Re: Women allowed to vote, to weaken our populace?
- From: Mark Borgerson <mborgerson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:06:25 -0700
In article <b951d0bf-baeb-4c58-82c5-b87c33d8e3c7@
24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, k_over_hbarc@xxxxxxxxx says...
Mark Borgerson wrote:
Perhaps this is true in the particular case of the Gateses, but not in
general.
That depends on what you mean by 'in general'
For the whole population of the world, it's probably not true.
For thw whole population of the US, it's probably not true.
For the population of high-tech movers and shakers most likely
to end up billionaires, it probably is true that the man is
most likely to marry a woman he meets through work and who has
enough education to make intelligent small talk about his work.
I suppose, but the point was that women have a massive advantage over
men in this way. A woman not in such a position has the many more men
that aren't.
Picking Melinda Gates was probably a bad start. Perhaps the
most recent Mrs. Ted Turner might have been a better example.
Of course, Jane already had a bit of money of her own
(and a couple of Oscars) when she met Ted.
Right.
But for biological reasons they won't be as happy with that as men
are. That's not good for men.
That's true, though I don't think marrying down is a problem
for biological, but rather social reasons.
It is, because male and female sexual behavior differs, and that has
biological origins.
Aha, Do you mean that women are programmed to look for the best
providers for their offspring? If so, I think you are right.
Yes, that's what I mean, _especially_ working women (as I stated in my
essay).
Coping with
pregnancy, delivery, and postnatal care while working full time is a
biological problem.
Not a large one normally, even if women whine about it.
How many middle-of-the-night feedings and diaper changes have
you done? I always found that part of post-natal care
to be a bit tiring.
Real men don't do that ;)
Yeah, well, we were both working full time and her job provided
the health insurance.
Women have been doing it forever, and you might say that they are
programmed for it, using your language.
As for pregnancy and delivery---If the mother has adequate
health insurance and medical care, they shouldn't require
missing more than a few week's work.
In normal cases, a few _days_. Any more than that would be unnecessary
red tape.
I think that depends on the job and any problems with the delivery.
If the woman has a job where she accumulates hundreds of hours of
paid sick leave, there is a temptation to take a few days more
to recuperate. I think going to work outside the house---particularly
with any significant commute two days after childbirth is quite
a chore. Sort of like going to work a few days after an appendectomy.
After my daughter was born, I actually took advantage of the
company "family leave" policy to stay home for a few days to help
out using paid sick leave.
Mark Borgerson
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Women allowed to vote, to weaken our populace?
- From: Andrew Usher
- Re: Women allowed to vote, to weaken our populace?
- References:
- Re: Women allowed to vote, to weaken our populace?
- From: Mark Borgerson
- Re: Women allowed to vote, to weaken our populace?
- From: Andrew Usher
- Re: Women allowed to vote, to weaken our populace?
- From: Mark Borgerson
- Re: Women allowed to vote, to weaken our populace?
- From: Andrew Usher
- Re: Women allowed to vote, to weaken our populace?
- From: Mark Borgerson
- Re: Women allowed to vote, to weaken our populace?
- From: Andrew Usher
- Re: Women allowed to vote, to weaken our populace?
- Prev by Date: Re: Feminism as Elite Social Control
- Next by Date: Re: Kostric ("gunman") Rattles Mathews ("Conservative?")
- Previous by thread: Re: Women allowed to vote, to weaken our populace?
- Next by thread: Re: Women allowed to vote, to weaken our populace?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|