Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination by mincingbeast

I'm not sexist, but... I believe the the constitution grants us life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not equal rights and intelligence. We should not end discrimination of women at a time when we are facing a cooking deficit. Our kitchens lie empty while our women are out pretending they have equal rights and trying to do men's work. We all know women were meant to be in the kitchen, after all, they do have eggs and milk inside of them.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go change and get my own beer and make my own grilled cheese samich.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 3:17 AM

FREMDFIRMA

You've never seen my ex try to cook, Happy.
Seriously, she started a FIRE trying to make TEA!
Tho Wendy finds your tongue in cheek commentary there hilarious...

As far as Democracys insufficient protection of marginal groups, that's ALWAYS been a problem, cause the flaw in the notion of majority rule is that you wind up with two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, yanno ?

But if that consent has to be UNANIMOUS, well, THEN you might have an equitable system.

-Frem

ETA: Make sure to grab a shirt, Happy - made that mistake with bacon once and got a lesson I ain't *ever* gonna forget!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 3:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
We all know women were meant to be in the kitchen, after all, they do have eggs and milk inside of them.

Bwwahahahahahaaaa! I just got breakfast in my nose.

That was hilarious.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 4:29 AM

It's like when someone says to you "Do you like breasts or legs?" only to turn around and see that they're holding a bucket of fried chicken and it has not occurred to them what they've just said, which has happened to me...

Scalia is correct of course. Remember, the 14th was passed in an era when women didn't have the right to vote, so it wasn't a consideration.

Also, he's not really suggesting that we should have a sexist society, he means that people are applying the 14th where it shouldn't be applied, by way of saying he doesn't think that it applies to gays.

I'm not really of any opinion on whether or not the 14th applies to gays. My guess would be that it doesn't because being gay is a choice (even for those ultra-libs who don't believe that it is a choice to *be* gay, it's still a choice to practice being gay,) and in this way, being gay is an expression of self, not a state of birth.

The specifics, I would say, yes, sure, women are protected by the 14th because they were born women, but gay rights falls under the 1st because it's a freedom of expression, and in that regard is more like a religion or other organization.

And sure, I can see that a lot of people could say "if so, why are corporations protected under the 14th rather than under the 1st?" which would be a valid question.

My answer to that would be the County of Santa Clara vs. the Southern Pacific Railway and barring that, you got me, I have no idea. But that was the test case, and as a result, that was the decision.

A lot of our constitutional law is like this: It depends heavily on what the test case was, which amendment it fell under.

While we're on the subject of the 14th, which seems to come up in a lot of threads for unrelated reasons, it came up recently in one that bugged me:

Anchor baby laws.

WTF? I mean, the 14th very clearly states its position as being pro-anchor baby. If a state passes a law that bans anchor babies, that's just blatantly unconstitutional. It's not like when someone passes a law against broadcasting the F word or the N word and then someone says that's a first amendment issue... it's more like if a state passed a law saying "In Arizona, blacks no longer have the right to vote." It's hard to see how you can get away with doing that, and if you do, are you essentially saying that you are no longer part of the United States and the Constitution doesn't apply to you?

ETA: Scalia's answer is perfectly reasonable. I disagree with him on sex discrimination and the 14th because it's pretty easy to get there from here, even if it didn't occur to people in the 19th c.

However, he does make a fairly radical slip. He says that legislatures fill in the gap, which he's right about, but he uses abortion as an example.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 5:00 AM

HARDWARE

Scalia's response is absolutely correct. Congress has had how many years to pass an equal rights amendment and has failed to do so. Why all the hate directed at Scalia? He doesn't say that he is against equal rights between the sexes, just a bland recitation of fact.

Political systems work perfectly until you involve people.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 5:37 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

There was a big push for the ERA around 1976. But it didn't pass, thanks to an overwhelmingly male Congress. There was even a million-woman march in Washington, which was totally not covered by the press. One of the arguments they made was that it wasn't necessary bc women were protected by the 14th amendment.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 6:40 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"in this way, being gay is an expression of self, not a state of birth."

Hello,

If the manifestation of sexuality is self-expression, then it would seem to be protected under another amendment to the constitution.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 6:46 AM

The ERA IIRC contained things that were not about process and anything not about process doesn't belong in the constitution. If correctly worded, it would have passed.

But this is a side issue, I would like to refer people back to the idiocy that everyone seems to be missing:

Quote:
You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

The man is *talking* about the 14th amendment, and seems to think that abortion policy was the result of some democratically passed legislation.

Roe vs. Wade is undoubtedly the most famous 14th amendment case in US History. If Mr. Scalia is not familiar with that, then WTF is he doing on the supreme court?

ETA: Oh, I missed that the opening comments were not Scalia's. Maybe this is what Scalia meant. It wasn't clear. Perhaps he was saying that Roe v. Wade was out of line as an application of the 14th. If so, he should have said so, otherwise it looks dumb.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 8:01 AM

Should anyone care to read a clever explanation of why Scalia is a bit off the mark (historically, not necessarily legally), go to

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/01/scalia-on-sex-equality.html

This of course assumes that you are no so high on gasoline fumes that reading is impossible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 8:05 AM

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

Hold up a second, was my being in love with a woman just likened to organized religion?

Have you ever been in love, Dream? Have you been able to chose when and how it happened? How very convenient for you, if that's the case. Would you like to be persecuted for sleeping with women? I'm just asking.

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 8:05 AM

Frem,

If consent had to be unanimous, there would be no system at all. Assholes like me would exercise the "heckler's veto" and say "no" to everything, with much giggling and sneering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 9:51 AM

FREMDFIRMA

That's the theory, and the excuse, which is used whenever the notion is brought up, but yanno...

Doesn't really work that way in practice, few times that it's been experimented with, the "heckler" winds up suffering the consequences of their actions along with everyone else, PLUS the ire of every damn body else - and without a good explaination beyond "For the LuLz!", all manner of social pressure would come against you, from shunning to refusal to do business or provide services at any price...

Now if you had a reason and could articulate it, people are forgiving, too damn so IMHO, but sabotage for the sake of being a dick ?

Doesn't go over too well, not with anyone but out and out sociopaths, which'd be more of a problem, but not so much an insurmountable one cause the nature of a society based around a unanimous decision making process would quickly out them for what they were...

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 10:47 AM

Frem,

The world is full of sociopaths like me, and some of us are even clever enough to disguise our true natures and cloak our LULZ hunger in plausible excuses.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 10:56 AM

lili

so you were born into this bed?

actually, its not like organized religion, my ancestors and likely some of mices were killed for being born jewish, not for prqcticing judaism. Gays were killed by Nazis for practicing homosexuality, not for being releated to homosexuals, though had the nazis.thought about it, they probably would have decided that gayness was genetic, and killed everyone.

The reason we have freedoms is so that this sort of thing doesn't happen to us. capice?

now, there was a time not too long ago when being jewish would not get you served in the US, much like being black. This likely would have applied to me as well as mince even though he is a.practicing jew.and I am a practicing taoist.

It was decided that this policy was an issue.of the first amendment, so if it is true for us, it is logically true for you as well, given that you were not born into your gay relationship.

now, if you can get over playing the victim and being offended simply for the purpose of being offended (as frederick douglas put it,) consider the situation for Kaneman.

assuming we take.everyone at there word, and we.have to, because it is entirely possible that all of.us are.lying, that mince is a muslim and you are a man and i am a martian, we still would represent hypothetical americans.

so, kane is both black and gay. it is not so easily discernible to someone doing business with kane that she is gay, and she can hide that, or opt not to practice.it. still, she is guaranteed that freedom under the first amendment.

what, like frederick.douglass, she cannot do, is hide from or.pretend not to be black. as a result of this there was widespread discrimination against blacks in a way that there couldn't be against other groups.

For all of the myriad applicqtions of the 14th amendment that are discussed, this is the reason there *is* a.14th amendment.

So are you saying that your being gay, it the obviousness of the status, the ease of discrimination and history of discrimination is more.like being black than it is like belonging to a religious or political group?

also, no one said.anything about "organized" religions. not only have jews.and gays been killed for they beliefs (and communists while were on nazis) but during the culturwl revolution millions.of.taoists and bhuddists were killed (tibetan bhuddists ill grant are organized) also, millions of celtic pagans were killed for their beliefs during the inquisition and later under the church of england

the point is not that one is a right and the other is not, its that the right of someone to be a wicca.is a first amendment right, it is not a second amendment right or a third.amendment right

the point that is know your rights. if you do not, you will not win any.legal battles, but knowing your rights means knowing which are.which.

usually its pretty simple, occasionally someone makes an interesting case, like the one i think frem brought up where a.man had claimed that carrying a camera was a.second amendment right. his.claim would.be meaningless without the strong argument that it had been.used as.a.weapon of self defense, and defense.of others, until taken away by a cop, after which point, the violence had continued.

maybe John posted the story. point being there was.a.strong argument, one that I suspect will reach the supreme court for a.decision.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 12:08 PM

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

I'm not being offended just for the purpose of being offended, I asked if you you were able to chose when and who you fell in love with. You also said it was like "a religion or other organization" so you can claim that no one said organized religion if you like, but you used the word organization, that wasn't something I pulled out of the air. I also didn't bring Kane into it, and I don't know where that came from. If you want to bring race into it, I am Japanese and gay. I was born as both. Yeah, it's easier for someone to tell that I'm Japanese, but it's still erroneous to say that attraction is something we somehow have a choice in. Yeah, I could have ignored it until I became miserable enough to want to kill myself or something, but that's not really being sensible about it. I could also conceivably have plastic surgery and then deny that I was Japanese. That wouldn't really be sensible, either.

So, I'll ask again since you went off on something that I didn't ask you about: Are you able to chose the time, place, and person you fall in love with or are attracted to? Would you, as what I assume to be a heterosexual male, be okay with persecution over sleeping with women?

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 12:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LiLi:
...but it's still erroneous to say that attraction is something we somehow have a choice in.

I completely sympathize with your sensitivity about this often cited misconception, but I don't think that is what DT is saying--the way I read his last post.

Yes, you are born gay. But you are not born into a gay family that everyone can identify socially, the way black people or Japanese people are. Sexual orientation is more of an individual characteristic that is not overtly identifiable unless the individual chooses to act on it--it is therefore similar to religion in that respect. It is something one can hide if one chooses, which is like religion but unlike race. Therefore, being identified as gay is a matter of choice (not that being gay is a matter of choice).

I may have misinterpreted DT, in which case I apologize. But that was the way I understood his argument.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 1:08 PM

Quote:
Hold up a second, was my being in love with a woman just likened to organized religion?

Well, at least he recognizes you all do have rights; he just chooses to protect you guys and girls under a different clause.

I don't like that he calls it a choice, either, but the outcome of his argument (equal rights) is the same anyway.

No tax breaks and workplace practices towards singles are what bug me, though in some ways I can see how family/marriage tax breaks are justified if kids are involved.

On the other hand, someday I ought to invite people I know to an un-bridal shower. I'll do up the room in funeral colours with a big weaving loom on one side. I'll pay a stripper to just stand around, fully clothed, and stare at people for uncomfortably long periods of time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 2:10 PM

If homosexuality is a choice we may all be at the mercy of misconception and discrimination. All you'd have to do is say something innocent like "Me and my boyfriend are going to go shopping for some fanny packs" and wham! Everyone thinks you are gay. So now you can't listen to coldplay, drive a prius or have a rainbow bumper sticker that says "I like balls in my mouth." You can't wear your clogs, leather pants, synthetic fur coats and matching earrings and frosted hair.

Something must be done! We must take Gay back from the gay!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 2:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:

Something must be done! We must take Gay back from the gay!

Agreed. You and I can start, right now, by having some hot gay cyber. Only it wouldn't be gay, because we're not gay. The gay isn't something you do, but rather something you are.

I'll start.

Dude, your abs are so rad.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 2:23 PM

Quote:
Dude, your abs are so rad.

Thanks, they're photo-shopped. I find your choice in footwear especially intriguing and fierce.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 2:32 PM

FREMDFIRMA

You know Byte, I think you might get a kick out of Mitsudomoe, if only cause Hitoha Marui is a bit like looking in the mirror for one of us...

Oh, and don't forget a life sized grim reaper or cosplayed one for your unbridal, wouldn't be complete without that.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 2:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:

Quote:
Dude, your abs are so rad.

Thanks, they're photo-shopped. I find your choice in footwear especially intriguing and fierce.

Dude, that's not how you cyber gay.

Let's try again. OMFG THATS SO GOING IN MY MOUF FUCK YEAH GRAAARRRRR.

more like that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 2:43 PM

The STRIPPER will be a grim reaper. GENIUS.

Mincingbeast! How would you like to earn some petty cash?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 3:04 PM

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
an individual characteristic

That is a much better term for it, thank you.

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 3:05 PM

Believe it or not, I would like to earn some petty cash. I would like even better to receive some petty cash without earning it.

I am qualified, in that I am often mistaken for a male stripper and/or angel of death.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 4:14 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
In a recent interview Antonin Scalia, portly dego Justice, opined that the Constitution does not prohibit sex discrimination. Behold:

Quote:
In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

SCALIA: Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

http://www.callawyer.com/story.cfm?eid=913358&evid=1

I'm not interested in arguing the merits of Scalia's strict constructionist philosophy, or pointing out that he is wrong. Every wretched legal blogger in the land has leapt to the task. Rather--

1) I would like half of you to BAWWW in outrage, soil yourselves, and call Scalia an ignorant sexist facist,

2) I would like the other half of you to support Scalia in a sentence that begins with "I'm not sexist, but..." and also soil yourselves,

3) I would like all of you to read Scalia's comment, huff some gasoline, and briefly meditate on the roles of the judicary and legislature in social change. If you're feeling especially trippy, put it in context of the civil rights movement. Does the political process provide adequate protection for marginalized groups?

If not, I suggest we dudes unite, and attempt to pass a law approving of sex discrimination, or establishing gender-based slavery or something else rad.

He's right - it's not in the document. That's why there was such a push for an Equal Rights Amendment. It failed, proving once and for all that women in this country really are viewed as less than equal.

According to Scalia, though, blacks are only 60% of a regular person, too. After all, that IS in the Constitution.

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 7:48 PM

Lili

The 14th is principally about race. The black race in particular, and whether or not they are citizens. Latinos say that it also means that they are citizens by the same extension. The right in its infinite idiocy says no, thus sacrificing the country's largest swing vote and any credibility to constitutionality.

The thread is about the 14th amendment, one of three presently. That's why I'm posting on it. I really don't care about gay rights, one way or the other. If you want to present a decent 14th amendment case then do so, otherwise, I'm very busy.

CTS

Thank you for yes, the obvious. My opinion on whether gayness or the tendency to like the same sex is genetic is irrelevant, (Actually, I have no opinion on the issue.) since situations you can be born into, like jewish, can adversely effect your rights, but are not 14th amendment issues.

Technically speaking, nothing that does not have to do with citizenship in some way really has any business being a 14th a. issue. But if it's a lifestyle choice, which even if one is born with a gay preference, it's still a lifestyle choice to pursue it.

What if NAMBLA says that they were born with that preference? Can I prove them wrong? Does that mean that the constitution says they can pursue it?

NO for the abundantly obvious reason that the constitution doesn't give a damn about who sleeps with whom. It's not a constitutional issue. Whether a member of NAMBLA likes little boys is not a constitutional issue. It's a legislative one, and then, only if he acts on it.

Lili's assertion that this is a constitutional issue is weak to start with, and furthermore, your assertion that it is specifically a 14th A issue and not a 1st A issue seems baseless unless you at least give it try as an argument

Sorry if this seems hostile, but I have nothing against Lili or her lifestyle choices. She came out of nowhere both guns blazing, and filled with blanks for an argument.

A poor argument filled with emotional pity fishing and no substance is always going to get a hostile response which it rightly deserves.

Byte,

It IS a choice. Not having a preference, but sleeping with someone of the same sex is a choice. So are many things. We have a freedom of choice, but that is protected by the 1st. The 14th protects citizenship.

It was created so that blacks would be citizens. It had a lot of unintended side effects, including making the Southern Pacific Railway a citizen of the United States. It also makes Mexicans anchor babies American citizens, and it does so explicitly.

The word "born" in my humble opinion was a poor word choice, as it allowed Roe v. Wade, which is a pretty horrendous abuse, IMHO. But that's a political opinion, or rather, it's a religious one.

I also have an issue with the lack of any environmental recognition of non-humans. Seriously. If the Southern Pacific Railway is a citizen, why wasn't the spotted owl or the redwood forest?

ETA: It's Lili's emotional pandering "what about love" that really ticked me off. When people are trying to have a logical discussion about the judicious application of law, there's nothing more irritating than manipulative sympathy ploy. It's the way bad policy is made, bad decisions, and we see enough of it from our politicians every election cycle.

I would have handed anyone here's head to them for the same thing, and would expect mine to be handed to me.

Lili, you want a hand on connecting gay rights to the 14th amendment? I'll hand you one on a silver platter: Don't ask don't tell.

Mike,

Sorry, the constitution is a living document, that's why it has amendments. Yes, there are some who don't seem to realize that, and seem to give up after the first or the second, but blacks are people. It actually took them three tries to say that.

ETA:

Lili,

It really is just the nature of your argument that irritates me, and has nothing to do with you or your gayness. The way it appeared to me, we were objectively discussing the 14th A., and you hit me with a manipulative sympathy ploy to try to get me to change my interpretation of the 14th, which is, IMHO, a reprehensible thing to try to do, and so I have no sympathy for it, and am not going to reward it. If you want to win my support for your case, you have to construct an actual argument.

The reason I'm being so cold on the issue is that law is an extremely cold field. If you cannot win my support on the issue, then there is basically no chance that you can win the court's sympathy.

Remember, I'm merely a moderately conservative democrat, the court is not only 2/3 republican, but entirely made up of federalists and lawyers who are universally opposed to any subjective emotional outpouring, which is generally just called contempt of court. I suspect that your argument would get you expelled from the court room immediately, and you would lose your case in the process.

If you want rights, you have to fight for them, not beg. Begging doesn't really get you anywhere. Specifically, if you want to claim, as you did, that gay rights are a 14th A issue, you have to construct an argument. I just handed you a place to start. Think about it and get back to me.

I'm not saying it can't be done, it can. I'm saying that you didn't do it. Maybe it can be done. My inclination would be to disagree with the application because I don't think it is a citizenship issue.

ETA: Religion is a tricky one as well. I'm not identifiably jewish, as my ancestors were converts, and probably no relation to the children of Israel, but then again, who was? Still, many people are. A lot of people may be readily identifiable, but their citizenship is not in question, so their rights are first amendment, because it is the choices of their actions which are an issue, not their citizenship status.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 8:16 PM

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
(Actually, I have no opinion on the issue.)

Interesting, then, that you would post one.

Quote:
Lili's assertion that this is a constitutional issue is weak to start with

Dude, I never made that assertion. You made a statement about sexuality being a choice, and I responded to that. Saying that I randomly came in with guns blazing to argue with you neatly turns responsibility away from you, but doesn't actually reflect what happened. What I asked was if you had ever been able to make a choice about who you were attracted to, making the assertion that it really wasn't a matter of choice. You continue to ignore that, and attack me to boot, and I cannot understand why you're being so hostile about it, to use your word. I'm not fishing for anything, by the way, I just asked you a question that would have taken you thirty seconds to answer. You're putting a hell of a lot of words in my mouth, and a hell of a lot of spin on what I actually said here. You're certainly acting like you have quite a problem with me, with the added discourtesy of claiming that you do not. There's no reason for that at all. If you're so "busy," you could have just responded to what I said, instead of going off on a rather hateful tangent at me, which surely took longer.

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 8:26 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

"Ooh, I hate it when emotion is brought into a discussion about law." Gods, DT, stop acting like this thread was started for serious discussion. Have you ever met Mincingbeast before? And... You are kind of responding to things that weren't said. Maybe you took the advice to huff gasoline a bit too much to heart?

I do not need the written code of a spiritual belief to act like a decent human being.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 9:05 PM

PR

Yes, I've met mincingbeast. I assumed this thread was about the 14th amendment. Actually, I think there are too many of them, I think there are three running concurrently, they should be consolidated.

Lili

I made no position statement. You asserted that it was a 14th amendment issue. Your question was not a serious question but a fairly transparent manipulative ploy to get me to post a position to back up an argument you were constructing. It would not have been credible to say that you actually cared about my personal life based on anything you've posted.

I took your statements in the cold and literal manner I thought they were intended. I sincerely doubt you have any concern for my personal life, new or old, so I assume you are I assumed you wanted to make a case for gay rights.

Am I wrong? Did you not want to make a case for gay rights?

I don't come here to discuss my personal life. I don't think that I've ever mentioned it. I come here to discuss the politics of freedom.

I meant no hostility, but I assume that you also don't come here to discuss your personal life, so you were gaming for an emotional response, that annoyed me. I thought it was cold and manipulative. That aside...

My point is this:

If you want to make a case for gay rights, which I assume was why you bothered to speak up, then it is going to have to be a lot better a case. The case you made to me is not one which is going to travel far in legal circles.

So far I have given you a lot of opportunity to make the case you started, and even offered you a fairly solid starting point, all of which you have ignored.

If you're real purpose on commenting was to get my comment or approval of your lifestyle, then I would have to ask "Why would you even care?"

Consider who I hang out with on this forum. I'd say most of my posts are to PN, Byte, CTS and Frem, and probably Mike, Rap and Niki. In this interchange, has there been even one comment about anyone's personal life? Their emotional attachments, or the validity of their lifestyle, or even an opinion of it? I dare say we're some of the coldest objective analysts I've known, and I think that's probably a compliment. I view the emotional sympathetic approval seekers as weak, trying to bait me into that position is likely to make me suspicious of your intentions, and prompt a negative response. It's not like this has changes in the last five years.

For the record, I generally support gay rights, but like so many groups, their advocates can annoy me at times, and if they try hard enough, they can probably lose my support. I oppose laws restricting gay rights, and support gay marriage. But I'm not really here to discuss me.

I was responding to this thread because it was a 14th a. thread, not because I wanted to talk about my personal life.

For the record, I think Scalia is a moron.

Now I'm mildly annoyed that no one seems interested in the topic.

Sig

I retract my earlier statement, the text of the ERA was unobjectionable. I can see it being rejected as redundant, but the real opposition came not from the male population of congress but from labor unions. A simple google search returned that everywhere.

Here's the snag, and why sexism and unions go hand in hand:

Ending sexism doubles the labor pool, which crashes the labor rates. The unions exist to support the extant membership. In the interests of maintaining high wages for certain professions, it is necessary to keep women out of them. This has also manifested itself in the BFOQ, which is also used against the handicapped.

We may all feel that this is morally reprehensible, but alas, it's the practical world of power politics, where money makes the final decisions on what is right or wrong.

IMHO? The economy would benefit from the resulting labor collapse, but undoubtedly a lot of politicians would also lose their positions.

I doubt that it would lead to more women in congress, at least, not much. So far my experience has been that women are more likely to support men than to support other women. Men don't seem to care. The result is that both support men.

Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin and Condi Rice failed to get female support, but Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Colin Powell, who seem similar as people and officials, got much higher favorability ratings from female voters.

I don't know why this is, but I suspect that there is something in the nature of this female power personality type that hits a bad chord with most women based on some past experiences.

As a guy, I can say that certain men undoubtedly solicit a negative response from me, Bush and Kerry did, as did Rudy. I think the guy who had life handed to him and pissed it away annoys me, personally. Teddy Kennedy was another person who struck me this way and I never had any sympathy for. Bill Clinton I just found repulsive, Colin Powell I can't forgive for My Lai, and Al Gore just strikes me as cartoonishly stupid the way Sarah Palin does.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2011 1:52 AM

KWICKO

Quote:

Mike,

Sorry, the constitution is a living document, that's why it has amendments. Yes, there are some who don't seem to realize that, and seem to give up after the first or the second, but blacks are people. It actually took them three tries to say that.

Dang, I would've thought the snark inherent in my comment was blatantly obvious, but alas, I see I am mistaken...

YES, it's a living document, and open to evolution (wow, TWO concepts that the right hates, right there in one short proclamation!). That's entirely the point. Scalia and other Federalists and "strict constructionists" like to claim that they want to go right back to the "original" document, the way it was originally written and ratified. So I have to wonder, are they REALLY serious about only property-owning white males being allowed to vote? Is that truly what they are advocating? And why doesn't anyone else ever try to nail these fuckers down on this stuff, and get them to state their TRUE intentions?

"Womens' rights" aren't in the original document. Neither are "black rights" or "gay rights". But things HAVE BEEN added to the document, some of them very good things.

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2011 2:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
You asserted that it was a 14th amendment issue.

I don't think Lili was making a 14th amendment argument, DT. She was just reacting to the old canard that she thought you were touting, the homosexuality-is-a-choice concept. As I saw it, she was simply arguing against that, not the 14th amendment thread.

As always, I may be wrong.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2011 7:45 AM

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I made no position statement.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'm not really of any opinion on whether or not the 14th applies to gays. My guess would be that it doesn't because being gay is a choice (even for those ultra-libs who don't believe that it is a choice to *be* gay, it's still a choice to practice being gay,) and in this way, being gay is an expression of self, not a state of birth.
...gay rights falls under the 1st because it's a freedom of expression, and in that regard is more like a religion or other organization.

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2011 7:50 AM

There is an easy solution to this problem. Everyone's vote should only count 60% unless the are a gay black woman who does not own property, in other words, Kane.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2011 7:54 AM

Phoenix, you wound me. This thread was started for the purposes of serious discussion. I have no intention in participating in the serious discussion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2011 8:03 AM

Lili

Thanks for proving my point. Yes, it is a choice of what you decide to do with your time.

Playing video games is a choice, so is reading. You can read what you want because there's a 1st amendment. In China, this is not the case.

This is a question about the activity of being gay, not the natural state of being gay. I've known many many gays. All had their various reasons, often that reason was some early childhood abuse. Maybe there's a genetic switch. But the *preference* of gayness was not at issue. The practice of gayness was.

Being born with a preference for your own gender, assuming such a thing exists, is not a state of citizenship.

If you wanted to argue that the state of being gay was discriminated against on a citizenship basis, then I offered you Don't Ask Don't Tell as an excellent test case. You could claim that military service was a citizenship right, which you would have to dig up some court cases that proved this point, and then prove that there was discrimination against gays serving in the military, and then that military service gave you certain citizenship rights, and then you could argue that gays were relegated to a lower status of citizenship because of it.

If you did that, you'd have a 14th amendment case.

As I said before, I posted here because it was a 14th a. thread. I'm interested in the 14th and its applications, which is not to say that I'm not interested in the 1st, but that this conversation has already vastly exceeded my interest level in gay rights as a wedge issue, which, like other wedge issues, regardless of my opinion of them, is close to zero.

I'm interested in the process of govt. and how that is used to create abuses of power, not in whatever political football has been tossed out by the media.

I get that as a gay-american you don't think of this as a wedge issue, because it affects you. But I hope you also get that it doesn't affect me.

Also, I hope you understand that the reason it is out there as an issue is not that the powers that be care about you and your issues, because they don't, any more than they care about mine or anyone else's, which is none. It's out there because politicians think they can split voter groups and win elections while preventing anyone from talking about the war, the economy, or areas that *do* concern the powers that be.

That said, you're essentially arguing with a brick wall, not because I disagree with your position, I really don't; but rather because there are much bigger fish to fry, and I'm not really interested in the topic.

Also, there are much more important things going on in my life at the moment than politics, so I have very limited patience for the topic over all.

Sorry if that sounds cold, but if you want to construct a 14th a. argument for gay rights, I'll listen. If you don't, then I don't get where your problem is with me saying it's a 1st a. issue, and leaving it at that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2011 8:16 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
You asserted that it was a 14th amendment issue.
I don't think Lili was making a 14th amendment argument, DT. She was just reacting to the old canard that she thought you were touting, the homosexuality-is-a-choice concept. As I saw it, she was simply arguing against that, not the 14th amendment thread.

As always, I may be wrong.

I think you're quite right, if I know Lisa at all, since she tends to say exactly what she means.

She also doesn't ask frivolous questions that are... "transparent manipulative ploys." She and I have had a few discussions about this sort of thing. She's asked me something very akin to the question she asked you, DT, so it could be that she is genuinely curious about your answer, and probably anyone else's.
Personally, I think it would be great to be able to chose time, place, and person to fall for. Especially if it could be a mutual choice. That would simplify life quite a bit. It would be fantastic if emotion were that rational. I'm a fan of being logical, it's lead to some great things for me. Unfortunately, none of my emotions will fall under that yolk. If anyone was able to chose the time and place and person, I would ask them for their secret. I would actually be even more curious about how to chose to simply not be in love with someone anymore, as some of the greatest turmoil of my life has come from wanting someone who did not want me. There are probably some people who can't relate to that, but I would guess there are more who can. I'm not saying this is Lisa's current motivation, but it would be one of mine. She is more likely trying to get you to think about the whole "choice" thing in a way you haven't thought about it before. Claiming that it's not a legit legal argument is a dodge and also isn't true; there are all kinds of emotional things that stand up in court. Marriage and divorce both spring prominently to my mind.
If you don't want questions about the way love and attraction works thrown at you, it's pretty easy to not push the button of saying there's a choice in the matter. There pretty clearly isn't, given how many people are ruined by their own hormones.

I do not need the written code of a spiritual belief to act like a decent human being.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2011 9:39 AM

Love's confusing, but if my experience has taught me anything, it's that love happens when you fall for a manipulative bitch, spend way too much time with her and she cheats on you. Then you date 3 girls at once, one you never see drunk, one you never see sober, and a happy medium you've seen in both states who eventually becomes you significant other. Of course, she is a rebound so you spend the next year or so wondering if it's really love or if you just want someone and then you take her for granted until you do something really stupid and risk losing her. Then you realize how much she means to you and you think you might actually be in love so you start to go out of your way to show her how special she is and that you really care.

That's as much as I've figured out anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2011 9:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Love's confusing, but if my experience has taught me anything, it's that love happens when you fall for a manipulative bitch, ...

Bwaahaha. Now you've made me snort my lunch.

You owe me two meals. And a netipot.

(Or I should stop reading your posts when I'm eating.)

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2011 10:01 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Love is work.

Women are... complicated?

Stupidly, madeningly, boringly, spoiled-ly, selfishly, arrogantly, manipulatively, hatefully,

kindly, nicely, sandwich-makingly, child-bearingly,

complicated.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2011 11:06 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
If not, I suggest we dudes unite, and attempt to pass a law approving of sex discrimination, or establishing gender-based slavery or something else rad.

That would be unconstitutional because gender-based slavery is barred by the 13th Amendment.

I think Scalia is saying that the Constitution does not expressly prohibits certain acts, like discrimination. It also does not prohibit murder. Murder is illegal in every State and prohibited by the Federal Govt. Nothing would prohibit the State and Federal govts from likewise prohibiting sex discrimination.

I disagree with Scalia's point. While he is correct that the Constitution is silent on the matter, it has long been recognized that the Bill of Rights creates a penumbra under which other rights exist. The 14th Amendment says women get Equal Protection. They also get Due Process which also recognizes gender as a source of discrimination. The 19th Amendment says women can vote, which prohibits women from being discriminated against at the ballot box.

In short I think Scalia's comment reflects a historical perspective, without knowing the full context of his discussion...we can't be sure what he is thinking.

I note for the record that men and women are not equal. They are balanced. Men can't have kids, women lack common sense (making them wiser then men), men are stronger, women cry a lot for no good manly reason, a man has a penis, women have boobies. See, not equal, but in the end it all balances out.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2011 11:17 AM

Quote:
If you don't want questions about the way love and attraction works thrown at you, it's pretty easy to not push the button of saying there's a choice in the matter. There pretty clearly isn't, given how many people are ruined by their own hormones.

The problem here is more that's a personal conversation, when DT is trying to not be at all personal, but rather analytical.

I think that Lili just wants to have a conversation about homosexuality as a choice, and that she initially was just curious as opposed to trying to make a pointed argument though now she's feeling insulted and offended because DT is being a little dismissive.

DT is being dismissive, while it's not a NICE thing for him to do, because he feels like this isn't a conversation he wants to get into (and also isn't what he came into the thread to discuss). The conversation feels like an argument and an attack and I also understand WHY DT feels this way.

I would not want to discuss much about if or when I have fallen in love with someone, and for people who really don't give much of a damn about love or relationships, it is a question that will feel very emotionally charged and much more personal than necessary. Which then makes an innocent conversation feel like something else entirely.

I'm both aromantic AND asexual. Love and romance and marriage and BABIES are something the general population EXPECTS of people, and when you don't meet those expectations, you're told "it's a phase" or other such nonsense. Plus, I live in UTAH. I've had uncles who have told me that I'm going to hell just because I won't ever get married or have children. They see my life as less-than-fulfilled than other people. You develop some defensiveness. You dismiss questions about "but haven't you ever loved anyone" because you don't WANT to be saved.

DT is straight, but he seems to me to have a similar aromantic outlook here at least, which makes me think that this is a misunderstanding on the level of having a fundamentally VERY different, and likely incompatible world views. And for that reason, it might be prudent for both sides here to reassess just what they're arguing about and why before feelings get hurt any worse. Just my two cents.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2011 11:47 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
In a recent interview Antonin Scalia, portly dego Justice, opined that the Constitution does not prohibit sex discrimination. Behold:

Quote:
In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

SCALIA: Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

http://www.callawyer.com/story.cfm?eid=913358&evid=1

I'm not interested in arguing the merits of Scalia's strict constructionist philosophy, or pointing out that he is wrong. Every wretched legal blogger in the land has leapt to the task. Rather--

1) I would like half of you to BAWWW in outrage, soil yourselves, and call Scalia an ignorant sexist facist,

2) I would like the other half of you to support Scalia in a sentence that begins with "I'm not sexist, but..." and also soil yourselves,

3) I would like all of you to read Scalia's comment, huff some gasoline, and briefly meditate on the roles of the judicary and legislature in social change. If you're feeling especially trippy, put it in context of the civil rights movement. Does the political process provide adequate protection for marginalized groups?

If not, I suggest we dudes unite, and attempt to pass a law approving of sex discrimination, or establishing gender-based slavery or something else rad.

He's right - it's not in the document. That's why there was such a push for an Equal Rights Amendment. It failed, proving once and for all that women in this country really are viewed as less than equal.

According to Scalia, though, blacks are only 60% of a regular person, too. After all, that IS in the Constitution.

This Space For Rent!

I think the founding fathers WAY over-rated Blacks...60%? Really. When taking IQ, income, quality of life, child rearing skills, education, and language skills ....I'd put blacks around 37.3% of a man......

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2011 11:57 AM

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

Byte, you're fairly accurate in your assessment of my motivations. If the word "choice" hadn't been thrown out, and followed up by "religion or other organization" like it was something you convert to or something, I wouldn't have said a thing. Rose made the excellent point that the button was pushed, and yeah it kind of focused my attention. You say you wouldn't want to discuss your own attractions, but you have made it clear before, and again now, that you're asexual. That's a pretty simple statement that makes clear how you feel, and I appreciate your response and your outlook. If you ever had desire to discuss it further, your point of view interests me.
One can be analytical about personal things. The way someone would feel in a given situation often reflects how most people would feel in the same situation, that's how empathy exists and it's how a lot of moral structures are formed, e.g. treating someone the way you would want to be treated. If you wouldn't want to be scorned and discriminated against and persecuted for something, odds are someone else would feel similarly. If one can actually chose the person and the time they desire to be in a relationship with, they would be coming at the question from a totally different angle. I have yet to meet such a person, so usually asking if they've been able to chose will make them look at it more logically, rather than the unthinking rote that's been used to paint it as something unnatural. If you cannot chose such things, then neither can I. Sometimes the best way to analyze something is to just ask yourself what effect it would have on you. So I posed the question. It was personal, but it's also for analytical purposes. Personal analysis. I'm not asking for names or dates or how many or anything, I asked things that could be answered with simple yes or no responses. It's interesting to me that it sparked so much hostility, makes curious about the motives for that. I don't expect to find out, though.

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2011 12:21 PM

I'm sympathetic to you, in regards to choice. I don't believe I have CHOSEN to live my life alone more than the alternative seems distasteful to me and potentially dangerous, and because of a lack of attraction to either gender. Logically I can recognize if I think someone is pretty or looks nice, but I don't give that any more attention than I do an interesting cloud formation, and I don't have a psychosomatic response to either one. I don't feel an urge to act on "pretty!" like people with romantic and sexual tendencies do.

I also recognize how not feeling like you didn't have a choice or were born with it results in obstacles, in expectations, and in unfavourable reactions from other people. Or, postulating for a moment that DT is right, that it's something that at a VERY young age we were compelled to by circumstance - in that case it's doubtful we remember the circumstance and at that age we had little control over what happened to us or what environmental elements were shaping us, so it's still too complicated IMO to say it's a choice.

If you want to ask about whether people can control their feelings later on and whether the PRACTICE is a choice, I can make no comment. Ultimately I really just am not sure why this argument is happening. DT was remiss perhaps in saying what he did if he didn't want to get into this argument, but I'm not sure anyone can convince him he's wrong or if that's even an effort that's worth it.

Hence, the reason I just shrugged, said "well, so long as he still supports gay rights, good enough for me," and wandered off for a while.

I do think asking someone if they've ever been in love is a little personal for my tastes, and I wouldn't like to be in the position of the one being asked. But I'm sorry on his behalf that you were offended by the choice thing, and I agree with you there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2011 12:23 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I see an end-run in Scalia's argument - b/c if laws are passed to prevent discrimination, sooner or later they will go before the Supreme Court to see if they are constitutional. And if the Constitution is silent on that issue, and you are a supposed 'strict constitutionalist' as Scalia claims to be, then you will rule that if preventing discrimination on the basis of sex is not strictly in the constitution, those laws are NOT constitutional.

It's exactly the way they interpreted the constitution to mean that it doesn't protect you against states' or businesses' infringement against your rights, just infringement by the federal government.

GAGGHhhhh - what an old white fart he is.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2011 12:24 PM

PR

I would be more inclined to agree if this was the first time that Lili had tried to sideline a debate in this manner. To me, to date, she has done little else.

Marriage is not a constitutional issue, and emotions rarely work in the supreme court. Maybe family court. But the constitution is a document about process, the process of govt. No legislation should ever be in the constitution. The worst abuse of the constitution to ever pass is definitely prohibition, because it's just a law it has nothing to do with process.

As for the other, IMHO

The difference between guys and girls is not natural so much as forced. Girls are actually not interested in a guy who falls madly in love with them, and tend to think of them as stalkers if the girl hasn't fallen in love with them first. I think guys naturally would fall in love much the way girls do, and have crushes, etc, but in order to be accepted by girl, we have to train ourselves to be aloof and indifferent. The reason is perceived status. The guy who is indifferent is probably more valuable because he doesn't seem to need the girl. The guy in love appears to need the girl, and so he appears to have lower social status, because he appears desperate, even if he's just desperate for this one girl.

The situation isn't too dissimilar from a job interview. I didn't get jobs or dates until I got to the point where I actually *was* indifferent to the outcome. As long as it's an act, it doesn't work, because when the ploy starts to fail, you panic, change tactics, let your guard down, and reveal that really you're a person of low status pretending to be one of high status.

To avoid the topic of romance for a sec and use a business example: I used to arrange business deals for which I got paid an hourly wage which was decent, but nothing compared to what the businessmen were making. At one point I came up with what I thought was the perfect deal and maybe was. When I presented it I was asked "How much do you want to set this up?" I said "I want a percentage." The woman who I was setting up the deal with said "Oh, we couldn't do that." So, I got up from my chair, and she said "How much of a percentage." I said "50." She said "We certainly couldn't do that." So I said "Sorry, I have other things to do," and I headed for the door. I made it about eight feet and she said "We could do fifty."

This is the way it has to be if you're a guy, and as I was walking towards the door, I realized that I didn't care whether she accepted my terms or not. If I wasn't getting my 50%, I didn't want in. I think it was that moment of *actually* not caring that conveyed the position of strength that made her cave.

It was a money making deal, (derivatives) it got cut short a week into it when one of the senior partners died of a stroke. Had it not been for the untimely demise, we might be counting our bailouts and golden parachutes at Goldman Sachs.

Can a woman do the same thing? I don't know. Probably. But equally probably, she usually doesn't have to because she's not forced to. I've known a lot of lesbians, and for some of them, relationships can be very very difficult. The ones I've known are much more likely to go for bi women than for absolute lesbians because they know it means less of a commitment. Many of the absolute lesbians I've known probably guy have benefited strategically from this kind of "guyism."

As I'm writing this, I have to wonder if this has a connection to why guys do better in business than girls: It's the skills that we pick up dating girls that are useful in business.

Just a thought.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2011 12:43 PM

Lili

Thanks for clarifying.

The manner I meant "choice" is the same as when Ralph Nader proposed the seat belt law. He said "Driving a car is a choice. You can choose not to drive a car, as I do."

Most of us don't think of it that way, we'd probably think driving a car is a right, but it's certainly not guaranteed anywhere. Unless in the 14th a.

Oh, someone will get that.

But that's what I meant. Not that you choose to be gay, or to fall in love with a particular woman, but that you choose to have that relationship, or get married, etc.

Frem chooses not to have relationships, as I chose when doing his line of work, for the same reason: Because it would be unethical. That doesn't mean that he never has feelings for someone that he's working with, as he has mused about here. The feelings, sure, are not a choice, but the actions are.

As for guys falling in love, see the above post. We go through so much pain in that department that we learn to recognize that in a detached manner. Being in love with a girl we know, internally, may often be like a schoolgirl crush on some rockstar, no expectation is there that it will ever turn into anything.

Also, for personal reasons, like Byte, I choose not to discuss my personal life which contains a number of other things which are very painful and I'm not dealing with them, as Buffy says, I'm taking a vacation in the land of not coping.

At the moment, all of this has been pushed aside by more pressing matters. Three of my close friends died this fall, and my sister has just been diagnosed with a terminal brain cancer. I keep falling asleep reading about hypoxia mechanisms in angiogenesis, which for some reason I cannot stay up for. Maybe I need stronger coffee.

Your brain only has room for emotional problems to do with relationships when no one is actually killing you. I think that at another time and in another place I would have reacted quite differently.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2011 1:23 PM