Despite what I said above I am so grateful not to have to work around women any more. I am very sorry for Harry’s generation as this is going to be their lifelong reality. The sheer smug triumphalism of the women being affirmative-actioned into all the institutions built by men is enough to make me want to see it all burn.
After having thought about this for thousands of hours over many years it all boils down to this. Only one sex is born with the plumbing to make more people. It’s unfair as hell, yes, when there are so many great man-toys like MIT to play with, but it’s a biological reality. Women can choose to play laboratory or office instead of having children for a couple of generations but then the wheels come off. The future belongs to those who reproduce.
32 comments
With seven billion people stressing the planet, a few wheels coming off isn't a bad idea. Meanwhile, Charles Martel, I suspect you're less a Frankish warrior than an inveterate pipsqueak.
Is Mr Martel suggesting that women reproduce through parthenogenesis?
I suppose given the sites he frequents it is unlikely he would have the first-hand knowledge of the activities that go on to produce babies, but that information is widely available.
The future belongs to those who reproduce.
Actually, we're good on the 'reproduction' thing. Not running out of humans anytime soon. What we need to get working on more vigorously is the whole cleaning up the mess we've made and finding alternative sources of fuel thing.
But more people? No thanks, we have plenty.
The future belongs to those who make it. Sitting around and whining about people making their own futures independant of you and wishing it destroyed out of spite places it far beyond your reach.
Only one sex is born with reproductive ability? It's laughable you think of MIT as a man's establishment past a woman's understanding when the bare basics of human biology a grade schooler should know are beyond your comprehension.
Last time I checked, it takes BOTH a man AND a woman to make more people, to reproduce. Men can also choose to play laboratory or office instead of having children.
Only for a very short time in the beginning of the industrialization did men work with no women around. Before that the whole family (men, women, boys and girls) worked together on the farm.
Affirmative action only forces the people who are hiring employees to look closer at applicants of the gender that is under-represented in the workplace. If a man and a woman have similar qualification and experience, the man should get the post if there are fewer men than women employed there.
During WWII, women did most of the work, including build ammunitions factories, as most of the men were off playing army. (Yes, I know it wasn't play, but horrible. Working in a hospital or a kidnergarten can be a bit horrible too, and neither is play either.)
The sheer smug triumphalism of the women being affirmative-actioned into all the institutions built by men is enough to make me want to see it all burn.
Translation: "If I can't have it then nobody can!"
Well, as the Tea Party would tell you: "Get a job you lazy parasite!"
The future belongs to those who reproduce.
Mosquitoes produce 6 billion offspring. All hail our new insect overlords! But seriously though, there are two major reproduction strategies in nature: have many children and have them fend for themselves, hoping at least a couple will be successful or have very few and nurture them all to success.
"I am very sorry for Harry’s generation as this is going to be their lifelong reality."
What the fuck are you on about?! He'll find someone to marry, just as his older brother Prince William did with Kate Middleton; bear an heir to the throne, and all that jazz.
Prince Harry'll still have his career in the British Army, flying AH-64 Apaches (he took out a major Taliban leader - with a Hellfire laser-guided anti-tank missile, in Afghanistan!), and his future wife will have her public role too.
Hey, those heirs to the throne don't produce themselves, you know! [/hyper-smartarse] X3
It was men who built a lot of our old institutions because they deliberately kept women out to preserve all of the power and privelege for themselves.
The men of those times also tried, like you, to reduce the value of women to reproduction alone, but you might want to pull your head out of your ass long enough to look around and realize that that bullshit doesn't fly anymore.
Women can choose to play laboratory or office instead of having children
Or both... or even both AND have the father help with child-rearing...
I don't think you thought very hard about this...
He doesn't care about the other 'peoples' of earth, he wouldn't mind seeing them all die out, as long as his kind just keeps on growing in numbers and be the ones that will inherent the future.
Charles Martel? As in Charles the Hammer, grandfather to Charlemagne?
Yeah, I bet you cream yourself over the thought of being ultimate warlord in western Europe and killing Muslims.
But the sad truth is that you're just a petty keyboard warrior who can only kill several bags of Doritos.
Fun fact: In the field where I work, it is men "Invading" a domain of women.
The future, Mr. Hammer, will not include you.
And men can also choose between having children and being in a laboratory. In fact, many men have taken that decision, your point?. And, by the way, the future is for people who reproduce?, don't tell it to Newton, never married, never had kids.
Women can choose to play laboratory or office instead of having children for a couple of generations but then the wheels come off.
Sigh, and again: making sure that someone has the opportunity to do something =/= making it mandatory for everyone.
There will still be women who rather be housewives than working in an office or laboratory (odd selection of possible workplaces, but whatever
) and that is OK. It’s just not OK to force someone to do the same if they don’t want to!
@Swede
Affirmative action only forces the people who are hiring employees to look closer at applicants of the gender that is under-represented in the workplace. If a man and a woman have similar qualification and experience, the man should get the post if there are fewer men than women employed there.
Thank you for mentioning that often overlooked fact.
In my country the overwhelming majority of kindergarten teachers is female, which has the advantage for male teachers that they can choose and pick their jobs, especially if they are jobs in higher positions. The same goes for nurses. The situation with public employees is not quite as skewed, but as a male applicant you still have better chances.
And that is exactly as it is supposed to be until there is an equal representation in that specific job. So, if you want affirmative action gone, lobby for true equality.
I guess it's a lot easier for a worthless piece of shit like Charlie here to get a job if half his competition has been arbitrarily banned due to their shameful lack of penis. What's the matter, little boy, can't compete?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
