doing as much as we seem to be doing to eradicate the male. I still see too many of these tendencies everywhere I look.

4) I DO think it's wrong for both ppl in a cpl to work, especially when there are children in the household. I think that, if ppl decide to do this, there should be a huge "sin-tax" for it, to offset the fact that there are no parents in the home raising the children. Once the children are out of the home, the tax could be reduced, but there should be some sort of "impact fee," a tax, placed on them for taking up more space in the wprk force. I realize that you are probably gonna say that there is no reason for this, that there is plenty of work to go around, but that simply is NOT the case anymore, imo. Plus, our gov't should be encouraging tight family units, & not loose ones. Encouraging ppl to stay home & raise the kids might be the way to go.

5) I think it's ridiculous for any cpl to hire others to raise thier child. I so believe that there should be taxes placed on them for choosing to do this. If you want children, it is your DUTY to raise them. 'Nuff said.

6) By removing 1/2 the work force, you will be also removing a lot of sexual goings on in the work place, because I do believe that most families would choose to have the woman return to the traditional roles. Besides, there really wouldn't be a 50% reduction, would there? Many would choose to do the wrong thing, & pay the taxes, & allow others to raise thier kids, because that's just how superficial, jaded, uncaring & unloving we've become as a society.

"The world would be a MUCH BETTER place, if there were more women in positions of power."

Aside from being just so f*cking wrong, I would also say that THIS, sir, is just as "sexist" as my own remark quoted by you above.

It's not sexist at all. Women bring a different perspective, they process things differently, etc.... How would it not be a better world, when we COMBINE all the best that humanity has to offer, and that they are in more positions of power, so that their ideas or insights have some real weight behind them?

You seem to believe women have NOTHING to offer but being confined to the house all day, servicing the needs of men, like objects to be owned.

How can it be sexist, to suggest that the world would be a better place if more women were in positions of power? YOu clearly believe that only men are qualified to make executive decisions. THAT is what is sexist, not a position, that MEN & WOMEN should BOTH be in positions of power throughout the world. Sexism is DISCRIMINATION based on sex. Men and women are EQUALLY INTELLIGENT and EQUALLY CAPABLE of being executives and world leaders. There is NO POSSIBLE sexism in that statement, or in my position.

It is "YOU" who demeans women by asserting they are incapable of making good political leaders or CEO's.

You are an IDIOT if you really believe that.

Are you frikken serious? Do you REALLY believe that having more women in positions of power would mean fewer WARS?

Have you ever even LISTENED to them talk to each other? Let alone how they talk to men!

Okay, I'm being fascetious, but you're being extremely naive if you think having women run things will make them better in any way. Things won't be better, Craig, just slightly different, cuz women are just as apt to take offense, & to give offense as men are, in case you haven't noticed up there on your high horse. Thet are also just a greedy, just as power-mad, & just as blatantly stupid as we are, & if you don't believe that you are a very foolish man indeed.

You're doing alot of backpeddling, probably out of embarrassment.

And I still have a migraine!

No back pedalling needed, Craig. It is you who continuously jump to conclusions about others with your endless rants & name-calling that causes stupid conversations like this one. If you'd stop & get all the facts before you jump on someone, maybe you'd see that they actually make some sort of sense. i'm not the guy that explains every little thing in meticulous detail, & sometimes I realize that's a personal failing, but it certainly does NOT make me the total jerk you would automatically make me out to be time & again. You are way too full of yourself & your opinions to allow others to simply BE, Craig.