If it will make you stop whining:

What's wrong with taking care of children? It's a hard fucking job, and one that I honestly hope you never have. This is changing, anyway: http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

[citation needed]

[citation needed]

Are you suggesting that government is actually representative of the people? Because I'm fairly certain it is not (see also: the NSA, NDAA, FCC, and so on).

Not so fast there, senpai. What's this "we" bullshit? Maybe you can't get your head around that concept, but the pronoun you're looking for is "I."

This is pure hyperbole. Again, maybe it's true where you live, but there are 50 states in this country, and I'm going to go ahead and guess that mvdwege has never been to any of them ('recognised' gave you away as being a foreigner; we spell it 'recognized'), let alone lived in any of them long enough to know anything about it.

Routinely? And you're saying all colleges do this? Before you point to a couple of high-profile cases, anyone else can just as easily point to a couple of high-profile cases where the woman was proven to be a liar. The problem is that such cases tend to be anomolous, which is why they make the news.

You expect reason from politicians and religious leaders? Fantastic. Do let us know how that works out for you.

This is a given. I would expect the military to evolve more slowly than the rest of society; it doesn't exactly attract the brightest bulbs in the box.

Again with "we," and again, the pronoun you're looking for is "I."

[citation needed]

No, OP did no such thing. Maybe something in that post triggered you to recall the narrative that the feminists have hammered into you, but read it again. Notice that there are no citations of any kind.

Trolls don't provide data. Unsurprisingly, you also haven't given any actual citations beyond mentioning the names of a couple of dipshits. Again, do you have anything at all other than strawman and ad hominem arguments? If not, please go back to jezebel.com. I'm sure they love you over there.

I only gave one example because there's no need to refute troll posts point by parroted talking point. If you don't agree that even one piece of actual, reliable data is stronger than a million appeals to emotion, that's your choice, and I won't waste my time or bandwidth trying to convince you otherwise.

Tech wages are stagnant or falling, neither of which would happen if there was a shortage that was being met by equally- or more highly-paid imports. This would indicate that the rules are being neither followed nor enforced. You are, of course, free to believe anything you choose.

Sorry, but nobody checks any of that out, thus, there's nothing to stop any company from putting whatever they want on the form and then paying the employee much, much less. You didn't get fucked over because you're from the UK, congratulations. It's much easier to fuck over people, from third-world shitholes like India, who think $30k/yr is a lot of money.

I hope you're enjoying your time in the colonies, anyway.

Present evidence to whom? There is no oversight of the H1-B program. What country are you from, if you don't mind my asking? (not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious)

You don't think women earn their degrees, or that having a degree increases anyone's earning potential? Okay.

This isn't jezebel.com. If strawman and ad hominem arguments are all you bring to the table, then you can expect more troll mods in the future.

The mods have identified you as a troll, but in case you're really this ignorant, here are some numbers showing that "patriarchal oppression" has not stopped women from becoming the majority of recipients of all degrees, up to and including doctoral degrees. This would seem to indicate that such oppression is purely the stuff of myth and legend.

It's completely unrealistic to expect anybody who wants to go to college and isn't wealthy to become a dental hygienist. The suggestion reeks of ivory tower thinking. As you said, it still takes two years of schooling to become one. How will those two years be paid for? What I did was I went to a local tech school for my A.A.S., then transferred all of my credits to a small local 4-year college to complete my B.A. This way, I kept my costs, and by extension, my loans, to a minimum. It will take less time for me to pay those off than it will take to pay off my car, and was a much, much better investment as far as I'm concerned.

Buying a house is risky. Buying a car is risky (arguably moreso than a student loan). Credit cards are risky. All of these things can be done, though, if someone can make a truly informed decision apropos the risks and benefits of each, and formulate a backup plan in case everything goes to shit. "Never" certainly is too strong. "Minimal loans if you absolutely need them, and proceed with caution" is far more realistic. None of this, of course, addresses the actual problem, which is the obscene increase in college costs over the last few decades, but that's out of scope here.

Except that they were financially secure; in fact, their excessive financial security is what caused the Revolution in the first place. But if you have some examples from living memory, do feel free to share.

At least we agree on cars, though.

I'm a bit surprised by the absolutisms being tossed around this thread. The problem with yours, in particular, is that HR drones are demanding more and more education from the proles, and without a bachelor's degree, someone born into poverty has no way to escape. Obviously, the degree is not a guarantee of escape, but it does increase the odds. Student loans were a godsend for my brothers and me, and without them, none of us would have had a chance in hell of doing anything with our lives that did not involve scraping a grill for minimum wage.

Another absolutism, and this, too, is problematic. "Completely and totally financially secure" is a condition that does not exist for anyone but the super-rich, as the crash of 2008 so clearly demonstrated. By this logic, nobody but the 1% should ever have kids. It also assumes that kids are a burden, but anyone with that kind of mentality really ought to get themselves fixed (I'm not spewing hyperbole; someone who hates kids really should not be having them at all).

We can agree to disagree about credit cards. I don't think that credit scores are all that important, as I'm from the school of "if you can't pay it all at once, don't buy it," with the only exceptions being a house or a car (and I hate the fact that owning a car is actually a necessity where I live).

I regularly buy beer directly from breweries (Wisconsin here). I'm not saying that that's the case in all states, but it just illustrates the point that the White House made: That it's up to individual states to decide whether a particular good needs to have a middleman for whatever reason. In the case of alcohol, some states' laws are still fairly draconian, but one can see the line of reasoning behind it, and they don't really seem to be "gotta pay my buddies in the distribution biz," so much as "gotta get votes, hammer on public safety!" In the case of automobiles, it's just plain and simple greed on behalf of car dealers.

Car dealerships form extremely powerful lobbies in most (all?) states, and have purchased laws in most (all?) states banning the direct sale of vehicles from the manufacturer to the consumer. This, obviously, is a protectionist racket that serves no purpose but to line the pockets of said dealers. I'm not aware of any other consumer good with such a restriction (though I will grant that such a thing is possible and I simply am not aware of it).

This is what I was thinking, as well.

There's also the possibility of someone eventually getting it into their head to spoof a Congressional IP address and cause all sorts of fun mayhem for the enjoyment of their twitter-provided audience.

Thanks for bringing some credibility to the discussion, AC. What the fuck is a "Tier 1 Chinese city?"

Any farther north, and I'll be in Canada, but thanks for the tip.