Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

[Pedro Xaramillo]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

Previously you said


and now you're saying


So there.



I stated that there was social inequality between men and women in Aztec, Mayan and Olmec societies (in saying that men considered women their subordinates). You presented an article that more or less stated "There was social inequality between men and women, in light of some equality in the eyes of the law". It affirmed my position, so I'm not sure why you keep arguing when we both agree on the statement I posted



I'm not sure which documents you are talking about, but please do point me to sources that you consider more genuine, as I like Meso-American history in general.

Because you like sexist laws, we never had them, just because society viewed one thing doesn't mean the law made by learned men was the same because some ignorant fool thought one way.

WE never called ourselves Aztec as an Empire, as tribal refugees WE called ourselves Aztecs, as an empire we called ourselves MEXICA, hence why it's called Mexico. I explained it to you now several times and even taught you some of my language, I hope you get it now.

Codices are the early documents the Spaniards wrote when observing Mexica society, my point with all this is there was no Gender Devision of Labour, hence what you are suggesting is alien to our civilization, to yours and to society in general, much of the labour you praise was done by women to before the birth of the Industrial Revolution, Capital and Lex Germanicus

[KanadaHye]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

Everything is about war and defense for you...
Again, so how is it that corporations and people who don't serve can own land then? By your logic this is impossible, yet they do... So, your premises are wrong.

So, women who are the providers are "acting like men"? And men who don't get drafted off to war are not men? Have I got that right?
And you wonder why people can't understand what you're saying?

.

Actually, during WWII while the men went to battle, the women had to take over the auto plants back home in Detroit. This is what actually brought many women into the work force.

[Haykakan]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

Ok, I mistakenly made the assumption that when you approached women you didn't just think about having non-flirtations conversations with them, I'll just assume that you never had any thoughts of that nature when you approached them. My mistake, should have known better.

Call my marriage what you want. Only God can decide how long it will last, and I'll just continue his bidding.

You obviously know more about everything than anyone here, or you so assert.

If you have no problem saying all that to my face, then come and do so, before that please refrain from insults. And I btw, I only take insult when you call me a racist, sexist is fine.

You obviously feel comfortable with displaying your sexist beliefs and that speaks volumes about the person you are. Everyone has the right to think anyways they want but the line is drawn when the thoughts turn to action and effect other people.

[Siggie]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

First, it was a 3-5 point difference that wouldn't matter, now it magically turned to a 1 point difference that wouldn't matter.

You didn't understand my point which was that small a difference only matters if it falls right on a cutoff in which case, even a 1 pt difference would become "important". Read it again. I'm getting pretty tired of repeating myself.
Enough with trying to trap me as being inconsistent by twisting things. The original point was that is not a practically significant difference between sexes IF it even exists. And I posted sources about that as well. So, move on already!

The point is he didn't mention it was on your behalf, nor did you say that he will be posting on your behalf.

And again I say SO WHAT? Why does it matter whether he did or I did? What would it have changed? Are you pointing that out to justify why you still felt like I needed to learn to cite sources or are you doubting whether I asked him to do it? Gawd, you just look for any opportunity to argue? This is so pointless and childish.

There is consensus..??? I guess the climategate scandal was just propaganda right?

Yes, there's consensus. You should look at the scientific literature when you want information and not at the more biased media.

I think you are failing to comprehend my point. If you demand equal rights, then also demand equal responsibilities. In your opinion, why should men die at war instead of women, if women are "fully qualified" to do the same job? It never makes sense when in return for rights a woman is removed from privilege (or at least it never makes sense for the woman as she is so accustomed to the privilege that she no longer considers it a privilege, but a necessity - such as not dying at war.

Why not just have women die at war, and let men stay at home and take care of the children? You want equal rights with men, but excuse women from mandatory draft by bringing children into the equation.

Qualified to die at war? Ability to die a qualification? Both men and women are free to enlist!
You just keep talking about draft. If that's the only condition under which your theory holds then say so.

Let's try this a different way...
If the draft only applies to men and women get the "privilege" of being exempt from mandatory military service, what right are you proposing we have to give up to enjoy that privilege? The right to equality in any sense? So, if women don't get drafted we have to be discriminated against in any and all regards because as you said "equality is all or nothing?"
What sort of sense does that make? By the way you keep pointing to draft, draft, draft, go die at war, etc. You're arguing that because women are not subject to the draft, then men have cart blanche to deny a woman every right, down to self-determination, because her government won't draft her?

The responsibility that comes with it is that a free man is responsible for his protection, for his nutrition, and for his well being. The right that comes with it, is the right to live ones life anyway one wishes. The privilege that was removed, was the privilege of having others protect you, others care about your well-being, and having others provide your nutrition.

When a child becomes an adult, one loses the privilege of being supported, protected and taken care of ones parents, but in return gains the freedom to live one's life however one wishes.

Simple enough for ya?

No not simple enough. This illustrates further that you're just making stuff up.

To be free we can't have anyone care about us? The way you state in your first example, the responsibility and privilege are opposites.

Your child example doesn't work. Parents have a legal and moral duty to care for their children. It is not a privilege of the child to be cared for. Yet you claim, it's me who doesn't understand what these words mean.

The right to vote comes from the responsibility of protecting one's homeland, at the expense of losing the privilege of having someone else do it for you.

So, the disabled and those who don't serve in the military have no right to vote? And in order to vote we give up the privilege of having someone else do what for us? Vote for us or protect the country for us? Neither follows logically (and I mean formal logic), such that that is the necessary conclusion.

In many countries, the right to own land is reserved only for the countries citizens. Again, traditionally, those who fought to protect their homeland (or fought to acquire more land) were the ones granted the right to own land. Follows from the logic in the above explanation.

Everything is about war and defense for you...
Again, so how is it that corporations and people who don't serve can own land then? By your logic this is impossible, yet they do... So, your premises are wrong.

You mentioned that one should considers families as units rather than individuals, and now you are bringing individuals back into the equation. I am not sure what you are arguing about here, as I merely poked a hole in your logic, and apparently it worked.

I said that people who form a family need to think of themselves as a unit and consider the well-being and interests of the family as well.
You said something ludicrous about needing laws to enforce that and the rights of the family and I pointed out that that doesn't make sense because, among other things, it's not feasible. You didn't poke a hole in anything. Your own rigidness of mind is confusing you.

Your calling my logic a semantic game is all the more proof that you cannot distinguish between what a responsibility, a right, and a privilege are.

Sure it is... That's why I'm the only one that can't make heads or tails of what you're saying. (note: that was sarcasm)

One moment you're hypothetical, the next moment you are serious, and apparently the only one that can distinguish between the two is yourself. You asserted that Armenia is not better, then you said it may be better. This is more like a contradiction than a hypothetical situation.

It's not a contradiction. You just keep trying to nail me down as having said something I didn't say. Keep trying.

If one doesn't understand what are "rights, responsibilities, and privilege" then one cannot ask for rights, responsibilities, or privilege.

Act like men, here are two good ones: becoming a wage-slave for the family and being drafted to war and dying.

So, women who are the providers are "acting like men"? And men who don't get drafted off to war are not men? Have I got that right?
And you wonder why people can't understand what you're saying?

Oh, that's what you were talking about. In that case, I was, and still am suggesting that if you want to post stuff unrelated to the topic of the thread, you should start a new thread. I think that's pretty much common sense.

UGH! Except it was related and by dragging this on, you're pulling things off topic. Knock it off!

Again, how much is enough information. If fear of being wrong should keep one collecting more and more information, one will never form an opinion as there is always more information to come.

I said how much. I said the amount is determined by what level of error is acceptable to us. We decide. If you don't care about being wrong a lot then you'd need very little information.

You essentially called me "Hostile and arrogant", but used longer words. That I believe is an insult I put forth that you were hiding behind fancy words, and because the comment was directed at me, I am free to form whatever opinion I want based entirely on my comprehension of the insult.

When did I criticize your vocabulary...? I have no idea if that happened in your mind, or you just made it up on the stop just for the sake of the argument.

Do you not realize that hostile and belligerent are not the same thing? Neither are arrogant and condescending. I chose the words I meant. And you may find it offensive that I said the tone of your post was belligerent and condescending, but that doesn't make it a personal insult. If I wanted to hide, I wouldn't have said anything at all. Does it seem like I'm intimidated by you in the least?

Enough about vocabulary, who insulted who, etc. I think we've both said enough about this already and I don't want to derail the thread by turning it into a personal argument. Just restate your views on the relationship betwee responsibility, privilege, and rights so they make sense or just say you've done the best you can and abandon it. Don't carry on about anything else.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

Levon, indzi ge mertsenesgor I'd help out on your argument but doesn't look like you need any help. I'll just follow along and pick up the pieces left behind.

[levon]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

Are you listening? The Aztec Empire is the common name for the Mexican Empire, the Mexica stopped calling themselves Aztec as the demand of Huitzilopochtli, so our old conquerers could not find us, we changed the name to Mexica (could mean navel of the moon, but it refers to the moon reflecting in Tenochtitlan's lake), hence it was called by the Spaniards the Mexican Empire.

Previously you said

Awe never called ourselves Aztecs as an Empire, we called ourselves Mexica

and now you're saying

The Aztec Empire is the common name for the Mexican Empire

So there.

Also I don't think you carefully read my source either, women COULD if they chose so work, work exactly the same jobs as men and study the same stuff too, there are millions of sources showing this.

Now what I am trying to explain to you is officially, I don't mean socially or religious, women had the right to work, to study and if so choosing stay in that situation without any form of judicial granite. Im not saying in the case of social or religious, yeah there we pretty much mirror Armenians, you won't see me denying that, I mean according to law and state policy.

I stated that there was social inequality between men and women in Aztec, Mayan and Olmec societies (in saying that men considered women their subordinates). You presented an article that more or less stated "There was social inequality between men and women, in light of some equality in the eyes of the law". It affirmed my position, so I'm not sure why you keep arguing when we both agree on the statement I posted

While the documents have racist dribble and false rumours, maybe you should consult a couple of codices man

I'm not sure which documents you are talking about, but please do point me to sources that you consider more genuine, as I like Meso-American history in general.

[levon]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

1 point above or below the cutoff would not be very different

First, it was a 3-5 point difference that wouldn't matter, now it magically turned to a 1 point difference that wouldn't matter.

I think you are confusing skepticism and cynicism. It's a common mistake.

Call it what you want.

He posted it before I replied. What's your point?

The point is he didn't mention it was on your behalf, nor did you say that he will be posting on your behalf.

They are not the same. Politics and science aren't the same thing. Politicians may argue about something all they want, but that does not change which direction the evidence points. There is consensus in the scientific community on global warming and on the issue of sex differences in intelligence, they're still arguing over the best way to measure intelligence.

There is consensus..??? I guess the climategate scandal was just propaganda right?

There you go with the army again. Okay, let's draft both parents and leave the children to work and fend for themselves. You don't see how military service is a little different from most jobs? Notice, I would never demand that equal number of female firefighters be hired. You keep making things black and white when they are not. I would say women should be allowed to apply. If they can perform the duties required for the job, then there's no reason why they shouldn't be hired.
What does saying that women should have the same employment opportunities have to do with the draft?

I think you are failing to comprehend my point. If you demand equal rights, then also demand equal responsibilities. In your opinion, why should men die at war instead of women, if women are "fully qualified" to do the same job?

Why not just have women die at war, and let men stay at home and take care of the children? You want equal rights with men, but excuse women from mandatory draft by bringing children into the equation.

This makes sense in your mind? I think I'm an intelligent person, and I don't follow this logic. Either it doesn't actually follow logically or you're not explaining it well.

It never makes sense when in return for rights a woman is removed from privilege (or at least it never makes sense for the woman as she is so accustomed to the privilege that she no longer considers it a privilege, but a necessity - such as not dying at war)

Let's consider the right to freedom. What responsibility comes with that and privilege was removed to secure that right?

The responsibility that comes with it is that a free man is responsible for his protection, for his nutrition, and for his well being. The right that comes with it, is the right to live ones life anyway one wishes. The privilege that was removed, was the privilege of having others protect you, others care about your well-being, and having others provide your nutrition.

When a child becomes an adult, one loses the privilege of being supported, protected and taken care of ones parents, but in return gains the freedom to live one's life however one wishes.

Simple enough for ya?

How about the right to vote?

The right to vote comes from the responsibility of protecting one's homeland, at the expense of losing the privilege of having someone else do it for you.

The right to own land?

In many countries, the right to own land is reserved only for the countries citizens. Again, traditionally, those who fought to protect their homeland (or fought to acquire more land) were the ones granted the right to own land. Follows from the logic in the above explanation.

Individuals apply for jobs. It is up to individuals to consider what is best for their family. That's not for the government to supervise. That's impossible. Are you suggesting that there be laws that say that you must demonstrate that you're able to provide for your family before you can be permitted to have a job? Should the government likewise have to then establish that someone has the sufficient income to procreate? Sounds pretty crazy when it's stated more plainly like that, doesn't it?

You mentioned that one should considers families as units rather than individuals, and now you are bringing individuals back into the equation. I am not sure what you are arguing about here, as I merely poked a hole in your logic, and apparently it worked.

See above. You have devised this semantic game about rights, privileges, responsibilities, etc and you keep stating a nonsensical rule and saying we're violating it.

Your calling my logic a semantic game is all the more proof that you cannot distinguish between what a responsibility, a right, and a privilege are.

I was speaking hypothetically to make the point that "better" doesn't mean there's no room for improvement. I said that Armenia may be better, but that doesn't mean making some changes couldn't improve things.

One moment you're hypothetical, the next moment you are serious, and apparently the only one that can distinguish between the two is yourself. You asserted that Armenia is not better, then you said it may be better. This is more like a contradiction than a hypothetical situation.

Again with the rights and responsibilities. Why don't you speak concretely rather than in these abstractions so people can make sense of what you're trying to say. I asked you what you mean by "act like men" or "act like women" and you still haven't defined those phrases.

If one doesn't understand what are "rights, responsibilities, and privilege" then one cannot ask for rights, responsibilities, or privilege.

Act like men, here are two good ones: becoming a wage-slave for the family and being drafted to war and dying.

Is telling me that my post should go in a separate thread not the same as saying it doesn't belong in this thread (i.e. it's not appropriate for this thread?).

Oh, that's what you were talking about. In that case, I was, and still am suggesting that if you want to post stuff unrelated to the topic of the thread, you should start a new thread. I think that's pretty much common sense.

Well the more information you base a decision on the more likely you are to be correct, so you can decide what chance of being wrong is acceptable to you. I believe people generally try to be wrong as little as possible.

Again, how much is enough information. If fear of being wrong should keep one collecting more and more information, one will never form an opinion as there is always more information to come.

I missed the part where you decided to criticize my vocabulary because I insulted you. And while we're at it, what "insult" are you even talking about?

You essentially called me "Hostile and arrogant", but used longer words. That I believe is an insult I put forth that you were hiding behind fancy words, and because the comment was directed at me, I am free to form whatever opinion I want based entirely on my comprehension of the insult.

When did I criticize your vocabulary...? I have no idea if that happened in your mind, or you just made it up on the stop just for the sake of the argument.

You know if you continue on like this, people will assume you have poor reading comprehension. I didn't say I was and I didn't say I wasn't. You assumed that I was saying I wasn't a feminist (something I didn't say) and I clarified that I didn't say whether I would consider myself as such one way or the other. I am doing better than assigning a label about group membership and leaving it to people to guess what my views are based on that group membership. Instead, I am sharing those views/beliefs outright.

Ok, so I should change my approach so as to please you and other who might "assume that I have poor reading comprehension." Oh gosh, someone, somewhere might think I'm retarded, I should really stop what I'm doing, and be sure to please everyone around me, because by golly, how would I go to sleep at night if someone out there might think lowly of my intelligence.

Just to quote myself.

I've been given my intellect by God, and he so may chose to place me in front of another of superior intellect, be it male or female. That wouldn't phase me one bit.

Life is too short and waits for no one to sit around and contemplate whether someone somewhere is more intelligent than he.

And also,
Based on my posts, people are free to form whatever opinion of me they want. That's their opinion, and they're entitled to it. I couldn't care less. Unless, of coarse, they act like Haykakan and call me names that in no way can be derived based on what I've said.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

I was going to post something but Siggie posted it with a different wording. I don't see it necessary to repeat certain things. As for me, I would like to maintain a career (doing what I like), take care of babies (if I have any someday) and spend time with my man. You do not get a degree to put it on the shelf and let it be buried by dust… I get a degree to be able to work, to have a presence in the society, to do what I like doing and fulfill my inner (non-material) needs. The moment my career affects my baby or my relationship; I'll put it away, no matter how much I 'earn' or anything. My family would be my absolute priority... And a relationship is based on mutual understanding, respect and love, it's not a matter of who's leading, who's following.
Regarding the chores, as a woman I can tell you, it's so sexy when a man helps the woman do certain stuff every once in a while. It actually brings them closer together, in my opinion.

I see a lot of women falling into this category... realizing it's too much to raise kids and maintain a career so they decide to stay home which puts a huge amount of strain on a family that is used to having 2 incomes. Where you had 2 people working to support 2 people, now you have 1 supporting 3 or 4 or more. That is where things usually start falling apart. Babies aren't cheap... do the math, you'd be surprised how much you spend on diapers alone. What is worse is the basic stuff like potty training and feeding, discipline, etc. that goes into raising a baby suffers if juggling work and that's why you see 3 or 4 or even 5 year olds still in diapers here in the wild, wild west.

I think rules should be, whoever has the highest income gets to stay home with the kids. I'm all for empowering women

Oh, and a degree doesn't necessarily translate into employment as there are thousands of people with bachelors and masters degrees looking for work at the moment. Not to sound pessimistic but this is reality.

[Siggie]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

A 3-5 pt difference in IQ can be the difference between a mentally challenged and somewhat normal person.

Only if that difference occurs right at that cutoff in IQ. And they don't classify people as mentally retarded just based on IQ. They consider other factors as well since those who would be 1 point above or below the cutoff would not be very different and they also have to consider the error rate.

Sounds like skepticism.

I think you are confusing skepticism and cynicism. It's a common mistake.

Federate did not state that he posted the source on your behalf nor did you mention that Federate will be posting the source on your behalf.

He posted it before I replied. What's your point?

This is a very political issue not unlike the global warming issue.

They are not the same. Politics and science aren't the same thing. Politicians may argue about something all they want, but that does not change which direction the evidence points. There is consensus in the scientific community on global warming and on the issue of sex differences in intelligence, they're still arguing over the best way to measure intelligence.

Now you are talking about social change rather than legal rights, and what evidence do you have to suggest that Women in Armenia are hesitant to apply for a job? However, if you really want to encourage women, make sure that the laws change that women are drafted into the army, and in equal numbers as men, and make sure no more men die at war than women.

There you go with the army again. Okay, let's draft both parents and leave the children to work and fend for themselves. You don't see how military service is a little different from most jobs? Notice, I would never demand that equal number of female firefighters be hired. You keep making things black and white when they are not. I would say women should be allowed to apply. If they can perform the duties required for the job, then there's no reason why they shouldn't be hired.
What does saying that women should have the same employment opportunities have to do with the draft?

No, I'm merely stating that rights come responsibilities, and the removal of privilege is a necessity prior to the giving of rights.

This makes sense in your mind? I think I'm an intelligent person, and I don't follow this logic. Either it doesn't actually follow logically or you're not explaining it well.

Let's consider the right to freedom. What responsibility comes with that and privilege was removed to secure that right?

How about the right to vote?

The right to own land?

That would mean we should not encourage laws and social changes that concentrate on individuals, but rather encourage laws and social changes that concentrate on a family unit. If that is so, then encouraging women to work, and passing specific laws to make sure they can becomes irrelevant.

Individuals apply for jobs. It is up to individuals to consider what is best for their family. That's not for the government to supervise. That's impossible. Are you suggesting that there be laws that say that you must demonstrate that you're able to provide for your family before you can be permitted to have a job? Should the government likewise have to then establish that someone has the sufficient income to procreate? Sounds pretty crazy when it's stated more plainly like that, doesn't it?

To reiterate, one cannot arbitrarily pick and choose which rights and responsibilities she wants, and when.

See above. You have devised this semantic game about rights, privileges, responsibilities, etc and you keep stating a nonsensical rule and saying we're violating it.

In your previous post you agreed that the situation in Armenia (parenting) may be better, and now you are asking me to cite my sources. Hmmmm..?

I was speaking hypothetically to make the point that "better" doesn't mean there's no room for improvement. I said that Armenia may be better, but that doesn't mean making some changes couldn't improve things.

If women don't act like men and have the same responsibilities, they cannot expect the same rights as men.
If men don't act like women and have the same responsibilities, they cannot expect the same rights as women.

Again with the rights and responsibilities. Why don't you speak concretely rather than in these abstractions so people can make sense of what you're trying to say. I asked you what you mean by "act like men" or "act like women" and you still haven't defined those phrases.

Notice, I never told you what appropriate content is, just state that in my opinion, my content is appropriate.

Is telling me that my post should go in a separate thread not the same as saying it doesn't belong in this thread (i.e. it's not appropriate for this thread?).

There is never enough information. How much information is enough information in order to make a judgment?

Well the more information you base a decision on the more likely you are to be correct, so you can decide what chance of being wrong is acceptable to you. I believe people generally try to be wrong as little as possible.

Your insult was directed at me, so I think I'm free to make conclusions based on my vocabulary, not yours.

I missed the part where you decided to criticize my vocabulary because I insulted you. And while we're at it, what "insult" are you even talking about?

Ok, so you're a feminist, but don't want to say it outright.

You know if you continue on like this, people will assume you have poor reading comprehension. I didn't say I was and I didn't say I wasn't. You assumed that I was saying I wasn't a feminist (something I didn't say) and I clarified that I didn't say whether I would consider myself as such one way or the other. I am doing better than assigning a label about group membership and leaving it to people to guess what my views are based on that group membership. Instead, I am sharing those views/beliefs outright.

[levon]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

I didn't say that IQ tests don't mean much nor did I say that differences in IQ don't mean much. I said 3-5pt differences don't mean much. I was hinting at a larger difference than that.

A 3-5 pt difference in IQ can be the difference between a mentally challenged and somewhat normal person.

You misunderstood. It is not based on skepticism alone because I READ the quotes that were attributed to them in the news article you posted. I said I disagreed with what they said in the quotes in the article you posted from a mass media source. So, I did indeed read that one. What I have not read is the article which should be given more weight because it is not susceptible to the misrepresentations of the less scientifically literate news reporter.

Sounds like skepticism.

I did not fail to cite a source when you asked, I merely asked him to do it (1) for the reason above that he is more knowledgeable on this particular source

Federate did not state that he posted the source on your behalf nor did you mention that Federate will be posting the source on your behalf.

(2) because you seem predisposed to twist my words and disagree with everything I say because you have already made up your mind about me.

That's just your opinion.

This point and intelligence are the only things you asked me to cite a source for, so I resent your implication that I, a scientist, mind you, need to be taught to cite my sources.

Your resentment is yours alone.

You pointed to a single study when there is a vast body of research on the subject of sex differences in cognitive abilities/intelligence. So, finding one study to support what you say doesn't say much because replication and consideration of all the evidence as a whole is necessary before drawing conclusions.

This is a very political issue not unlike the global warming issue.

So, on to some sources...

Thanks for your sources.

So, the willingness of the business is irrelevant if women won't apply to some jobs (or men to different jobs for that matter) because of social stigma or social acceptance. Women may be hesitant to apply if society is going to label them as an irresponsible parent, bad wife, etc.

Now you are talking about social change rather than legal rights, and what evidence do you have to suggest that Women in Armenia are hesitant to apply for a job? However, if you really want to encourage women, make sure that the laws change that women are drafted into the army, and in equal numbers as men, and make sure no more men die at war than women.

You are making assumptions about the family dynamic, or rather ignoring them, in the direction needed for you to disagree rather than asking for clarification.

No, I'm merely stating that rights come responsibilities, and the removal of privilege is a necessity prior to the giving of rights.

I would think of the family as a unit rather than men and women individual. The family has needs. The members of the family can, amongst themselves, decide what is the best way for their family to meet these needs.

That would mean we should not encourage laws and social changes that concentrate on individuals, but rather encourage laws and social changes that concentrate on a family unit. If that is so, then encouraging women to work, and passing specific laws to make sure they can becomes irrelevant.

The point I am trying to make is that we need to think of the family as ONE unit. With Lucin, when she said she would leave her job if it was negatively impacting her performance as a mother, you assumed that she would do so without consulting her husband. However, it never crossed her mind to have to explicitly state that this would be a family decision because it was an obvious given to her.

To reiterate, one cannot arbitrarily pick and choose which rights and responsibilities she wants, and when.

You said that my situation was an exception.

Not sure how that relates to what I posted.

Please cite your sources that demonstrates that Western culture produces more maladjusted children than well-adjusted ones.

In your previous post you agreed that the situation in Armenia (parenting) may be better, and now you are asking me to cite my sources. Hmmmm..?

Clarify this please. What do you mean by men acting like women and vice-versa and on what basis do you argue that it should not occur in Armenia? You are implying that there are negative consequences to this? What are they?
I didn't say that women should act like men. I don't even know what that means.

If women don't act like men and have the same responsibilities, they cannot expect the same rights as men.
If men don't act like women and have the same responsibilities, they cannot expect the same rights as women.

Equality is an all or none deal.

I've been moderating without your help for years and I don't need it now. Please, do not tell me what is appropriate content for this thread. My post was on topic and therefore appropriate for the thread.

Notice, I never told you what appropriate content is, just state that in my opinion, my content is appropriate.

Perhaps, but my point was that it is unwise to make such broad judgments in light of very little information because the risk of being wrong is great. So, in essence, you are saying "I am doing A" and I am saying "Doing A is wrong."

There is never enough information. How much information is enough information in order to make a judgment?

You say this, but when I tell you that you are wrong, you carry on just the same way and say that you are going based on "what [ I] exposed" which is the very thing I said it's erroneous to do. So, it sounds like you're saying that you are going to draw broad (often attributional) conclusions about the person regardless.

.... see the above again.

I don't know who you are speaking to, but this is what I encounter in everyday speech and it is how I normally speak. Have you considered that maybe we are exposed to different vocabulary? You can't conclude based on your own experience that I am being disingenuous. And you would first need to establish that I am communicating differently to even begin to speculate as to why.

Your insult was directed at me, so I think I'm free to make conclusions based on my vocabulary, not yours.

I didn't say that either. People's criteria for "feminist" varies wildly and I just said that you should be careful not to assume that I subscribe to every belief you would associate with feminists. The label has come to be associated with such extreme views that most women hesitate to identify themselves as such because people assume they are part of that extreme.

Ok, so you're a feminist, but don't want to say it outright.