Live From China

I've got an idea! Instead of these so-called reality shows such as America's next top whatever, or giving so much press to Anna what's her face, how about this: they have a program where people really have to prove that they are intelligent, that they are actually prepared to work toward a successful career and then they win a university scholarship. Like this will ever really happen!!!!

I'm with you newbie! I can't believe this so-called "celebrity" was famous at all!

Not too sure whether or not that will happen, Liam. If it does, we will quickly find out if economic activity is truly emotionless, or has no personal cost!

China is well aware of the pollution caused by utilizing coal for energy. Chinese cities are terribly polluted partially due to their coal-fired plants. They are building the dams on the Yangtze in the hopes of alleviating some of this problem. Of course, they are replacing one environmental problem with another one.

I lived in China for 2 years. And one thing they do have is plenty of cheap labor; which we, sadly, in the West exploit to the fullest. I think that will change after 2008 (Er Ling Ling Ba) Olympics in Beijing. It seems that employers in China are having difficultly attracting labor (strange in such a populated country) and, therefore, have had to offer higher salaries, better accommodation, etc. in order to get workers. One thing that is very evident is the dichotomy between rich and poor. In Northern China, you have people living in shacks with only a cooking stove for heat. And it is cold in this part of the world in the winter. I recall seeing families living in the shells of incomplete high rises while just across the street there were luxurious penthouses. In Suzhou, there are people living under bridges - for years. Across the street, a Starbuck's! And a smiling little kid watching a "snowy" TV program from the family bed in a "house" no bigger than a garden shed. And the seas of people coming and going each day.

Couldn't agree more. I kept waiting for the groom to say, "Screw this, I'm gone!" I guess the idea behind this show though is to get people detesting everyone involved :angry:

Now this takes the cake! Pardon the pun A couple is getting married (TV show) and they are being challenged to stick to a budget. The groom, an accountant, has no problem. But his wife-to-be: I want, I want, I want, blah, blah, blah. And the expenses keep growing to the point where they have to beg her parents to pay for more. They end up getting a cake that costs more than $700 and no one eats any of it. Food for crows in the landfill :angry: (And don't get me wrong, I like crows). She said that being $5000 over budget was "not that much." He replied, "I have NO more money; NO MORE!" And then he concluded that if she were to say that in the company he works for, she would lose her job. She literally ends up closing out a bank account. But the clicher was when she said, "I do not believe in saving or investing of any kind!" I guess this is just another way of saying, "I am going to get my way come hell or high water!" Can anyone be that pathetically stupid and wasteful? My guess is that the people on these shows are merely actors following a script.

And often the truth is. Because information is predictable doesn't mean it doesn't have validity. And the information "I" have given is definitely food for thought.

Actually I never implied anything. But you predictably put your own spin on this. In some circles this is known as lying :angry: Speaking of being predictable, how the hell did I know you were going to say this? Of course, I am an amateur psychic (sound familiar?).

Of course, I never said this. In fact, it may be that most rapes actually occur in prison. And that they are much more vastly underreported than on "the outside." Of course, the reasons for this are obvious: snitches or rats are much more severely dealth with in a prison environment. From: http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html Also see: Stephen Donaldson, "The Rape Crisis Behind Bars," New York Times, December 29, 1993, p. A11. See also Donaldson, "Letter to the Editor" New York Times, August 24, 1993. See, too, Wayne Wooden and Jay Parker, Men Behind Bars: Sexual Exploitation in Prison (New York: Plenum Press, 1982); Anthony Sacco, ed., Male Rape: A Casebook of Sexual Aggressions (New York: AMS Press, 1982); and Daniel Lockwood, Prison Sexual Violence (New York: Elsevier, 1980). Switching topics: I think this is the view that most people hold. It really doesn't matter who hit whom. If a man hits a woman, it is wrong. If a woman strikes a man, it is wrong. Hell, if my child punches me (even though she or he doesn't hurt me), it is wrong.

I agree. I guess that's we are asked the question, "Who stole feminism?". Switch topic: I wonder about the concept of oppression. When you are oppressed, you have no access to power. Especially the power to complain and then act upon those complaints. Throughout history we have seen what happens to the oppressed when they speak out.

One area where you will see this concept followed is in the field of aviation. No one, I repeat, no one will ever get a job as a pilot unless they have passed all the requirements. As friend of mine once said, "Transport Canada examiners do NOT care one iota about the genitals in the cockpit!" Either you can fly well or you can't. Either you can pass both the flight test and the ground school exam or you can't. The same goes for minorities. This caveat applies even more strongly in the area of military/combat aviation. Of course, flying is a highly specialized field, but I guess we can take heart that it is here that only the qualifications truly matter.

Such as? And I do ask this with all due respect. And what word can we use in place of "feminist"? I am not always up on the latest terminology.

I agree. If a woman can do a job on the green chain, and provided there is a position available, she should have the job. And at the going rate of pay. But there is another side to this. I remember when a friend went to the NWT to work in a mine. This was around the time feminism was hitting its stride. The miners made incredible wages, even by today's standards. The all-female secretarial staff at the office in Yellowknife complained that they should get equal wages. The managers stated that miners get paid more because it is a dirty, cold and dangerous job. Notice strength was not mentioned. Anyway, the mine made the clerical staff a deal: because they worked for the company, they were automatically eligible for any entry-level position in the mine. And at the same wages as their male counterparts. Guess what? No takers. Now I am not sure that the same pattern is in existence elsewhere. And don't get me wrong. It is a job a lot of males will not do (including me). I grew up in mill and logging towns, and at one time females were excluded from the grunt jobs. Now it is not uncommon for you to see females in these occupations. Hell, we had a family friend (female) who worked in the mill in Pt. Alberni. She had been there 30 years. She was rough and tough, but she could do the jobs required of her. I have known female loggers. However, male applicants still outnumber female applicants for these positions. Why is that? I think in any "grunt" job that requires saving lives the same standard should apply to everyone.

I would say this is probably true. But, let's try this (and we have probably all been remiss at asking you this): as a feminist, what is it that you want?

What happens if you just don't have the money? Another scenario (doesn't apply to me, but interesting): I remember Ft. McMurray when the boom died. A friend of mine who was teaching up there said people up there could not sell or rent their places out.

Wow! To find such a statement in a hansard is appalling. If fire departments, as an example, are compromising their standards, they are also compromising lives. Think about this: things were wrong in the past, so we are going to do wrong to you (which is just revenge), then everything will be equal! In many cases, we are punishing those who had nothing to do with the wrongs in the first place, and rewarding many who were never disadvantaged. Discrimination cuts both ways and it is wrong. Period.

I'll agree with that. I've given up any hope of owning a home (although it was never a huge drive for me anyway). A check of the MLS site shows utter dumps in Kamloops going for $250,000. I've heard people say,"We just saw a beautiful home at such-and-such a place," and when you drive by it is just a hovel that rats wouldn't live in.

I don't think CHS has anywhere stated or implied that feminism is "a mere struggle for equality." I don't think anyone here is saying that. YOU ARE, and I'd be the first to step up and defend that right! What we are doing is challenging your views. There's a huge difference.

No! Spare me the angry feminist routine!

And I did. Thank you! It doesn't and that particular entry has nothing to do with "victims." Rather, the injustices that some feminists don't care to deal with. Oddly enough, this was an example of women hurting other women. Which I guess makes them victims of a kind. And if I did, you would discard it as misogynist, backlash, etc. All through this thread I have posted a considerable amount of information, quoting book, chapter and verse. Enough will only be enough, when it says only what you want it to say.

Gosh, sounds like you are really bitter :angry:

Hmm. Seems to me you are doing exactly what you accuse Hoff-Sommers of doing: you are setting out to prove something you want to prove. Well, I don't know about that, but I can understand why you feel that way. Fortunately, the more moderate voices will prevail. These are the ones that bargain in good faith, the ones that say men aren't the enemy. The voices like melanie's who have brought balance to this thread.

You must think we were born yesterday! From: http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html And thanks to melanie (and Dr. Hoff-Sommers) for a much saner and balanced view.

Well said, Borg! As I have said in other posts or threads, if you quote a source that counters the popular notion, it is automatically discounted. Oh, that's just backlash. Well, they really didn't ask the right questions. That's by a scholar so it can't be true. My evidence is accurate to the nth degree, yours isn't. Gee, why bother presenting any evidence at all? It's one of the oldest, most manipulative - and transparent - con games going. And thus, as you said we just go "round and round and round...." Plain and simply, the gate of violence swings both ways.