Motherhood

[The Good Reverend Roger]

its not a given

it depends on what the goals are

fulfillment thru corporate achievement doesnt seem too legit

To whom?  You?  Me?  Does that invalidate it for everyone?  Are we the arbiters of all that is good and right?

Fact:  There is nothing wrong with playing the corporate game, if that is really what you like to do.  Without these bastards, you and I would not even be having this conversation.  Slack,Ñ¢ is not about not having a JOB, it's about not WORKING, where "work" = doing something that makes you miserable, for a paycheck.  If a woman chooses to get her Slack,Ñ¢ by racking up "points" in the corporate game, rather than raising kids, good on her.

She'd be LOSING Slack,Ñ¢ if she stayed at home to raise kids she never wanted, just to keep you happy.  And hell, even if she HAD those kids, are they better off living with a mother who - however unjustifiably - blames them for the end of their career, or with a nanny?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

also:

if i had to make a guess - i would say that it would involve doing more good than bad

and ending suffering on the planet

Yeah, and while we're tossing pixie dust around, let's stop all wars and human greed.

[Chairman Risus]

This reminds me of lamanite's argument with Rog about koreans and the vietnam.

I don't think women have been "tricked" into pursuing corporate jobs any more than men have. Those who do aspire for high ranking corporate jobs would be doing something else if those jobs weren't there. Probably not making kids though, most women have there minds made about that already.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

.

I don't think women have been "tricked" into pursuing corporate jobs any more than men have.

Touche'.   

[Triple Zero]

i think i sort of understand where you're coming from, X. but you phrase it a littlebit odd and hence what-Roger-said.

seeing your new replies, actually i think you're phrasing it a whole big kind of odd.

the woman's goal was equality, not "fulfillment thru corporate achievement". but indeed, if the woman's goal would have been "fulfillment thru corporate achievement" it's very possible that she has been tricked into following it illusorious , but the same thing holds for a man that chases that goal

my take on this matter: it usually takes me about an hour of heated discussion before a feminist and i agree that it's not "women should climb the corporate ladder" but "women should have equal choice to climb the corporate ladder".

also it really depends on where you are. in some places, things are already pretty equal and still moving towards more equilibrium. these things have some sort of momentum, so even if the will is there, it takes a while before change happens.
problem is, momentum also has another side, a delay to put a brake on things set in motion. having been raised by a very feminist woman (who has done an awesome job at climbing the corporate ladder next to raising her kids, btw), i'm particularly wary of that last one. but that's just because it has hit me in the head so often.
but then, in other places, things are not equal at all, and things just plain and simple need to change, not because women should climb the corporate ladder, but because it's not fair that they don't have the choice to climb the corporate ladder.

looking at it from yet another side:
- it used to be that the woman cared for the kids and the man worked earning money all day.
- now the woman works earning money as well.
- problem: who's gonna take care of the kids?
- so what we have now is on the one hand Progress (more equality), but on the other hand we encounter a very practical problem that is caused by this Progress.
- the most obvious solution seems to be to throw more equality at the problem: both take care of the kids, part-time
- but if you're poor then that's not much an option
- somewhere somehow society expects people to all be working their asses off

(what'd you expect, no i dont have any answers)

[LHX]

i agree with everything yall are saying

but
unless youve suddenly given up your role as a prophet of apocalypse
im sure youll agree that a lot of choices people make are contributing to the decline we appear to be in the thick of


and man - you need to get outta that tendency of accusing people of saying things they didnt say

its too easy to deflect that
and i dont really understand why you do it in the first place

[Chairman Risus]

Aren't we a non-prophet organization?
And there is no coming apocalypse or armageddon; it's ongoing.

[LHX]

i think i sort of understand where you're coming from, X. but you phrase it a littlebit odd and hence what-Roger-said.

seeing your new replies, actually i think you're phrasing it a whole big kind of odd.

the woman's goal was equality, not "fulfillment thru corporate achievement". but indeed, if the woman's goal would have been "fulfillment thru corporate achievement" it's very possible that she has been tricked into following it illusorious , but the same thing holds for a man that chases that goal

my take on this matter: it usually takes me about an hour of heated discussion before a feminist and i agree that it's not "women should climb the corporate ladder" but "women should have equal choice to climb the corporate ladder".

also it really depends on where you are. in some places, things are already pretty equal and still moving towards more equilibrium. these things have some sort of momentum, so even if the will is there, it takes a while before change happens.
problem is, momentum also has another side, a delay to put a brake on things set in motion. having been raised by a very feminist woman (who has done an awesome job at climbing the corporate ladder next to raising her kids, btw), i'm particularly wary of that last one. but that's just because it has hit me in the head so often.
but then, in other places, things are not equal at all, and things just plain and simple need to change, not because women should climb the corporate ladder, but because it's not fair that they don't have the choice to climb the corporate ladder.

looking at it from yet another side:
- it used to be that the woman cared for the kids and the man worked earning money all day.
- now the woman works earning money as well.
- problem: who's gonna take care of the kids?
- so what we have now is on the one hand Progress (more equality), but on the other hand we encounter a very practical problem that is caused by this Progress.
- the most obvious solution seems to be to throw more equality at the problem: both take care of the kids, part-time
- but if you're poor then that's not much an option
- somewhere somehow society expects people to all be working their asses off

(what'd you expect, no i dont have any answers)

i agree

of course choice reigns supreme


but since when did 'equality' become 'homogenous'?


obviously men fucked the whole shit up in the first place

but im sayin

the state of woman these days is far from good

[LHX]

Aren't we a non-prophet organization?
And there is no coming apocalypse or armageddon; it's ongoing.

or it already happened right?

yeah i can dig it


even after resolving and accepting that - it isnt enjoyable to see the foul shit going down

[Triple Zero]

> but since when did 'equality' become 'homogenous'?

it doesn't.

"equality of choice" has nothing to do with homogeneous.

> obviously men fucked the whole shit up in the first place

fuck that shit.
i'm a man, and i have no more fault in the fuckedupness of this place than any woman.

and you too, can spend your time better than blaming gender (either of them)

> im sure youll agree that a lot of choices people make are contributing to the decline we appear
> to be in the thick of

yeah there are choices made very poorly

especially when people are tricked into playing the corporate game (and losing), while they actually inside don't really want to.

the thing is, this doesn't have much to do with whether the people are male or female.

ok, so the women got tricked into playing later than the men. i suppose you're saying because they haven't been playing (against their will, some of them at least) for very long, perhaps we can save them easier?

it's a nice idea, but it's not gonna work

they need the equality just as bad as they need to stop making poor choices

unless you say they don't. but i'm afraid you're not going to make much friends with that, because, mostly, who are you to decide, their messiah?

> and man - you need to get outta that tendency of accusing people of saying things they didnt say

annoying as hell isn't it? what bugs me most about it is that he usually turns out to be right  

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Raising a child is an important duty.  I think putting your "career success" higher in priority than not churning out spoiled asswipes from your dysfunctional home is a failure.

The gender of the parent in question isn't the point.  Traditionally it has been women, but there is no reason it can't be the father's job.  Or the other mother's, depending on your persuasion.

Choosing not to have children is a virtuous choice.  Choosing to have children and raise them responsibly is also a virtuous choice.  Choosing to have children and then end up raising them poorly because you're too busy proving to somebody (even if it's yourself) that you can have it all and be just like TV, is one of the most disgusting behavior patterns our modern society encourages.

Even more disgusting than tubgirl.

[Triple Zero]

our modern society encourages tubgirl???

[LHX]

> but since when did 'equality' become 'homogenous'?

it doesn't.

"equality of choice" has nothing to do with homogeneous.

we will see as the results continue to roll in

> obviously men fucked the whole shit up in the first place

fuck that shit.
i'm a man, and i have no more fault in the fuckedupness of this place than any woman.

and you too, can spend your time better than blaming gender (either of them)

who is blaming what?

the chicken came before the egg

> im sure youll agree that a lot of choices people make are contributing to the decline we appear
> to be in the thick of

yeah there are choices made very poorly

especially when people are tricked into playing the corporate game (and losing), while they actually inside don't really want to.

the thing is, this doesn't have much to do with whether the people are male or female.

ok, so the women got tricked into playing later than the men. i suppose you're saying because they haven't been playing (against their will, some of them at least) for very long, perhaps we can save them easier?

it's a nice idea, but it's not gonna work

they need the equality just as bad as they need to stop making poor choices

unless you say they don't. but i'm afraid you're not going to make much friends with that, because, mostly, who are you to decide, their messiah?

'equality' to do what exactly?

'save' who from what?

> and man - you need to get outta that tendency of accusing people of saying things they didnt say

annoying as hell isn't it? what bugs me most about it is that he usually turns out to be right 

that bugs you?

[LHX]

our modern society encourages tubgirl???

obviously

and if it doesnt encourage it - then it takes the inverse approach of encouraging not holding back materializing any situation you can imagine and then broadcasting it to the world just for kicks

which would be fine if not for the legacy of taboo and deprivation that has caused people to be intensely fascinated with such basic shit



an exaggeration of importance

[The Good Reverend Roger]

but
unless youve suddenly given up your role as a prophet of apocalypse
im sure youll agree that a lot of choices people make are contributing to the decline we appear to be in the thick of

False dichotomy.  The decisions we are discussing have nothing to do with the apocalypse which is indeed coming.