<p>Well, that’s a relief. Since my daughter spends so much on shoes, she should be making millions in no time. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It wouldn’t surprise me if 23-year-old women spend that much more – and considerably beyond it – on rent and taxis. Fewer of them are willing to live in iffy neighborhoods or walk home from the subway or bus stop late at night.</p>
<p>[Full disclosure: I have a 23-year-old daughter who lives in a city.]</p>
<p>Yes, and clearly an intelligent 23 year old daughter, as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I remember a comment made by one of my male colleagues at a corporate diversity training course. He said “I resent women taking jobs away from men who need them.”</p>
<p>"I remember a comment made by one of my male colleagues at a corporate diversity training course. He said “I resent women taking jobs away from men who need them.”</p>
<p>Reminds me of a jaw dropping comment made to me by a wife of a friend, who was trying to get a job with my company after he was laid off (it was a bad time in the industry). She said she was upset that her husband wasn’t getting called in for an interview because they were giving all the jobs to women and minorities. To which I couldn’t resist replying, “Yeah, those 5% of women and minorities that they hire are really taking all the slots away from the 95% of white guys hired.”</p>
<p>I am sure that young women spend more than young men do. Beer just doesn’t cost that much. Women are trying to be attractive, and the cost of clothes, makeup, shoes and hairstyles is very high. Guys will wear the same clothes for years. Sure, they probably eat out more (generalization that many guys aren’t willing to cook), but I don’t know any guys that actually LIKE shopping.</p>
<p>Some guys will spend lots of money on expensive cars and watches, though.</p>
<p>Re: women taking taxis instead of walking</p>
<p>How much of that is due to wearing high heels that limit one’s ability to walk (or run)?</p>
<p>Currently in the US Senate, there are 17 women and 83 men. 96 of these people are white. None are black. 2 are Hispanic. 2 are Asian. Only 23 states have ever had a female senator. Wanna talk about something that’s seriously wrong, talk about that. There are 79 white men making decisions about this country. Whites make up 72 percent of the country. Assuming about half of whites are male, white males make up only 36 percent of the nation. Why do they have nearly 80 percent of the Senate? This is something that citizens have direct control over. We don’t have direct control over salaries. Why not start trying to change what we have control over rather than just complain about that which we do not?</p>
<p>Collegealum-
Do you mean Gloria Steinem?</p>
<p>I don’t think you mean [Gloria</a> Stuart](<a href=“http://www.nndb.com/people/966/000027885/]Gloria”>Gloria Stuart)</p>
<p>“Why do they have nearly 80 percent of the Senate? This is something that citizens have direct control over. We don’t have direct control over salaries. Why not start trying to change what we have control over rather than just complain about that which we do not?”</p>
<p>Well, I agree with changing what we have control over rather than complaining about it. But consider, there may be many people who are voting for senators because they like them, share their views, and think they are the best candidate to vote for. I can’t imagine voting for someone just because they have the same body parts as I do or the same skin color. Now THAT would be racist and sexist. I have two white female senators in my state, and I doubt I will ever vote for either of them.</p>
<p>Some of this stereotyping works both ways. I deal a lot with healthcare which employs a far higher percentage of women, many of whom have better jobs/salaries than their spouses. In one division involving the physician offices of a medical system, when someone observed there were absolutely no males employed other than at the physician level - not one clerk/tech/RN out of about 50 - the office manager was quite open in saying she had no intention of ever hiring a male, and everyone else felt this was a non-issue.</p>
<p>“Well, I agree with changing what we have control over rather than complaining about it. But consider, there may be many people who are voting for senators because they like them, share their views, and think they are the best candidate to vote for. I can’t imagine voting for someone just because they have the same body parts as I do or the same skin color. Now THAT would be racist and sexist. I have two white female senators in my state, and I doubt I will ever vote for either of them.”</p>
<p>I would never say to vote for someone because of their skin color or gender. But I have a huge problem with campaigns as they exist. They’re about money. You can buy a Congressman if you have enough money. It’s not too hard. But you know what the real problem is? The House is supposed to be representative of “The People”. Currently, it is 82% white and 83% male. So a bit disproportional in race but not as much as the Senate (and the same disproportion in gender). But the Senate…The Senate is supposed to be more responsible. They are supposed to be the wise ones, the leaders. Do white men really make up 80% of competent leaders in this country? No. Heck no. They just have the money to get elected. And they align themselves with one of two parties so they’ll automatically get votes.</p>
<p>^^Well serenity, I agree with, “I have a huge problem with campaigns as they exist. They’re about money. You can buy a Congressman if you have enough money”. Though I don’t think that will change one whit if the senate was composed of more women are minorities. There is nothing about color or sex that makes one less corrupt. They are all mostly concerned with power. All I can do is vote for the power monger who mostly represents my views. And there are far more things that people have affinity for than merely what sex or color one is.</p>
<p>@busdriver11, I didn’t say it would change if the Senate was composed of more women or non-whites. I actually meant that the only way to have a true representation (with men and women of all races) would be to overhaul the way elections happen. Strict limits on campaign spending and heavy fines for going over the limit. Complete disclosure of political donations. Stuff that will actually eliminate the money advantage. </p>
<p>@poetgrl, Parties aren’t the biggest problem. The money is. Because the money is why the parties have power. There are over a hundred political parties. They just don’t get elected in national elections.</p>
<p>The two party system is in control of the primary system. The primary system is actually PAID for by taxpayers. Why a primary? Why not everyone who wants to run, run and we do it til someone gets over fifty percent of the vote?</p>
<p>run offs?</p>
<p>I mean, the primary system is not a foregone conclusion. You just think it is.</p>
<p>I’m with you, poetgrl. Though I doubt either party will ever let the primary system out of their claws.</p>
<p>But if they do…poetgrl for Congress!</p>
<p>if I go? You’re coming with me. Otherwise. No deal.</p>
<p>@poetgrl, Who are you talking to? I haven’t said a thing about primaries. I said that the only reason parties have power is because they have money. Because people don’t seem to understand that the party system is not in the Constitution. One of my Government classmates actually tried to say that the Republicans and Democrats should have equal representation at all times in Congress. She refused to listen while the teacher and I explained that the party system is not a part of government officially but something informal yet traditional in government.</p>
<p>Ha! No way, poetgrl. Too many skeletons in my closet, I would drag you down. You can take samurai with you.</p>
<p>I’ll only go if you both come. We could have lunch and devise a prank or two.</p>
<p>@serenity, we are not really supposed to talk about this on here, but in the most congenial and bipartisan way, let me suggest to you that the reason the two parties have all the power is BECAUSE of the primary system. </p>
<p>Money and corruption and croney capitalism, oh my. Look, if you get rid of the taxpayer funded primaries, then, you get a different situation.</p>