Usually not into female PoV novels but i was wondering if anyone knew of any stories were an old women on her deathbad was regretting the feminist life she lived now that she is dying and has no family whatsoever to see at her end of days. Needless to say she gets a 2nd chance at life, reborn at a younger age and decides to go the more conservative lifestyle.
TLDR: I don't care about your political opinions, i'm just asking if there are any novels like this.
There is one story that is almost the exact opposite. A woman who in her first life was locked into a loveless marriage and never managed to really find her way out is reborn at the crucial point in her life, with her memories intact. She avoids the loveless marriage and makes a life for her and her child and has a major positive impact on many lives.
"Not This Time" by Aroslav.
https://storiesonline.net/s/14053/not-this-time
I was trying to remember that one when I was sidetracked into reading his 100 Days. Both are interesting stories, but as you said, Not This Time has the beaten down housewife become an independent business woman, so not what OP wants.
The only other female centric do-overs I can recall are a) Once More With Feeling by The Night Hawk, which has a man waking up in a girls body and vice versa.
https://storiesonline.net/s/41504/once-more-with-feelings
Also not what the OP wants, and not here (it's on BtFH), is Bruce Bretthauer & Colin Keizer's The Road Taken ... and Taken, an old-young do-over swap of an approx 30's woman with her tween self in another timeline.
Needless to say she gets a 2nd chance at life, reborn at a younger age and decides to go the more conservative lifestyle.
Considering the current political and social climate where feminism is more dominant than ever, I don't think anybody would currently write such a story.
I even doubt if it were written that it would be received well.
feminism is more dominant than ever
That must be a USA thing. In the UK, women's rights are being supplanted by trans supremacy.
However I recently read a weird article in my paper about how some women are finding fulfillment by reverting to submissive roles in their relationships. And it wasn't 1st April.
AJ
feminism is more dominant than ever
That must be a USA thing. In the UK, women's rights are being supplanted by trans supremacy.
Internal fights within the identity politics movement will move from one group to another as each little group tries to snatch the victimhood power from another group. Eventually all will be subsumed by some new victimhood group.
Every movement built on unearned privilege eventually self destructs as it loops on itself as a snake swallowing its own tale.
However I recently read a weird article in my paper about how some women are finding fulfillment by reverting to submissive roles in their relationships. And it wasn't 1st April.
Women are not a single group with a single psychological profile. Women with high testosterone level like butch lesbian will want independence and will use women's privileges to seek ever more power by harnessing the larger group of women's agreeableness to follow.
Due to the natural tendency of women to be followers, most of them find unhappiness in having to have a career and be independent and have a family where they fight their men for control as feminism dictates.
So the life path laid out by the lesbian leaders of the feminist movement makes most women unhappy, and once they shed the social programming they're receiving in the west's various universities, they come to realize that having a traditional family with a man willing to shoulder the responsibility and do the harder part in life, is a more satisfying way of life as it's less taxing from a mental perspective and meshes better with the female psyche that evolved to be nurturing to children.
Of course, any feminist reading this unpopular opinion will blast me for being a misogynist cave man.
Every movement built on unearned privilege
No, I won't blast you for being a misogynist [sic] cave man. I just want to know how just one group, males, earned privileges that were denied to another group, females?
How were those privileges earned? Who granted those privileges to males? Who denied those privileges to females? How does being a person born male earn a privilege that is denied to a person born female?
Due to the natural tendency of women to be followers, most of them find unhappiness in having to have a career and be independent and have a family where they fight their men for control as feminism dictates.
Gee, is there a rational scientific source for these words of revelation? Does that mean male followers have unnatural tendencies?
Just asking.
No, I won't blast you for being a misogynist [sic] cave man. I just want to know how just one group, males, earned privileges that were denied to another group, females?
How were those privileges earned? Who granted those privileges to males? Who denied those privileges to females? How does being a person born male earn a privilege that is denied to a person born female?
We need to define the male privileges granted to males here in the west before we can find out who granted them and how were they granted without being earned.
How about the voting privilege? do men have the voting privilege the same as women? wasn't conscription required for men? Is conscription required for women?
How about not being raped in family court? Can men breeze into family court and come out unscathed with their connection to their children unharmed?
How about in the medical establishment? do men get the same kind of financing and attention dedicated to their medical problems as women? Example: How much is dedicated to prostate cancer in the US vs Breast cancer in the US? If women lived ten years less than men on average it would be declared a national disaster and huge efforts would have been made to rectify this huge inequality, but it's men dying ealier, so who cares.
When university attendance was dominated by male, a huge national effort was made to rectify this injustice and women's departments were created in each and every university in the West. Now that women comprise over 65% of college enrolment and degrees, is any effort being made to remove women-specific departments and support from universities? I'm not talking about supporting men, just the removal of women-only support.
Or is longer sentencing for the same crime a privilege reserved for men? Yes, that's a privilege.
How about domestic abuse? Study after study show that at least half of physical abuse is perpetrated by women. How many men's shelters are in the US? Here in canada the basic procedure for police when called for domestic violence is to handcuff the man regardless of whether he called for help or not. Privilege? I've been in two different relationships where the women felt confident enough about physically assaulting me without any hesitation and assuring me that if I called the police that I would be the one in jail. I ended the relationships, but the fear of ending up in jail just on their words was too fucking real.
How about the privilege of having your word taken seriously when accused of sexual assault? are men ever going to get that privilege?
How about reproductive rights? Can a man opt out of child support for an unwanted child? Can a man have a child without the woman's consent? A woman can use a man's sperm from a stolen condom to impregnate herself and the man will be on the hook for child support. Can a man kill the child and walk away from the responsibility and be labelled courageous by their peers and paid for it by the government?
Can a man simply stand beside the road with a flat tire and expect ten women to offer to fix it for him?
Please, do show a specific male privilege and show how it's reserved for men and denied to women.
How about not being raped in family court? Can men breeze into family court and come out unscathed with their connection to their children unharmed?
That there is a huge issue. Trust me there.
When my ex was thrown in jail for abusing our son, I was also denied custody or visitation so he went to her sister. I was not even charged with any crime, but her sister was decided in a 5 minute hearing to be a better solution than being with his father.
And a few years later when my fiancee died after an illness, the same damned thing happened. Was at work and our kids at daycare, her family came and took them and that was that. They had money to pay for good lawyers, I had to represent myself as I was a working man. Guess how the hearing went. Their lawyer spoke for 10 minutes saying how the cousin was a better choice as she was married and could quit her job to take care of them. Meanwhile I was working 8 hours a day and put them in daycare, how horrible of me!
Yea, imagine if I had tried that argument that I worked from home so was a better choice than my ex for custody.
In this country, in family court the odds are stacked heavily against the father almost every time. I have seen a child taken from a father and returned to the prostitute junkie mother, because in court the decision is always in the favor of the mother (or HER family).
Totally agree there; it's screwed up and it's been screwed up for a long, long time. Family courts are, often, just horrible.
I've had male friends have surprisingly good results recently, so - perhaps - some sanity is grudgingly making its way into the system. That, or they were just lucky.
Family courts are, often, just horrible.
In the UK, the most incompetent judges are farmed out to the family courts and courts of protection, where they're shielded from adverse publicity by draconian secrecy laws.
AJ
They had money to pay for good lawyers, I had to represent myself as I was a working man.
While there is undoubtedly a prejudice in favor of women in custody cases (IMO due mainly to people not having a clue how statistic work and believing prejudiced studies), this sounds more like "people with money for good lawyers are more likely to get what they want"then any gender based prejudice.
this sounds more like "people with money for good lawyers are more likely to get what they want"then any gender based prejudice.
And where should that matter in a case like this? I was not a bad father, their mother died of viral pneumonia. Quite literally the children's grandparents kidnapped them. It was a Friday, so I said they could have them for the weekend and pick them up after work on Monday.
Monday morning, at work got the court papers. Not a single argument I was an unfit parent, that I was unstable or unable to care for them. Why in the fuck was that even allowed in the first place?
No, the entire process was wrong, and that was the final straw that broke all my confidence in the Family Court system. I thought once, OK. Fluke, my wife was accused of abusing our son and maybe somehow I was wrong. But a second time? I even talked to lawyers after who said everything in that violated the law. But guess what? TO most in those positions "protecting the child" trumps everything else, including the law.
And that generally means putting the kids in the hands of a woman. Do not believe me? Look up court cases involving gay male couples. Largely the same thing. The mother wins in the vast majority of cases, or a female family member that is part of the family of the biological mother.
And where should that matter in a case like this?
What does "should" have to do with anything? People should be honest and law abiding, the courts should judge issues fairly concerning themselves only with justice, and poor people should have just as much chance at justice as the rich.
In the real world, rich people get what they want, and the rest of us try to deal with it as best we can.
Look up court cases involving gay male couples.
Oh I know, I'm just saying from your description it doesn't seem like your case had anything to do with that prejudice, it was simply money distorting justice and the result would have been exactly the same if you were the mother and the father's rich family wanted the kids.
You missed my point entirely. The issue I addressed was how society, the economy and the law got set up the way it is. Did women pass those laws and set up the processes and procedures for their enforcement?
I recall that women could be beaten by their husbands or fathers with the blessings of all as long as the stick was no bigger than his thumb - the rule of thumb. A woman could not own property in her own name, could not have credit or a bank account of their own even if they earned the money that they deposited.
Family courts were a laugh - children were property and they were his to do with as he would if the couple separated or divorced or she sought shelter from abuse. The basis for this was that only the man could adequately support his children because he had a paying occupation whereas a woman was not likely to be gainfully employed outside the home and had little chance for income producing socially-acceptable jobs that would support herself and their children. To compound her problem was the fact that frequently only male children were give the opportunity to be formally educated, at least beyond the equivalent of the eighth grade. This dilemma was the impetus for many women to seek higher education to qualify for jobs that gave them a self-supporting income. I know people who still believe it is a waste of money to fund higher education for their daughters.
Jobs for women for the most part were solely for single women. Teachers and nurses lost jobs if they married. I never figured out if that meant employers did not want a women who was sexually experienced working for them.
Initially doctors were not allowed to use ether on a woman for medical procedures - men [legislators, fathers, brothers or husbands] did not want their unconscious women in the hands of another man. [Women could not be doctors.]
As to conscription, I have read of women who volunteered for military duty as far back as the civil war. The women who did serve in WWII were denied veterans benefits and access to the GI education bill. Before the draft ended bills were introduced to include women in conscription. Men did not pass them.
On another point, women, as a statistical group, have never been paid the same wage as a man doing the same work. Has anyone ever considered that a form of corporate theft? If a woman is only paid 72 cents for the same work a man is paid a dollar [1972 stat], then who pockets that 28 cents that should have been hers. That is money that is denied to her and her famiily.
As far as courts were concerned, no woman was accorded a jury of her peers since women were excluded as late as WWI.
At first no man, white or of color, could vote if he did not own property. It was years later, years of effort, tears and blood shed before women of any color got the legal right to vote.
No, the issue is not which gender is the most punished, put upon or deprived. The issue is why must one gender be set aside as legally inferior to another. The Equal Rights Amendment did not say for genders to switch power or places. It only stated that all genders must be given the same legal rights before the law.
Who then has decreed that society condemns the idea or ideal of equality before law? How do we change that should be the question.
You missed my point entirely. The issue I addressed was how society, the economy and the law got set up the way it is. Did women pass those laws and set up the processes and procedures for their enforcement?
I recall that women could be beaten by their husbands or fathers with the blessings of all as long as the stick was no bigger than his thumb - the rule of thumb. A woman could not own property in her own name, could not have credit or a bank account of their own even if they earned the money that they deposited.
You recall? Wow, you must be old.
The last time that was actually a law was almost 200 years ago. And as recently as 150 years ago, that was disregarded by judges.
And this goes all right back to punishing people today for events in the past they had nothing to do with. All your are really doing is trying to say "Yes, we can do what we want because we were abused hundreds of years ago".
Well, that is not what the law is for, or how it should be used.
And you bring up the ERA. Well, we already have laws stating that. Find me a single law anywhere which allows women to be treated as inferior, or paid less. Good luck, does not exist.
Adding even more laws does nothing when the laws in place are not enforced. And yea, seen that also. New Years Eve 2015, I was beaten badly by a 6 striker. I was doing my job as he was stealing, and I stopped him. 2 months later go to trial, all charges are dropped by the petty theft (not the strong armed robbery, not the assault, nothing else) because that meant he would have been sentenced to a mandatory 25 years under California law.
Yea, the guy beat the crap out of me to steal a 6 pack of beer and a dozen roses. And he got time served (3 days) and another year of parole. Congratulations, just taught him to go ahead and assault security, not like they will do anything even if they do stop you.
Tell me, when does my rights as a father matter? My rights to work or live and not be assaulted by career criminals?
And well, yea. Juries were made up of those who could vote. "Jury of their peers"? Does that mean that drug dealers should only be judged by drug dealers? Illegal immigrants should only be judged by other illegals? Hey, I am an Indian. How about I demand any jury I go in front of only be made up of other Indians?
Or let's get even more silly. If you are charged with a crime and are a multi-millionaire, only other people of your economic class are your "peers" so nobody else can be on the jury.
And no, that discrimination was not nationwide. Before Wyoming was even a state, women were allowed to vote there. Way back in 1889. And not all areas of the country prevented minorities from voting, that was regions and select towns and counties.
But is there anywhere now that does not allow women to vote? No? Then why try to use that as an attack over 100 years later? I was not alive yet, you would have to literally go back to my great-grandparents to find any who could not vote.
And I actually do mean that literally. My great-grandmother was allowed to vote before her husband could. She got the vote in 1919, her husband had to wait until 1924 with the Snyder Act was passed. And both of my grandfathers were sent to fight WWII before they were allowed to vote.
And conscription does not mean "choose to serve", it means they HAVE to serve, they have no choice. As in they go to jail if they do not do so. And if they do not want to fight any more, they can be shot.
How many women were conscripted for any war in US history? And how many were imprisoned for refusing to do so? Or shot?
Easy answer, none. Therefore what you said means nothing.
Punishing people today for the events of the past are wrong, no matter if somebody thinks they are justified or not.
On another point, women, as a statistical group, have never been paid the same wage as a man doing the same work.
A recent study found women graduates were actually paid more than their male peers when they entered employment. That trend levelled up then reversed as women reached peak childbearing years.
AJ
No, the issue is not which gender is the most punished, put upon or deprived. The issue is why must one gender be set aside as legally inferior to another. The Equal Rights Amendment did not say for genders to switch power or places. It only stated that all genders must be given the same legal rights before the law.
Who then has decreed that society condemns the idea or ideal of equality before law? How do we change that should be the question.
No reasonable person would argue to going back to the way things were over a hundred years ago.
We're talking about the current society, and the current social climate. Yes, things were terrible for women, but now, things are bad for men and the call is for even more of the same.
The pendulum has swung too far already and feminists keep pushing it in the same direction and starting to go to extreme. If you think that baroness in the British house calling for curfew for all men after 6pm is bad, there are multiple feminists who call for culling 90% of men and they remain respectable despite that.
The current social climate is terrible and it's leading to the destruction of what led to all this enlightenment and advancements. If things don't start heading in a reasonable direction, you can kiss the west goodbye in a few decades.
Warning, more extreme and unpopular opinion below:
And yes, currently everything going wrong is due to women's influence in every facet of life. They are the biggest voting block and various politicians cater to them to get elected. They are in full control of every educational institution and raising the current generation in a terrible way. The men being raised currently won't have what it takes to support and protect strong independent countries that these women enjoy living in.
No reasonable person would argue to going back to the way things were over a hundred years ago.
We're talking about the current society, and the current social climate. Yes, things were terrible for women, but now, things are bad for men and the call is for even more of the same.
It seems that you eagerly dismiss what happened in the past, yet are complaining bitterly that in some small ways the positions are reversed to a degree.
You live in a country with the highest number of inmates per capita in the world, yet complain about men being imprisoned.
If you truly believe that "everything going wrong is due to women's influence in every facet of life", why don't you simply move to a culture that embraces and enforces your views? There are several to choose from, the Taliban, for example.
Alternatively you could simply convert to one of the more extremist religious groups that exist around the world, they would absolutely recognise your views as identical to their own and you could spend the rest of your life happily subjugating women.
For some reason I'm reminded of the guy who espouses the idea of "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free", who then becomes enraged because a woman replies, "why buy the pig just to get a little sausage".
Nizzgrrl has previously highlighted that the laws that oppressed women were written by men. Now you are bitching at laws that oppress men, which are also written by men. Welcome to our world..!!
All of this paints a bleak future. If the environmentalists are right, the last man standing will have polluted his way to extinction. If you are right, the last man standing will be a woman...
It seems that you eagerly dismiss what happened in the past, yet are complaining bitterly that in some small ways the positions are reversed to a degree.
The past is the past. No injustice that happened to a woman in the 1800s would ever be compensated for if a similar injustice was dished out to a man in 2021 who had nothing to do with what happened to women in the 1800s.
I argue for actual equality, socially and in front of the law.
I argue for people to be treated according to their actions, not their ancestry or gender.
You and Nizzgrrl are dishing out the past and treating it as if it's what's going on now and that somehow men in the present are responsible for what men living a hundred or two hundred years ago did.
If you truly believe that "everything going wrong is due to women's influence in every facet of life", why don't you simply move to a culture that embraces and enforces your views? There are several to choose from, the Taliban, for example.
The west is so schizophrenic that all I have to do is swear at any annoying person in arabic and everybody is cowed and stops arguing. I am considered a 'person of colour', so I actually benefit from this stupid victimhood culture if I wish to do it.
The fact that I argue is not because I'm personally suffering from any of the things that I highlight as bad. I argue against them because they are bad. Coming from the Middle East (Iraq) where it is still a patriarchal society, I can see how badly men are treated in the west.
I would never argue for treating women in the west the same as women in muslim countries are treated, but that doesn't mean that I can't see that the next generation of men being raised in the west are going to be terrible as men.
I have three boys and I'm homeschooling them because of the fucked up treatment they got in schools around here because they're boys. I shouldn't be forced to do that to have them grow up as good men.
All of this paints a bleak future. If the environmentalists are right, the last man standing will have polluted his way to extinction. If you are right, the last man standing will be a woman...
Don't get me started on the silliness that the environmental movement has reached currently.
I am considered a 'person of colour', so I actually benefit from this stupid victimhood culture if I wish to do it.
Do you recall MLK Jr's "I Have a Dream" speech? Does anyone else think that it's completely hypocritical for the left to claim him as one of their heroes and also embrace the whole identity politics BS that has more to do with someone's skin than someone's character?
Do you recall MLK Jr's "I Have a Dream" speech? Does anyone else think that it's completely hypocritical for the left to claim him as one of their heroes and also embrace the whole identity politics BS that has more to do with someone's skin than someone's character?
Of course it's hypocritical. The left, the current left, are not about fairness and doing things correctly.
Anybody that embraces identity politics is seeking unearned privilege. Identity politics is a device to bypass merit. Using identity politics, resources and power become about who you are instead of what you can do.
Should you be given a job because you're the best person to do it? Usually, yes, but with identity politics all you need to show is that there aren't enough people doing the job that have your traits like gender, skin colour, sexual orientation, handicap, weight class etc...
It seems that you eagerly dismiss what happened in the past, yet are complaining bitterly that in some small ways the positions are reversed to a degree.
You live in a country with the highest number of inmates per capita in the world, yet complain about men being imprisoned.
Nizzgrrl has previously highlighted that the laws that oppressed women were written by men. Now you are bitching at laws that oppress men, which are also written by men. Welcome to our world..!!
The past is the past. I tell everybody to remember and learn from it, but that trying to "fix things" by punishing others is not how to do it. And that is what many are actually advocating. "I was oppressed for centuries, now we need to oppress back!"
And if we need more prisons, I say build them. We have the highest inmates for many reasons. For one, many countries do not even have "prisons" as you would recognize. And in many, even punishment is now how you would recognize.
Prison is in many countries holding while they await trial, or punishment. Which may be the removal of a hand, or a head. Or in China, a bullet in the back of the head with the family being sent a bill for the bullet.
But what is the solution, let out the inmates? Then what about their victims? Or would you honestly tell me that if you were assaulted by somebody next week you would be screaming that they should NOT go to jail if caught?
In the last 15 years, I was assaulted twice that resulted in arrests. The worst was by a Hispanic man in California with a long criminal record, he was "caught and released".
Yet, in Alabama in 2007 I was attacked by 2 teens as I was delivering pizza. They both had metal pipes and attacked me, and it was entirely an ambush, they had phoned in the order themselves. And it was the sixth such attack they had done, it was all a game to them. Well, both were caught because I was able to give good descriptions, and drove by the house the next day where I saw pizza boxes in their trash can, the same ones they stole from me after the beating.
Kid was sentenced to 25 years. He was only 16, but he was told "You can either plead out as an adult on this case and we will max you, or you can take your chance in trial as we charge you with seven ambush attacks and request consecutive sentences."
And the victim before me was another they assaulted, a pregnant woman.
So yea, that shit don't stand in Alabama. I knew kids who knew them in school, they thought they were "Gangsta", and would brag about the "Gangsta" things they were doing. Last year I got the letter from the parole board in Alabama, as he was up again. This time, I signed off on it. But added in the comments that only if he had a clean prison record, and appears to have learned his lesson.
If not, I say let him rot until 2032. That way he can be the biggest and baldest Gangsta in Huntsville. Where he should be, to keep everybody else safe.
And it is not the "laws" at this time oppressing men, it is how they are enforced (or not enforced).
Tell me, two people go to court requesting custody. One has a job and has remarried and has a stable home. The other is living on welfare in a studio apartment where they would share a sofa bed with the child. And has been in a string of failed relationships (who often shared the apartment). And is a recovering addict and may have relapsed.
Now without looking at genders at all, which would be the best to raise that child? Because if you simply say "the mother", then you are part of the problem.
Now without looking at genders at all, which would be the best to raise that child? Because if you simply say "the mother", then you are part of the problem.
The gender of the parents, or their ability to throw money and lawyers shouldn't be the issue. The ONLY concern of the court SHOULD be the best interests of the child. Period.
All too often that isn't the case.
All too often that isn't the case.
You don't have to tell me about that.
Yet, in 2 different cases with 3 kids from 2 moms, they were given to women instead of me every single time.
My oldest, twice actually. First to his maternal aunt, then in a second hearing back to the mom. And with my youngest two, a female cousin.
And ironically, I have a great relationship with them, yet none of them hardly talk to their mom, or "replacement mom". Even dragging my first wife to court after years of concealment and moving to prevent me from seeing my oldest son only got me weekend visitation twice a month.
And a court order that she inform me BEFORE she moved in the future. Which she ignored, causing yet another search to find her and my son, and the court to do nothing.
You say "all too often", how about "damned near never"? The kid pretty much has to be abandoned in the care of the father by the mother for him to keep custody. As in almost every instance, the court will award them instead to almost any female maternal relative that wants them.
We even have cases where the mother is living in a homeless shelter, yet the court will let them keep custody.
On another point, women, as a statistical group, have never been paid the same wage as a man doing the same work.
This is wrong. Today, and for the past 20+ years while there is a difference in the average earnings between women and men, when you dig down to it you find out that:
1)Men work longer hours on average, are more willing to take long trips as part of their work or move to where they can earn more.
2)Men tend to go to jobs that earn more than the jobs women tend to go for.
3)When workers have individual contracts, men tend to negotiate for as much as they can get, and ask for raises as frequently as they can, woman tend to accept what they're offered.
4)Men tend to place "high salrey" at the top of their priority for jobs, women tend to place "pleasant working environment" or "good location" at the top.
Basically, men and women get paid about the same for the same work, they just don't look for the same things as compensation, and generally don't do the same work.
This is wrong. Today, and for the past 20+ years while there is a difference in the average earnings between women and men, when you dig down to it you find out that:
1)Men work longer hours on average, are more willing to take long trips as part of their work or move to where they can earn more.
2)Men tend to go to jobs that earn more than the jobs women tend to go for.
3)When workers have individual contracts, men tend to negotiate for as much as they can get, and ask for raises as frequently as they can, woman tend to accept what they're offered.
4)Men tend to place "high salrey" at the top of their priority for jobs, women tend to place "pleasant working environment" or "good location" at the top.
Basically, men and women get paid about the same for the same work, they just don't look for the same things as compensation, and generally don't do the same work.
And a lot of that is due to many factors. Included among them is taking time off to raise a family.
And no, I am not talking about staying home because your kid is sick, but taking off months or years out of the workforce. When a woman returns, she may be 26 just like a man. But she took 2 years away, so he has 2 years more seniority and experience during that time. Then add in longevity raises, of course he now makes more money.
I worked for many years in LA as a computer contractor. And one thing I refused to ever discuss is how much I made a year. Ever. I would hear the other contractors all in the same "who is getting paid more" sessions, and just shake my head and laugh.
One project in particular. It was a 2 week "crash job" at a company that had a name something like "USA Comp". They brought in 4 of us because they were way behind repairing systems, and we got them current in a week and a half.
But over lunch, one complained he was only making $12 an hour. Another said he was happy at his $14. I just smiled and said nothing, knowing I was making $18. Below my usual amount, but it was only 2 weeks and I was waiting for another contract to start.
Now to be honest, the $12 an hour tech was not even worth that, the guy was absolute garbage. The 14 guy had literally just finished a tech school 2 weeks before, and even he was better.
At the end, I got a call to return and was offered a permanent position. I talked to the Tech Support manager, and it shocked him to learn my usual wage was more than he made. And he offered me $10 an hour. And I told him they would continue to have those problems, as if they only valued their techs at $10 an hour, none would stay (this was 1998).
Of course, that company is long gone. And even the Greek Squad is having problems, and charges almost insane rates because they pay their techs at least a fair rate for their experience.
But a great many times I took contracts that were fixed. "This is the rate, take it or leave it". And male, female, we all took it. The only difference is that sometimes contracts would "roll over", and some would remain as others left at the end. Then 6 months later we would see them return for another "rush contract", making less than us as we got retention raises while they started all over again on the bottom.
But that was computer contracting in LA in the 1990's. By the mid-2000's, that was dying as all of the rush projects had been completed, and they would hire a smaller team to do it year round instead of a mad crash every other year.
Basically, men and women get paid about the same for the same work, they just don't look for the same things as compensation, and generally don't do the same work.
This isn't quite accurate. Women actually make more for the same work.
I've lost count of the studies that I've reviewed demonstrating that once education, years experience and lifestyle choices are accounted for, women are paid more for the same work. The problem, however, is that women want to be paid the same as the men that works harder in more dangerous professions while they're (the women) are taking more time off to do the things they want/choose to do voluntarily. Hell, I would too if I could've gotten away with it. Instead of being fired for even asking.
The problem, however, is that women want to be paid the same as the men that works harder in more dangerous professions while they're (the women) are taking more time off to do the things they want/choose to do voluntarily.
You really need to give examples.
I think the desire for equal pay is that two people doing the same job, for the same hours should get the same pay.
Your statement seems to infer that a female librarian is demanding the same pay as a male deep sea diver.
Your statement seems to infer that a female librarian is demanding the same pay as a male deep sea diver.
They have demanded worse. They have actually demanded higher pay for women for the same job to 'close the pay gap'.
In almost every country on earth it's illegal to pay differently depending on gender.
In a highly litigious country like the US or any of the western women-dominated countries, if such a discrimination existed or could be proven, there would be waves of lawsuits to rectify the situation. There aren't; why not? In free markets like the west, if a company could get away with paying women less for the same job, why would they ever hire men? If such discrimination existed, then logic would dictate that these two things would happen. Their absence means something... You're smart enough to deduce it.
Second, the wage gap itself is a myth, or more accurately a statistical trick. The 28 cents on the dollar figure or 72% of what men make came from adding up the pay of all men working full time and adding up the pay for all the women working full time and dividing them, regardless of the types of jobs. So yes, doctors are compared with nurses, deep sea divers were compared to cashiers, sewer divers were indeed compared to receptionists and men working sixty hours per week were lumped against women preferring to work 36 hours per week at an easy job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58arQIr882w
Just look up the Uber stats comparing men and women. Male Uber drivers make on average 7% more than female Uber drivers. Why, because they choose to work harder.
https://money.com/male-female-drivers-earn/
Just look up the Uber stats comparing men and women. Male Uber drivers make on average 7% more than female Uber drivers. Why, because they choose to work harder.
And I defy anybody to try and claim that Uber is biased against women. Or paying them less.
Your statement seems to infer that a female librarian is demanding the same pay as a male deep sea diver.
I probably could've expressed it more clearly. Okay then. The studies I've seen (which I haven't kept and don't have the links for) were not for hourly employees, as it's obvious then when equal rules are applied to equal hours worked, equal pay will result. They were aimed at professionals.
What has been determined is, in effect, unequal pay results from unequal conditions. The studies used econometric methods for controlling for conditions that may effect compensation, i.e. willingness to work long hours, desire not to take time off for family reasons (whatever you might think of the morality of it, such decisions are a fact of life for both men and women), a willingness to accept dangerous assignments, quality of education and a host of others.
What was discovered that when such conditions were controlled for, women make more than men for the same type of work. In fact, one researcher remarked, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, that men ought to push for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment in the United States as it would result in a pay increase for men. So I'll stand by my previous statement of -- if I could get away with it, I'd have pushed for higher pay also. Except I'd have been fired for it.
And I'll stand by my contention that this push for "equal pay for women" is in reality a push for even more inequity tipped in favor of women. As I've also inferred, when politicians push harder for "equality", men should grab their wallets tighter.
This isn't quite accurate. Women actually make more for the same work.
If you can find a link to a study supporting that I'd be quite interested in it.
I'm sure this is true in some professions, private (not hospital)nursing for example, because women are more popular for those jobs and thus can ask for more, but as a general rule? I'd be very interested in cites for that.
If you can find a link to a study supporting that I'd be quite interested in it.
They're readily available with a quick search of the web though I do suggest using an engine other than Google or it's related clones for the search due to censorship problems. AEI's and University of Michigan professor Mark Perry has published several, most recently an analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
Enjoy.
though I do suggest using an engine other than Google or it's related clones for the search due to censorship problems.
Strong sign of bullshit, I don't think I'll bother looking.
Pardon me for questioning a company that has self admitted censoring views that it doesn't agree with. Not really a paragon of objectivity there. But go ahead with Google. You'll just have to page through about 1000 screens to get to the ones that are contrary to their dogmatic views. If they're not eliminated completely.
Google search isn't anywhere near as bad as you claim.
I put Mark Perry wage gap into Google and here are the top three results.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-really-is-no-gender-wage-gap-there-is-a-gender-earnings-gap-but-paying-women-well-wont-close-that-gap/
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/details-in-new-bls-report-suggest-that-most-of-the-gender-earnings-gap-is-explained-by-age-marital-status-children-hours-worked/
https://fee.org/articles/a-new-labor-dept-report-reveals-the-bulk-of-the-gender-earnings-gap-can-be-explained-by-age-hours-worked-and-marital-status/
I put Mark Perry wage gap into Google and here are the top three results.
Yah, those refer to studies I was aware of, with the conclusion that while there is an earning gap, there's probably no wage gap, or if there is it's very small. @Jim S claims that there is a wage gap in favor of women, i.e that
Women actually make more for the same work.
I'll note however that when challenged he not only couldn't provide a cite, he claimed google won't find it because of censorship (not because there's no such study).
@Jim S claims that there is a wage gap in favor of women,
And he claimed that there were studies by Mark Perry available from AEI to prove this. Yet I easily found three articles by Mark Perry two of them on the AEI website and they don't support the small gap favoring women idea.
The ability to spot utter bullshit isn't restricted to feminists.
Right on cue. Perfect. Thank you.
The ability to spot utter bullshit isn't restricted to feminists.
I often say that I am a really simple person. I just want the straight unvarnished truth and facts, and let me make up my own mind.
But over the last 15 years, "news" has given way to "opinion" and "commentary", which is why I largely tune it out or ignore it. And lately it has been driving me absolutely crazy.
Like one recently, that "Asians are being targeted for attacks". And it is talking about San Francisco. Then way deep down in the article it mentions almost in passing that the increase in attacks are consistent with an increase in assaults across all demographics in the city.
In other words, the entire article was a lie. Like another one I saw just the other day. How the Country Music Awards have never given an award to a black lesbian.
Well hell, how many are there in the CMA? And I had sadly hoped that all that discrimination nonsense had gone away when Darius Rucker won 2 CMA/ACM awards (one his first year), a country Grammy, and 17 other major award nominations in less than 10 years.
Heck, maybe the Grammy's are biased against black one eyed Jews who can sing and dance. Because Sammy Davis Jr. never won a single one while he was alive.
Heck, believe it or not he never won a single major competitive award during his life. A single Emmy after he died for a show honoring his 60 years in show business, and an honorary Grammy. In fact, he was only nominated for 8 during his entire lifetime (3 Grammy, 4 Emmy, 1 Tony, 0 Oscars).
And he was a man I honestly respect. Great dignity, he faced real racism, and never let that hold him back or make him bitter.
I mean, good god. The man was kidnapped by mob members, and threatened with cutting out his other eye and breaking both legs if he did not stop seeing Kim Novak and marry a black woman within a year (which he did). Even being a member of the "Rat Pack" and close to Sinatra could not save him from that kind of stuff.
Yet, he never once spoke out against others who did him no wrong directly. If anybody deserved to be bitter, it was him. But he remained a class act until he died.
Don't get me wrong this is exactly what i didn't want this thread turning into but the reason i thought of this novel was because i have had some real life friends who have been harassed for wanting to be a "housewife" and not a "career" women and i've seen countless articles talking about how 30+ year old career women can't find men on their level because the top 10% of men are dating younger women which leads them to an unfulfilling life.
some real life friends who have been harassed for wanting to be a "housewife" and not a "career" women
My wife is one of those. When she told her friends that she would stay home to raise our kids she got a lot of flack as if she's committing a crime against the sisterhood.
So I completely understand. But as I said above, considering the political and social climate, authors would expect a lot of hate and ridicule if they were to write such a story, so none would bother.
If you go by response rates on dating apps 100% of women believe they deserve the top 10% of men. This means 90% are going to have to settle. The older a woman gets the lower she is going to have to settle as her eggs are a depreciating asset. If they refuse to settle for men who are beneath them on their social ladder values (usually income & education), then they aren't going to marry. Its not PC, its not 'fair', it just is.
The same applies for men. Chatting with a wife hunter, he laid out his requirements. Never married but actively looking, fertile, low body count, no crazy, same race, age range, etc. Fertile knocked off the 25% of women who have been sterilized. The no crazy requirement knocked off 25% of the women due to anti-depressant use never married knocked off all the wives and divorcees. He estimated that in his city of 1,000,000 there would be 7 women who met his requirements.
Kids need to be taught they can't have their cake and eat it. Date to marry because there may never be a Mr or Mrs Right and the Mr or Mrs This Will Does are quickly snapped up.
Women who go to college for a Mrs Degree get panned, which is stupid. People go to college to get better job options. Women who want to marry and have kids are ensuring they get a lot of job interviews and if successful they leave college with their desired career lined up.
i have had some real life friends who have been harassed for wanting to be a "housewife" and not a "career" women and i've seen countless articles talking about how 30+ year old career women can't find men on their level because the top 10% of men are dating younger women which leads them to an unfulfilling life.
There is not a thing saying that a woman can not be both.
My mom was unquestionably a "Career Woman", rising high in the field of computers in the 1960's and 1970's with only a High School Diploma (and a night school one at that). She took care of me during the day as she took classes on programming at a state run career center, and then I was with my dad at night as she went to school for it.
She was somebody that confused many. Unquestionably a "woman", she never let anybody forget that. Skirts and dresses in the era when slacks were becoming the norm. But if I dared to not stand when a woman entered or left a room, she would smack my head. I was raised that men and women are both equal, but to always treat a woman as a lady at all times.
She was also a strong believer in "Equal rights", but hated the ERA and feminist movement. She saw one as silly as the issue was enforcement of laws, making new ones would not help. And she saw feminists as wanting to "castrate men" and "masculinize women".
Which is predominantly why most of my female characters are undeniably women, but also strong in their own way. No "meek submissive types" in my story, other than one or two (one most undoubtedly Stockholm) who mostly are by their own choice.
.... and i've seen countless articles talking about how 30+ year old career women can't find men on their level because the top 10% of men are dating younger women which leads them to an unfulfilling life.
Isn't this what is commonly known as being hoisted with their own petard? As the saying goes, payback's a bitch and her stripper name is Karma.
Enough proverbs. Suffice it to say that most don't react well to the crocodile tears of the "victims" identified in your post.
Ongoing currently is a do-over, brother and adopted sister. First time around she's from a broken home and abused, taken in by his parents, doesn't fit in, end up on the street and in jail. He was an anti-social recluse. Male viewpoint, so not what you asked for, but lots of deep & meaningful conversation between the two.
This time around he's trying to make friends and have relationships and he's dragging her along with him. They are still in school so we don't know where its going, but its feel good so far.
https://storiesonline.net/s/20679/variation-on-a-theme
I'll chime in; I'm the author of the story in question. I appreciate the mention! The original post I'm replying to contained a spoiler, now removed, so I'm dancing around it a bit here.
I am toying with the idea of publishing some material from my lead female character's POV. I do have some things written that way - it helped me pull together the first part of the story. She's an interesting character in her own right, just not the one I chose to center the core story around.
However: she is very much not a 'traditional girl'; that's fairly obvious from what she's said about career plans to this point and will become more obvious with time. So, she won't meet the OP's requirements at all.
However, please don't post as 'dual do-over'; that's somewhat of a spoiler, since it doesn't come out for over half the first book.
Laugh.
I am also reading this, but that honestly made me laugh. As the very first paragraph of the forward states:
This is a 'do-over' story. You probably already know that, from the story codes. If not, well, it still is. It also counts just as much as a 'coming-of-age' story.
And a third of the way through the first chapter, the main character dies and is reborn. However, there is a segment I will say I picked up early but many others likely did not that I will leave unsaid.
As for the story from the POV of another, I have also done that. In that story, after their breakup, the female love interest from the first part would infrequently cross paths (somewhat dramatically) with the male narration character, and at that point I would tell in another story the events between those meetings from her point of view.
I am currently re-editing those stories, and intend on putting in notes at the end of each appropriate chapter saying "If you want her side, read chapter XX of OTHER STORY". That way a reader will know where they fall together, but also choose to not read if they do not care about the trainwreck of a life she created for herself.
Edited, so you and Mushroom need to edit your post and his quote if you want to remove the spoiler.
I'll edit mine (carefully, because I need to include the note about my female MC).
And, to save more editing - Mushroom, that it's a do-over is not in the least a spoiler. Only that other part is.
And, to save more editing - Mushroom, that it's a do-over is not in the least a spoiler. Only that other part is.
And we have even discussed that. I can understand your concern, as really the only times I deleted comments in my stories is if somebody had figured out part of what is to come, and I did not want to spoil it for others.
Hence, why I tend to remain "spoiler free" in almost all posts and comments. And you are right, things that happened later in the story will likely catch many by surprise, but my comments only talked literally about the very first sentence and what somebody would get in reading half of the first chapter in a now 69 chapter story.
Myself, being one of those writers who loves to throw in twists and "surprises" that I telegraph a mile away if you know to look for them, I actually respect that in a writer. And it often amazes me that something I set up for dozens of chapters surprises readers.
"What, you mean she is really a cheating slut?"
"What about the very first chapter about her getting it on with the main character within 2 hours of meeting with him did you not get? Then trying to get him to bang other girls, as she tried to go as far as she could with several guys? A girl in her early-teens with a guy count of an admitted 50 guys plus by the end of the first book?> Of course she was a slut!"
Sometimes I just want to shake my head, but I still do not like spoiling stories for others.
And, to save more editing - Mushroom, that it's a do-over is not in the least a spoiler. Only that other part is.
That other part, which I'll note below, is why I'm going to look at the story again. If that's a major part of the story it should be noted in the summary, as it changes the type of story drastically. If its not a major part of the story, it's not a big deal.
I'm assuming that by "Dual-Do-Over" you mean two people get a do-over, presumably a Guy and a girl?
I'm assuming that by "....-Do-Over"
Now both you and Mushroom have publicised the spoiler!
As an author, I wish you'd respect the author's wishes.
AJ
Meh.
I could understand someone being upset that a reader started speculating about what was going to happen in a story that hadn't been entirely written yet (note: rec.arts.written.robert-jordan actually had involvement by the author, and his only request was that people would appropriately tag when their posts ranged into speculation; some asshat didn't, and accurately predicted a planned plot development; RJ acknowledged that was the original plan and that he'd have to come up with a different solution to prevent the asshat from claiming plagarism... probably set the series back long enough that it could've been finished while RJ was alive if not for that guy) but other than that... no. I'm not a big fan of authors trying to surprise readers. If the story is good and the characters compelling, the reader will be interested without being shocked; if the story isn't good enough without the surprise, it isn't good enough.
Allegedly the ideal story twist is one that leaves the reader thinking they should have seen it coming but didn't.
Whether readers think Grey Wolf successfully pulled it off or not, 'Variation on a Theme' is still a very good story.
AJ
Some people spotted it coming (which is fine - there is foreshadowing of various sorts), many didn't.
I disagree that it should be in the description. Nothing in the description is incorrect, nor does the twist change the nature of the story, affect the codes, etc. If the twist 'broke' a character or the plot, that'd be different.
I received no complaints from anyone who was upset because it wasn't in the description. Perhaps someone was. In general, in any long, complicated story, something is likely to happen that surprises the reader, and that's OK, as long as it doesn't violate the codes or change the nature of the story in a fundamental way.
I believe that the story reads differently if one knows what's coming than if one doesn't, and that it's better for things to be confirmed at the point where the first-person MC becomes aware of them, rather than the reader spending months of time in the story knowing something fairly important that the narrator is not aware of.
I'm not basing the story on the 'twist' - it's not 'The Sixth Sense' - but, to me, it works better as a surprise.
I'm not a big fan of authors trying to surprise readers.
I can think of dozens of counter-examples, really. I don't disagree at all that 'if the story is good and the characters compelling, the reader will be interested without being shocked'. I can reread many stories knowing the (former) surprises and have a great time. That said, if the story is good enough without the surprise, it might be even better with it.
'The Sixth Sense' is a very good movie whether or not you've seen it before. However, it's a better movie if you go into it knowing as little as possible. To avoid spoilers, that's not just 'the twist' that I'm mentioning. An awful lot of movie happens before you even know what's going on with Cole; he doesn't say his famous "I see ..." line until, if I recall correctly, nearly an hour in. Until that point, the viewer has no idea what's going on with him, just that something very weird is going on.
If you know that line, if you know the twist, it's still good, but it's better with them as surprises for the viewer. That's not necessarily true of other Shyamalan projects - he fell in love with twists - but it's true of that work. 'Fight Club' isn't the same story if you know the twist - but it's still great. So is 'The Usual Suspects', or 'The Prestige', or 'Us', and on and on.
My humble twist is hardly at that level - 'Fight Club' is a completely different story with the twist vs without - but I do think it makes mystory more true to itself for the reader to find out what's happening (for certain, if they'd guessed) at the same time as the narrator finds out new information.
I received no complaints from anyone who was upset because it wasn't in the description.
You wouldn't, the people who would complain are those who didn't read your story because the summary was for just another boring Do-Over story.
Only time people complain about something that wasn't in the summary is when it's something that makes them dislike the story.
That's my point, though. I suppose one can look at it two ways: the description may lose readers who would like it, or the description might attract readers who won't like it.
I'm concerned with the first part, but it's a lesser sin than the second. Readers who feel suckered into reading something they eventually wish they hadn't read are my bigger concern.
I'll ponder whether to add more information long-term, but I still feel that Book 1 reads better if the reader isn't ahead of the narrator.
I'll ponder whether to add more information long-term, but I still feel that Book 1 reads better if the reader isn't ahead of the narrator.
Fair enough. Currently, you don't actually have a summary posted. You have some information on your posting schedule and total length of the story, but nothing that tells you anything about the story other than the DoOver tags.
There are no winners in the PC environment of western civilizations.
Equality is a pipe dream. There will always be things people are better and worse at than their neighbors. There will always be a difference in genders. These things cannot be gotten around in the final analysis.
Yet we are to just nod our heads and bow while repeating the PC mantra. Otherwise it's the cancel guillotine.
Equality carries with it the premise of equal power/force. Yet that is a demonstrable impossibility without artificial intervention. Therefore in order to be PC and fair, everyone must be reduced to the lowest common denominator.
The only way humans as a whole have survived to date, is that remarkable people of all races, genders, etc have stepped forth to push humanity into the future. Reducing people to the lowest common denominator is not a viable solution for the continued survival of societies, and in the worst case, survival of the human race.
Equality carries with it the premise of equal power/force. Yet that is a demonstrable impossibility without artificial intervention. Therefore in order to be PC and fair, everyone must be reduced to the lowest common denominator.
To me, equality is the equal opportunity, based upon character and abilities.
We have had immigrants rise high in this country, becoming incredibly wealthy and rising high in politics. We have had "privlidged white men" live in cardboard boxes as junkies.
That some will rise farther is just a fact of life. And I find the idea of holding one group down for perceived injustices or actions they did not do to be disgusting.
"I should be given a job over you because of Jim Crowe!" Well, those laws were struck down when I was a year old, and when your parents were not even born yet. So what does that have to do with me? Or you, a kid born in the 1990's? Should I scream back about how the "Trail of Tears" instead demands that I get the job? Or is my imagined persecution somehow less?
Most (not all) are looking towards equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. It's patently obvious that some people are better at some things than others and will continue to be so.
This is, pretty much, a strawman argument, attacking 'equality of opportunity' by bashing the awfulness of 'equality of outcome' as if they were the same thing. There are reasonable arguments against equality of opportunity going too far, but none of the ones given here are amongst them. Similarly, there are strong arguments given here against equality of outcome, but virtually no one anywhere is advocating for that (yes, one can say that 'communists' used to, but that sort of communism failed long, long ago).
Yes, there are inherent differences between people and between groups of people (e.g. genders). However, that doesn't mean that a woman who both wants to and has the qualifications to do something seen as 'male' should be precluded from doing so, nor that a male who both wants to and has the qualifications to do something seen as 'female' should be precluded from doing so.
As an example: nurses used to be always female; chefs used to be always male. We as a society gain nothing from continuing to enforce those gender roles, even if it were provable that 95% of men are horrible nurses or that 95% of women are horrible chefs (neither is provable and I suspect both are wildly inaccurate, yet even if they were, it wouldn't argue for enforced gender roles).
Similarly, there are strong arguments given here against equality of outcome, but virtually no one anywhere is advocating for that
In current culture, equality of outcome is referred to as Equity. And yes, leftists are very much advocating for equality of outcome. It started about equal representations, but now equity and diversity are code words for 'less white men', the less the better.
Lookup STEM Equity initiatives.
How about affirmative actions? does that sound like equality of opportunity to you? it's equality of outcome. Affirmative action is literally discrimination against one group to bring up the numbers of another group.
Equity in STEM is very focused on getting more women into the fields that they don't like simply to even out the number of students in the STEM fields where there are more men.
They focus on the fields favoured by men, Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.
They never focus on the fields like health sciences that are dominated by women like medicine and veterinary science because those are already dominated; so they ignore those.
I'm going to disagree with you. Can you find examples of people advocating for equality of outcome? Of course. But I can find examples on the opposite fringe who are just as nuts. Attacking the great majority based on the sins of the fringe elements is the scourge of modern politics on both ends of the spectrum. Saying 'leftists are very much advocating for equality of outcome' is equally as valid as saying 'right-leaning-people are very much advocating for pure social Darwinism and want the old and weak to die in ditches'. Yes, a vanishingly small number of people on both sides advocate those things; no, they're hardly common viewpoints.
Affirmative action as generally practiced is exactly equality of opportunity. I suppose it depends on what you declare to be 'outcome', but in general, it gets you a chance to run the race, not a guarantee that you'll place, much less win.
Getting more women into a field is, again, opportunity, not outcome, especially when it's accomplished via encouragement and support.
Again, the initial take on this was that, somehow, this was all going to deny 'remarkable people' a chance to be remarkable. Nothing in any of the examples presented do anything whatsoever that would stop a remarkable person from being remarkable, or even an above-average person from being above-average.
The attack is against holding people back from being great to guarantee equality, but no one is doing that. Even in the case of 'quota-based' affirmative action - which is in decline and has been for years - those on the edge who are 'losing' due to the quota are hardly the 'remarkable people'.
As I said: there are real, solid arguments against excesses of equality of opportunity, and this at least is getting close to there. The original argument was completely against equality of outcome, and I stand by the argument that equality of outcome is, essentially, a fringe position.
I suppose one can make the argument that every step along the way is an 'outcome'- as was suggested about affirmative action - but that waters down the argument so much as to make it meaningless.
Getting more women into a field is, again, opportunity, not outcome, especially when it's accomplished via encouragement and support.
As well as interest and inclination.
It would be like complaining that the US is racist because we do not watch cricket. Has not a damned thing to do with it, there is just not a lot of interest in that sport over here.
Myself, I have loved computers since the 1960's, my wife hated them. In the 1980's I was even banished to the garage with my computer because she would not allow it in the house. So no matter what, she would never have gotten into computers (she did get into nursing however).
It can not be ignored that according to general statistics, most women just have little interest in STEM fields. That is why other fields like teaching, human resources, and social work (as well as nursing) are predominantly female fields.
And that is mostly due simply to personal interest. You can't take somebody who wants to say be a musician, and tell them they have to instead study engineering.
The original argument was completely against equality of outcome, and I stand by the argument that equality of outcome is, essentially, a fringe position.
Unfortunately, you're mistaken.
Even in the case of 'quota-based' affirmative action - which is in decline and has been for years
It's very much in the ascension in the UK :-(
AJ
Yes, there are inherent differences between people and between groups of people (e.g. genders). However, that doesn't mean that a woman who both wants to and has the qualifications to do something seen as 'male' should be precluded from doing so, nor that a male who both wants to and has the qualifications to do something seen as 'female' should be precluded from doing so.
I don't think anyone argues against equality of opportunity. But let's face it; in this horse race called life, maybe we all end up at the starting line -- Secretariat along with the nags one step from the glue factory -- but do all even belong there? The equality of outcome proponents respond with a loud YES! But do we really?
Desired outcomes derived from statistical comparisons of certain physical characteristics just plain drive me nuts. Whenever someone starts talking about "equality", make sure to grab your wallet.
Secretariat along with the nags one step from the glue factory -- but do all even belong there? The equality of outcome proponents respond with a loud YES! But do we really?
Yeah. There's always a chance, even if it's a million to one shot, so why not? However, those nags aren't gonna be running the Derby against Secretariat - the field is only open to winners of qualifying races - but there's no reason they wouldn't race against him in a qualifier. (So to escape the analogy - let everyone have the opportunity to prove they're incapable, then get rid of them once they've proved it.)
Yeah. There's always a chance, even if it's a million to one shot, so why not?
So you're all for open enrollment at Harvard where any and all comers are accepted?
I'm open to Harvard having a test that anyone is allowed to write to make them eligible. You could call it... I dunno, maybe the SAT? Then everyone is accepted on the basis of grade only. (Until enough actually sign up. Presumably some won't be able to afford the fees.)
But that isn't "equality", is it? And that is what the argument is about.
We're talking about equality of outcome regardless of qualifications here. You know, everyone getting a participation trophy instead of a championship one? That kind of insanity. And that kind of insanity doesn't lend itself well to the SAT.
When equality of outcome is taken to the logical extreme, that's the results. And I maintain no one in their right mind thinks it's right. Unless, of course, their rice bowl is affected. The main reason for my saying that when you hear "equality", grab your wallet. Because, in the end, that's what it's about.
I don't think robbery is any different whether performed by a ghetto thug holding a gun to your head or an occupant of Congress/White House passing Title IX. Either way, they're grabbing your rice bowl.
ETA: My last word on the topic. You can have the final word.
But that isn't "equality", is it? And that is what the argument is about.
It actually is equality. Equality of opportunity. Fuck anyone who believes outcomes need to be 'fair'. Life isn't fair. It can't be. Not without reducing everyone to the lowest level possible.
let everyone have the opportunity to prove they're incapable, then get rid of them once they've proved it.
Unfortunately, that only works if there is skin in the game, as in one is responsible for the results of their (in)competence, for example, everybody running their own business.
But the reality is, due to things like affirmative action, a lot of incompetent people end up in jobs that affect your life gravely and their incompetence affect you highly negatively and due to things like affirmative action, diversity policies, and unionization nobody gets fired no matter how incompetent they are and your tax money keeps paying for their incompetence.
I don't disagree those suck. I fully believe that it should be much MUCH easier to get rid of the incompetent. I also believe unions shouldn't exist, especially not public sector unions. But I do believe that the world would be much better off organized as a meritocracy. Especially since I'm most suited to be EvilOverlord.
But I do believe that the world would be much better off organized as a meritocracy.
There was actually a famous book that had that very concept as one of it's core concepts. But of course, it was then blasted as "fascist". Hell, the director who made a movie based on the book admits he did not even read it. He just slapped everybody into SS uniforms and in all interviews said it was about a fascist government.
This is an offshoot, but something to just consider.
For most of us, our race is not really obvious. Heck, sometimes even our gender is not really obvious. Myself, I have written almost as many stories from a female POV as I have a male one. And I have narrated characters of many races and religions.
But this is a great example, as nobody here can really say most times if somebody is a better or worse writer because of things like their race and gender.
This is why many female authors (J.K. Rowling, D.C. Fontanna, Louisa May Alcott {who originally wrote as A.M. Barnard}, P.L. Travers, the list is endless) used initials, to hide their gender. And sadly, even today a great many publishers seem to believe people can not take many serious works by women seriously. Especially if they feature a male main character or a dark subject matter.
Now imagine a world where each of us writers in here had do disclose our genders and races. Then in the Clitorides have classes for "Best Male" and "Best Female" writers, and the like.
Me, I want my writing to stand on its own, not because of what boxes I might have checked off demographically. I hope my characters seem alive, regardless of what my own race and gender is.
Myself, I am one that pretty much ignores any "-ism", and agree with a former President that there is no "hyphenated-American". I eschew the kind of thought that tries to pull us apart and divide us into camps. And instead hope we can grow past that and all realize we are just people.
First a comment. The incidence of Asians being attacked has in fact ticked up across the country. The difference with them is that many of them (particularly first generation) don't report (to leo) the attacks. If a person were to drill down into that problem, they would find the vast majority of 'reported' attacks come from 3rd generation Asians, and in particular from more liberal areas.
Then we get to the past. It's a mistake to dismiss the past. It's an equally big mistake to live in the past. We should strive not to live in the past, while at the same time we should also strive not to forget where we came from. To live in the past is to allow it to injure our present and future. To forget the past is to set ourselves up for it to repeat.
Just from personal experience coming from a Rez at a time where most other races simply ignored the laws; I know that it's hard not to react, nor see the world as it is at times. There are still traces of the bad old days lingering about that make it difficult. However, to allow those traces any power at all over my future, is my own problem and mistake.
My .02
First a comment. The incidence of Asians being attacked has in fact ticked up across the country. The difference with them is that many of them (particularly first generation) don't report (to leo) the attacks. If a person were to drill down into that problem, they would find the vast majority of 'reported' attacks come from 3rd generation Asians, and in particular from more liberal areas.
Now here is the thing, has anybody actually looked into the statistics and incidents about these "attacks"? Or are you and others just taking what the articles say and going with that?
I guess that is the difference with me, because by now I realize that the media will never give me the simple facts, I have to dig them out for myself one piece and article at a time.
For example, this all started because of the attack on Monthanus Ratanapakdee in February. An unprovoked attack, that seems to be more like a case of "wilding". He was attacked by Antoine Watson, a 19 year old black youth. Who literally pulled up nearby in his car, charged him and knocked him 6 feet into a wall, then returned to his car to get a cell phone and take pictures of the body before leaving.
So tell me, racial attack, or some sort of initiation or simply committing assaults to brag about it with friends? Seems to me it is the latter, and his being Asian has nothing to do with it, he would have done this to any older person he saw.
And I also saw another article about an increase in violence in the Vietnamese area of San Francisco. But curiously, all the attacks they talked about were by other Vietnamese. I guess they are racist against themselves.
And there were a day or so later 3 similar incidents that were similar in Oakland by a single person. Who pushed 3 Asian elders to the ground or into traffic.
Also caught on video, also done by a black man. S, do we have a problem now with racist blacks? Because funny, none of the articles I read talking about these "racist attacks" even seemed to mention the race of the attacker. But thankfully they did include video of the attack so I could see it.
You are getting to be notorious for quoting out of context, demanding proof without giving any, and selectively choosing which proof/study/statistics you quote and or use. If you're not a politician, you've certainly missed your true calling.
Say what you will, but the only way to win that game is to not play. Do consider yourself ignored after this point.
You are getting to be notorious for quoting out of context, demanding proof without giving any, and selectively choosing which proof/study/statistics you quote and or use. If you're not a politician, you've certainly missed your true calling.
Say what you will, but the only way to win that game is to not play. Do consider yourself ignored after this point.
You know something, I do not care.
I worked in San Francisco, and lived in the area for years. I finally left because of crap like that. But want proof?
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/san-francisco/crime
As can easily be seen, San Francisco is much more dangerous than the rest of California. Which is already above the national averages. And if you know where in the city Chinatown is, is is one of the areas in dark blue.
But it's even worse in Oakland.
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/oakland/crime
In fact, it is so dangerous that my unit used to have us stay in Oakland for weekends. But 2 years ago the number of our cars broken into and assaults caused us to request a budget increase so we could stay in a safer area.
And it is so bad, we have many times in the last 3 years been on "Travel in civilian clothes" orders. Simply because it is not safe to have it known we are in the military.
How is that for proof and statistics? I used to live and work in that hellhole daily. That is why I moved. First to Sacramento, then to Oroville. Finally to Oregon, to get away from shit like that.
Hell, even the cities own crime rate projections last year show an increase of violent crimes over the year before.
https://sfgov.org/scorecards/public-safety/violent-crime-rate-and-property-crime-rate
But please, feel free to ignore facts. Myself, I really do not care. Care to show me any studies showing crime has decreased in the Bay Area?
If a person were to drill down into that problem, they would find the vast majority of 'reported' attacks come from 3rd generation Asians, and in particular from more liberal areas.
Hmm. So, what you're saying is that the more liberal areas tend to have bigger problems keeping crime under control, and... I'm gonna guess the criminals are relatively secure in the knowledge their victims will be unarmed? What a shock.
Hmm. So, what you're saying is that the more liberal areas tend to have bigger problems keeping crime under control, and... I'm gonna guess the criminals are relatively secure in the knowledge their victims will be unarmed? What a shock.
Almost a decade ago, the Bay Area had a huge problem with "wilding". Just as New York did, and it seems to me that it is simply starting again.
For those that do not know, "Wilding" are generally attacks on others for kicks. They pick somebody who does not seem to be able to fight back, and many times there are others nearby even taking videos of the incident.
Just go up to a random individual and attack them. No warning, no reason. It was a huge problem a decade ago, and all of these recent attacks seem to be the exact same thing. And in seeing most of the reports, most of the perps seem to be young black men. But one yesterday was a 40 year old white homeless man.
Many times involving multiple attacks in a short amount of time. But these are not really targeted, they just attack those they think they can get away with attacking. Normally the elderly. And if the attack is in Chinatown, then odds are the person attacked is going to be Asian.
They do not do these in their own neighborhoods, because it might be somebody they know or they will be recognized. So they travel into the city most times. Where they can nail 2-6 people, then hop on mass transit and vanish.
And in this era where nobody looks at you funny for wearing a mask, this makes them feel even more empowered to do attacks like these.
Almost a decade ago, the Bay Area had a huge problem with "wilding". Just as New York did,
I would expect LA and Chicago would've too (largely unarmed population) but not so much, say, San Antonio.
I would expect LA and Chicago would've too (largely unarmed population) but not so much, say, San Antonio.
The term was first used in a gang attack and rape in New York in 1989. And it has popped up again often in recent years.
But it has nothing to do with gun laws, most attacks of this kind occur in cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Large cities, with significant gang activity (usually at peace with each other), and either an extensive freeway system to quickly leave the scene of the attack, or an extensive mass transit system for the same thing.
Just a few years ago, BART in San Francisco saw a rash of these attacks. Gangs of kids would get on at a station, and ride a few stations down the line and get off. Then they would wait until right before the next train heading towards their home arrived, and start attacking people at random on the platforms, beating them for no reason.
Then hop on the train and take it a stop or two, and vanish before the police can respond.
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2014/06/04/police-task-force-forms-to-address-teen-wilding-in-alameda-county/
And then there were similar "Knockout Game" attacks. But in this, most times somebody is nearby to video the attack, then posts the videos to YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soUD1mGPsig
And in the Bay Area, this seems to have made a recent resurgence. Most of the attacks are very similar to the attacks of 2013-2014, there the only goal is assaulting people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soUD1mGPsig
Seems like the story i wanted in my original post doesn't exist, thanks anyways.
Thinking about the story some more do they even teach "Home economics" in school anymore? I'm assuming not.
I don't know how common the classes still are, but a quick google check finds a bunch of curriculums for high school Home Ec. classes from as recent as 2011. Also some articles complaining about the name change to "Family And Consumer Sciences"
