Mark Sobolewski wrote:
> In article ,
>  "bluesmama"  wrote:
>
> > connor_a{at}hotmail.com wrote:
> > > bluesmama wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Except paying their fair share in tax.
> > > >
> > > > Are women who work taxed at a lower rate than men who work?
> > >
> > > Unfortunately women aren't being paid less than their harder
working
> > > counterparts and in many ways women should be taxed more because
they
> > > exclude themselves from performing hard yakkka.
> >
> > So women are being paid too much and taxed too lightly, this is
your
> > argument?
>
> I see your point and Ian and Conner went down the road, let's
> just put it that way.
>
> Women, as a class, largely get more social goodies in the
> form of welfare, alimony, mommy-support, and marrying
> up in most cases where women marry.
>
> But you're right: women do not have any special tax breaks
> (yet! :-)
>
> > > Men never excluded themselves from any form of work no matter how
> > > dangerous whereas women have the very woman only choice to do so.
> >
> > Many men like danger, it's monotony they're afraid of. Whatever the
> > reasons, if a man chooses a dangerous job, no one forces him to do
so.
>
> Ah yes, some nice wishy-washy morality coming from you.
>
> I was just having a conversation with a colleague and
> the subject of Columbine came up.  He remarked that
> considering the brutal nature of American public schools,
> it's amazing that more school shootings don't occur.
>
> It's amazing that more men aren't casual violent criminals
> considering the dangerous, unprotected world they live in.
> It's also equally amazing that even with all the goodies
> women now have in our modern society, how materialistic
> and helpless they have continued to be.

Both men and women can be materialistic, and helpless. It's a choice,
not a secondary sexual characteristic.

> The modern 20th century will go down in history as a social
> experiment that proved the differences between the sexes.
>
> > He must be getting some kind of satisfaction from it, or else he
would
> > be doing something else.
>
> I'm reminded of turn-of-the-century Irish and Polish mine workers
> who toiled away all day long to make enough money to put
> bread (literally) on their family's tables.  Oppressive
> bastards, eh?

I'm reminded of Russian peasant women who were hitched to the plow when
oxen were unavailable. Then they went home and cooked a huge meal for
the other farm workers, with no running water and a wood stove.
Materialistic bitches.

> Yeah, they all just had a ball.

I talked about "satisfaction", not fun and games. You don't think the
men you talked about enjoyed a feeling of competence, manliness, pride,
whatever - from providing financially for their families? Satisfaction
at a job well done? Pride and well-earned bragging rights for the
dangers they overcame? Those things make money's importance pale in
comparison.

> When do we get to eat cake?

Whenever your wives bake it for you, unless you feel like making it
yourself, I guess.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/3/05 1:00:36 PM ---