People who believe this stuff vastly overestimate the competency of the US government.
But again, arguing with them is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how well you do, it's still going to knock over all your pieces, **** on your board and strut around like it won anyway.
I believe that the right of a women to do what she wants trumps a social conditioning that she shouldn't do what she wants.
I suppose you also believe that a guy who sleeps around is Don Juan, but a woman who does the same is a ****.
Because, historically, it was men who made the decision that women should be the ones to stay at home. So all you're doing is buying into patriarchy in the end.
No. I'm claiming that a housewife may agree or choose to be a housewife because it's socially conditioned into her that that's the way it should be.
A househusband may choose to be such because he believes not all women exist to be housewives.
Househusbandry is a fairly modern concept that was born from the idea of freeing women from the necessity of housewifery. So it's actually anti-oppressional.
It's not mutual the two participants are conditioned to a certain point of view in the first place.
It's like saying that North...
Housewifery is oppression by social conditioning. In effect a sort of Stockholm Syndrome. Just because someone feels like they want to do something, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're not oppressed. It just means that the level of oppression is greater.
IE: North Koreans are undeniably...
But that's still not using science, that's still just accepting (or not) other peoples' word.
I actually took the time to use my own brain to calculate it all for you, rather than just post you a bunch of tired links. That's using science.
If you'd like, I could go into much greater detail...
Except that he couldn't have filmed it, because 1) it was in video, not film and 2) the technology to do so never existed. It still doesn't in analogue format either.
But you don't use science or evidence. You accept the testimony of others because you believe it makes more sense.
Kind of like religious people do with their holy texts and whatnot.
Most people who are outraged by it missed the fact that the segment of the show was actually posing the very question of whether pole dancing is too sexual for children, and that said children were there in evidence of the question.
The point wasn't to preserve the documents on it, the point was to develop an optical data storage device that securely preserves information over long periods of time.
Yeah it is. I fancy that the parents got carried away 'because you're on TV'. Usually people wear leotards.
But are you going to let two womens' poor choice in wardrobe completely discredit the sport?
People let their kids do the can-can dance, and that was devised exclusively with a sexual...
But there are also a large majority of people who keep their clothes on whilst dancing around a pole. So surely discarding pole dancing because a few people took their clothes off whilst doing it would be as wise as discarding literature because a few people wrote some crappy books.
It's also...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/viewers-horrified-8-year-old-7379461?ICID=FB_mirror_main
Personally I don't see what the problem is. There's nothing wrong with pole dancing at all, and to equate pole dancing to anything sexual as an intrinsic value of the thing is ridiculous.