Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

Palomar · 2003-03-19 16:13:14

*Clark: Please re-read my last post. I added some lines while you were apparently responding to it.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-03-19 16:43:02

Me: "If I lived in Afghanistan or Iran, or 16th century Europe, this myth and its sociopolitical ramifications would be enforced upon me (subject to punishment of varying degrees of severity for attempting to buck it)."

Clark: "But you don't live in those places and in those times. You live in the 21st century of America. No?"

*But the fact is that the anti-female sexism flowing from the myth of Eve has been enforced -- often severely, and for centuries. And even in 21st century U.S.A., women still get paid, on average, 24 cents less per hour for performing the same duties on a job as a man. How is that justified? It's not. Equal pay for equal work; anything less is unfair.

Me: "Oh, but there -has- been harm done in the name of this myth."

Clark: "But there has been harm done in the name of every myth! Shall we lay blame on the myth itself, or the people who chose to corrupt it to their own selfish ends?"

*I don't believe there has been harm done in the name of EVERY myth. The toothfairy is harmful? Please. The anti-female myth of Eve was designed to be harmful, period. There is no way to distort a message which tells women they are to be subservient and submissive -- every one of them, until the end of time -- to men, because of what 1 woman supposedly did in a garden thousands of years ago. This isn't on par with the toothfairy, and you know it.

Even Enlightenment, which I know nothing about, has been used as the basis for justifying some of the most grotesque Eugencis programs the world has ever seen. Shall we condem Enlightenment philosphy then? Os shall we simply condemn those who perverted the message?

*We should condemn those who pervert the message. None of the Enlightenment philosophers would have lent a hand to crimes against humanity: None of them. On the contrary, their desire was to liberate and free humankind. They loved life and were great humanists. Diderot's philosophy was distorted by Marx. Diderot simply wanted to uplift the craftsman and laborer as entitled to dignity and respect for his work, i.e. that the poet, historian, hero and courtier would be naked and hungry without the clothing and bread provided by the laborer. That's it. Marx took this to mean that the laborer should be the one calling the shots, that the class system should be entirely done away with. I'm not extremely well versed on Marxist theory and philosophy, but I have enough of a grasp of it to know, based on all the material of Diderot's I've read, that his philosophy toward life was very different from what Marx tried to turn it into.

Cindy: "Why do you suppose, Clark, that the worlds of art and literature are predominated by men? Because men are so naturally vastly intellectually superior to women?

Clark: "Now that you mention it, that would explain everything rather nicely..."

*::Shakes head sadly::

Cindy: "The fact that I've rejected such claims proves it has no power over me. Am I and everyone else to always remain perfectly quiet when we disagree with something, otherwise it "demonstrates power over us"? No."

Clark: "I understand Cindy, but it seems that you will attack even the most insensible statement- thus the Eve comment to begin this episode. Would you feel the need to react if I said women are from Venus? It's just as meaningless as my coments about Eve."

*It's not the same, Clark. There are no myths about Venus on a destructive level with that of Eve. And you're admitting some of your statements are insensible? Well, it's a start...

Me: "The fact that I oppose the sexist notion of male superiority and female inferiority based on the Genesis myth proves I'm -not- willing to "play the victim."

Clark: "You play the victim becuase you entertain a myth as posing as truth. If you feel as you say you do, this mythos is the same as a Disney cartoon."

*Oh good grief. Was Martin Luther King, Jr., "playing the victim" or "entertaining the myth" that whites are superior to blacks? No. He stood up against this myth, as do I against sexist myths (whether anti-female OR anti-male). The only truth of the myth of Eve is the resultant negative results it's produced for women...it did its work, as the writers of the story intended.

Me: "As for my being a student of Voltaire and the Enlightenment, again -- you demonstrate your ignorance of what the Enlightenment was about. You have stated more than once, previously, that you have not studied Enlightenment material and don't know much about. Voltaire himself, Thomas Paine and Benjamin Rush, M.D., are 3 luminaries of the time who took a stand for equal treatment of women."

Clark: "Well, i for one have learned something new, I never knew that the Enlightenment was really about emanicpating women. Thanks for clearing that up! I always thought the Enlightenment was about "rationale thought". But what do i know, right."

*The Enlightenment sought to further freedom and liberty for all humans; many of its philosophers also spoke up for rights for animals as well.

Me: "I have no fear of calling it for what it is (sexist stupidity) or taking a stand against such a thing; no more than Voltaire "feared" taking a stand against the authorities who wrongly put to death a man named Calas"

Clark: "Voltarie flirted with the very thing he denounced his entire life. Many of his contemporaries did the same thing. Just as you now repeat the same mistakes. In the end, through all their reason, they still could not prove that there was no god- or that the gods that did exsist were untrue.

*Well now you're going to learn yet another new thing about Voltaire: He did believe in God; he was a Deist. I'll post some of his writings pertaining to same in the 18th Century folder, so you can read it for yourself. I am an agnostic, not a Deist.

Clark: "yet you decry others who do the same as you, yet in a different manner."

*Life is a battle of ideas, Clark. You know from months and months ago that I have certain beliefs.

Me: "It's myth. But for the sake of argument: God punished Adam by telling him that he would, from now on, "work by the sweat of his brow." Eve's punishment, of course, was to bear children in pain and be subject to her husband. They were both cast out of the Garden. Why, then, do women do more hard labor around the world than men? It's a statistically proven fact that women work, on average, 3 hours per day more than men, consistently...anywhere you look. And for less pay/reward. Looks like women got stuck with that punishment, too."

Clark: "one, you are talking about a literal translation of the text."

*So are the religionists.

Clark: "Two, the world is unfair, tell me who to vote for, adn I'll vote. And three, men still have to listen to you complain."

*Yes, the world is unfair. To everyone, at some point or another. And how is the world helped by NOT addressing unfairnesses? It's not. As for "men still have to listen to you complain"...as I said, I ::rarely:: get involved in this topic of discussion, and I rarely complain. Besides, you don't have to listen to me...you initiated the conversation, you've been responding. And now you're complaining that I'm "complaining", when in fact I thought this was a debate you initiated. ::tosses hands into the air in a gesture of resignation::

Me: "It's allegedly the word of God. If there is a God."

Clark: Is that what frightens you, or bothers you? That is *might* be true?

*It might be true; I'm an agnostic. I was simply questioning the assertion that there -is- a God.

Me: "The myths of Santa Claus and the toothfairy don't have the sociopolitical results that anti-female sexism has had."

Clark: "I'm sure there are some Environmentalists and Communists that would disagree. It's a matter of perspective."

*It's a matter of results.

Me: "They're sheep."

Clark: "is it any wonder that you can't see any other persepctive than your own? Look at the obvious contempt you hold for people holding this particular faith. How is that reasoned?"

*As a matter of fact, I used to believe as they did. Then I freed my mind. Reason is thinking for yourself, deciding for yourself, looking to see where Thought A versus Thought B have lead people in the past, seeking to learn from mistakes, etc., etc. You don't know me, Clark, on a personal level -- you don't know my life, my personal history.

Clark: "They see what you apparently cannot, or willl not see."

Me: I think that should be rephrased, "They can't see what I can, or will not see what I can."

Clark: "So my friend with eyes, what is it you see in a world of the blind? Isn't your reversal still saying the same thing? CAN YOU SEE what they see?"

*Again, life and the world are about ideas and ideals, Clark. Often times they collide and crash. Can I see what they see? To be honest, in my opinion they cannot see -- because they do not QUESTION what they are told. They simply do what they are told to do, end of report. That's not reasoned thinking; it's not even thinking. A person who can't think for him/herself can't possibly be credited with being able to "see" anything for themselves either. The two go hand in hand.

Me: "I'd say you're entitled to your opinion, and then ask what you base your opinion on."

Clark: "That men are more suited for our roles than women? What do you base your opinion? Why should I beleive that women are as well suited for the same things men are?"

*Your "answer" as to what you base your previously-stated opinion on is more questions to me? That's not an answer. Now, on what do you base your belief, Clark, that men are better suited (to be leaders) than women?

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-22 00:10:38

I'm sure I will be considered a troll for this [...]

Most certainly, clark.

If a woman gets paid less for being a woman, then that is wrong, but ultimetly, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Sure, and if a plant in the shade grows less than a plant in direct sunlight, ultimately, that plant has no one to blame but itself.

This scenario is completely synonymous with yours. I would leave it to you to figure out the similarities, but I'll help you instead.

The point of my scenario isn't that a plant isn't capable of changing its environment, certainly it is, just like a woman is and certainly has shown an ablity to change her environment. A plant can take it upon itself to grow off in a certain direction so that it can gain more sunlight. The point of my scenario is to show that the environment has much more weight than you would suggest. You pretend that merit is more important than the environment, though.

If a woman gets paid less for being a woman, then it's the societies fault, especially if that society hypocritically purports to being an equal society or what have you. That woman can only change her environment so much, just as the plant can only grow out so far to reach its desired place in the sun before its limbs are incapable of supporting the sideways growth!

Perhaps we should examine WHY women get paid less than a man.

But clark, women don't get paid as bad as they used to. Women are growing their limbs out! The question then is, can society support a fully ?blossoming? society of equals? Or are constructs where one gender is superior to one another mere farces?

We've seen organization in socities where women are the superior gender, so clearly there is no ?natural law? dictating that man be superior.

If we do, the simple explanation of why a woman gets paid less than a man is simply becuase, she is NOT a man.

Hmm, but the simplest explaination is that her environment doesn't allow her to be. Not being a man is just the pertinent variable. Not being a man is the same as being planted in the shade. This does not justify inequality, because there's enough sunlight to go around. But plants don't hypocratically pretend to be equals.

You have to fight for what you want, it hardly is ever given away.

Oh, they've fought alright. How many women millionares are there now? Women are totally sweeping the industry. Cindy may be dissatisfied at the current trends out there, but certainly she knows that things are better than they used to be.

The question though, isn't whether things should be given away, but whether or not we're being hypocrites here when we profess to be a society of equals. At least oppressive governments like China don't pretend that their women aren't subservent.

I could give a crap less about competition or what have you. What matters is the ideal and the truth of that ideal in practice. Communism is a lovely ideal, but often times in practice it winds up being a dictatorship; this makes it wrong, this makes it a lie.

?All men are created equal,? is another lovely ideal, but after slavery was abolished, how long did it take for the concept to become an oughtright lie? A couple of black senators or so?

Perhaps you will deserve that extra $0.24 an hour is you were willing to live as a man.

Perhaps women will deserve that extra $0.24 an hour if the society was willing to grow some balls and treat women equally. The point of the $0.24 figure is that women are doing jobs men do, and getting paid less. How is that any different from ?living like a man?? Doing a ?mans job? would fit the bill, no? Or are you seriously suggesting that that $0.24 is payment for potential maternity leave?

That's as ridiculous as suggesting that men should get paid $0.24 less since they're prone to ?greater instances of stress, alcholism, drug abuse, suicide, ulcers, heart attacks? and all of those things detract from overall usablity in a given time frame. Hell, if we're really serious about this (and not using it as some ridiculous justification because we know we're just lying to our pathetic selves), women who sign contracts saying they promise not to get pregnant for a certain period of time, should get paid more than men (enforcing a non-pregnancy contract is much easier than enforcing a non-being-generally-unhealthy contract).

We can go on and on and on forever about this, though. We really could. The gender argument is no different than a religious or race argument. But at least we can always come back to one simple fact. If we're a society of equals, or profess to be, then each of us should be compensated for equal work.

No, I don't expect a woman to be paid the same as a man for doing hard labor, unless she can actually do the job just as well. I don't expect a woman to be paid the same unless she can do any job just as well.

One other thing, being a man, and being a white man, means more opportunity.

Certainly. It also means being a lying, delusional bastard. Ask anyone in America if women are equal, and odds are they'll say yes. Only the fundamentalists are the ones who wouldn't immediately answer that question with a yes (some fundamentalist women would laugahbly say something along the lines of let the men do all the deciding, but just because one person is sufficiently brainwashed, doesn't mean a majority is).

[...] at least things are improving.

You damn right they are, and this is in the face of an increasingly anti-feminine media, and just general atmosphere of female inferiority.

Thank your stars you're not a female immigrant.

Hah, at least we could argue that immigrants get paid equally agmonst their genders! When a pack of illegal immigrants pick vegetables, they all get the same flat wage! That's how I've seen it occur on documentaries, at least.

And even if we were to show that female immigrants get paid less than their male immigrant counterparts, we might be able to justify it by saying that since they're illegal, they're not covered under the constitution or laws, so they're not equals. It's a laughable justification, sure, but at least we wouldn't be lying to ourselves so much.

You have less choice, so business's can and do offer you less, because you have less choices in finding something better.

You sound like the obvious guy or something, clark. I don't know if you're rubbing it in poor Cindy's face, or if you're failing to see that you've said this same thing several times again again in one post. You haven't really justified this behavior, though. I think you've just made it worse since you've just showed how obviously asinine it is.

It's beneath you. You are worth more.

Yep. Worth at least an honest system which doesn't lie to itself to feel better. ?Are women equals?? ?Oh yes, yes certainly!? All Cindy, and practically any woman who realizes her situation, asks for, is for that answer to be an honest one.

I applaude you for your stand, but nothing will improve until a majority of women feel the same.

That's quite debatable. It takes more than just a majority of women to feel the same (I would argue that a lot of women are quite aware of the situation out there in America). It takes a majorty of those women to vote. And they won't because that $0.24 isn't ?beneath them?; they're too busy trying to survive. A many number of women probably don't even participate for fear of becoming a ?rabid feminist,? or some other ridiculous term coined by the media. Nothing like American-style democracy.

No one cares about us, except ourselves.

Don't contridict yourself here, clark. You just said you were in the sunlight with your ramblings about opportunity, so you must stick with this position. You're quite ?cared about.? You're in the sunlight. That's all that matters.

We can keep talking at each other abouit this, or we can try talking about this with each other. You choose.

This is like your guys' millionth gender discussion, so I finally had to say something. Are you going to say now that my interjecting proves some of your random points about ?male superiority? or some other such garbage?

I only interjected because I saw the perfect opportunity to use a very good metaphor.

Religion, beliefs, these are not the bad guys Cindy.

I don't think people are bad, but I think ideologies can be. If Cindy does too, I see no problem with that. The worst idealogies are the ones based upon some false reality. Ones which pretend to support certain ideals but are in reality the complete opposition.

Palomar · 2003-03-22 10:29:30

*Hi Josh:

I agree with your post entirely. Everyone should receive equal pay for equal work *if* they are capable of carrying out the duties and obligations of said work -- with as much effort and results -- as their peers do.

I am very puzzled by certain peoples' reactions to this issue...since it effects them as well. Let me provide a PRACTICAL example:

Jane Smith and Joe West work for Winnebago Industries. They've been with the company for 10 years, and were hired within 2 months of each other (no great seniority discrepancy between them). Jane makes 20 cents per hour less than Joe because of her gender, although she works as hard and as many hours on the assembly line as Joe. There is -no- work Joe does that Jane cannot do, i.e. no heavy lifting, etc. Jane can and does do everything on the job that Joe is capable of doing; they are both hard, capable, productive workers; same hours, same effort.

Jane and her husband have 2 sons ages 5 and 7. They basically live from paycheck to paycheck, with a small savings account [less than $1500 at any given time]. Jane's husband, who works full time, dies of a heart attack. This is now a 1-income home/family.

Joe and his wife have a young son and a daughter ages 6 and 7; they are in a similar financial situation as Jane and her husband. Joe's wife, who works full time, gets killed in a car crash. This is now a 1-income home/family.

Whose children will continue to have a better standard of living during the 1-income home/family situation? Joe's. Jane and her 2 sons will have to make do with less, because of the wage discrepancy based on gender; her sons will not have the standard of living Joe's children have, based on the earnings of both from Winnebago.

This affects boys and men, too. Obviously. I know of many men who prefer their wives to work, in order to bring extra income into the household. This is entirely
understandable. But these husbands are themselves being cheated; if their wives made money comparable to that of their male coworkers [provided it is equal work], the couple would have even more money in every paycheck.

::This is my last response to this issue:: This matter effects just about everyone, in some fashion or another; it is NOT simply a "woman's issue."

This affects men and boys, too.

It's ultimately a ::practical:: issue, when one gets down to the brass tacks of the matter and approaches it with common sense.

Enough said.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2003-03-22 12:50:18

Here is another perspective on the "Adam and Eve" myth:

"Eve's rebellion against her husband [and God] becomes a voyage of discovery, she leading, Adam following." Or, as JFK once told Martin Luther King --> Freedom cannot be given, it must be taken.

Another angle - who would be "more fun" to talk to? Adam, or Eve? Who would you rather be, dull obedient Adam or rebellious free spirited Eve?

= = = =

On the "wages" question - -

Is there unfair bias against women? Absolutely! Blacks? Absolutely! although Arabs may soon be the new "n-word" people.

However, bias and discrimination is rampant throughout the world. Playing favorites among fellow alumni is rampant and I have been passed over for being in the "wrong" sub-group of white European males. Sadly (realistically) equal pay is a marketplace issue and equal pay must be claimed by those who seek it.

No fairy-parent in Washington DC will make it happen - despite my agreement with the justice of your comments. "I got mine!" simply is the motto of the vast majority of people.

= = = =

A funny (to me at least) solution to this issue:

Reparations for the descendants of women. To combat centuries/millenia of unfair discrimination against women, the US government should make cash reparations to all descendants of women.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-24 13:38:23

Yeah, Bill's comment was funny. I've actually used that line before, that I'd side with eve because the Garden of Eden sounded boring. The perfect socialist primivitist paradise, in a way.

Walkin' around naked all day, doing whatever. Getting food magically and so on. So lovely. A nice kind of utopia. Funny how an all knowing God expected perfection for 2000 years then realized people are far from being perfect (he should've realized that at Saddom and Gamora). I like how Christians these days don't realize that Christ was a ?bleeding heart liberal hippy,? with the exception of a few things.

clark, your reclarifaction didn't change anything. We realize that there are biological differences between women and men. We also accept that there are biological differences between whites and blacks, but does that justify racial inequality?

The question isn't, ?Are people less capable or more capable than one another?? We know the answer to that already. The question is, ?Do people deserve equal pay for equal work?? Sure, I know you think that this is a meaningless question(you say so yourself, ?the simple answer is that it is untenable?), but I think you've failed to show how it's justified. Just because something ?is so? doesn't mean it's justified. I think it's perfectly tenable from an economic standpoint, it's just a difficult thing to realize from a social standpoint. I accept that, though, but I don't think that because it's a difficult social problem that it's justified.

Your post reminds me a lot of Adam Smith's work. He would define how things worked in the world, but he wouldn't justify them economically or even philosophically (why didn't he even delve into concepts like where the ?Right of Increase? originated from?). Your whole post, in my mind, is summed up to something along the lines of, ?Injustice is justified because it works.?

Personally, I would disagree with all of your examples on the face of things. Someone with a diploma getting paid more than someone without a diploma is quite wrong if they do the job equally. In the IT industry, I have seen first hand, people out of high school, with really poor grades, in fact, act as savants, whereas people who graduated at the top of their class couldn't handle even the simplest tasks.

What you're saying, in a nutshell, is that because there are arguably more jobs out there for men which they are able to do adequately, and women have less opportunity to do them because of their inherent ablities, companies are justified for paying women less for equal work because they have no where else to go. I say okay, fine, if we're a society who have no consistant definition for equality.

What you are saying is true, though, this is why I shrug it off and just say that we're lying to ourselves when we profess to be equals. The real reason women have gotten anywhere in the workplace is simply because they stopped being mothers and started working (they sucked up any wage inequality and just did it). The cost of living has risen so much these days that it takes both parents to keep a household afloat (I've always found it funny that people spend most of their lives working, paying for a house they only occupy for a majority of time when they sleep). This doesn't make it honest, though.

Shall WE lie and say that all people have the same inherent abilities, when they clearly do not?

No one is saying that. No one has ever said that. But we sit around all the time and talk about being equal. But someone is lying somewhere.

Bill White · 2003-03-24 14:47:51

Personally, I would disagree with all of your examples on the face of things. Someone with a diploma getting paid more than someone without a diploma is quite wrong if they do the job equally. In the IT industry, I have seen first hand, people out of high school, with really poor grades, in fact, act as savants, whereas people who graduated at the top of their class couldn't handle even the simplest tasks.

Josh - what do IT customer's actually buy?

My brother is very very good at computers but before hooking up with reputable company and obtaining some certifications he asserted were total BS, he could not get the good gigs. Now he can. Why? The suits that hire IT companies are looking to cover their butts, not necessarily hire the best programmer.

That way if the system crashes the suits can say, "Hey, we did hire XYZ Consultants and they have a good reputation - don't blame us" compared with "We hired Melvin's cousin Moe who flunked high school but has a 180 IQ and can code circles around those morons at XYZ."

ZYX Consultants don't sell programming, they sell CYA insurance and the guys who buy IT don't want coders they want CYA insurance so their paychecks keep coming.

Wrong? Depends. I can probably analyze world events as well as at least some of the folks at RAND, even if many of those guys certainly are smarter than me, but "Bill White says" cuts very little mustard compared with a RAND study says. . .

Never forget - every employer always wants to pay the lowest wage the market will bear, every banker wants to charge usury, every manufacturer wants a monopoly and every stock trader wants the "inside" scoop - paying women less than men is just another wedge used in this constant price war of "all vs all"

Ain't fair. No argument here. But like clark said I didn't make the world this way either.

Palomar · 2003-03-24 15:54:31

[Never forget - every employer always wants to pay the lowest wage the market will bear, every banker wants to charge usury, every manufacturer wants a monopoly and every stock trader wants the "inside" scoop - paying women less than men is just another wedge used in this constant price war of "all vs all"
Ain't fair. No argument here. But like clark said I didn't make the world this way either.

*You'll have to forgive me for feeling the need to chime in again on this issue; I had intended to quit the thread, but there are issues at stake, so here I go again:

Bill, aren't you condoning unfairness? Okay, so you and Clark didn't make the world this way. Who said you two were personally responsible for the way the world is? No one. I didn't make the world this way either...so, we simply accept the world is this way and that? And who says the world *must* be this way or that? Societal conventions and mores are mutable. The slavery abolitionists of the 18th and 19th centuries didn't create the slavery situation in the U.S. either; they inherited it from their ancestors. Imagine if they took the position you two do: "Well, I didn't make the world this way, slavery is part of life and life is unfair, get used to it, get over it, etc., etc."

There's no excuse for apathy or indifference.

An interesting coincidence which fits perfectly into this thread: Last evening my husband and I were taking a walk in the local park, which is rather large, around 7:00 p.m. We have few African-Americans in this city, so I was surprised to see a rather large group of blacks in one corner of the park, drinking beer and having a bar-b-que. They weren't behaving in any manner different to anyone else in the park, nor were they playing loud and blaring music. My husband and I were rounding a bend in the walk path when I noticed a police car had pulled up to this group of people, all of whom walked over the police car. I've never seen a policeman do this before, in this park, to any other group of people -- and my husband and I spend a lot of time in the park. The walking path is long and convoluted, including hills, and I have no idea how long the policeman (either white or a light-skinned Latino) was talking to this group of people. Shortly after spotting this situation and while we were yet still a far distance away, the black people immediately packed up their picnic items and left; they were out of sight by the time my husband and I got to where they had been standing, talking to the police officer.

Now, I don't know what was said, who these people or the policeman are...but I have enough of a familarity with police harrassment and sometimes brutality towards blacks that I had to wonder what all that was about; all of a sudden, this group of people exit the park very quickly, immediately after the cop pulls away (but does not leave). Odd, to say the least.

I called the local newspaper's Sound Off section, identified myself, and expressed my concern about this matter, i.e. that I hope this group of black people weren't run out of the park by a police officer based on their race, and also that they were not behaving in any manner whatsoever different from anyone else. I did -not- accuse the police officer; I simply expressed a concern.

I won't accept institutionalized inequality and unfairness. There is no excusing it, no matter what form it takes nor who it targets.

And if the business world suddenly tomorrow started paying men 20 cents per hour, on average, less than women (shoe on the other foot) you two would simply accept it? Like hell you would. I wouldn't -- I'd fight for your right to equal pay for equal work.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2003-03-24 16:21:44

Bill, aren't you condoning unfairness? Okay, so you and Clark didn't make the world this way. Who said you two were personally responsible for the way the world is? No one. I didn't make the world this way either...so, we simply accept the world is this way and that?

The world has so many injustices and each of us has so little time. Rightly or wrongly, most people can easily suffer from "outrage fatigue" -- here is a recent example I have come across:

Inhabitants displaced from island of Diego Garcia, now a key US military base. There are better links but the bottom line is that UK officials - in the 1960s - decided that the natives of Diego Garcia had to leave to make way for a US air base at a critical location in the Indian Ocean. The natives were loaded on boats and dumped in an urban slum.

Do we fight for "equal pay" for US women who have a life expectancy of nearly 80 years or do we fight for an international minimum wage - something Dick Gephardt says may be part of his 2004 election platform or do we fight for other things altogether.

The world is full of injustice and I have far too little ammunition to fight everyone at once. Besides, I am greatly influenced by Orwell's Animal Farm and believe that programs intended to impose "fairness" can readily backfire and cause unintended injustices worse than the original condition.

Bill White · 2003-03-24 16:22:19

Missing link?

Bill White · 2003-03-24 16:23:10

Where is my post?

George H · 2003-03-24 17:01:51

[And if the business world suddenly tomorrow started paying men 20 cents per hour, on average, less than women (shoe on the other foot) you two would simply accept it? Like hell you would. I wouldn't -- I'd fight for your right to equal pay for equal work.
--Cindy

Nope.

Only fools & Liar's would say yes. I read your post's on this very carefully Cindy. Your not like most women about this, I think your fair & reasonible about it.

And I didn't think before about how kid's with 1-parent homes, just the mom working, will have less cause she makes less, than a 1-parent home with the dad. So yeah it can effect boys in the 1-parent home. And yea, some day I want my wife to make the kind of greenback's the guy's in the office make. That's more $$$ for us both. Only idiots wouldn't care.
And no matter what you tell 1 of the guy's here & how you tell him, it'll do no good. Your a woman, he see's you as inferior to him, he said it himself in so many words, & he just lives to trash everything you say. Just ignore him,, I think you already are.

@--}------

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-24 17:37:24

Bumping lost messages.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-24 17:41:38

Well, the lost messages didn't bump, but I'll make my reply in any case. Maybe Phobos or Adrian can fix it.

Cindy, I think you basically hit the nail on the head. Just because we aren't really responsible for the world the way it is, doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't do anything about it if we feel it's an issue. There's obviously a point where you have to ask yourself if you can really have an effect, though. And I think that these days, in the information age, we can have an effect on wage inequality.

George H · 2003-03-25 10:09:39

Can't go a day without taking a pot shot at Cindy. Big of you Clark, so typical of you Clark. Want to tell us why Cindy's such a thorn in your side? Lemme guess, you don't like girls, heh. And you want us to beleive paying 20 cent's an hour more PUNISHES people? You call it senseless justice? Justice can be senseless HOW? Speaking of senseless, looks like that's YOU. And you know what? I don't think it matters how much women demand equal pay for equal work. You can say white men get paid fair, because they demand it. Nope, cause its about race & gender, twit. White men get paid fair because they conquerd this land. If women demand anythingthey get called bitches, dykes, FemiNazi's. The people at the top of the heap WON'T LET anyone else climb up. Duh. But we know you like to side with unfair & assinine viewpoint's, because that's what you are. Heh.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-25 14:42:28

Oh, well clark, I wasn't talking about solutions, I never once said that wage equality laws are necessary, I was just backing Cindy up on the philosophical concept of gender/racial/minority inequality. As far as I know, the solution has been what you're saying. The Equal Opportunity Employeement Comission doesn't make it so that everyone just gets paid equal, it just tries to insure that qualified people get hired for particular jobs.

It's almost impossible to enforce a lot of social problems. Just look at how hard it was to abolish racism (which isn't really gone completely)! But this talk of ?I'm not guilty for the world being the way it is, so it doesn't matter? is just silly. I'm glad the civil rights movement, both for women and blacks, and general minorities, didn't follow that line of thinking.

I think this is just another time where we're in agreement but we really don't know it.

And... hey... back off our Cindy girl here. :angry:

Seriously...

Adrian · 2003-03-25 14:59:00

Should be working now. I just went and reset the thread count.

Edited By Adrian on 1048625963

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-25 15:33:38

Did you really think it necessary to bring private discussion public? Regardless of the anonymity of the private source, it does seem... well... silly.

Granted, you will probably argue that it was initally a public discussion, but I would think that common manners would have you respect the desire of the individual who had made the discussion private.

I think some of us may need a break from this.

Palomar · 2003-03-25 15:41:41

Did you really think it necessary to bring private discussion public? Regardless of the anonymity of the private source, it does seem... well... silly.
Granted, you will probably argue that it was initally a public discussion, but I would think that common manners would have you respect the desire of the individual who had made the discussion private.
I think some of us may need a break from this.

*Yes, I would have to agree with Josh.

In case anyone is wondering, the quotes from a private message to Clark were from me. And Clark, I'm sorry you think I'm not "one the brightest bulbs" here, merely because I disagree with you. You're entitled to your opinion, of course.

--Cindy

Byron · 2003-03-25 15:45:26

I'm not about to debate the reasons for pay inequality...that's been gone over enough, imo. But I do want to take a few potshots at those who employ others to work for them. As Bill pointed out, employers will pay the lowest salary the market will bear...which is why we have all those illegal immigrants working under the cruel sun for $2 an hour.

The real problems with Americans today...and I'm talking about the general population, rather than race or gender, is that we do not demand what we are worth in the workplace. Instead, we sit back and take what our bosses deem fit to pay us. I mean, when was the last time any of you actually told your boss that you *demand* higher pay? Anyone that's brave enough to actually pull something like would likely be shown the door... The truth of the matter, most of us are are wage slaves...and I emphasize the word slave, for that is what most workplaces are about. If you work for Corp AYZ, you must think like Corp AYZ, otherwise you're not considered "loyal to the company," and you will likely be sacked sooner or later, or at the very least, held back. Employers have enormous reach into the personal lives of their employees, to the point of spying on private phone and e-mail messages, random drug testing, and the conduct of personal behavior outside the work place (so-called "moral conduct" policies).

And us apathetic Americans, who supposely value our freedom so much, just sit back and take it for the sake of a paycheck. What I would love to see more than anything else is to see everyone making less than $10 or $12 an hour (especially the immigrants!) to go on strike for a full month. Let's see how America would be then.

Please take a moment really think about what would happen...every supermarket would close. Every restaurant. Every gas station. Garbage would not be collected. The shopping centers and malls would be devoid of people. The entire travel industry (such as the Orlando theme parks) would grind to a halt. Most importantly, the ripening crops in the fields of central California and elsewhere would go unpicked and begin to rot. This, in turn, would severely distrupt the entire nation's food supply. People would begin to go hungry (even after some grocery stores re-open with the use of higher-paid managers).

After a full month of zero work by the entire service sector, the overall economy would likely go into total collapse, causing many of the higher-paid workers to lose their jobs. America would quickly slip into full-blown depression. Chaos would reign, and the loss of federal tax revenue and greatly increased costs of government services would likely cause the Treasury to go broke as well, throwing the country into even further disarray.

Now, I really do not want to see this scenario unfold, considering the tremendous hardships that would inflicted upon everyone, but I'm merely attempting to demonstrate the tremendous power that the *lower paid* workers truly have over their employers, should they chose to exercise it en masse. I think it's highly unfortunate that we have such a high "work ethnic" in the the US, as this allows employers to hold most, if not all the cards over their underpaid underlings. If only the majority of workers would wake up and smell the polluted air...it's not a pretty picture. They can fire you at will, cut your pay without a thought, and oh yeah, do the "unequal pay" thing....because of one reason: they can get away with it.

I for one, think our government immediately implement a "Worker's Bill of Rights" which would include such things as a high minumum wage, indexed annually to inflation, European levels of vacation, privacy and whisleblower protection, the right to be free from harrassment and bullying by bosses and co-workers, and the right to do whatever you like "off the clock," even if it's contrary to the company's interests. Sure, these proposals would probably put a dent in the nation's economy, but it'd be the folks at the top that would be hurt, while the folks at the bottom would finally get what they deserve.

End of rant...lol...

B

Adrian · 2003-03-25 15:56:49

Hmm, it seems this thread is unstable for some reason. It appears that I can retrieve the lost posts by rebuilding the thread periodically, but I'm not too keen on having to do that regularly, so I've set up a new thread called 'Naming Martian Settlements 2' in this forum that people should move over to.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2003-03-19 16:13:14

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#52 2003-03-19 16:43:02

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#53 2003-03-22 00:10:38

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#54 2003-03-22 10:29:30

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#55 2003-03-22 12:50:18

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#56 2003-03-24 13:38:23

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#57 2003-03-24 14:47:51

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#58 2003-03-24 15:54:31

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#59 2003-03-24 16:21:44

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#60 2003-03-24 16:22:19

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#61 2003-03-24 16:23:10

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#62 2003-03-24 17:01:51

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#63 2003-03-24 17:37:24

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#64 2003-03-24 17:41:38

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#65 2003-03-25 10:09:39

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#66 2003-03-25 14:42:28

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#67 2003-03-25 14:59:00

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#68 2003-03-25 15:33:38

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#69 2003-03-25 15:41:41

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#70 2003-03-25 15:45:26

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

#71 2003-03-25 15:56:49

Re: Naming Martian Settlements - What would you suggest?

Board footer