Speaking as a young male working in nursing, I am perfectly happy for patients who are uncomfortable with my providing personal care to them due to my gender to voice their concerns. I have voluntarily compromised my own practice on occasion in the interests of maintaining the privacy and dignity of certain patients, despite no objections having been raised. The notion of a patient being quietly mortified about me providing personal care to them is infinitely more disheartening to me than having that care refused for being male. All of this aside, I have very rarely experienced opposition and would like to hope that it is derivative of me working very hard to maintain that privacy and dignity which some fear a male nurse will not uphold.

I should make the point, however, that male nurses are too much of a minority to often give male patients a 'choice' of gender in their care. It is impossible to deny that female patients are far more privileged in this one respect of nursing care.



Without wishing to be derogatory, I find this sentiment truly terrifying. Basic intimate care is the same irregardless of the patient's gender, and isn't difficult to ascertain even by asking the patient politely for guidance as to their wishes. If it is such a large prospect to you of washing 'going wrong' with patients of the opposite gender, what exactly is going to be simpler with the intimate procedures you will be required to learn as part of medical training?

Is it all purely down to feminists wanting women to look more like men?

I may sound selfish and arrogant but... That just means less competition for us smart people!

I have never seen any arguments against adoption by gay couples which stand up to scrutiny

As a lesbian, I do think about adoption in the future - hopefully with a partner/wife but even alone.

The bullying issue makes people wary. And yes, bullying is awful. But the reality is, children get bullied for all things - for one, some children get bullied for being adopted. If a child got adopted and was bullied relentlessly and then killed themselves...would it be reasonable to consider making adoption illegal to protect children from bullying? Does it mean that nobody should adopt because your child might get bullied? Some children get bullied for having red hair. Should we encourage parents to dye their children's red hair blonde or brown in order to protect them from bullying? Etc..at the end of the day, banning gay couples from adopting would never pervent bullying, because children are also bullied for being in care! Be bullied for being in care or be bullied for being adopted by two mums/dads? I'd take the family every time, personally

That doesn't mean I dismiss bullying by the way. If i were to adopt I would think carefully about what to do if this issue arises and I would prepare for the worst, while hoping that nothing ever happens. I see that as good preparation and not wearing rose-tinted glasses. But then, don't all adoptive parents have to anticipate that their child might well get nasty comments from peers, not just gay adoptive parents?

Therefore I just can't see the bullying argument as standing up.

And also....you know, not all children in care would be best off with a mother and a father. There are those who would feel safer with say two mums. Imagine a girl who had been sexually abused and was afraid of men, for instance. Maybe she would feel more safe and secure with two mums or a single mum? Saying that ALL children need a mother and a father is not true, there are always exceptions where perhaps a straight couple should not be considered.

But assuming there is no issue like that, if a social worker is considering parents for a child surely they should pick the parent/s who are best able to parent the child, regardless of sexuality. Ie. the parents who seem to understand the childs needs more and/or seem more prepared or have more access to things the child needs and so on and so forth. There are more important things to consider than the parents gender/sexuality/marital status, unless there's an actual pressing reason why that particular child really needs a certain family set up.

They are not trying to kill themselves. They are calling out for help.

many argue that the rich have become richer while the poor are becoming poorer

the question was: Why are muslim's portrayed as terrorist's in today's society?

You have clearly misread it.

Looks like my phrasing has thrown you a little. I'm not calling anyone a bigot.

You could claim anything is offensive. I think logic and common sense must be applied here.

Remember, i stated that you can make a rational argument - even if someone finds it offensive.

But to go and curse them, to insult them, to desecrate them is something else.

We can't let go of this reality, and turn everything into something quite subjective, or we all lose our ground to make any rational statements. There is such a thing called insulting, desecrating, defiling , ect which i ward against.

This is a very interesting forum. I have a 16 year old son, who has been smoking cannabis regularly for the last 6 to 9 months. I worry about him so much. He is right in the middle of his GCSE`s[he had an exam just this morning]. He is naturally quite lazy anyway, and although extremely clever, has had to be pushed by me his whole life to go to school /do his homework, etc. Taking 7 GCSE`s, and should get mostly B`s and maybe one A grade. Has enrolled on a BTEC Extended Diploma in Health and Social Care course in Sept, which is equivalent to 3 `A`Levels. You may all be thinking, great, so what`s his mother worried about? He has no motivation or interest in anything, and all he seems to care about is hanging around with his 2 mates and the 3 of them get stoned. Several times a week. Every week. I know for a fact if I wasn`t pushing him, he would happily lie about the house doing f**k all for the rest of his life. His dad died when he was 10, and was a chronic alcoholic. I am a teetotaller. My son tells me[and I believe him]that he will never, ever touch alcohol, as he`s seen too much crap with his dad over the years, and it has put him off alcohol for life. The scumbag drug dealer he and his mates buy the cannabis off, if he doesn`t have the money on him, the guy lets them pay him the following week. Of course, it`s me who gives him the money. I`m frightened that if i don`t and he owes the drug dealer, say, £30, that if he doesn`t get his money, he will beat my son up.My son is very gentle and easy going and i don`t think has ever got into a fight with anyone his whole life.He`s just not the type. So the thought of some bloke[who i assume is older than my son], potentially harming him over my son owing him £20 or £30 frightens me to death. So I give in and give him the money. Except for today, that is.He told me this evening he was going out to his friend`s house and would be back later. I knew what this meant. I gave him just a fiver for the bus down and the taxi back later on, but told him straight i am not going to give him any more money for drugs, and that i was sorry, but call it tough love; if he gets some cannabis off someone and can`t afford to pay for it and the dealer ends up giving my son a black eye, then so be it. Am i doing the right thing? Maybe i should have taken this tough stance from the start. What the poster said about his friend failing Uni really struck a chord with me. My son wants to be a social worker one day.

Because the men would ditch that woman and leave her to fend for herself and her baby, severely hampering the baby's chance of survival (and possibly the mother's). Sperm is cheap. The men would rather find their own chaste woman and invest in a baby that they're fairly certain is theirs.

I was under the impression that androgens are hormones which stimulate the development of male characteristics, and so a person who is insensitive to androgens have their development of testes etc. inhibited, rather than promoted. And so there would be no reason why women with androgen insensitivity should have testes instead of ovaries.

Perhaps I've misunderstood what this disorder actually is. If so, ignore what I've said about it so far.

Are you a feminist? Because you are using typical feminist tactics here.

..

It's a human right, because there is consensus that it's a human right.

You can't say that women's body's aren't sexualised and stuff, it happens.

I work in an area dominated by women (Healthcare). The women may not hold the executive positions but in the work place the women are very much in charge. I have faced sexism countless times but it hasn't been what I define as 'open sexism'. What men tend to face is 'covert sexism'. It may seem very trivial to you but when women constantly expect you to do all the heavy workload purely because you are a male it makes you question whether or not gender equality is truly a reachable or even desirable goal for some. Off the cuff remarks about how useless men are or how men do nothing but bring misery are common place. All of these are common place on day time TV too. Shows like Loose Women epitomise the definition of 'covert sexism'.

And as long as you have a complex benefit system people will find ways to milk the system which is why despite all the tough talking from IDS and Cameron the Daily Mail is picking up more cases than ever of people living the life of riley from the state.

Hey i dont make the law

Culturally distinct? These are small counties we are talking about, not large countries.

Almost half of straight marriages end in a couple of years after the birth of their first child

This nonsense about parents fulfilling their ~natural~ roles harms absolutely everyone, we should get rid of it as soon as possible.

I'm curious...how do they remove the penis and convert it to a vagina? sounds like a MAJOR operation!

I didn't do anything of the sort, you've gone from making me think your eyesight is bad to making me think you're just an idiotic person. You haven't disproved any of my points and you have no arguments that are valid that justify the use of this scheme; you're basically committing debate suicide.

Also;

1. Good for you, I sense your optical efficiency is utilised mainly to stare at blogs written by pretentious wannabe academics
2. I thought that I'd try and make you feel better about me proving everything you said to be wrong by being a bit friendly, hahahaha guess that aint happening

Leave it now, you're boring me and doing yourself and your intelligence a disservice. This mandatory work course will NOT do much good, regardless of whether you go in with optimism or its enemy, pessimism, and is a way for the Goverment to seem to be doing something PROactive, yet can be seen to be flawed by anyone and they don't have to be a PROfessional to come to that conclusion.

The rate of violent crime is actually higher in many UK cities when compared to the US :fyi:

This is a really, really stupid thread.

As im writing this there is a giant spider in the corner of my room. F.

This here is good, people making choices for themselves. People shouldn't been told that they should be atheist or religious by the government it should be their own choice.

This is in reference to the arguments about banning religion etc like in a Marxist society.

Peter Lloyd doesn't have to change his gender, he can just change which gym he goes to.

Normally when you sign a gym contract you have to show an ID, so that would tell you what gender they are.

I agree that being discriminatory makes you a 'jackass', but (like you agreed earlier) something being morally wrong doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Are you quoting me there? I haven't said that.

I don't see why discrimination should always be illegal in businesses when it's legally tolerated on other private property (ie. I could stop someone from entering my house for any arbitrary reason whatsoever). Your argument for this seems to be that discrimination in business is never frivolous and so should never be tolerated. We're still debating whether or not morally bad actions that aren't frivolous should always be illegal (ie. our argument whether or not adultery is frivolous or not), however I would also argue that discrimination in business can be frivolous. For example there was a news agent who didn't let students from my secondary school in. That was discriminatory, but it was frivolous as everyone just went to the news agent a little further down the street.

'Show me times when a relationship is not frivolous' - are you a sociopath?

If we could agree that adultery can be worse then discrimination then I hopefully I could conclude my argument.

You just repeated what I said. You may want to re-read my post.

Since my uncle is a social worker and child psychologist, I've grown up around a different kids with backgrounds that have been worse than mine.

From what I can conclude, child abuse where it is clear that the child is frightfully unhappy - and I don't just mean they didn't get the present-they-wanted-for-Christmas kind of unhappy, genuinely distressed and in dire want of help - under neglectful, dangerous parents, then I would recommend the child be put in care.

However, there are many cases where children are taken away for no decent reason other than monetary issues, in some cases the child doesn't even want to go. Here is an example of how devastating and inconsiderate they can be:




I do not advocate giving them more power than necessary, otherwise we'll eventually have children being taken away from their parents because of their political views.

And whilst I do think it is sometimes it is an obvious necessity, a large amount of cases are dealt with in a manner where it could have been resolved in a much easier way.

MPs are democratically elected?

They are supposed to speak on behalf of their constituents.

Wouldn't the NHS have to pick up the pieces of substance abuse related illness...


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

I currently live in Luton where white British people ARE the ethnic minority lol it's a huge culture shock for me because where I come from there are hardly any black or Asian people, a few eastern European but that's about it really. I had never seen a woman wearing a burqa in the UK until I came here.

I think it's nice to have diversity and it certainly makes a community more interesting but there are immigration issues and I could see Britain starting to lose it's 'identity' so to speak because I think we are maybe a little bit too accommodating... I think it's great that people can freely express their religious beliefs and cultural traditions here but I also think there has to be a limit. I think the people who are 100% politically correct and very liberal in their views would probably have an eye opening experience if they moved to an area such as this one. It annoys me when people who have moved to Britain from other countries feel they have the right to complain about our justice system etc.

Recently I heard that there were plans to build affordable housing which would have been a positive development and benefit quite a lot of people (irrelevant of race) but instead the land was used to build a mosque. There are 15 mosques in Luton which does seem a little bit excessive to be honest... I tried to find evidence of this online but it's been quite controversial and it looks like it's been brushed under the carpet but my personal opinion is that it's probably true.

I don't agree with the title of this video but the content is quite shocking:

What is the question being asked?
The thread implies you are asking if you agree that everyone has the right to life, but your original statement is that people who cause harm do not have the right to life.

I don't agree with the motion, as I believe everyone has the right to life, bar none.

I haven't seen a rebuttal to this yet. The OP assumes the 'gay gene' and refutes it, but if there is no genetic imperative towards 'gayness' what can 'gayness' be but a mental perversion? I'm clearly an ignorant bigot so I would appreciate some enlightenment.

Source to back claim?


Posted from TSR Mobile

Reminds me of this video:



Frankly I think I'd have done the same thing, I'm not just going to let someone hit me in the face. Plus it was a game show, no idea how she thought she could get away with that even if she is a girl.

You are not aware the monotheistic religions or many of its followers claim homosexuality is not the will of God, Allah etc? There is a world outside of TSR.

Presumably you believe it would be better if gay people didn't exist?

Okay Mayfair? :p :sexface:

I agree, they have no right to steal from you. You have a right to defend yourself. But you do not have a right to actually murder them unless they pose a significant threat to your life or well being. Is that really that unreasonable?

Since Poland joined the EU in 2004 the Polish language is now the second most spoken in the UK. Each year now more people enter the UK than between 1066-1950 in total.
Most cafes, hotels and restaurants in the land are now staffed by Eastern Europeans despite 1m of our own being unemployed. This is a very fast cultural change. As a Brit, one often forgets one is actually at home. We don't need these people.

semantics. maybe you like falling asleep in county durham and waking up in kabul, but many people don't.

irrelevant. why does the importation and use of manufactured goods from around the world mean that this country's culture needs to be marginalised by the importation of millions of alien peoples?

are you denying that there are countries with distinct cultural traits? if we all live in uniformity, a coffee coloured mass with no clearly defined ethnicity, identity or heritage, then there is no diversity -- that trait we are ironically supposed to worship by importing its carriers to our shores.

Even if it's something as simple as most people being indifferent to anyone outside of their social circle unless they scream in their faces what they want.

It's abusive that it is possible for people who live on their own to sit in their room and choose to starve to death without anyone showing any interest.

My current Final Major Project for my Art and Design foundation diploma is based around portraits in the media, and I'm focussing specifically on magazines such as Take a Break, Pick Me Up etc. and also looking at programmes such as Jeremy Kyle and Embarrassing Bodies.

I'd like to know what people's opinions on these publications are? Whether you watch them or not, like them or not and why, what you think they say about the people on the program and the target audience?

Any thoughts and ideas are appreciated and will all help with my project!

It's not as much of a joke to little kids and impressionable teenagers. They hear it and internalise it.


Posted from TSR Mobile

"Except in exceptional cases" means yes, it is allowed, in exceptional cases.

Further to my thread about female role models I though it be interesting to see who people have as their own role models. Do you have one, many or none? And why? Are they historical figures, modern politicians or current celebrities? Do you think young people today lack good role models?

If I had to pick one it would be Julius Ceasar. A brilliant writer, politician and general. Unrelenting in his determination to gain power and plentiful in his generosity and forgiveness once he had it.

I just saw this (on a different site, u aware?), if true, it's completely disgraceful.

Personally I disagree with this. As the assumption that usually surrounds the phrase is that all men should respect ALL women, and I entirely disagree with this because of the nature of respect. Respect is earned, not given. I respect people who are deserving of respect.

I will genuinely cry if I hear any more about these 'radical feminists' who are trying to prove that women are better than men. I have yet to see any credible evidence to suggest that they exist, and it leads discussion away from the real issues at hand.

As for MRAs, I sympathise to a very limited extent. There is a system in place right now that benefits men in a lot of ways, but there are downsides for men too. Men should not be expected to behave like a knight in shining armour, men should not have to bring all the money into a household. Men should not be expected to behave like rapists automatically if they see a woman in a short skirt walking past at nighttime.

However, that is where my sympathy stops. I would have no problem with men fighting for equal rights. That is what feminism is by definition! I am a feminist, my boyfriend is a feminist, and if you believe that men and women should be equal, you're a feminist. I don't wanna hear all that nonesense about 'but feminists hate men' because that simply isn't true. Feminism is far from perfect (it excludes many groups including trans* people, and some believe that men can't be feminists) but every movement has it's crazies. I seriously don't see the point in two separate movements (MRAs and feminists) fighting separately for the right to be equal. It seems kind of counter-productive!

Edit: Also, MRAs seem to focus on issues that just... don't make sense. Arguing that men are sexually objectified in the same way as women is utterly crazy. I could back this point up with a great deal of evidence, but the basics come down to this. Just because a man does not feel threatened by images of hunky men in the media, does not mean a woman shouldn't. Women and men are treated very differently by the media, and MRAs fail to acknowledge that in any way.

But you would most likely be able to go to a private hospital, and pay with the money you have hopefully saved from not paying taxes, and have some left over, if we didn't have insurance companies as middlemen driving up the price. It also used to be that doctors would provide a reasonable amount of care for those who genuinely couldn't t afford it; it was an interpretation of their Hippocratic oath.

Hmm. Interesting point. However, when we asked all the Caribbean people, Indian people, Australian people, and damnit, any Commonwealth resident people to come over post WW2 to rebuild, did we get any sense of alienation?
No, because we needed their help. We colonised them, so we have a shared history, whether you like it or not. We kinda screwed over their countries, so surely at least some should be allowed to feel welcome in a land which shares a remarkably similar history (and with the chicken korma being the British dish, and tea being our drink, seems a partly shared culture with India at least), we should embrace these people as what they are, humans. If you feel a stranger in your own country because there are people of a different colour to you, then please grow up.
People are different.
If a white muslim walked past you in the street, would you say you have a more different culture with him than a 3 or 4th generation Caribbean immigrant who came over to rebuild this country in our time of need? From what you're talking about, I would guess you would have more of a problem with the 3/4th generation Caribbean immigrant, who, for most purposes, has probably a much more similar culture.
Skin colour does not determine culture, personality, history or values, globalisation has brought us closer together, and with us being a colonising nation, we have many cultural and historical links with countries around the globe, so that cannot be your reason for detesting multiculturalism.

Thatcher was right. It's not my responsibility to wipe society's arse.

Skin colour does not = ethnicity. Ethnicity includes culture.

Why would you want to? We've already subsidised that lot since mining became unprofitable. We gave them a public sector economy just so they could be employed.

What you are saying would have some merit if society wasn't connected and your actions didn't just effect you...

Some public sector bodies do more with less resource than in the private sector, which slightly militates against some of your arguments. The NHS has a lower spend per person than, for example, is spent on the private healthcare system in the US and arguably does far more with it. In the US system, large resources are spent on a pointless bureaucracy - the private insurance industry. In addition, because there are incentives to overspend on health (due to the profit motive) in the US many surgeons carry out intrusive and medically unwarranted operations on tens of thousands of patients or use treatments that are more costly and hitech than they need to be.

If you reread my comment, I only referred to part of your post: the part which itself refers to a comment, of e.g. people being fired for being ill.

In that case then I don't see why it's the parent's responsibility to foot the bill, if their children want to go to university can't they work for it and save up? It would be good if their parents could help out but I don't think it's fair to say they "can't afford to have kids" just because they can't pay thousands of tuition fees in one go.

How so? Strong atheism is the belief that there is no God, while weak atheism is the lack of belief in God. Neither position supports, nor condemns violence, whereas in the case of Islamist extremists, they usually cite specific verses in the Islamic texts to justify their acts. Again, anti-theism/religion is not the same as atheism.

If an astrologer kills people who do not believe in astrology, is it fair to say that the killings were carried out "in the name of astrology"? Of course not; astrology itself neither condemns nor promotes killing skeptics.

Good idea op. I myself have about 3 litres of my sperm in my freezer next to a tub of ben and jerrys.

No I most certainly wasn't referring to you, I was referring to Slade p,
i apologise if this was not clear.

Omg haha he must have thought the girl is capable of beating the lot of you !

How is it naive? I mean obviously the white people that are living their now have been doing do for generations and have as much claim to the land and those of native american ancestry. I was really making the point that most places that are populated by majority white Caucasians, that people often move to aren't the natural motherland of white people, and therefore they would have very little claim to not allow the immigration of none whites or to oppress them in anyway under the notion that it was a Caucasian country.

Direct reproduction is not the only way to contribute to the species's continuation

hi guys,
what do you think the most dangerous types of crime which are a problem in society today are? :) (...)

Of course, no one is saying that the biology here is the overriding factor, but if it is a factor and could be controlled, surely it could lead to lower risk?

Bear in mind that a lot of choices we make are at the very influenced by our neurological makeup. So, while the decision not to commit a violent act may seem incredibly logical to us, it may be different in others. Choices are not really that clearcut.

[U]
Do you agree with affirmative action in principle, yea or nay. Poll above.

I accept that I have been given the gift of life but I don't want it because of who I am. I'm no one special. I'm not particularly attractive and every day is a struggle due to the mechanics of society which imposes a numerical value on our strengths and weaknesses. Everything has to be measured like our intelligence through qualifications, our income, and even how we run our daily lifes by time. This is a terrible constraint that I can't deal with. I feel trapped, lonely and doomed to failure.

What is the point of trying to succeed when many before me already have (and many after me will). What makes my success so important compared to another's? This is what I can't get my head around: Why strive for a career when it's going to be stressful. Working 9 to 5 five days a week for my entire life is something I don't think I could do. It becomes even more daunting when I'm supposed to create a family and be sociable. How am I supposed to do all of this and why should I?

There are many people out there who have a career and have children only to push them into private school or a nanny. They spend no time with them so really what is the point? Do they view their children as materialistic things rather than people? This implies that they seek a man who is attractive rather than a 'life partner' as they're too busy with their busy career to even spend time as a family. So in fact, they have no real family. All they have our children that are being groomed like clones by the private education system and a good looking partner, who they have nothing in common with.

This is nothing more than an illusion of the 'perfect life'. But what is a 'perfect life? This is subjective and varies from person to person but for me, the perfect life was much like the life I just described until recently. Now I see what society is and how we are nothing but numbers and statistics, some of us better statistics than others. We are measured on attributes that we cannot directly control: our attractiveness and out intelligence and because of this, I don't feel as though I belong in this society.

Well you might say, live a lesser life but no. I won't sit back and watch people who have the two attributes surpass me in life. There are many people who have these two attributes but do nothing with them. Isn't this incredibly unfair? Why are we judged on factors that we cannot control. I'm sorry but I don't wish to live in a world where this is the case. And you might say well it's the same in the natural world/evolution (survival and the fittest) etc and that's true but this doesn't mean I have to accept this.

The world is populated by so many people and is incredibly diverse but there underlying constants in society are always: attractiveness and intelligence. Now let's go back to our aforementioned 'perfect family'. The parents of this family: mother and father are likely to be intelligent and there is some link between intelligence and attractiveness. Those with strong facial symmetry tend to have a better chance of reproductive success: They have few genes with free radicals which means they're less likely to have offspring with disabilities. You may look at someone's face and not notice any asymmetric features but subconsciously you do. It's woven into our genetic makeup thanks to millions of years of evolution. Now, the mother of this family has chosen a man with such features. He is tall, athletic and intelligent which implies he's the right candidate to have children with. Does the mother care about his personality? Yes and no. She is only worried about creating healthy and subsequently attractive children but of course, she has to get along with him to some extent. Considering she is more career focused than family focused, she values: attractiveness and intelligence over personality.

This creates a social divide in society. Those with methodical (calculating) parents are likely to be intelligent and attractive thanks to clever family planning thanks to them. They are likely to succeed thanks to a private school education and aesthetic looks.

Those children born from chaos and live a life in chaos such as me are less likely to succeed given environmental (and perhaps genetic factors too as clever family planning wasn't thought of). This is because my parents value personality rather than attractiveness/intelligence and have no notion of family planning in the sense I described above. Imagine a child as a blank canvass. Every child is born like this. A child born into a dysfunctional family is less likely to become a work of art as opposed to a child born as a result of family planning.

Perhaps the most saddening consequence is that I cannot do anything to negate this until I'm too old to rectify the damage. I'm now what I am as a result of chaotic, dysfunctional choices in an environment that restricts intellectual growth. Picture two children A and B. Child A is me. Child B is the child born by the parents who value attractiveness/intelligence (the family planning). 18 years is a long time to assimilate a human being into what they are today. The choices they were exposed to were invariably crucial to their development, more so the younger they are. A child is like a firework. If you fail to ignite the fuse from a young age, it will never take off (as in succeed in life) and consequently fail. I define failure here as becoming another mindless drone - an individual who works at your local supermarket (nobody significant).

Now this is arguably the most saddening part of my life. I will become one of these people on a conveyor belt of society. I'll be shoved through the sprawling mass of people subconsciously screaming in anger/confusion as I age. I'll live a life that the majority of people live. The people who fill in the gaps in society. This image reverberates against the image on the other side of the spectrum that the children from the family planning create. Their lives will be enriched with materialistic goods as a result of their intelligence and aesthetic looks bestowed upon them by their parents.

This begs the question: Well considering the success of their lives, is it therefore better to go down the family planning route? Personally, I would choose this option over the conventional 'I like this guys, he's funny, therefore I will be his boyfriend and have sex. Oh look, I'm pregnant. Well I guess that's great'. So many people have done this and their children are born into chaos and are more likely to replicate their parents lives rather than be headstrong and create a life of their own.

I'm one of these people as I've already told you. I'm a direct result of public schooling peppered with a dysfunctional family. What hope do I have? Any hope I had in life would have quickly dissipated in my children had it not been nurtured. Children don't go to Oxbridge because they're intelligent. They go to Oxford because

(a) 99% of children were born from 'family planning (as described above)
(b) They were planned births: meaning the parents attended to the child and ensured its childhood was a time of academic enrichment.
(c) The result of (b) means any native intelligence the child had was boosted by the parents continual involvement in her child's education.

So already, the child has a leaping head start on the academic ladder. Now consider a child born from spontaneous sex. This child has none of the family involvement outlined above and is therefore just by the progressive nature of time, is likely to fail.

Why do you think your school emphasizes the importance that 'if you want a top grade then your attendance must be ~100%'

This is the same idea I'm describing here. By extension, 'if you want to succeed in life then you (parents) must make this happen at the child's birth'.

I have seen both sends of the spectrum. Those children who are born as a result of family planning and those who are born as a result of chaotic (often spontaneous) choices. They are nothing but the products of time and chaos/order. Order being a functional family, structured lifestyle and parental involvement in child's academia from birth (direct result of family planning). Chaos being, single parent(s) with no career, childhood indoctrination of underachievement.

At some point, a child born into chaos may have the native intelligence to think 'I want to succeed now. I want to achieve.' Unfortunately, this child is limited in terms of success. The foundations of a stable childhood that nurtured academia where not in place. So this child is very, very behind the child born into order. Can this child catch up? Most of the time, it will not. But it will create some success for itself no doubt.

I'm like this child. I'm struggling to catch up but it's likely that I won't. I cannot undo 17 years of poor parentage. A child's brain is extremely receptive to stimuli. What happens in these early stages of its life are crucial for it;s long term success as I've already said. I know I'm begging the 'What if' questions - what if my upbringing was different'. I accept the fact that I can't go back and change choices but I also accept that I don't have to continue living with the irreparable damage such choices have had on me.

A human being is like a piece of clay. It is easily morphed into what its environment predicates given a sufficient amount of time. How else could everyone be so different. People are not immediately born as you see them. The life they lead is a result of many, many choices - some chaotic, some ordered as I've described. These choices shape them into the person you see them today. This is quite obvious.

Life is so frequent. To actually succeed in society, you have to have a slight dash of aspergers syndrome. You know, repetitive. 'I love doing this again, again again again...' as in the mandatory 9 to 5 job 5 days a week. And if you're naive enough to think it gets better the more qualified you are. It's actually worse. Increased stress from many sources. Some can handle stress. Some even like it. However these kinds of people tend to be unhappy. Why is this?

They have no family. They have wealth but no one to share it with and unfortunately they realize this when it's too late. A women's chances of fertility decrease rapidly in her 30s - the time when she has established a decent career for herself. She has no husband - she simply cannot find the time to tend to family matters whilst coping with the immense stress of her career. What kind of male does she seek to have children with?

Now this goes back to the family planning notion. Should she choose a male with intelligence/attractiveness or simply an average guy who makes her laugh? After all, women state the only quality they look for in a guy's personality is humor. Now she can't win either way. If she chooses the family planning route (provided she also has the attractiveness this requires), she'll be at a personal loss.

She won't share much emotional attachment with this man. She'll grow older and consequently unhappier. She'll retire and spend the rest of her days paired with a 'boring' man. At least she has some comfort knowing her kids are intelligent/attractive though right?

The other possibility is that she doesn't have the looks to facilitate an attractive guy. So what does she do? She accepts her limitations and settles for an 'uglier' guy with whom to have children with (often through dating sites). Her children will be flawed from the outset. They will be shadows of what she aspired to have, although at her time of life, she cannot be too choosy. She has to accept this guy and hope for the best.

Life is incredibly unfair either way. Where is solace? Where is peace? I'm fin ding myself turning to religion as I get older as a comfort blanket after having been an atheist. There is an element of hope in religion. Most of all equality. This masks my imperfections and for a brief moment, everyone is indifferent. This is soothing and I can see why religion is so popular. Science is methodical, calculating - exactly like the family planning discussion. It assumes everything must be measured and by default, society compares these measurements against another: A person against another person. Much like I'm doing here.

This is the crippling fact of life. We live in a place where numbers (money) have precedence over the life itself. If I were to become homeless, no one would care as (a) I'm not unique (b) I don't have money. Money is the sole driving force and is the 3rd attribute that completes the family planning criteria: (1) Money (2) Attractiveness (3) Intelligence. There is a strong correlation between (1) and (3). Therefore many unintelligent people are poor which does not facilitate family planning. (2) is of course independent. Many unintelligent people are wealthy due to their social appeal (see vacant minded celebrities for a comprehensive list).

I have also observed that how we choose a partner is again, based on numbers (maths) - symmetry and proportion. Women eagerly reject men who do not lie within the vast normal zone. There are simply so many men to choose from that the other unfortunate men don't stand a chance. Therefore what is the purpose of their existence if they cannot pass on their genes. The women would say 'They should die as their genes are inferior to the media's notion of what we should have. Our men should all look generic and go cycling. We want a plastic husband really. Someone we can keep on a tight leash command'.

Where I live, these kinds of men are all over the place. The traditional henpecked husband who spends most of his time in the garden than in the house. This is what women seek. It screams stability and order - the life the media portrays through many American sitcoms. Although this is one possible option, most women think it's the only option (due to their vacant mindedness/inability to think for themselves).

So now we have this huge swath of generic people frequenting £250,000 - £500,000 houses who do just this. I don't want to live a life like this. I don't want to be another one of those generic people who die forgotten but given my upbringing, I'm afraid I don't have a choice.

Life is so mundane. I actually feel like cutting my hand off just to go to hospital and break this repetitive cycle. I feel like dying and perhaps I'll be born another person. You know, someone who enjoys being manipulated by the media. At least I won't have to put up with this continual struggle. 'Help I'm trapped under a glass ceiling analogy..'

Every waking moment I feel time pass and my inevitable death approach. Why bother with convention? Why die like 99% of people in a boring way. I want to feel something. I don't want to be constrained to a career that sees me age into a regretful, bitter person.

Women who have children and watch those children grow are experiencing the most breathtaking opportunity this life has to offer. To command life, to create it, to shape it is the ultimate priveldge this life has to offer. It strips back modernity (meida/society) and exposes the sheer potential of nature/evolution. This makes me feel happy. To have children with many women and compare the differences in their appearances. I'm doing what society does to us all.

You can devote your time to feminist causes, but that doesn't mean you don't believe all people are fundamentally equal - which is basically all egalitarianism is. The problem with this whole 'egalitarian' argument that always comes up in these feminist threads is that there is no all-encompassing 'egalitarian' movement, and it there was, it'd probably be pretty useless. People will always have pet causes that they will focus on. It's as simple as that and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.