Looks like the world is changing, into a woman society. Options

[PuRrFeCt GhErRl ...]

The world is changing into a much worse place...what has God punished us with?

[heroin_like_high]

I think that's true, women are having more freedom and control. BUT, also, there's a lot of young girls who are looking at their idols like Britney or Christina, and turning into complete ho's because they "have complete control" of what they wanna do with their life.

It just seems like to me, the more us women have control, the worst it gets for the youngins. They get pregnant, have boyfriends, lose their virginity all waaaaaaaaay too early. Kinda sux actually.

[PuRrFeCt GhErRl ...]

By 2024, gherrls will be losing their virginity when they're 9 yrs. old, so they'll have to change it from sweet 16 to sweet 11.

[xnastyninjagrlx]

yah I hope there might be a woman president someday..that would be really nice..

[ComradeRed]

Too bad the only woman right now who could conceivably be elected is Hillary Clinton, who is probably the scariest person in politics.

[*kryogenix*]

Too bad the only woman right now who could conceivably be elected is Hillary Clinton, who is probably the scariest person in politics.

I can't stand her. "Hey I moved to New York, that means I'm like you guy now! Vote for me!" And the worst part is, they did vote for her. Man, if Rudy G. didn't get diagnosed with cancer the world would be a better place.

Look what has happened since women have received more rights. Divorce and abortion. Hooray for women's rights!

[ComradeRed]

Look what happened when women didn't have rights! Less than half the population actually had a say in government and marriage was seen as a death trap! Horray!

"Marriage is a wonderful institution. But who would want to live in an institution?"
--HL Mencken

There's nothing wrong with EQUAL Rights for women -- they should have those -- just not SPECIAL rights for women that men do not have. Women are expected to abide by laws -- therefore, they should have a say in the society.

Rudy Giuliani would lose to Hillray Clinton in an election. As popular as he is, HE WAS A MAYOR. To be a President, you have to be at least a Governor or a Senator first. Or at least a Representative (but even then, only a few Presidents fit this: Eisenhower, FDR, Andrew Jackson, etc.). The only person in history who was President without being in Congress or a Governor or a VP first was Washington.

I think that, for 2008, Ron Paul should run against Hillary Clinton. That would be funny. Ron Paul would barely eek out a victory... I think he'd pick up Pennsylvania because he was born in Pittsburgh, but Clinton would probably win Arkansas and Tennessee... As a "Sagebrush Rebel", Ron Paul would win Oregon and Washington too, though I think he'd lose Ohio and definitely West Virginia... Florida and Missouri would be the states to watch. Maybe Minnesota.

Of course, if the GOP Primaries were between Paul and Giuliani, Giuliani would probably win the primaries ... but lose the election.

But if Ron Paul was nominated (by some freak accident ... or the right combination of bribery and political assassination), some crazy third-party homophobia guy would run -- like Jerry Falwell -- and win Utah.

If I could reincarnate the dead, I'd reincarnate Davy Crockett for President and Barry Goldwater for Veep. I would do Thomas Jefferson, but he's already had two terms so it'd be quite unconstitutional.

[ryfitaDF]

wheres the problem?

[TrannieL]

Woman president, i hope there will be one in the US

- Tran -

[*kryogenix*]

Look what happened when women didn't have rights! Less than half the population actually had a say in government and marriage was seen as a death trap! Horray!

"Marriage is a wonderful institution. But who would want to live in an institution?"
--HL Mencken

There's nothing wrong with EQUAL Rights for women -- they should have those -- just not SPECIAL rights for women that men do not have. Women are expected to abide by laws -- therefore, they should have a say in the society.

Rudy Giuliani would lose to Hillray Clinton in an election. As popular as he is, HE WAS A MAYOR. To be a President, you have to be at least a Governor or a Senator first. Or at least a Representative (but even then, only a few Presidents fit this: Eisenhower, FDR, Andrew Jackson, etc.). The only person in history who was President without being in Congress or a Governor or a VP first was Washington.

I think that, for 2008, Ron Paul should run against Hillary Clinton. That would be funny. Ron Paul would barely eek out a victory... I think he'd pick up Pennsylvania because he was born in Pittsburgh, but Clinton would probably win Arkansas and Tennessee... As a "Sagebrush Rebel", Ron Paul would win Oregon and Washington too, though I think he'd lose Ohio and definitely West Virginia... Florida and Missouri would be the states to watch. Maybe Minnesota.

Of course, if the GOP Primaries were between Paul and Giuliani, Giuliani would probably win the primaries ... but lose the election.

But if Ron Paul was nominated (by some freak accident ... or the right combination of bribery and political assassination), some crazy third-party homophobia guy would run -- like Jerry Falwell -- and win Utah.

If I could reincarnate the dead, I'd reincarnate Davy Crockett for President and Barry Goldwater for Veep. I would do Thomas Jefferson, but he's already had two terms so it'd be quite unconstitutional.

i was talking about the NY senate race. Where Hillary just moved to Chappaqua and claimed she was a New Yorker. And then Rudy had to drop out so Lazio had to take his place.

"Marriage is a wonderful institution. But who would want to live in an institution?"
--HL Mencken

Homosexuals.

[*CrackedRearView*]

Don't mean to break up the Girl Power rally here, but who in Heaven's name gives a rat's ass?

I've grown up completely unaware until just 5 or 6 years ago about any discrimination against women -- I've always treated them as my equal, and I don't see why people still make such a huge deal about it.

It's going to be a "woman's world" now, when I wish it could be a "person's world".

Honestly, we make such moronic fracases about the most unimportant, and (should be) insignificant issue in the climb up the success ladder, and that's what's in between your legs.

I know, in history men have oppressed women, it's been horrible, yadda yadda yadda...

But I've been alive 17 years, and 17 years discrimination free. Now I'm going to have to pay for something I had no part in doing.

Kind of like my brother did... he applied for an illustrious scholarship to the Washington University in St. Louis, played 4 years of basketball, 4 years of football, 4 years of swimming, National Honors Society, maintained a 4.2 GPA, earned a 32 on his ACT and was beat out by a feminist girl who had a mediocre mid 3 GPA, was involved in no activities, and took part in minimal challenging courses in high school.

I'm sorry, but that is injustice, and my Washington caliber brother is now forced to go to a state school.

What ever happened to basing decisions on credentials, and not body parts?

[*kryogenix*]

Don't mean to break up the Girl Power rally here, but who in Heaven's name gives a rat's ass?

I've grown up completely unaware until just 5 or 6 years ago about any discrimination against women -- I've always treated them as my equal, and I don't see why people still make such a huge deal about it.

It's going to be a "woman's world" now, when I wish it could be a "person's world".

Honestly, we make such moronic fracases about the most unimportant, and (should be) insignificant issue in the climb up the success ladder, and that's what's in between your legs.

I know, in history men have oppressed women, it's been horrible, yadda yadda yadda...

But I've been alive 17 years, and 17 years discrimination free. Now I'm going to have to pay for something I had no part in doing.

Kind of like my brother did... he applied for an illustrious scholarship to the Washington University in St. Louis, played 4 years of basketball, 4 years of football, 4 years of swimming, National Honors Society, maintained a 4.2 GPA, earned a 32 on his ACT and was beat out by a feminist girl who had a mediocre mid 3 GPA, was involved in no activities, and took part in minimal challenging courses in high school.

I'm sorry, but that is injustice, and my Washington caliber brother is now forced to go to a state school.

What ever happened to basing decisions on credentials, and not body parts?

my gosh. that's horrible.

i too feel that this feminist movement is a bit flawed. i made a comment about feminism and my english teacher (a staunch feminist) said feminism is equal rights for men and women. but it doesn't look that way at all to me.

[*CrackedRearView*]

i made a comment about feminism and my english teacher (a staunch feminist) said feminism is equal rights for men and women. but it doesn't look that way at all to me.

Sadly, that isn't the case. If it were I'd be a strong advocate of feminist ideology, but after what happened to my brother, the #2 in his class and National Merit Scholar, I'll never appreciate feminism again.

Sad thing is, it was made clear that it was a choice of affirmative action, and now that unqualified girl holds the spot at my brother's dream college that was reserved for him.

It's a crying damn shame we don't have enough to send him ourselves...it's upwards of $40,000 per year.

[ComradeRed]

Wash U at St. Louis bases its scholarships entirely on your application essay ... and they only offer 15 at each school ... it's very hard to get them.

There could've been other reasons as well, like if the woman was poorer.

In my experience, gender-based affirmative action is very low ... women only get a slight boost over men. Chances are she had a much better essay, or was poorer than your brother (income-based affirmative action is in very high effect).

Furthermore, I can tell you right now that very few scholarships are subject to affirmative action (except for scholarships that are only for blacks, etc.) Admissions IS, but financial aid isn't. I have close friends who work as admissions staff at Chicago and Duke (I've also recieved very in-depth information about Brown's admissions office when I was there this summer), which both have similiar financial aid programs to Washington University.

Full merit-based scholarships are usually based on arcane criteria like how much they like your essay, that it is NOT a good idea to depend on them. I've been sent applications by every Ivy League school except Columbia without asking, I have five 800 SAT 2 scores, including Writing and Math 2C, straight-5s on AP Tests, qualified to the AIME twice, had my school's highest Math League scores since Sophomore Year, ranked in the top 5% of my class, which is already one of the most competitive schools in Pennsylvania, National Merit Scholar (226 on the PSAT), 1590 SAT, 2nd place debater in my state, a national semifinalist in debate, 300 hours of community service, and I've attended three years of summer school and have straight-As at four different colleges, including an Ivy League one, and I'm doing a MAJOR research thesis senior year of high school... And I'm not even trying to get merit money. My friend at Chicago said that the process is unpredictable as hell and usually depends on how much the reading committee likes your essay more than anything else such as grades, tests, etc. You simply can't blame affirmative action for that. It doesn't play a role.

Moreover, Wash-U is very richly-endowed. Even if you didn't get merit-based aid, I'm sure that if you really needed the money, you could've gotten need-based aid.

[sikdragon]

didnt i say feminism is the worst thing to happen to america through out it's history.

I hope there isnt a female president in the near future. Margaret Thatcher is the only woman who had the cognitive capacity to lead a nation such as ours, but she is dead. No other woman has shown the ability to rise to the occasion without letting emotion control her.

I'm not sexist. For those who think i am, I feel sorry for you.

[ComradeRed]

If women really don't have enough cognitive capacity, how come they are a majority at all eight Ivy League schools? How come women on average score higher on the SATs and IQ tests than men do?

The only reason women don't get elected much is because they tend to be SHORTER than men -- 90% of the time, the taller guy beats the shorter guy in an election.

[*CrackedRearView*]

In my experience, gender-based affirmative action is very low ... women only get a slight boost over men. Chances are she had a much better essay, or was poorer than your brother (income-based affirmative action is in very high effect).

It was probably the latter, because my brother scored a 5 on his English 11 AP exam, a 5 on his English 12 AP exam, was the chief editor of our high school's newspaper, and is finishing up his (great, in my opinion) novella.

[ComradeRed]

Perhaps then.