1950s: an average couple. man works, woman stays home. man earns $x a year. cost of a house: let's say 3x

1960-70-80: woman begin entering the workforce. man still earns $x a year (adjusted for inflation), woman prob a bit less. this couple can now outbid other couples on housing. market drives house cost up to 5x

90s - now: market forces now dictate that both partners work. meanwhile, even there has been redress in the gender pay gap, both actually earn less when adjusted for inflation

In short, if you want to be a stay-at-home mom (and there's nothing wrong with that) feminism is not your enemy, capitalism is.

It's approximately one year on employment insurance, your employer may choose to be friendly and "top it up" to a certain percentage for a certain number of weeks. If you're a government employee, your salary is topped up to 92% or so for the entire duration (that's a tad over the top IMO but, that's part of the package). And of course, the employment insurance is technically paid by the employee who is on leave (prior to going on leave). And yes, either the woman or the man can take leave but many employers will afford some time to allow the "other" parent some time off.

To those who don't support social programs, you can go fuck yourselves. If you don't want to be paid when you have to take time off to raise a young baby, then don't apply for coverage. Then, send your kids to private school since public school is socially funded. Oh, and if you live in Canada, and don't like socialism, INSIST that you pay for your hospital stay -- but, you won't do that will you? You're just a fucking hypocrite.

>> ^Sagemind:

In Canada - I believe it's 6-9 months (Paid- although at a reduced rate) leave. And either the man or the woman can take the leave - but not both.

As an American raised on British comedy (Python, the Goodies, Douglas Adams, Terry Pratchett, Eddie Izzard, Ricky Gervais....) it appears that the strain of snobbery still runs deep in the English psyche. There seems to be a sense of entitlement among the upper class that its fine to be horribly rude to those you consider to be less educated. While the Cambridge-Oxford educated Python's took the upper class to task for this, I wonder if Ricky Gervais, who has working class roots, has affected this as a social climbing technique. He is very funny, and obviously very intellegent, but he is unbelievably cruel to Karl, and other people he considers to be friends. The woman and last man that Karl talks to treat him with the contempt that I find offensive.

Shame on me? Excuse me?

Have you ever been beaten to within an inch of your life while people stood around and watched, waiting all civilized-like for 'someone else' to help you?

I sure hope not, because it isn't civilized at all...and that's what happens in a majority of cases. In my case, the police found him, jailed him, let him out a couple of days later and he was even MORE pissed at me and violent. A restraining order is nice and civilized, too...but it's just a piece of paper that will never stop a determined angry fist or trigger finger.

When you figure out and implement a perfect solution to domestic violence that actually works, I'll be the first to pat you on the back. In the mean-time, STFU. Please. (See, I'm civilized too.)

>> ^robbersdog49: This sentiment is so misguided. Violence is a terrible thing, but to say that the response should be more violence, by a mob no less, is even worse. We don't live by mob rule, we live in a civilised society. Men are no more able to defend themselves than women. Every fight has a winner and a loser (I use the term winner loosely as I really think there are only two losers) be it between a woman and a man or between a man and a man. And what happens if the man doing the beating is the biggest guy around? What happens if he has friends who think the same as him? Is it OK then?
Mob rule is best left to the animals, we're better than that. You can't fight violence with violence. Shame on you.

>> ^laura:

I liked this video, but have to disagree with him on one thing.
I don't want to see my government be more responsible for helping to stop domestic violence.
I don't think that's government's place.
I want to see more of the decent men in this world (which I have in recent years learned that there are more of than there are shit-heads) step up together as they find themselves neighbors or friends of men who beat their wives.
I would have loved to see the men peeking from the windows of their cars or houses, the men standing across the street when I was being abused...step up and beat the living daylights out of my ex. It's something men need to do for other men, I say.
Women can't defend themselves the same way men can (basic physiological differences unless of course the woman has a black belt...) and I like the idea of decent men putting indecent men in their place/teaching them some manners.
But that's just me.


This sentiment is so misguided. Violence is a terrible thing, but to say that the response should be more violence, by a mob no less, is even worse. We don't live by mob rule, we live in a civilised society. Men are no more able to defend themselves than women. Every fight has a winner and a loser (I use the term winner loosely as I really think there are only two losers) be it between a woman and a man or between a man and a man. And what happens if the man doing the beating is the biggest guy around? What happens if he has friends who think the same as him? Is it OK then?

Mob rule is best left to the animals, we're better than that. You can't fight violence with violence. Shame on you.

Well, lets see...

I don't know who any of these people are. I don't know where they live or what they do. As anyone could, I could research it, but my point is, I have no vested interest over one side or the other.

To my brain:
I see someone approaching the vehicle, when they shouldn't be and stuffing a sign into a window in an offensive manner.
Then I see, what could be security pulling her back, and several other people joining in.
Then we loose sight of what's going on.
SWITCH to the other video.
I see a disguise being removed and a woman being pushed to the ground.
Then as that guy is pushed off her by another woman, the "Second' man gives her an extra push with his foot (as if to say, "You've failed, stay down.")

So in the end, what I make of this is: Someone went where they knew they wouldn't be welcomed, tried to stir a bee hive, succeeded, got stung and then, cried foul.

- Was she in the wrong? Yes.
- Was there a lot of energy in the air? Yes.
- Should they have hurt her? No.
- Did she need to be pushed to the ground? Don't know - she was resisting being detained - I can't tell.
- Did he recognize her, and out of spite, put his foot into her. Possibly, yes.
- Should they have detained her and called the police? Yes, and they did.

What I do see clearly is that politics and it's supporters all act like children in the playground with no adults around to supervise them. I personally find all the "Hoopla" of chanting, cheering, partying and rallying quite childish and sophomoric. I'm not surprised whey their festivities go awry.

It makes me think of William Golding's, "Lord of the flies."

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Well, seems AnimalsForCrackers once again downvotes my comments for what? Not sure. But since you downvote every comment I make, I have a few theories... You must love to beat off to downvoting my comments... Or, as you sacrafice babies born to religious parents, with coat hangers through their eyes, you must be praying to the Atheist god of reason... No? Not there yet? Or perhaps I am a more understanding Atheist and that drives you to prove yourself?
All hyperbole aside... What I find funny Animals, is that your opinion (Blame religion for every human woe in the world,) is dying here on the sift. Why? Because it is extreme and holds no place in reason. Grow up and stop being the 13 year old you are acting like. I promise to do the same in kind. Because, just stooping to your level makes me feel dirty.

You impertinent, lying fuckstick. I downvoted because I disagreed with your use of post-modernist relativism and the whole freedom = bad mantra, I don't need to give a fucking explanation to downvote someone I disagree with. Downvotes must really piss you the fuck off to elicit such a response. "Wah wah! I was downvoted! I do declare I might be coming down with a case of the vapors!" They are a part of the site, and should be used more than they are when expressing disapproval of a comment, in my opinion. Learn to get over it, everyone else does.
What I don't see others doing is calling someone out for an individual downvote and then claiming the downvoter is the one who is acting like a child while lying and strawmanning in an attempt to prove it. Project on, my friend, project on! <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/teeth.gif">
"Blame religion for every human woe"? I cannot even think of one person who wasn't a flyby troll who has done that here, let alone myself! Nice picture of the Sift that you're painting for us all. "Downvote your every [BOLDED FOR EMPHASIS, yours, mind you] comment"? Well then, if you went out of your way to bold that one word then it must mean you are like really super duper serious! Make a Sift Talk, thems grounds for bannination, we've seen many come and go for that offense. Unfortunately you are a liar, and this is easy for anyone to verify. If you could kindly quote where I have said that or show that I have downvoted anywhere approaching ALL(a few comments = all in Lawdeedaw world) of yours comments, that'd be great. Please get back to me on that, okay, cupcake? <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/wink.gif">
Have any more words to put into my mouth? Fuck off with your dishonesty.


Touchy.

Your opinions are valid about revisionism, even if you can never prove them. They are yours, so keep them and try to explain them. I simply would rather have a debate of reason, something none can do while calling each other names, than a click of a down-arrow and you occasionally saying somehting like, "You are wrong Law, you take the pussy way out and do not blame religion at all."

I do not mind a downvote, in fact I have been downvoted by many and am fine-as-peach-wine with those downvotes---but when they grow to "Oh, another downvote by, I wonder who? Oh, its Animals again, surprise surprise," I stop finding it amusing.

I was not even offended by you at first, and took many of your downvotes casually.

Further, I only bolded "Every" because bold is a function on the sift and just like a "downvote," I think it should be used more often. Thanks for unintentionally pointing that out Animals! Learn to get over it please.

Oh, and I clearly stated that blaming religion for every woe was a dying horse on the Sift. I congradulated and congradulate the entire Sift again.

Addionally, I clearly stated that I was using hyperbole(I.E using hyperbole) when I was making the assertions about you "Downvoting ALL," my comments. That makes the statements satire, like the comedy Lewis Black uses... And since I stated they were blown outlandishly out of proportion, everyone knew they were intentionally ficticous. In short, I did not lie, nor did I insult you with a personal attack---I made a clear joke. Kind of like when you were joking (I assume) and called me an "impertinent, lying fuckstick." If you were not joking there, I am sorry I assumed you were; however, I would like you to prove that I am indeed a "fuckstick." And since fuckstick is a made up word, good luck with that.

Also, since we are speaking of Sift Talk and being 100% accurate, prove to me where I am actually a "cupcake" as you stated. The definition of cupcake follows;
"1. a small cake, the size of an individual portion, baked in a cup-shaped mold.
2. Older Slang .
a. a sexually attractive young woman.
b. a beloved girl or woman." (Dictionary Reference)

This is, by definition, the equivilent of calling me a transvestite (Although there is nothing wrong with being a transvesite, I am not a transvestite,) and I would like veryfiable evidence that I am indeed a woman in a man's body. Either that, or you were calling me a food product, which I doubt I am.

After all, since we want to be 100% correct in ALL statements, get back with me on that. Either that, or you lied, and never made it clear you were joking. Which makes them lies.

Threats aside (I find them amusing) it seems, with your diatribe, that you took far more offense to my comments than I to your downvote. Because I am so offense, I am stopping here. Lawdeedaw out.

Sigh... what really suffers from this stupid stupid ruling is the cases of real rape where sexual intercourse is forced on another person (male or female). This devalues the real crime.

"If a woman or a man feel they were given wrong information, then it is rape."

No. Just no... It is lying, it is deceit, it isn't rape.

Edit: here's a good example to put this in perspective. On internet dating sites people lie about their height, weight, income, amount of hair they have.

If a woman sleeps with a man wearing a toupee and after the fact finds out the hair was fake, is that rape? According to this mindless cunt and the racist people she represents, yes. Fuck her and every idiot that thinks like her.

>> ^gorillaman:

I don't get it. I suggest I'd be up for a threeway with another guy and the conclusions you draw from that are 1. I'm repressed and 2. I'm a homophobe?
In reply to this comment by bananafone:
>> ^gorillaman:
I don't understand, this video is about a woman offering a man sex and he's saying no?

Let me guess, the next thing you're going to do is question his sexuality.
I feel bad for men. Your expression of sexuality is so limited.


Actually it's a different kind of bigotry. A much more pervasive one. Guys who don't want sex are seen as inferior since it's supposed to be women who don't want sex. And we can't have men acting like women.

I don't get it. I suggest I'd be up for a threeway with another guy and the conclusions you draw from that are 1. I'm repressed and 2. I'm a homophobe?

In reply to this comment by bananafone:
>> ^gorillaman:

I don't understand, this video is about a woman offering a man sex and he's saying no?


Let me guess, the next thing you're going to do is question his sexuality.

I feel bad for men. Your expression of sexuality is so limited.

>> ^gorillaman:

I don't understand, this video is about a woman offering a man sex and he's saying no?


Let me guess, the next thing you're going to do is question his sexuality.

I feel bad for men. Your expression of sexuality is so limited.

I don't understand, this video is about a woman offering a man sex and he's saying no?

Good call. I awoke this morning with disgusting imagery in my head. Maybe I'll throw in a Pixar movie to cleanse the palette.

Yes, I did see Paranormal Activity. I thought it was boring, amateurish, un-scary and about an hour too long. Antichrist isn't so much scary as it is just foul. Since you aren't going to see it, I'll tell you what you're missing:

(SPOILERS)

*A woman hitting a man in the penis with a log.

*A woman masturbating said penis, which ejaculates blood.

*A woman drilling a hole through a man's leg and attaching a heavy weight, secured by a large bolt.

*A woman cutting off her own clitoris.


In reply to this comment by EndAll:
Wow. So it really lives up to the hype, eh? I don't think I'd make it through the whole thing, based off your description.. couldn't even make it through 'Paranormal Activity', although that was kinda shitty to be fair. You seen it? Kinda Blair-Witchy. Thanks for the heads up about this Antichrist, though. I'd rather watch a movie and have to think and be entertained than be revolted and scared! Horror movies never really appealed to me because of that, but some of them do indeed make for great cinema. If anything, I'd watch Antichrist for the cinematography - it looked beautiful.

Thanks to rasch for promoting this fascinating sift.

I think this was a fallacious study though, insofar as they are trying to display a double standard. The people intervened in the case with the man abusing the woman not exclusively because it was a man abusing the woman. Rather, it was because the man was OVERPOWERING the woman. In the case with the woman abusing the man, she was absolutely not overpowering him. to the bystanders, she just looked like some borderline-ish fiery redhead and he just looked like a chooch for not walking away. The way she was going about it was absurd, and he was like reading the newspaper and shiii during it. So this experiment was not REALLY that telling. For it to be a proper role-reversal, the woman would have had be significantly stronger than the man or would have had to have a knife or something.

That said, having dated a semi-abusive woman for a long time, I can understand how EMOTIONALLY damaging someone like that can be, so don't think I don't understand the nature and seriousness of that kind of abuse. Its just not the samee, though, because I could always walk away or overpower her in order to get her to stop. Anyone who thinks that such a case is just as bad a a man abusing a woman is fooling themselves.

I do think tha ladies who called the cops did the right thing, though, because the guy was not doing what was in his power... to stop it. Also, they were both disturbing the peace.

sure... but i wasn't calling you out for your opinion of the situation. just your choice of words.
"pussy ass little faggot"
equating violent losers with derogatory descriptions of gays.


In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by berticus:
>> ^enoch:
pussy ass little faggot is what that fucking douchebag is.

*sigh* dude.. you know better.

>> ^enoch:
man..i want to kiss his ass after seeing this!

... karma.

fooker!
can you believe that?
man..i suuuuuuuck.
but for real.i do have three sisters,and i tend to be very protective of all women in my care.
that does not mean a woman can do as she wishes,for instance:
if a woman strikes a man she is taking the place of a man and the rules dont apply.
not knowing all the variables in this vid,and judging just by what i saw.
the mans response was not justified and could have caused irreparable damage to the young lady.
i had a very visceral response to this video,all i could think of was my sisters,my neighbors,my female students.
i dont respect men who put their hands on women,and have be known to confront those who do.
maybe its the way i was raised....i dunno..genetic?
eh../shrugs..just think its wrong.
knowhatimsayin?