Berkeley, California USA
My friend and I had an interesting argument about women's rights. She's a raging feminist... and I felt argumentative... so we had a very good (although undirected and oftentimes silly) argument. At first I was going to change some things... but I believe it is better to leave the conversation in its original form, including typos and misspellings. Only the names have changed.
HER: we're best friends ^_^
ME: i don't like best friends
ME: it's a bad concept
HER: and why?
ME: you become posesive of one another.... i really don't like it
HER: um. what the heck is a bf/gf?
ME: you put eachother out of social harm... and growth
ME: a significant other is not as possessive as a best friend
ME: not NEARLY as much
HER: when I have a boyfriend, I hope he doesn't think that
ME: i'm not kidding
HER: and have you had a really good bf?
HER: they're not THAT possessive either
ME: and anyways... you can't spend too much time with your gf because your friends will call her yoko
HER: My friends?
ME: broke up the beatles?
HER: That one.
HER: The one with the blue sunglasses
HER: or something
ME: you're saying you WANT a posessive bf?
HER: actually, yeah
HER: hey, it's a vice versa thing, dear
ME: really........ interesting but deranged
HER: not overly deranged, okay
HER: or you know, stalkerish
HER: but I mean, what's my track record so far? A bunch of idiots who are scared enough of me that they're fine with not keeping me near because they think I'll kill them
ME: so if stacey were a guy...
HER: um. I would not be attracted.
HER: she would be a weird guy
HER: and the type that I am not into
ME: you have types
HER: Hell yeah.
ME: i have non-types though
HER: which are?
ME: stupid ones
HER: of course :P
ME: annoying ones
ME: and phoney ones
ME: those are bad
HER: well, doesn't everone have those?
HER: non-types. I have nontypes and types.
HER: and btw, I still argue with you on the bf thing
HER: I'm perfectly happy with it
HER: there's no one I trust more in the world.. I mean, how is that limiting my social growth?
ME: perfectly happy with...what?
ME: you have no bf
HER: so I can have ten people I trust equally?
HER: having no bf is not because of stacy
ME: best frien
ME: not boyfriend
ME: you can have ranks
HER: ? were you saying i have no boyfriend or no best friend?
ME: but the connotation of best friend
HER: with friends?
ME: makes one possessive
HER: yeah. and?
ME: and allow possessiveness
HER: a little selfishness doesn't kill you
HER: it's when it's too much that it's bad
ME: every best friend pair (of girls) have been bad
HER: from your personal observation of your own best girl friends?
ME: my observations
HER: well, why?
HER: why was it bad?
ME: one example is danica and her best friend
ME: because they close their mind to their best friends having other friends
HER: that's like, one case
HER: and even if you have three
HER: it'll never convince me that they're bad things
HER: I have other friends.. true, not as close as stacy, but I'm not comfortable having ten best friends
HER: i mean, some people are just really dear to your heart.. I don't see that as limiting
HER: it's limiting if you obsess about it
HER: I mean, stacy has other friends
HER: so do I
HER: ? and we still go to the movies with each other. whoop.
HER: I'm not sure I see your point
HER: what's the advantage in not having a best friend?
ME: i don't think i care anymore
ME: you can win if you want janice...
HER: 1, that's really a condescending attitude
ME: "you women will win 98% of the arguments... and not because you're right... we just get tired."
HER: 2, I'm not arguing with you so I can 'win', I'm arguing with you because I think that's a very depressing attitude and it's somewhat worrisome
ME: i don't mean to be condescending... i just think the topic has got to the point that neither of us are going to convince the other of anything
HER: 3, that's a quote that only an asshole male could come up with.
ME: i have a best bud... really i do.. but i've seen best friends do bad things because of their best friend status...
ME: asshole male? he's a comedian... and it's true anyways
HER: and if guys get tired.. whose fault is that?
ME: i'll back adam ferera... unlike the ladder, which i don't particularly agree with despite it's entertainment value
HER: oh yeah, about the ladder thing
ME: it's not a matter of fault
HER: when you said it was a joke, who was making the joke?
HER: you or the maker?
ME: i was presenting the joke... do you mean my posting it on the lj was a joke?
ME: i doubt it..... you people don't know my love-life enough for me to make a joke like that
ME: i wouldn't try
HER: were you _serious_ then?
ME: about what?
HER: the authenticity of the ladder
HER: I really do hate that thing with a great large amount of .. hatred.
HER: I was going to say vitirol but I think I spelled it wrong.
ME: i don't totally agree with the ladder
ME: but i agree that girls are deceptive...
HER: and guys are soo honest.
HER: I think that ladder sets up a negative standard
ME: yougirls control the world
HER: .. in what way?
ME: stop complaining about one website
HER: oh, for christ's sake, then I wish guys would stop posting links to it
HER: not just you spec.
HER: you're like the fifth guy I've seen talk about that website like it was the gospel
ME: but the internet is the only arena in which we can make fun of girls
ME: because of annonymity
ME: i don't think it's the gospel.. never EVER would i consider it the gospel
ME: i've made lovers out of friends on avery occassion except one
HER: :P I exaggerate
HER: I threw a hideous fit at earl once
HER: he was sulking. "that ladder thing is so true"
ME: you girls can make fun of guys anywhere and get away wth it
HER: because guys are still traditionally more in a position of power
HER: I mean, our most likely candidate for prez. is Hilary Clinton
HER: the woman who blew up the health care plan?
ME: uh huh... why is the president so important?
ME: presidency is bullshi
HER: that's more of an example than literal power
HER: but you say we "control" everything
HER: we get to make fun of everything, but where are we controlling anything?
HER: politically, not really
HER: please. :)
HER: what, you mean screaming sexual harassment?
ME: guys are weary working around women because they can start liking them and ...yes sexual harassment
ME: which means girls can get away with things...
HER: and .. women never get tired of working with guys because they might start liking them?
ME: but they also can be docked points in the whole getting-that-position scheme of things
HER: you seem to have this really warped perception of things that what guys get tired of are also not what women get tired of
ME: but then you can sue
ME: and the one example that cannot EVER EVER be argued... is divorce. she gets 1/2 of everything he made/makes and all that shit....harrison ford's wife walked out with 1/2 of all the residuals he will get for the rest of his life for movies he made while they were married
ME: that's RIDICULOUS bullshit
ME: and women's rights groups saw that as a triumph... puh-lease
HER: yeah, it is, but you understand how such laws were brought around, don't you?
ME: that is irrelevant
HER: how is it irrelevant? It's no longer exactly being used for the reason it was created
HER: and you're now viewing women's rights groups as the norm when in fact they are the extreme
ME: but this extreme sets the laws that the norm abides by and takes advantage of
HER: the extreme only set those laws after like, ten billion months of legislation
HER: how long did it take for women's rights in the first place, anyway?
ME: but they do it
HER: Your point?
HER: Just because it got done doesn't excuse the fact that it took forever
ME: women's right? you mean the raping of men of their dignities?
HER: Raping men of their dignity, as opposed to robbing women of pride?
ME: pride? because we held doors open for you and provided?
ME: things were fine... now the work force is inflated and all is wrong
HER: why should women be content with that?
HER: why should _anyone_ be content with that?
ME: i would be
HER: if that's what they want, fine
ME: i'd LOVE to be retired
HER: so would I, frankly, but I'm talking about the doors and providing thing
HER: were women retired? No. they were still supposed to be wildcats in bed and perfect domestics in the house and PTA
ME: nono... that's too recent, janic
HER: PTA generally
HER: they've had mom-associations for ages
HER: I'm referring to the 1950's spec.
ME: since... 1950
HER: I'm not talking about the 1800's
ME: that was the begining of the women's movement
HER: because it was a backlash from WWII, etc
ME: women were getting cooking tools and wanted more... MORE... MORE!
HER: and exactly what was wrong with that?
HER: I can't stand cooking, I can't stand cleaning
HER: I don't even like kids that much until a certain a ge
ME: now that frightens me
HER: I would do much better out in the workforce than doing the PTA thing
ME: i don't like kids until i get to a certain age
ME: blah... you either like kids or you don't
HER: I'm assuming I'll mellow out a bit when I get older, but for now, I don't want to
ME: i doubt you're going to do any maturing in the near future
HER: .. until THEY get to a certain age
HER: mellowing != maturing
HER: and who's to say I won't?
ME: i think maturing is what one does before having children
HER: .. which is why I'm assuming I'll continue to grow
HER: and what's frightening about not having kids? Not _everyone_ wants kids
HER: and then your workforce won't be so horribly inflated
HER: because of the women
ME: it goes against our programming
ME: to continue the human race
HER: yeah, well, I like babies. that's not against programming.
HER: I like taking care of children, I enjoy it, even when they whine
ME: howeer, some people don't want kids.. whch is fine... but saying "at some age, i think i might decide to go out and buiy/grow/make some children"
HER: I've always tutored, and I enjoy teaching
ME: is scary
HER: why is it scary?
HER: do you have to be convinced from the very beginning to have kids?
ME: because you're expecting something to happen to you
HER: yeah. like getting a husband.
ME: it's like... horoscopes but worse
HER: it's not unrealistic bs
HER: I'm _expecting_ to have kids some day
HER: once I have a job and a SO, for one thing
HER: that's not a horoscope, that's realistic future
ME: however... who's going to care for the kids if you and your husband are working?
HER: I don't know that NOW
ME: because of the women's movement... both parents are working... creating rifts in the house
HER: and what, I should not work so that the kids can be taken care of?
ME: either you or your husband
HER: even if you take out the women's movement, the American Dream itself cannot really be funded by one salary
ME: but that's VERY hard to do
ME: it could have in the past
ME: but not now
HER: therefore sooner or later it would have happened anyway because unless the husband made a LOT, it's too hard
HER: and that's not true
HER: sure it happened in the past
HER: in the what, 1800's?
HER: when things were a lot more independent?
ME: were bliss
HER: they look like hell to me
ME: the women's movement can be rooted back to skirts in teh 20's
HER: it can be rooted back far earlier than that if you want to be technical
ME: at that point.. all the guys worked from 9-5 ... and came home.... ate... did whatever they wanted... andwent back to work the next day
ME: i despise the system i'm growing into
ME: there are no jobs
ME: i'm getting a crazy-ass degree just so i can sit around
ME: doing nothing
HER: and you blame that on women entering the workforce?
ME: the world is in equilibrium, and the only way to get by is to wait for someone to die... in which case you're an opportunist, which isn't cool either
HER: we're all opportunists
ME: i blame it on a number of things... one of which is women
HER: people who say they're not are either lying or too lazy to do it
ME: opportunist practices are dishonorable
ME: i'm not lazy
HER: yeah, but humans do it anyway
ME: i'm stubborn
HER: and the man working, woman not at home system wasn't great either
HER: it in fact perpetuated, just as much as today if not more, a cycle of abuse
HER: girls don't see their fathers, view males as a superior species than them, can't function with out males
HER: what happens if they DIE?
ME: prove it
HER: what do you do then? roll over and die?
ME: if you truly loved the person, why not?
HER: what if you have kids?
HER: You love your kids, the kids you had with your husband, so what then?
HER: let them die too?
HER: let the state take care of them?
HER: and if the state is taking care of them, who's paying for that?
HER: isn't that more of a rift than if the mother can support herself?
ME: i never attacked single mothers
HER: but what are they supposed to do?
ME: you brought up single mothers
ME: i want you to prove the abuse that went on in the man working, women caretaking system
HER: of course I did, because it's a logical A=>B progression
ME: no it isn't
ME: i asked you to prove something that i don't agree with
HER: my "proof" which is mostly statistical and not off the top of my head, is the following
ME: and you circumvented it entirely
HER: so women don't see their fathers very often, view males in more superior power
HER: and you circumvented my argument on women inflating the workforce, so whatever
HER: either way, it obliges females to be more dependent on their husbands
HER: no matter what he does to them
ME: those are bastard husbands though
HER: yeah, and they EXIST
ME: i want to go WAY back
ME: when honor was still here
ME: guys never hit girls
HER: as far back as you GO, there were always bastard males
HER: not in public.
ME: i know i know... rule of thumb... i know i know...
HER: when "honor" was still here.. people are just less discreet
ME: but there must have been a point when it was simply "men don't hit women. men work. women caretake. all is good."
HER: No, that's what people thought it was
ME: you're trying to discredit honor?
HER: there are always two sides, there are always cases in which it didn't work
HER: I think honor exists for some and never for all
HER: otherwise it wouldn't be honor. I mean, you have to have it because some don't
ME: everyone can have honor
ME: it's in anime all the time... each has honor for his own cause
HER: and about the single mother thing - my A=>b progression was that if the men work, women caretake, what happens if the man who works dies?
ME: there can be opposing honor-nesses
HER: I watch anime for entertainment, not for honor issues
HER: and anime is from japan, which was into harakiri, for christ's sake
ME: good anime can be viewed for social commentary
HER: on that same note, most literature sucks because it's for entertainment and not social commentary
HER: which is somewhat true, but then, what, not read most books?
HER: and you skipped my question about the single mother
ME: i skipped it because you type too fast
HER: my god, my sister's best friend's father died when she was like, three
HER: her mother was a korean, arranged marriage housewife
HER: without extreme welfare, they would've been right out on the street
HER: if she had job training, a secretary job, do you think it would've been as bad?
ME: then why can't they do what they did back then: go back home and re-marry. the child either goes with the mother or goes to an orphanage
HER: oh, so rather than have the mother work, separate the family or have the mother marry someone she doesn't neccessarily love for the sake of her children
ME: so women should be trained "just in case"?
HER: when you earlier said that if she really loves him, why NOT just roll over and die
ME: yes, i see no problem with that
HER: you would justify separating the family when you were complaining about rifts in families from two working parents?
HER: my god, at least they're living TOGETHER
HER: and I think people, period, should know how to survive without depending solely on one person
HER: it's very romantic and such to depend on one person for your livelihood and raise pretty children, but life sucks and life happens
HER: what happens then?
HER: separation of the family? Joy.
ME: i have heard of times in history when a widow would re-marry a family friend for her children. they wouldn't have more children or anything... but it would be like... an old-person relationship... not as much sex
ME: and if people can survive by themselves, why not cut the umbilical cord before birth?
HER: k, that's unrealistic
HER: that's taking it to an extreme
HER: why don't we ALL abandon our young
HER: you're the one who was talking about programming
ME: sink or swim
HER: then we would all be dead. no more global warming. joy.
ME: i swam
ME: that's how i learned
HER: and the widow re-marrying thing: what if it is a sex thing?
ME: same with ted
ME: then it's the woman's fault with picking her guy
HER: what if she has no choice?
HER: waht if she has no other prospects?
ME: she should have picked some wealthy and genial old man to care for her and her child
HER: that's so unrealistic it took me a second
HER: how many wealthy and genial old man to care for her and her children?
HER: what if the wealthy old man wants a hot twenty year old?
ME: ho wmany?
HER: he doesn't want _baggage_
ME: your definition of the man is so shallow
HER: I'm generalizing, you're generalizing
HER: of man himself? No, not really, but the "wealthy and genial old man"?
ME: i haven't for like... 3 screens... i remembered that it is a bad practice to generalize
HER: but on the woman thing
ME: and keep in mind, this chat window is maximized (you're important)
HER: she can't just FIND wealthy and old men
HER: is it her fault for not being able to catch one?
HER: or marry one, or waht
ME: we should all know wealthy, old men
HER: .. is that a joke or are you serious?
ME: it's a combination of both
ME: to tell the truth
ME: and back with hara kiri... what's wrong with that?
HER: I'm not sure there's anything strictly wrong with hara kiri, but once you're dead, what happens to the people behind you?
HER: honor doesn't feed children.
ME: i liked the chinese practice of executing their offenders and billing the family for the bullet. that's classy
HER: .. k, ignoring that for the moment
HER: did you read crime and punishment?
ME: did you?
HER: yeah, for AP Lit
ME: you finished?
HER: in that novel is a woman whose husband dies. she's older, has children, and it's RUSSIA in the 1800's
ME: uh huh
HER: mostly, not quite done, but I'm just using this as an example
HER: so she has to take the one guy that proposes to her
ME: go on
HER: is he a wealthy, genial old man?
HER: no, but she has no other options
HER: he drives the family into so much debt - and feels guilty about it, not that that helps - that the eldest daughter goes into prostitution, they move into the slums, mother acquires TB, etc
ME: i think we're arguing too muchof this in the constraints of socitey
HER: of courrse this is a worst-case scenario, but still
ME: because i see it that if this is a bad husband, she can simply kill himand take his money
HER: he then dies after being really drunk
HER: there IS no money
HER: she married him hoping he would work and EARN money
HER: she can't work herself - too old to whore
ME: then she was a stupid optimist
ME: (that's another non-type... if taken to an extreme)
HER: you were talking about sinking or swimming
HER: how should she have swum when society has gifted her with this blessed situation?
HER: she has no job training. there are no jobs. she has no marriage prospects.
ME: you're the one who sais anyone can survive alone
HER: you're taking my comment out of context
HER: that's only true if they can actually _do_ something
HER: sooner or later I genuinely believe that if you use it right, your degree that you're sulking over will be of some use
ME: and if it's russia in the 1800's... she can bait her daughter as a mock prostitute and kill the guys who wanna sleep with her.. take their wallets
HER: and if it's not, get trained in something else
HER: and how about keeping honor?
HER: are you ditching that entirely now?
ME: is there dishonor in murder?
HER: okay, ditch that point
ME: if you're the main character of a novel... you're more important than whoever you killed
HER: howa bout it getting her in JAIL?
HER: then she can't do anything
ME: but then she's getting fed, isn't she? she won
HER: at ALL. she can just work in siberia until she dies of TB.
HER: is getting fed the epitome of life? there's also a quality of living to be considered
HER: which kinda goes back to my original point
ME: i hear that jail ain't too bad
HER: today, if that woman's husband died
HER: and she had job training
HER: she would be better off than a woman with no job training
HER: she would be able to swim without resorting to murder or illegal crimes or wahtever
ME: ok... so you're forfeiting the caaretaker position thing... but saying girls should do job training just in case
HER: Not just girls.. I did say this earlier
HER: people in general
HER: because, like I said, life sucks and life happens.
ME: uh huh...
HER: taking care of your children, sadly enough, does not earn the money to feed them
ME: but with all these educated people running around.. there are 324092380921 marbles trying to get in 654 holes
HER: so? sink or swim, is what you said
HER: if you don't get a job, why is that?
HER: because someone more qualified than you (or someone who blew the hiring guy) got it.
HER: you try again. that's stubbornness, or perseverance
ME: you're saying the more qualified person gets the job?
HER: that's not neccessarily true, but I do believe that's the theory behind job interviews
ME: but then the new additions to the work force each and every day will never find work
ME: because the entry-level job does not exist anymore
HER: "never" is quite an exaggeration
HER: that's not true
HER: my SISTER just got the crap level entry level job
HER: she's a berkeley grad
HER: working for a wonderful $12 / hr
HER: you think she's happy with that?
HER: yeah right
HER: but she sucks it up and goes to work
ME: i mean the REAL entry level job... one that you can get out of high school or while in high school
HER: should she find that wealthy and genial gentleman now?
ME: it's too late for that
HER: those exist.. just for a really low level pay
ME: no they don't...
ME: unless you're a hot chick
HER: um, yeah, they do
ME: in which case you get the job
HER: i do the billing slips for my mom's company
ME: or you have a foot in the door
HER: they hire high school grads for entry level jobs
HER: you know, technician work. company pays for a two week training program, and you go.
ME: this is the first i've heard of that practice in america....
ME: w0w... there is still a chance, i guess
HER: HA. they've always existed
HER: I mean, my mom's company is not the first
ME: but everyone i know who has gotten a job has eith erh ad a hookup or was a hot chick or lied on their application
HER: you just have to be willing to settle for less
HER: is everyone you know the general population?
ME: i'm saying that that style of running a company has faded out
HER: rather than faded, it's changed
ME: it's a large enough sample to determine a negative trend
ME: into this stupid thing where you get shit pay no matter what you do?
HER: do you think it could've stayed forever?
ME: it could have
HER: you're viewing society as static then
HER: or you want a static society
ME: in some ways, yes
HER: that's really scary
HER: a static society?
HER: We'd still have SLAVES.
ME: we still do
HER: We tend to not chain them up with manacles, though.
ME: but we make them do more work now..... and they don't get paid
HER: your point?
ME: so the shackles... those define the slavery.?
ME: i disagree
HER: of course they don't
HER: it's just slavery under a different name
ME: i thnk slavery is defined by the exploitation of people
ME: then why'd you say we don't have slaves anymore?
HER: by the literal context, meaning your 1800's pre-civil war era
HER: but you're getting off topic
HER: are you saying that because they'd always exist, it's okay?
ME: how'm i getting off topic?
ME: i'm saying that there is really little to like about a progressive society
ME: there will always be people geting taken advantage of
HER: there's little to like in a static society either
ME: there is if things work fine........
ME: you're garunteed a job at lockheed
HER: do you know why utopias don't work?
HER: because humans are assholes.
ME: and you retire at 65
ME: and life is good
HER: you want a utopia. the point of one is that it doesn't EXIST.
ME: that would be perfectly fine with me
ME: i don't want a utopia
HER: it sounds like you do
ME: a utopoia would usually cut out crime
HER: I say utopia meaning your own version of a perfect world
ME: no... i want jobs available... that are worthwhile
ME: each person has their own definition of a better world
HER: a nice world where you're guaranteed a job, retire at a good age, have your SO and you raise the kids, etc
HER: that's what a heck of a lot of people would like
HER: but life intervenes.
ME: but if that is life
HER: why is that just life? because humans are naturally inclined away from goodness
ME: i'd love to be an apprentice to a blacksmith or something..................................
HER: I'm not saying they're aimed toward evil, but we mess up the "balance" by existing
ME: we're naturally inclined away from goodness?
HER: <== cynicist
ME: to an extreme
HER: I wouldn't say to an extreme
HER: extreme would be to say we're all inclinced toward evil
ME: sigh again, as a matter of fact
HER: wow. those sighs are extremely condescending.
HER: they imply you understand some level above me because I am a cynicist.
ME: i understnad some level above you?
ME: people call me a cynic all the time
HER: well, that's what I'm getting from your "sighs"
ME: i'm just sighing because saying we're all inclined towards eveil is preposterous
HER: I didn't SAY we were inclined toward evil
HER: which the bible does say, I think
ME: humans are naturally inclined away from goodness
ME: you said it
HER: HER (8:53:22 PM): why is that just life? because humans are naturally inclined away from goodness
ME: (8:53:33 PM): i'd love to be an apprentice to a blacksmith or something..................................
HER: (8:53:35 PM): I'm not saying they're aimed toward evil, but we mess up the "balance" by existing
HER: Hellow. those are within all of fifteen seconds of each other.
ME: you're contradicting yourself
ME: that provs a point
HER: excuse me
HER: just because you're inclined away from good doesn't mean you're pointed toward evil
HER: it's called black, white, or shades of gray
HER: no one can possibly be perfectly good, therefore how can we be inclined toward it?
HER: so no, I'm not contradicting myself
ME: howver... people can be perfectly evil?
ME: and since when does inclining towards mean that you ARE
HER: I didn't SAY they could, did I?
ME: i'm just posing a question
ME: 2 actually
HER: you're posing a question based on an assumption I didn't make
HER: and as for the second question
HER: inclinining towards = refers to programming
ME: i only got a 4
ME: i didn't learn inclining
HER: your "natural programming" back when you were talking about how we're programmed to take care of children
ME: i dn't agree with that
HER: oh, taht wasn't actually an argument
ME: i think we're only inclined toward self defence
HER: advanced bio will teach you that for the most part, we are naturally inclined to take care of children
ME: and our own longevity
HER: we like round things. babies are circles. they do studies on it and such
ME: we like round things?
ME: babies are circles?
ME: boobies are...
HER: it's a psychological/evolutionary thing
ME: i know that
HER: why are babies so cute?
HER: so we don't leave them alone
HER: part of it was so that ugly/misshapen babies don't get taken care of
ME: i like that thought
HER: they might have defects and etc, therefore we get rid of them before they exist for very long
HER: there are a whole lot of reasons
ME: but that's not true anymore
ME: we take care of every child
HER: yeah, I know
HER: the ugly thing was like.. cro-magnon, prob.
ME: which reminds me... there are a lot of physically disabled people here in berkeley
HER: physically disabled, homeless, etc
ME: i guess this school caters to them, similar to BHS and deaf students
HER: I think we defused the argument for now
ME: is our "deep" argument over?