Re: US loosing competitive dominance due to negative female influences


Ben wrote:
>(edit)

> > > There's more to entertainment than television, but even if there was
> > > only television, not even you (well, maybe you) can deny that some
> > > shows get hyped all to hell and back, and they're essentially
> > > worthless. People are buying the sizzle and want to fool themselves
> > > into believing they're getting the steak.
> >
> > Sure; Americans are fucking stupid.
>
> I don't think we're stupid, I think we're lazy, and we try to pawn off
> our own responsibilities onto the schools, the state, etc.
>
> That's what I've been saying for a long time, now. They deserve the tv they watch.
>
> Nobody deserves the tv we have. :)

Ok, perhaps I'll concede on this issue. :-) Even American morons don't
deserve to have to sit in their own........

> Me, I tend to watch good news shows, West Wing :-) and rent films.
>
> If I get the chance, I usually watch the Law and Order and CSI shows,
> and I also like Survivor.

I can never really get into those cop type shows because they are so
violent. And, I find those shows like "Survivor" a bit too much like
watching gladiators.

My guilty pleasure (now the Married...With Children is off the air) is
Las Vegas. But I just started going for my> Master's, so I don't have
much free time left.

I can't really identify with either of those, and I also don't take the
time to watch most new shows.

>
> > > > The > entertainment industry sells advertising so if we don't watch, they
> > > > don't sell.
> > >
> > > It's more of a symbiotic than cause-and-effect relationship. Hell, I
> > > go to a movie in a theater now and I have to sit through ten fucking
> > > minutes of ads. My only revenge is to make sure I don't buy the
> > > products.
> >
> > Well, Ben...perhaps you are smarter than the average American. I tend
> > to feel the same way about those products.
> >
> > Apparently, more of the red states watch 'desperate housewives' than
> > the blue states. :-)
> > >
> > > Didn't anyone tell you, Hy? They're *all* red states; some states just
> > > had blue urban areas consisting of a leftist elite and the permanent
> > > underclass they created and want to maintain. ;)
> >
> > Well, if that's so, I leave you to them. Enjoy.
>
> Just out of curiousity, where are you headed? My wife has talked about
> New Zealand, but if we did leave, I'd prefer Australia. My mother
> talks about Italy, but the way I see it, my great-grandfather spent
> weeks on a boat to get the hell out of there. ;)

I'd rather not say where I'm headed, but NZ is gorgeous. A few years
ago, I was fortunate enough to cruise there for 17 days. We started
out in Aukland, toward North Island and Bay of Islands, and then
hitting all the major port cities, i.e. Wellington, Christchurch, etc.
I also spent some time in Oz...and must admit the allure of Arlie Beach
and the Great Barrier Reef.

>
> But I have a feeling> that since most people from the red states are getting tired of corn
> and cold, they're migrating to the blue states, and will soon be over
their red funk. ;-)
>
> Aren't the blue states the cold ones? Is there a metaphor there
> somewhere? ;)

I think so. :-)
>
> >
> > > > BTW, there is absolutely
> > > > nothing wrong with wanting our children to have good self esteem. It
> > > > has been my observation that folks with good self esteem don't need to
> > > > CONTROL others. :-)
> > >
> > > I'm all for self-esteem. I just don't think you give it to someone by
> > > constantly telling them how wonderful they are and congratulating them
> > > for the tiniest of accomplishments, while at the same time ensuring
> > > they're never challenged because, you know, they might fail and that
> > > would hurt their "self-esteem". Genuine self-esteem is tied to
> > > achievement, to pushing oneself to reach a difficult goal.
> >
> > I tend to agree with that. However, it also does no good to tell kids
> > they don't measure up simply because they have not reached a particular
> > cognitive level yet. I suspect, that like most other things, it's a combination of having
> > supportive role models and pushing oneself to achieve.
>
> I agree.

See there; we do agree on many things. As I was growing up, I didn't
really get the kind of support from my parents, that I provided to my
own children, but also, not much was expected of me in the same way
that I had higher expectations for my own children. Today, I'm very
proud of my kids. They have good self esteem and they are all
professionals, now.
>
> > >
> > >That does not mean we have dumbed down our schools,
> > >
> > > They've been dumbed-down. And, have you noticed that too many minority
> > > students equate scholastic accomplishment with being "too white"?
> > > That's one of the unintended (I hope) consequences of peddling a
> > > separatist, victimist entitlement philosophy.
> >
> > Buying into someone else's standards of who we should become, is always
> > a mistake, Ben. The standards should be those of our own choosing, and
> > should reflect our own cultural values, but while you may be "smarter
> > than the average American" I suspect you're not smart enough to get rid
> > of your pride long enough admit the correctness of my statement.
>
> Which statement? Besides, what does intelligence have to do with
> showing you where you're wrong? ;)

Well, I suggest that people who talk about being too "politically
correct" are generally people who prefer rudeness, bias and ignorance
to actually thinking about what those words mean. The operative part
of the phrase is being "correct", politically or any other way. :-)
IOW, people of color should be using their own role models to help them
achieve, and then they may not equate scholarly advances as being of
the white culture. This has nothing to do with separatism, but rather
with a cultural identification.

> > > > but rather that parents aren't putting as much personal
> > > > effort into their children as parents did before
> > >
> > > Maybe one of the parents should stay home, eh?
> >
> > Or, perhaps they should both do their fair share of the unpaid work,
> > eh?
>
> Well, you already know I don't have an issue with couples splitting the
> work--but identify *all* the work that needs to be done.

As long as you're not trying to call your hobbies work, I'm ok with
that. :-) But I suspect that what women see as work may not always be
the same as what men see as work, and if you have a household, the work
that needs to be done on a DAILY BASIS needs to be shared so that both
adults can have a professional or work life.

But I don't> think even you can argue that with two working parents,
it doesn't
> matter how the work is split, there still isn't the time and attention
> available to the child that a stay at home parent could provide.

In my own situation, when my sons were small, my parents (who were
retired) lived close by. My kids BENEFITTED greatly from the time they
were able to spend with their grandparents, before they died. So, my
mate and I shared the home time, the home chores and we really were
able to appreciate our children MORE since we were not with them 24-7.
No, I don't agree that having one person tied to the house 24-7 is
healthy for that person, nor do I think children benefit more from not
having good relationships with other people.

> Personally, I really don't care which parent, though it appears that
> women would prefer to be the ones to stay home with very young
> children.

I don't know that women "prefer" it, but they certainly tend to take
more responsibility for it. And, of course, mothers sometimes nurse
their babies, and that tends to be part of the decisions making process
for some couples.
> > >
> > In the meantime if> you want to know where all the money is being
> > funnelled, look to the> people who got Bush> in office, the oil and
> > drug industries.
> > > > >
> > > Check out the number of millionaires in the Democratic Party sometime.
> > > >
> > > > How would that matter?
> > >
> > > Why do you ask? Are you suddenly no longer winging on about "rich
> > > white men"?
> >
> > I don't have to whine, Ben. There are more than enough angry Americans
> > right about now, who are seeing what they, themselves put into action.
> > :-)
>
> Ahh, no. Bush has broken several campaign promises already.
> Personally, I think this second term has been underwhelming. Maybe
> Giuliani will do better.

Yes, you could continue your Republican slide to fewer and fewer
rights; be my guest. Wasn't it Giuliani who objected to an art exhibit
because it included a picture of Christ in a bikini?
:-) or some such? Perhaps he can make sure all artists paint pictures
that comport with the Christian belief system. :-)
>
> > >
> > There have been rich people supporting good causes since the dawn of
> > time.
> > >
> > > Uh-huh--from all sides of the political spectrum.
> >
> > You mean, BEFORE the Kristian Koalition stole the Republican party?
> > Sure. Did I not tell you I was once a Republican?
>
> Yep. And I was once a Democratic before the far left moonbats ran off
> with the party. But I think I once told you that Democrats are no more
> liberals than Republicans are conservatives.

Oh I think there's a pretty clear distinction now. Back when I was
Republican, I wanted to be a fiscal conservative. Now the Democratic
party gives me what I want with fiscal conservatism and social
liberalism, the best of both worlds. :-)
>
Hell, even Mary Magdalene was allegedly> a wealthy widow supporting
Christ's ministry. It isn't wealth per se, that corrupts people; it's
what they DO with it.
> > >
> > > Check out *where* their holdings are, Hy.
> >
> > I don't think you'll find Kerry/Clinton/Edwards in Haliburton. :-)
>
> You sure you want to talk about a purse-chaser, a land baroness, and a
> dead baby channeler?

Yes. Very much so. They don't have to wage wars in order for their
friends to remain rich.
And, my...aren't we bitter and jaded when it comes to marrying for
money. I thought you were arguing that women never married down,
economically. :-) I remember, a few years back when some on this very
NG were suggesting that Hillary would divorce Bill just as soon as his
term was over.
Looks like they didn't write the book on love, and neither did you.

.