> Where you been, Eugine? It's worked out very well. Women can have careers now.
Like I said elsewhere, then why are nearly half of women on anti-depressants?
> it seems as if you have some problem with every social advance since the 16th century.
I don't have a problem with actual social improvements. I do have a problem with social deterioration. It appears you don't know how to tell the difference.
Where you been, Eugine? It's worked out very well. Women can have careers now. You have a problem with that?
Perusing these comments, it seems as if you have some problem with every social advance since the 16th century.
> Where you been, Eugine? It's worked out very well. Women can have careers now.
Like I said elsewhere, then why are nearly half of women on anti-depressants?
> it seems as if you have some problem with every social advance since the 16th century.
I don't have a problem with actual social improvements. I do have a problem with social deterioration. It appears you don't know how to tell the difference.
And where are the MOST women on antidepressants?
In Utah.
You probably think emancipation of slaves was a regression, and I don't need to ask your view on same-sex marriage.
I'll put my ability to distinguish social advance from social deterioration up against yours any day.
How long's it been, Eugine?
> I'll put my ability to distinguish social advance from social deterioration up against yours any day.
Well, you clearly don't have any.