In article ,
 "Hyerdahl"  wrote:

> mark_sobolew...{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> > I like this analogy!
> >
> > Hyerdahl wrote:
>
> > > Well, let's see if you can tell the difference between the two
> > examples I provide.  John and Jean were fighting about the tree house
> their > parents built for them.  John and his friends had taken over
> the
> > > treehouse by force, excluding Jean and her friends.  Seeing the
> > > inequity, the parents divide the treehouse in terms of time;
> >
> > What "parents"?  You mean the Patriarchal men who built
> > the treehouse to begin with?  Indeed!
>
> Well, you are free to label with penis coated glasses if you prefer,
> but it has been my experience that when I create something, I do it for
> all of my children and not just by gender.

In other words, you want to "share" all the credit of
western civilization without any of that icky responsibility
and blame.  :-)

Which is it?  Did men keep women out of the treehouse and
do everything on their own or were the women also to
blame for the sins that went on there? :-)

> The "parents" in this case are John and his friends who used
"force"
> > to keep Jean out (namely, the "force" of them being able
> > to climb trees while Jean was afraid of getting her dress
> > dirty.)
>
> No.  In this case, since it's my scenerio, they could all use the tree
> house built by their parents, but the boys denied girls the vote, I
> mean entry to the institution.  ;-)

So you're admitting this has nothing to do with real life
where men built these institutions while the ladies
hid in the house.  Thank you. :-)

> > > John gets> > half of the usable time and Jean gets the
other half.
>  This act can be viewed either as AA making sure the treehouse is used
> by a diverse> group of people or as a measure intended to counter the
> exclusion of others.
> >
> > Unfortunately, Jean still has problems climbing the rope
> > (even as she whines that John is not taking her seriously
> > because she's a girl) and complains that he should spend
> > the time he normally works on the treehouse and relaxes
> > helping her climb.
> >
> No one needs to help her climb.  She can climb as long as there are not
> penis only ladders to gain entry.

In other words, as long as the ladders don't require masculine
strength and dealing with dirt and grime, she can
go up them easily.

Yep, using your "scenario", the "boys" need only not
build a RAMP up to "discriminate" and "deny" the women
entry.  :-)

> And since it's my scenerio, there
> are not.

It sounds like your scenario is breaking down. :-)

> > In the meantime, as the treehouse is being used by more and more
> > "diverse" people who don't necessarily maintain it, it
> > falls into disrepair.
>
> Then the parents can certainly demand upkeep.  Problem gone.

And what if the new diverse people entering the clubhouse
don't know how to perform the tasks and demand
the California, er, I mean "treehouse" taxpayers
to foot the bill? :-)

> Jean suddenly finds that the treehouse is even more dangerous to climb
> into than> before and she cries that it's John's fault because
> > he doesn't help her so much.
>
> John owes Jean nothing here, as long as both are doing their share of
> upkeep, and the parents (govt.) are there to make sure that occurs.

In the meantime, the parents spend a lot more time dealing
with whining from Jean that the rape is made "boy friendly"
and helping all the diverse people who are finding excuses
to not do their work that they can't pay the rent on the
regular house.

Good going!

Maybe they should paint the treehouse "blue" before it
becomes dilapidated. :-)

>  OTOH, let's say that John and Jean both received similar
> > computers for Christmas but that ONLY Jean's computer had a word
> > processing program.  The parents tell Jean she must let John use her
> > computer program when he needs to draft school reports because if she
> > did not let him use it, he would be facing a type of discrimination
> > that would not allow him equal access to school work.  Jean might
> > > argue, "but I don't get to share John's computer
programs", but her
> > > parents remind her that she has the same opportunity with programs
> > on > her computer that he has on his so she is being denied nothing.
> >
> > What if Jean had worked after school to pay for the computer
> > herself while John spent his time playing football?
> >
>  When we talk about equal RIGHTS we are not talking about mere social
> options.

So?  Doesn't John have the equal RIGHT to work and earn
his own money to pay for the computer program? :-)

> The only reason I used the scenerio I chose was to place the
> parents as govt. in dispensing equal rights.

No.  In this case, you have the government handing out
free computers.

Foot, meet gun.  Bang!

> Obviously, there is no
> "right" to use a computer outside of the rights granted by the family.

In the above case we're discussing, however, the family
should probably respect the rights of Jean who paid
for her own computer and John who built his own treehouse
(oops!  That was the "parents" :-)

> Equal rights are determined simply by being a human being and not by
> which is fortunate enough to find work.

What if John didn't look?  What if John exercised his social
options to not work after school?  Are you saying that Jean
should be punished for her hard work?

Putting this in real life terms: Many women are now voting
and leaning against your philosophy because it requires
them to give out more of their resources footing the bill
for other people than they got for "free" from the
"parents" (govt).

If it wasn't for illegal immigration, do you realize
that leftism would be dead in this country?  The
support simply wouldn't be there.  Putting this back
into context:

After a few years, the treehouse has been taken over
by the neighbors' children.  The "parents" have left
it to rot (such as public education) as they've
just put the funds and money into their own private
home including the computers.  Jean spends a lot
of her time hanging around the clubhouse whining
it isn't as good as the German children's clubhouse
next door.

> > What I like about both analogies is how it's clear that you,
> > as with children, believe that these things just fall
> > out the sky somehow.
>
> Well, my analogy uses parents as govt. and rights determined within a
> family as civil rights.

So if the parents, one of them named, say Clarence, wants
to take away Jean's computer and give it to John because
he needs it more since he'll be the head of a family someday,
there's NOTHING Jean can do about it since parents
can do this within their discretion.

Jean can cry and cry to the police but the police will tell
her that's what the constitution, er, parents say. :-)

> Rights obviously don't "fall from the sky" but
> in a society such as ours they apply to all.

Indeed.  They're created by the "parents" or forefathers.

> > My parents were generous, don't get me wrong, but
> > I generally paid for every personal interest I had
> > by earning the money after school delivering newspapers
> > or working part-time jobs.
>
> Sure.  I also had after school jobs I did for my aunt, in the
> publishing industry.  Back then, before computers did it, I sorted
> trays of magazine headings and counted and bundled them for $7.00 per
> tray.  :-)  I also
> mowed lawns, did yard work, etc.
>
>  Perhaps "Jean" wouldn't need to have generous "parents" if
> > she had the ability to earn a living.
>
> Jean and John are both welcomed to earn things for themselves.

Not necessarily.

Some parents may forbid their kids from working.  Using
your analogy, your "civil rights" and equality becomes
totally dependant upon the whims of mommy and daddy.

Men, with abiliies to climb the rope without needing
"govt" handouts, however, are always equal.

> However, I was comparing family civil rights with actual civil rights,
> and it worked fairly well. BTW, in reality, more women have entered
> the workforce than at any other time in our nation's history.

This statistic is meaningless.  More women are wearing
bras today that at any time in our nation's history.
There simply is more people in the nation today than
any time in the past.

> Shouldn't you be applauding that, if you say you want 'Jean' to earn
> her own way?

Women being able to do "unpaid work" and look after their
children and clean their own homes is largely a product
of upper and middle class households.  Working women
don't live in a fantasy world waiting for their "parents"
to come rescue them.

Yes, this analogy works incredibly well.

>  It
> would seem that Mark wants women to work, but not having the same right
> to get work or to be promoted as men.

Those can co-exist you know.  For example: You want
women to get special handouts at the expense of men but
still think that men will magically still be able to
be sugar daddies and pay huge taxes and mommy support.

Women can still be "secondary" wageearners just as
men are secondary caregivers under this scheme.

> In that regard, Mark thinks it's
> A-ok for women to have to work twice as hard to go half as far.

Er, no.

I would say that it's A-ok for women to work half as hard
and only go half as far and not get promoted for cleaning
their own home or looking after their own children.

After all, you don't pay your employees to clean their
own homes, do you?

> We can
> see you, for what you are, Mark, a sexist.  But that's ok, because
> apparently men haven't set all that high a standard. More women are
> going to college than at any other time in history.

And more of them are dropping out of the workforce too
to become SAH moms than at any time.  Oh, those that
aren't winding up spinsters that is. :-)

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/26/05 5:33:46 PM ---