1) They barely care about the people they supposedly represent now. If they know they can only get a term or two, I think they'll care even less. The end result will be an endless parade of the same schmucks we have now who really have no reason to do anything other than what benefits them personally. These people are mostly turned out by a political grinder anyway. The supply of jackasses is pretty much unlimited, so making sure that in each election half the people there don't even have to pretend to be working for their constituents isn't helpful.
2) On the off chance that someone decent and caring does manage to get elected, I don't want them forced out by some blanket law and replaced by one of the aforementioned endless supply of jackasses just because people are too lazy to vote.
It's true what I read a while back that in most elections the real winner is "none of the above" since voter turnout is crap and we are essentially saying we don't like any of them enough to get off our asses and put them in office. We should set a quorum and each election has to be repeated until someone gets an actual majority of the total number of eligible voters in their district/state/country. If on a second try, you still don't get a quorum, all candidates must be replaced by new ones who get to try to motivate people.
At this point, having no-body in office would at least keep them from doing more harm than good.
Not that it matters, but being homosexual is also considered to be 'what you are' by folks who study such things scientifically. And even if it was purely a choice, in as much as it's a choice that hurts no one and isn't illegal, public businesses should not discriminate based on it.
Now if a business owner wishes to declare their business closed to the public and open only to select customers based on the owner prejudices then I'm all for it. Make those conditions known up front and let it play out.
Like many of those episodes I think it really did touch on the realities of the human mind. If war becomes too detached, too clean and simple then we will put much less effort into diplomacy. I'm not a pacifist, but I do think war should be a last option. And it should be messy and painful so that we'll try to find ways to end it.
I'm sure there are many people who bust the stereotypes wide open, but generally speaking it will be assumed that the woman will put her kids first by actually taking off work to do whatever they need where men traditionally are considered to be "taking care of the kids" by working hard to bring home more money. Neither way is particularly fair or universal.
And I'm sure being left behind is no more fun for a man than a woman, but it's hardly a one sided issue. Plenty of women have been left with the kids when the husband seeks greener pastures.
Things are changing, but for now, women bear the brunt of child rearing expectations. That means we are more likely to be expected to make career and life sacrifices in order to have a family. Managers will expect women with children to take off more time for things like doctor's appointments and will (perhaps unwittingly) take that into consideration when doling out promotions etc. Many women are more than happy to make these sacrifices in order to raise children, but a growing number are not so eager.
There are plenty of women who feel the same way you do about starting a family but I guess it doesn't matter since you've "quite literally given up on women." I'd have to say that sentiment wouldn't go very far towards your valuation as a potential father. Raising kids is hard work, sacrifice, expensive and life-long. If you can't even hack the process of finding the person who wants to try to do it with you, what does that say?
Plus, if you think the only difference between sex with another person and with a pie is the potential for children, then you're doing something wrong.
IMO, the *real* reason for commercial licenses was the concept that commercial drivers are driving much larger vehicles that require special training/skills to operate safely on the roadways.
I'm pretty sure the real reason is to make more money from licensing people who are in turn making a profit from that license. The gov't could just issue a straight vehicle license and leave it up to the owner of a vehicle to get whatever training is required to operate it safely, but they don't because there's more money to be had from fees on commercial enterprises.
If Uber or Lyft drivers are getting paid to drive passengers around then they should have to follow the same rules as other commercial drivers. Maybe those rules should be changed. Maybe regulations on cab companies are unduly restrictive to limit competition and that should be fixed. But, I don't think a "cab" company that just happens to allow its passengers to find rides using the internet should get a pass on the rules that cab companies with proper dispatchers and fleets have to follow.
If the rules are useless or harmful, change the rules. Don't grant exemptions just because the internet is involved.
It isn't so much that men are discouraged from fields but made to feel bad if they don't pursue the apex of the chosen field rather than something along the path. Certainly in my own education, I remember the ratio of male teachers increasing as I went through school. Almost no male el-ed teachers, more middle school/high school (esp. in the sciences) and then in college it was predominantly male professors.
As a woman in the industry, I don't want anyone looking at me and wondering if I only got my job because someone had to check off a percentage.
It isn't a problem just because the ratio isn't 50/50. But it is fair to ask if we are making sure women of all ages know they can and should pursue interests in the STEM fields if they wish to. I feel the same way about encouraging men to follow their hearts into non-traditional fields for them as well. I see no reason why men should ever be discouraged from being teachers or nurses.
If companies really just wanted more tech workers, and not cheaper labor, they'd push for fast tracking them on proper green cards so they could stay indefinitely. The H1B is a means to cycle people through as indentured servants.
I'm sure there are exceptions. I'm sure there are well paid, well qualified H1B workers in this country. But think about it, do you really think companies and our gov't would have concocted the program if what they really wanted was a bunch of permanent tech workers to fix a shortage? Permanent residency would have allowed that already, no new program with a time limit and direct tie to employment was necessary.