you're just twisting and manipulating sentences out of context with the whole verses

someone who didnt know better might fall for it but its kinda dishonest

And where does the Bible say the pain in childbearing comes from?

I want to respond to that but I'm not going to wrestle with your formatting. Quotes are there to show who said what, not colors.

Nonetheless why should women be made to suffer more for having children in the end of times? God could make men just as miserable but here woe unto women.

Men dont bare children. They would not suffer the same way. Their suffering would be based upon THEIR responsibilities and roles.

But why is the suffering worse in the end of days? There could easily be some kind of testicle blight to even the scales.

Frankly, the concept of the "wage slave" is uttely chauvenistic! Its in the women's best interests becomming equal partners with their men... And feminizm has nothing to do with it! That's just the way the cookie crumbles:
you lean on your man and, at the same time, you let him lean on you (at the time of need) -- assuming we're talking about the real man!

In the modern society, the Bible has nothing to do with the OP -- even as a frame of referrence -- because (THANS GOD, lol) the social rules supercede those of the Bible. (praise the Lord for that, LOL)

Just because women have finally acquired the right of competing at the work force, doesn't make them any less feminine than before -- when they have been tied to the homemaking duties...

Ability of relieving the partner's lot of earning the livng IS the greatest accomplishment of the modern society!!!

Men are the ones b!tching about it!!!

P.S. Though its true: if some women aren't clever enough for securing a well paid employment, they sure will be miserable -- just as some of the men who've failed in securing the same!

The bummer is there was no EQUAL effort to domesticate men so that the family and the home would not suffer. Women had to split their efforts between family and home while men, usually , continued to be able to put their whole focus on breadwinning.

EXACTLY!

WE WORK, BOTH, AT HOME AND OUTSIDE (although most of us are underpaid), WE BEAR KIDS, WE SUFFER FROM PMS, etc. etc. etc.

And men just keep on b!tching about it!!!

Well actually you've been abused in the workplace as well. Women get shuffled off into the garbage work that employers don't think men would tolerate and they often get paid much less under the assumption that there's a man bringing in a better lump of cash for their family.

If you're middle class this is probably not something you'll face but to think that these sexist attitudes don't leach up into your life is probably rather short sighted.

Personally, I've come to grips with the whole issue of sexual inequality -- women cannot compare with men in many respects regarding employment (especially the manual labor)! * * *

However, in terms of the intellectual work, I find there's very little descrimination (and not much of "the garbage work" at all)!!!

If a woman is stupid enough to compete with a man for the work she isn't built for, then why should the employer reward her with the wage similar to that of a man (who is better siuted for "that" type of work)? ? ?

Actually women get some preferential hiring in tedious labor things like microchip manufacturing. Thing is it's assembly line work for pathetic pay and with no upward mobility so men, and women of most ethnicities really, wouldn't tolerate it. It's work they could do with machines but don't because easily abused humans are cheaper.

Typically though to stand an equal footing for promotion (when ability is actually equal) women have had to sleep their way up corporate ladders and such. I used to think that sort of thing was over and that any woman doing it was being manipulative but I've learned a bit more about how people run the show recently...

Dear,
the sooner you get over the adolescent idealizm, the better...

Ok, done. Got anything with substance to say?

I find the flaw in your argument to be that if they are BOTH hired for the SAME job,, they should get the SAME pay, whether or not there is some GENERAL belief that they shouldnt be as well equipped as the man.

Each person is different, many men can fix a car but many men cant. I know women who can do that job so why should they be paid any differently then men doing the same job?

When was the last time you used a high powered tool 'MADE FOR A WOMAN'? Tools were designed for men and yes, in general, there is a difference in physical structure between the genders. But technology, for the most part, WOULD allow women to do any job a man could do - but try getting industry to adapt its mechanical standards just for those incompetant women. But then if men were so competent why did technolgy advance to make THEIR life easier and leave women out?

I actually know more women than men who run fork lifts and various industrial hydralic equipment. I know several women who work constuction and two women who supervise men in bridge construction. In fact one of them set the standard for using a jack hammer and rivetor (however you spell that). Many times she took tools home and reworked them to fit her height and her hands and every man on the job respected her.

Not every man is built to do every job, but some women are built better than some of those men who would not qualify to do a job. And some women like that kind of work and if the work is union, the pay is equal. Thanks to OSHA, women can now force companies to provide proper equipment - but that is often the reason women are NOT hired. Companies know they may be forced to comply with a womans special needs and would rather not spend the money.

But it's extremely difficult to prove that kind discrimination.

Frankly, Redy, I fail to understand:
You seemingly intend to contradict me, but actually you supported my point: Companies may only be forced to comply with a womans special needs and would rather not spend the money. And why would they? Isn't there a huge pool of the unemployed people who'd gladly do the job without any special accomodations??? * After all, the main order of the business is "Maximum profits at the least espences". (can you argue with that? )

*** My pint is:
the only reason a woman would be willing to stoop as low as doing a man's job IS because SHE ISN'T QUALIFIED FOR ANYTHING ELSE!!!

Yet, those who do -- great, more power to them. However, if the "man's type of work" is the only work they're qualified for doing, then something must be wrong with those women -- either "biologically" or psychologically!!!

P.S.
Regardless of the fact I don't clearly comprehend what you're referring to, it must be because most of the young women shy away from the technological careers, leaving that to guys -- who, naturally, advance the technology to suite their (male) needs...

Sorry, darling, didn't mean putting you down... That suggestion of mine actually referred to your comment adout those women who "sleep their way up corporate ladders ".

Unfortunately, pulling tricks isn't restricted only fo the "street walkers" (i.e. "ladies of the night").

On the other hand, if "sleeping with the boss" is the only way a girl can secure some favoritism (and the boss actually bites her bate), then more power to her!!! (as long as she can perform her duties -- at her job and under the boss's table!!!)

It's basically been a requirement for actresses for... the better part of the century I think.

I'm not talking about favoritism though. I mean where a woman cannot hope to advance without exchanging her body for it.

What do you mean??? Haven't you seen the movie "9 to 5" and many other "girlish" flicks where the chauvenistic behavior is frowned upon?
The higher up a woman advances along the social ladder, the less of the chauvenistic behavior there is.

The lower the woman's social status, the more subordinate she is. Exchanging sexual favours for advancement is, often, the woman's initiative (rather than the boss's demands)!

I'm saying that we think the boss demands it a lot less often now when that hasn't really changed.