Dating "Deal Braker"

[elvikun]

@undetz
Well absolutely. I think noone should.
I'm for proffesional army. Also allows for more individual approach. Equality is a nice word, but everyone is different. It just seems to me that the army looks at a person, finds out what are they good at and makes them do the opposite at the moment.

@Kadath
If we were to be really fair, we should strip the right to vote from men for thousand years of two, and also they should be treated as a commodity for few centuries. Wouldn't hurt to burn or stone a few either.
What I'm saying: Don't go there, because if we were to be fair, noone would like it in this case 

[AceHigh]

If we were to be really fair, we should strip the right to vote from men for thousand years of two, and also they should be treated as a commodity for few centuries. Wouldn't hurt to burn or stone a few either.
What I'm saying: Don't go there, because if we were to be fair, noone would like it in this case 

In modern moral view, justice does not judge you for the sins of your predecessors. So there is no way fairness is exercised based on what your predecessors did 2000 years ago. You point is invalid. Also you don't even have to go that far back to come across an age where neither men nor women had any voting rights. Alas our lives will last for around 80 years and it is these ones that are relevant for fairness in equality.

Oh and Israel has compulsory military service for women. Equality for the win.

Oh, and in our army for some reason MP battalion has the highest percentage of females... then comes the sanitation battalion. Thinking about it, we also have an abnormal amount of female police officers in my country, at least compared to others.

[Saras]

To be honest, the "mother's leave" that women fought for so much is quite a bit of the reason why women are avoided in higher positions. I've had a brief experience working in HR and while there, I did indeed "knock-off" a lot of them on the list for basically any critical position. If you were a just married 20-year-something, you could've been damn sure I'd cross your name out of the list nearly outright for any position that was of either high value or without a certain amount of redundancy in the system.

[AceHigh]

There would be shitstorm if what you said would leak into public if you lived in my country. Basically since fathers have the same right to have paternal leave over here, it is not all that different from women. In fact it is easier, because unlike illness or accidents, this is something employers can plan ahead of.

If the day comes when my demonic offspring is born, I am sure as hell not going to spend my time at work all the time leaving the cheerful days sleepless nights to the mother alone.

[kadatherion]

@undetz
Well absolutely. I think noone should.
I'm for proffesional army. Also allows for more individual approach. Equality is a nice word, but everyone is different. It just seems to me that the army looks at a person, finds out what are they good at and makes them do the opposite at the moment.

On a serious note for a little while, I find myself always a bit in doubt about that. I myself went for the alternative civil service when it was my time, but I'm a bit mistrustful of 100% professional armies. Not that a professional soldier has to be a fanatic, but I have this lingering feeling that when half the force is made by youngsters that didn't really choose that path for themselves they can work as a deterrent against certain... excesses.

On a lighter note it should also be told that compulsory service (before it was abolished just a few years ago) had an important role in my country at making independent men out of children and at spreading literacy (we are quite linguistically fragmented from one region to the other). The latter is probably an outdated need as the media and internet have taken over that role, but the former... I don't know, in the wrong way (to my beliefs), maybe, but it surely prepared people to live into society instead of being pampered by their parents up to their thirties. I guess what in America happens with their college system kind of does the same thing, but we now have neither option. It's actually a great recipe for making Italy the new paradise for hikikomori

@Kadath
If we were to be really fair, we should strip the right to vote from men for thousand years of two, and also they should be treated as a commodity for few centuries. Wouldn't hurt to burn or stone a few either.
What I'm saying: Don't go there, because if we were to be fair, noone would like it in this case 

Given the choices I'm offered in the voting booth it might not be that much of a sacrifice. The commodity thing might be... convenient too, as long as you treat your toys well. Sounds good so far, but burning and stoning? Damn, that's a deal breaker.

[elvikun]

If we were to be really fair, we should strip the right to vote from men for thousand years of two, and also they should be treated as a commodity for few centuries. Wouldn't hurt to burn or stone a few either.
What I'm saying: Don't go there, because if we were to be fair, noone would like it in this case 

In modern moral view, justice does not judge you for the sins of your predecessors. So there is no way fairness is exercised based on what your predecessors did 2000 years ago. You point is invalid. Also you don't even have to go that far back to come across an age where neither men nor women had any voting rights. Alas our lives will last for around 80 years and it is these ones that are relevant for fairness in equality.

Oh and Israel has compulsory military service for women. Equality for the win.

Oh, and in our army for some reason MP battalion has the highest percentage of females... then comes the sanitation battalion. Thinking about it, we also have an abnormal amount of female police officers in my country, at least compared to others.

Oh, I see. Retroactive justice on men is invalid, but women should make up for what they didn't have to do troughout the history.
...
You have noticed it's a "jest" reaction, right? If women should make up for the time they weren't forced into army, then men should... Get it? I hope so Mr. Menaresoopressed


@Seras
Well, not everyone wants kids and treating all women from 18 to 45 as if they could disappear at any given time just isn't fair. It just isn't. Not much more to add there.

@Kadath
Proffesional army just makes it a job with strongly above average payment, potentially high-risk and no real education requiments. Not sure why anyone would be fanatical. Forcing or tricking people in doesn't really seem that cool to me.

And thinking about it, having the right t vote just doesn't seem to be so much win today. It's like having the right to choose whether you'll loose left or right eye. And don't worry, the stoning and burning will come only if you'll have sex, masturbate or do serious crimes, like leaving your house without asking if you're allowed to.

[Saras]

There would be shitstorm if what you said would leak into public if you lived in my country. Basically since fathers have the same right to have paternal leave over here, it is not all that different from women. In fact it is easier, because unlike illness or accidents, this is something employers can plan ahead of.

If the day comes when my demonic offspring is born, I am sure as hell not going to spend my time at work all the time leaving the cheerful days sleepless nights to the mother alone.

Same here. However, since this is an internet forum and I don't work there anymore.

Anyway, Lithuania's laws for mother's leave is basically draconian what concerns the employer. Any women who is likely to have a kid in the near future is the equivalent of a ticking time bomb. I've seen many businesses ruined by them already, and a small industry simply can't afford such a risk. Now, of course, that is never given as the official reason why someone was declined from position x, I wouldn't have gone out of court till now if it was, lol.


@Elvis
No, it is by no means fair. I do not deny it. For redundant positions, no one gives a damn. But what concerns critical points, you can't really afford someone just disappearing on you for a year and a half. While you're only allowed to temporally employ a "dummy" in her place. Out of three years worth of operations, you basically lose one and a half. And I've yet to see a female applicant propose enough over a male applicant to justify the risk of that happening, whether she's intending for a family or not.

And there were plenty of cases here where a lady in basically in her second month got a job, just to secure the advantages that come with being working and "pregnant". Needless to say, if the company is an up and coming starter, it's a nearly guaranteed bankruptcy case if that happens.

[JoonasTo]

There is so much shit in this thread I don't get why it isn't locked.
Where's duki when you need him?

[elvikun]

There is so much shit in this thread I don't get why it isn't locked.
Where's duki when you need him?

You know what's funny? People who come somewhere to say they don't like it there. It's just so constructive and intelligent, that it stuns the mind.

(click to show/hide)

There would be shitstorm if what you said would leak into public if you lived in my country. Basically since fathers have the same right to have paternal leave over here, it is not all that different from women. In fact it is easier, because unlike illness or accidents, this is something employers can plan ahead of.

If the day comes when my demonic offspring is born, I am sure as hell not going to spend my time at work all the time leaving the cheerful days sleepless nights to the mother alone.

Same here. However, since this is an internet forum and I don't work there anymore.

Anyway, Lithuania's laws for mother's leave is basically draconian what concerns the employer. Any women who is likely to have a kid in the near future is the equivalent of a ticking time bomb. I've seen many businesses ruined by them already, and a small industry simply can't afford such a risk. Now, of course, that is never given as the official reason why someone was declined from position x, I wouldn't have gone out of court till now if it was, lol.

@Elvis
No, it is by no means fair. I do not deny it. For redundant positions, no one gives a damn. But what concerns critical points, you can't really afford someone just disappearing on you for a year and a half. While you're only allowed to temporally employ a "dummy" in her place. Out of three years worth of operations, you basically lose one and a half. And I've yet to see a female applicant propose enough over a male applicant to justify the risk of that happening, whether she's intending for a family or not.

And there were plenty of cases here where a lady in basically in her second month got a job, just to secure the advantages that come with being working and "pregnant". Needless to say, if the company is an up and coming starter, it's a nearly guaranteed bankruptcy case if that happens.

Well, I admit that the laws in this area are a bit weird in most countries. Private employer not being able to let go of person which won't be present for 1-3 years by any means availiable is just wrong. But it's also where Aces "thing" comes in. I don't think woman who is for example on the executive board of large company would actually like to disappear for a long time. That's where the laws and society could/should be a bit more friendly to a man staying home with kids.

[Saras]

(click to show/hide)

There would be shitstorm if what you said would leak into public if you lived in my country. Basically since fathers have the same right to have paternal leave over here, it is not all that different from women. In fact it is easier, because unlike illness or accidents, this is something employers can plan ahead of.

If the day comes when my demonic offspring is born, I am sure as hell not going to spend my time at work all the time leaving the cheerful days sleepless nights to the mother alone.

Same here. However, since this is an internet forum and I don't work there anymore.

Anyway, Lithuania's laws for mother's leave is basically draconian what concerns the employer. Any women who is likely to have a kid in the near future is the equivalent of a ticking time bomb. I've seen many businesses ruined by them already, and a small industry simply can't afford such a risk. Now, of course, that is never given as the official reason why someone was declined from position x, I wouldn't have gone out of court till now if it was, lol.

@Elvis
No, it is by no means fair. I do not deny it. For redundant positions, no one gives a damn. But what concerns critical points, you can't really afford someone just disappearing on you for a year and a half. While you're only allowed to temporally employ a "dummy" in her place. Out of three years worth of operations, you basically lose one and a half. And I've yet to see a female applicant propose enough over a male applicant to justify the risk of that happening, whether she's intending for a family or not.

And there were plenty of cases here where a lady in basically in her second month got a job, just to secure the advantages that come with being working and "pregnant". Needless to say, if the company is an up and coming starter, it's a nearly guaranteed bankruptcy case if that happens.

Well, I admit that the laws in this area are a bit weird in most countries. Private employer not being able to let go of person which won't be present for 1-3 years by any means availiable is just wrong. But it's also where Aces "thing" comes in. I don't think woman who is for example on the executive board of large company would actually like to disappear for a long time. That's where the laws and society could/should be a bit more friendly to a man staying home with kids.

Whether she will or not is slightly irrelevant here. The problem is that such a thing could happen. That alone gives an extremely large advantage to any potential male employee over any female one.

[elvikun]

Well, if the perental leave worked as it is supposed to, it would give just about equal chance that man will disappear. 50/50 chance and men would no longer have to feel as the minor role when it comes to kids. That would be good I'd say.

[kadatherion]

Proffesional army just makes it a job with strongly above average payment, potentially high-risk and no real education requiments. Not sure why anyone would be fanatical. Forcing or tricking people in doesn't really seem that cool to me.

For starter, when you choose as path for life the path of a soldier, it surely means you aren't exactly that much against violence. Again, knowing that violence sometimes in this world can't be avoided doesn't mean being a fanatic, but you see, it's the same old equation: not all religious people are religious fanatics, but all religious fanatics are religious people.
Then, and this might be because Italy has always been a border region during the Cold War and as such we had enormous cultural pressures from both sides that split the population in half, many of those renown professional corps in the military we had for the longest time are also unfortunately well known for being mostly made of pretty extreme fascists. Sorry if it might sound an outdated term, but in this case it still is mostly true.

I'm not going to say here anything about the perception I might have of other countries' professional armies or specific corps, as that's what it is: perception, and it can be misguided, but to make an example we don't even have here the whole "come into the marines, you'll help keep the peace and bring candies to the poor third world kids while at it, we're the good guys" pop-culture they use in America for recruiting you; if you apply for Folgore here (to name what probably is the most infamous corp, even though professionally speaking they sure are excellent) you know what you're getting into. Mostly the same breed of guys that when are on leave in Rome like to hunt for homosexuals. The patriotic culture that promotes the military as heroic, or anyway something to be proud to be part of - which is at least a good share of the reason why you could be prone to consider such a career - is completely missing here outside specific, usually very explicit political circles.

Furthemore, in certain countries joining the military might be a good solution to actually get an higher education when you can't afford one through other means. Which is another "neutral" reason to join. In Italy? Heh, don't make me laugh, it's great if you get a license for driving heavy vehicles out of it.

And don't worry, the stoning and burning will come only if you'll have sex, masturbate or do serious crimes, like leaving your house without asking if you're allowed to.

Though if I stay at home watching mahou shoujo anime I guess I might end up burned for witchcraft. Wait... talking ponies are magic too... oh crap!


Anyway, this military off topic brought to mind what has also almost been a deal breaker for me in the past, and thus back on topic. Well, my ideology on the matter must be pretty clear now even though I tried being as diplomatic as I could, anyway I remember when I was dating the one who became the longest relationship of my life (and also probably the only woman I've ever loved) in the beginning I really was deeply bugged out by the fact she went out with a soldier before me. Nothing serious nor long, we were youngsters at the time after all, but believe me I oh so wanted to bitch all the time about how could she have liked some dumbass fascist ape from the military and now like me. I managed to limit myself to mentioning it out loud only once, then hearing how stupid I did sound to my own ears I did not fall for it again. Yet it still bugged me for a while at the beginning.

Now I'm older and - hopefully - more mature about that, but on the other hand I guess certain political views would still be a major deal breaker for me. Sorry but there are certain fundamental concepts about politics, equality, justice et cetera I really can't compromise on. I can respect a different opinion and actually be happy to debate them, but still with you taking the role of my "enemy", sure not the role of my partner.

[Goldfrapp]

There would be shitstorm if what you said would leak into public if you lived in my country. Basically since fathers have the same right to have paternal leave over here, it is not all that different from women. In fact it is easier, because unlike illness or accidents, this is something employers can plan ahead of.

If the day comes when my demonic offspring is born, I am sure as hell not going to spend my time at work all the time leaving the cheerful days sleepless nights to the mother alone.

You seem to forget that the mother is the keeper of the breasts, and since its best for the baby to breastfeed, your (men) kinda useless the first (six) couple of months. Besides, after going through being pregnant for 6 months, you cant just claim your rights. All you (men) did, was to have a fucking nice time. We have to do the hard works. Pregnancy, labor, having a new child, new life. Shouldnt the mother be given some time to adjust to it?
Unless your woman is totally comfortable with it, you should just wait a little while, give her a couple of months to get tired being home, then you can do your duties. And I talk of experience....

[mgz]

my biggest is fucked up teeth or discolored teeth

Aside from that its only the obvious things like if they induce the thought O GOD NO when you see them

[Ixarku]

my biggest is fucked up teeth or discolored teeth

Aside from that its only the obvious things like if they induce the thought O GOD NO when you see them

Yeah, that's a good one.  I don't get why the Japanese think that crooked or otherwise imperfect teeth are attractive.  I definitely don't think they are.

[AceHigh]

Oh, I see. Retroactive justice on men is invalid, but women should make up for what they didn't have to do troughout the history.
...
You have noticed it's a "jest" reaction, right? If women should make up for the time they weren't forced into army, then men should... Get it? I hope so Mr. Menaresoopressed

No, that is a flawed logic. After all I am not proposing that women make up for anything happening in the past. Only take upon themselves the same burdens that men of this generation have, no more, no less.

You seem to forget that the mother is the keeper of the breasts, and since its best for the baby to breastfeed, your (men) kinda useless the first (six) couple of months. Besides, after going through being pregnant for 6 months, you cant just claim your rights. All you (men) did, was to have a fucking nice time. We have to do the hard works. Pregnancy, labor, having a new child, new life. Shouldnt the mother be given some time to adjust to it?
Unless your woman is totally comfortable with it, you should just wait a little while, give her a couple of months to get tired being home, then you can do your duties. And I talk of experience....

So what are you getting at? That since women have the hardest time in the process of creating offspring, the males shouldn't get paternal leave so they can assist in order to ease the burden? Ok, got it, apparently females want to deal with it alone as long as they have the monopoly on paternal leave.

[kadatherion]

Yeah, that's a good one.  I don't get why the Japanese think that crooked or otherwise imperfect teeth are attractive.  I definitely don't think they are.

Perception, maybe? Japanese - especially females - tend to have pretty fucked up teeth on average (too prominent upper arch among other - from our point of view - imperfections), so they are used to it. In all honesty, when you stumble upon a really pretty Japanese, she's really pretty, but usually they are among the least attractive in the world, even those supposed to be the hot ones. Thousands of years of island isolation and the resulting lack of genetic variety lead to things like that.

[Ixarku]

Perception, maybe? Japanese - especially females - tend to have pretty fucked up teeth on average (too prominent upper arch among other - from our point of view - imperfections), so they are used to it. In all honesty, when you stumble upon a really pretty Japanese, she's really pretty, but usually they are among the least attractive in the world, even those supposed to be the hot ones. Thousands of years of island isolation and the resulting lack of genetic variety lead to things like that.

I've noticed that every once in a while I'll see a pic of an exceptionally beautiful female celebrity, and then when I look up information on her, it turns out that she's a mix of several different ethnic identities.  It's part of the reason why I chuckle at the racist groups who clamor for something as ludicrous as maintaining racial purity.  Makes me think, "Sure, why don't you racist folks go into isolation somewhere and interbreed for a few generations, and let's see how well your racial purity improves your genetic stock over time."

[AceHigh]

It will probably sound like I am a racist, but I can't help but feel that certain races are just not attractive to me. Although I agree that for example mulatto looks usually prettier than pure black chick, although even then I find caucasians more attractive.

While I agree that interbreeding is not a preferable outcome for the humanity's genetic pool, I wouldn't condemn people that just follow their aesthetic sense if they prefer to breed with their own ethnic group.

[Ixarku]

It will probably sound like I am a racist, but I can't help but feel that certain races are just not attractive to me. Although I agree that for example mulatto looks usually prettier than pure black chick, although even then I find caucasians more attractive.

While I agree that interbreeding is not a preferable outcome for the humanity's genetic pool, I wouldn't condemn people that just follow their aesthetic sense if they prefer to breed with their own ethnic group.

It's not racist to be physically attracted or not to certain physical characteristics.  We're men, we're hardwired to pick up on visual cues, after all.  I'm not particularly attracted to certain characteristics more commonly seen on black women -- for instance, I don't like the wide, flat nose with large nostrils, certain hair styles (braids, corn rows), women with gigantic butts or who are too fat.  I've seen a few black women who I think are attractive but a great many just don't do it for me.
 
I do think it's silly and wrong to make moral judgements about a person based on their appearance -- this where it can cross the line into racism.  A black women is no less of a person just because I don't find her physically attractive.  So as far as the thing about people following an aesthetic preference to interbreed with their own ethnic group, if it's a decision based on what a person finds attractive, I don't have a problem with it.  But if it's a decision based on whether someone thinks it's wrong to interbreed with other races because they are inferior for reasons x, y, and z, then I'd have to slap a swastika on their forehead.