Women's Fight to Vote Tied to Declining SMV

Off Topic
201

[quote]DropKickNoxious wrote:
And yeah, dominance is a leadership quality. Without it, the rest falls apart. Today women in power are able to leverage the dominance of law.

This doesn’t make them better leaders any more than reducing military/police academy physical standards so that women can pass will make them better soldiers and or cops.

Why, in today’s world of equality, are the majority of high level leadership positions held by men? Women are roughly half of the developed world’s population.

If the are so capable, why aren’t more of them being elected to board positions? Taking the CEO/CFO/COO office, the VP offices, even Director offices?

Shareholders of corporations will vote to protect and grow their money. There is no bias for penises or vaginas when greenbacks are on the line.

If women are so competent, so eager and so willing to lead, where are they?

Prove, without a doubt, the “glass ceiling” is real today, in this decade, and the previous.

The argument can be made that the average CEO is mid fifties, not giving women enough time to achieve the rank yet, but this isn’t so for VP and especially director roles.

The larger statistic of human history is that men have been the leaders, with few exceptions, where it counts. Small studies designed to find a specific outcome to begin with can not compare. [/quote]

It’s good to see you back though HoustonGuy. Maybe this time you’ll last longer than CargoCapable, Bootscootboogie and all those other pathetic reincarnations of yourself.

202

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Women have the inherent disadvantage of being physically inferior to men. That doesn’t mean that they’re inferior leaders. If I walk into a room and beat the fuck out of the “leader” in that room, I am not a leader. I am simply the one who is physically more capable.

Women have made many, many contributions. Who raised a lot of the great leaders of the world today? Women, by and large. I fail to see how that is not a meaningful contribution.

It is a misnomer to suggest that women willingly took a backseat. They weren’t given the same opportunities as men. Women have largely been kept out of the educational system until the last 100 years or so. It’s hard to change the world without an education.

It’s entirely oversimplistic to say that since men have been the progenitors of most changes in this world they are natural leaders and women are not. War is a huge determining factor in most major changes throughout history and war is fought by men for obvious reasons. Women were also excluded from the political process after the fall of European monarchies. How can women enact the same changes that men enact if they are not even allowed into the arenas in which change occurs? [/quote]

I kind of think you’re underestimating the power women always have had behind the scenes though. While men have been the ones in the public eye, women have played a pretty solid role throughout history with respect to networking and positioning their “men”.

You don’t have to be visible to the public to actually wield power. It’s the combination of overt and covert power that women have today that worries me just a bit, since men really really suck at the covert power stuff.[/quote]

Men suck at the covert power thing? Yeah, try running that past any high-ranking officer in the CIA, FBI or the old KGB.[/quote]

And several of them had women behind them too :wink:

203

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Women have the inherent disadvantage of being physically inferior to men. That doesn’t mean that they’re inferior leaders. If I walk into a room and beat the fuck out of the “leader” in that room, I am not a leader. I am simply the one who is physically more capable.

Women have made many, many contributions. Who raised a lot of the great leaders of the world today? Women, by and large. I fail to see how that is not a meaningful contribution.

It is a misnomer to suggest that women willingly took a backseat. They weren’t given the same opportunities as men. Women have largely been kept out of the educational system until the last 100 years or so. It’s hard to change the world without an education.

It’s entirely oversimplistic to say that since men have been the progenitors of most changes in this world they are natural leaders and women are not. War is a huge determining factor in most major changes throughout history and war is fought by men for obvious reasons. Women were also excluded from the political process after the fall of European monarchies. How can women enact the same changes that men enact if they are not even allowed into the arenas in which change occurs? [/quote]

I kind of think you’re underestimating the power women always have had behind the scenes though. While men have been the ones in the public eye, women have played a pretty solid role throughout history with respect to networking and positioning their “men”.

You don’t have to be visible to the public to actually wield power. It’s the combination of overt and covert power that women have today that worries me just a bit, since men really really suck at the covert power stuff.[/quote]

Men suck at the covert power thing? Yeah, try running that past any high-ranking officer in the CIA, FBI or the old KGB.[/quote]

And several of them had women behind them too ;)[/quote]

Can’t argue with there, although I think it also sells us men short to assume that we can’t be manipulative behind the scenes or whatever covert power suggests. Take a look at the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example. Although, I don’t really think manipulative secrecy is a virtue, so perhaps it’s a good thing if us men aren’t inclined toward covert power.

206

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Women have the inherent disadvantage of being physically inferior to men. That doesn’t mean that they’re inferior leaders. If I walk into a room and beat the fuck out of the “leader” in that room, I am not a leader. I am simply the one who is physically more capable.

Women have made many, many contributions. Who raised a lot of the great leaders of the world today? Women, by and large. I fail to see how that is not a meaningful contribution.

It is a misnomer to suggest that women willingly took a backseat. They weren’t given the same opportunities as men. Women have largely been kept out of the educational system until the last 100 years or so. It’s hard to change the world without an education.

It’s entirely oversimplistic to say that since men have been the progenitors of most changes in this world they are natural leaders and women are not. War is a huge determining factor in most major changes throughout history and war is fought by men for obvious reasons. Women were also excluded from the political process after the fall of European monarchies. How can women enact the same changes that men enact if they are not even allowed into the arenas in which change occurs? [/quote]

I kind of think you’re underestimating the power women always have had behind the scenes though. While men have been the ones in the public eye, women have played a pretty solid role throughout history with respect to networking and positioning their “men”.

You don’t have to be visible to the public to actually wield power. It’s the combination of overt and covert power that women have today that worries me just a bit, since men really really suck at the covert power stuff.[/quote]

Men suck at the covert power thing? Yeah, try running that past any high-ranking officer in the CIA, FBI or the old KGB.[/quote]

And several of them had women behind them too ;)[/quote]

Can’t argue with there, although I think it also sells us men short to assume that we can’t be manipulative behind the scenes or whatever covert power suggests. Take a look at the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example. Although, I don’t really think manipulative secrecy is a virtue, so perhaps it’s a good thing if us men aren’t inclined toward covert power.[/quote]

I think my point was more that women have always held power too, just in different ways than men. I think.

And without going so far as to say “all women are devious and manipulative”, I think it would be pretty accurate that the average women is naturally more adept at covert power than men, just as the average man is naturally more adept at overt power than women.

Likewise, women are often very essential to the running of organizations because of a completely different kind of power, but it’s rarely acknowledged since it’s so subtle. Overt leadership gets rewarded, but all the stuff behind the scenes to help everyone get along and work together without realizing it… women seem to be very good at that, but it’s seldom rewarded.

207

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

…Women have made many, many contributions. Who raised a lot of the great leaders of the world today? Women, by and large. I fail to see how that is not a meaningful contribution…

[/quote]

Delbert, you’re making your opponent’s argument for them, good sir.

For instance, your statement above could easily be slightly changed to read (and still be accurate), “Women have made many, many contributions. Who nurtured a lot of the great leaders of the world today? Women, by and large. I fail to see how that is not a meaningful contribution.”

C’mon, I’ve got to think you are performing an “exercise” in this thread, i.e., you’re taking the opposite argument of what you really believe and arguing it for the sake of arguing. You’re making a valiant effort but you simply can’t get the job done.[/quote]

Nurturing, raising, what’s the difference, and does it really matter? Are you not nurturing in some ways as well? How about when your son injured his hand (how is he by the way)?

And no, this is not an exercise. Actually, it is. I only participate in these sorts of threads when I find myself agreeing with the minority opinion. So I jump in headfirst. But this is an exercise in testing my rationale and beliefs, along with my ability to articulate them, not an exercise in playing devil’s advocate.

208

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]DropKickNoxious wrote:
And yeah, dominance is a leadership quality. Without it, the rest falls apart. Today women in power are able to leverage the dominance of law.

This doesn’t make them better leaders any more than reducing military/police academy physical standards so that women can pass will make them better soldiers and or cops.

Why, in today’s world of equality, are the majority of high level leadership positions held by men? Women are roughly half of the developed world’s population.

If the are so capable, why aren’t more of them being elected to board positions? Taking the CEO/CFO/COO office, the VP offices, even Director offices?

Shareholders of corporations will vote to protect and grow their money. There is no bias for penises or vaginas when greenbacks are on the line.

If women are so competent, so eager and so willing to lead, where are they?

Prove, without a doubt, the “glass ceiling” is real today, in this decade, and the previous.

The argument can be made that the average CEO is mid fifties, not giving women enough time to achieve the rank yet, but this isn’t so for VP and especially director roles.

The larger statistic of human history is that men have been the leaders, with few exceptions, where it counts. Small studies designed to find a specific outcome to begin with can not compare. [/quote]

Again, you’re basing all of this on false premises. Women are making groundbreaking inroads into the corporate world. Where are the women leaders? They’re out there getting an education and preparing themselves for their future leadership positions. I also would argue that the inherent social expectation placed on women, which has been in place for generations now, undermines some womens’ idea of independence. The fact is that if you tell women they belong in the household for 250-300 years straight, they aren’t going to reverse that mindset across an entire gender in the course of one or two generations.

Also, when corporations are dominated by men, many who still cling to the archaic idea that women are not suited for leadership by virtue of being a woman, it makes it even harder for women to rise up that corporate ladder.

Women have had the deck stacked against them for a long time. Just because they haven’t figured out how to succeed in a rigged game does not mean in any way at all that they are inferior. They just have a harder road to get to the same positions that men traditionally have occupied. Twenty years from now I have no doubt that the corporate and political landscape will reflect this growing amount of women seeking out high-powered positions.[/quote]
The idea that women needed legislation to allow them to step in to leadership roles is a huge detriment to their ability to lead vs. men.

CEO positions being the only arguable role dominated by men because of time contstraints aside, we still have a dispraportionate amount of men vs. women in lesser management roles. A competent leader wouldn’t be a victim of gender bias. Your argument is as much a false premise and misinformed assumption as any.

In fact, all arguments are a false premise in a conversation lacking any premise at all.

You are promoting alternative theories as if they are a definitive truth and using semantics to color issues with a “false premise” brush which is intellectually dishonest if anything.

Women can indeed fill a pre-existing role and dutifully carry out responsibilities. This is called Process Theory of Leadership. You are given a title with authority backed by a higher authority and people respect that overall authority even if not you as you delegate tasks and processes. A robot can do this with the right programming.

Then you have the Trait Theory of Leadership. This describes “born leaders”, people able to command a constituency on their own accord, people with the ability to command respect on their own merit, who can impose their will on others, charismatic, domineering when necessary, intelligent et cetera.

These people can and do fill Process Leadership roles but they are able to rise higher, largely due to their ability to command respect and domineer a group over and above a basic process of duty.

Typically, these domineering, respect commanding, imposing people are men and always have been, which is why men tend to hold the highest offices, have written history and and will be the majority sex in leadership for the forseeable future.

Testosterone does play a role in commanding respect, imposing your will et cetera. Nobody is talking about running in to an office and sledgehammering a coworker in to submission. There is more to dominance than physical violence and dominance is a masculine trait. An inborn trait too, minus outliers.

209

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Women have the inherent disadvantage of being physically inferior to men. That doesn’t mean that they’re inferior leaders. If I walk into a room and beat the fuck out of the “leader” in that room, I am not a leader. I am simply the one who is physically more capable.

Women have made many, many contributions. Who raised a lot of the great leaders of the world today? Women, by and large. I fail to see how that is not a meaningful contribution.

It is a misnomer to suggest that women willingly took a backseat. They weren’t given the same opportunities as men. Women have largely been kept out of the educational system until the last 100 years or so. It’s hard to change the world without an education.

It’s entirely oversimplistic to say that since men have been the progenitors of most changes in this world they are natural leaders and women are not. War is a huge determining factor in most major changes throughout history and war is fought by men for obvious reasons. Women were also excluded from the political process after the fall of European monarchies. How can women enact the same changes that men enact if they are not even allowed into the arenas in which change occurs? [/quote]

I kind of think you’re underestimating the power women always have had behind the scenes though. While men have been the ones in the public eye, women have played a pretty solid role throughout history with respect to networking and positioning their “men”.

You don’t have to be visible to the public to actually wield power. It’s the combination of overt and covert power that women have today that worries me just a bit, since men really really suck at the covert power stuff.[/quote]

Men suck at the covert power thing? Yeah, try running that past any high-ranking officer in the CIA, FBI or the old KGB.[/quote]

And several of them had women behind them too ;)[/quote]

Can’t argue with there, although I think it also sells us men short to assume that we can’t be manipulative behind the scenes or whatever covert power suggests. Take a look at the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example. Although, I don’t really think manipulative secrecy is a virtue, so perhaps it’s a good thing if us men aren’t inclined toward covert power.[/quote]

I think my point was more that women have always held power too, just in different ways than men. I think.

And without going so far as to say “all women are devious and manipulative”, I think it would be pretty accurate that the average women is naturally more adept at covert power than men, just as the average man is naturally more adept at overt power than women.

Likewise, women are often very essential to the running of organizations because of a completely different kind of power, but it’s rarely acknowledged since it’s so subtle. Overt leadership gets rewarded, but all the stuff behind the scenes to help everyone get along and work together without realizing it… women seem to be very good at that, but it’s seldom rewarded.[/quote]

Well, I would argue that women are better at covert power because it is the only avenue to gain power that has been available to them up until recently. Men haven’t had to resort to covert methods because the overt opportunities have been available to them for so long compared to women.

210

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Women have the inherent disadvantage of being physically inferior to men. That doesn’t mean that they’re inferior leaders. If I walk into a room and beat the fuck out of the “leader” in that room, I am not a leader. I am simply the one who is physically more capable.

Women have made many, many contributions. Who raised a lot of the great leaders of the world today? Women, by and large. I fail to see how that is not a meaningful contribution.

It is a misnomer to suggest that women willingly took a backseat. They weren’t given the same opportunities as men. Women have largely been kept out of the educational system until the last 100 years or so. It’s hard to change the world without an education.

It’s entirely oversimplistic to say that since men have been the progenitors of most changes in this world they are natural leaders and women are not. War is a huge determining factor in most major changes throughout history and war is fought by men for obvious reasons. Women were also excluded from the political process after the fall of European monarchies. How can women enact the same changes that men enact if they are not even allowed into the arenas in which change occurs? [/quote]

I kind of think you’re underestimating the power women always have had behind the scenes though. While men have been the ones in the public eye, women have played a pretty solid role throughout history with respect to networking and positioning their “men”.

You don’t have to be visible to the public to actually wield power. It’s the combination of overt and covert power that women have today that worries me just a bit, since men really really suck at the covert power stuff.[/quote]

Men suck at the covert power thing? Yeah, try running that past any high-ranking officer in the CIA, FBI or the old KGB.[/quote]

And several of them had women behind them too ;)[/quote]

Can’t argue with there, although I think it also sells us men short to assume that we can’t be manipulative behind the scenes or whatever covert power suggests. Take a look at the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example. Although, I don’t really think manipulative secrecy is a virtue, so perhaps it’s a good thing if us men aren’t inclined toward covert power.[/quote]

I think my point was more that women have always held power too, just in different ways than men. I think.

And without going so far as to say “all women are devious and manipulative”, I think it would be pretty accurate that the average women is naturally more adept at covert power than men, just as the average man is naturally more adept at overt power than women.

Likewise, women are often very essential to the running of organizations because of a completely different kind of power, but it’s rarely acknowledged since it’s so subtle. Overt leadership gets rewarded, but all the stuff behind the scenes to help everyone get along and work together without realizing it… women seem to be very good at that, but it’s seldom rewarded.[/quote]

Well, I would argue that women are better at covert power because it is the only avenue to gain power that has been available to them up until recently. Men haven’t had to resort to covert methods because the overt opportunities have been available to them for so long compared to women.[/quote]
Why? Why haven’t women imposed themselves on opportunities? Where is the domineering, take charge, leadership existence of women in all of humanities history, minus your random outliers?

Why do you deny these traits to be an aspect of leadership when without them female “leadership” has been uable to manifest itself until it could borrow leverage from a system of laws?

Leadership doesn’t exist without an avenue to impose itself on a process or people and control said process and people.

You are confusing puppet figure heads with leaders. It’s a false premise you’re putting out there.

211

[quote]DropKickNoxious wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Women have the inherent disadvantage of being physically inferior to men. That doesn’t mean that they’re inferior leaders. If I walk into a room and beat the fuck out of the “leader” in that room, I am not a leader. I am simply the one who is physically more capable.

Women have made many, many contributions. Who raised a lot of the great leaders of the world today? Women, by and large. I fail to see how that is not a meaningful contribution.

It is a misnomer to suggest that women willingly took a backseat. They weren’t given the same opportunities as men. Women have largely been kept out of the educational system until the last 100 years or so. It’s hard to change the world without an education.

It’s entirely oversimplistic to say that since men have been the progenitors of most changes in this world they are natural leaders and women are not. War is a huge determining factor in most major changes throughout history and war is fought by men for obvious reasons. Women were also excluded from the political process after the fall of European monarchies. How can women enact the same changes that men enact if they are not even allowed into the arenas in which change occurs? [/quote]

I kind of think you’re underestimating the power women always have had behind the scenes though. While men have been the ones in the public eye, women have played a pretty solid role throughout history with respect to networking and positioning their “men”.

You don’t have to be visible to the public to actually wield power. It’s the combination of overt and covert power that women have today that worries me just a bit, since men really really suck at the covert power stuff.[/quote]

Men suck at the covert power thing? Yeah, try running that past any high-ranking officer in the CIA, FBI or the old KGB.[/quote]

And several of them had women behind them too ;)[/quote]

Can’t argue with there, although I think it also sells us men short to assume that we can’t be manipulative behind the scenes or whatever covert power suggests. Take a look at the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example. Although, I don’t really think manipulative secrecy is a virtue, so perhaps it’s a good thing if us men aren’t inclined toward covert power.[/quote]

I think my point was more that women have always held power too, just in different ways than men. I think.

And without going so far as to say “all women are devious and manipulative”, I think it would be pretty accurate that the average women is naturally more adept at covert power than men, just as the average man is naturally more adept at overt power than women.

Likewise, women are often very essential to the running of organizations because of a completely different kind of power, but it’s rarely acknowledged since it’s so subtle. Overt leadership gets rewarded, but all the stuff behind the scenes to help everyone get along and work together without realizing it… women seem to be very good at that, but it’s seldom rewarded.[/quote]

Well, I would argue that women are better at covert power because it is the only avenue to gain power that has been available to them up until recently. Men haven’t had to resort to covert methods because the overt opportunities have been available to them for so long compared to women.[/quote]
Why? Why haven’t women imposed themselves on opportunities? Where is the domineering, take charge, leadership existence of women in all of humanities history, minus your random outliers?

Why do you deny these traits to be an aspect of leadership when without them female “leadership” has been uable to manifest itself until it could borrow leverage from a system of laws?

Leadership doesn’t exist without an avenue to impose itself on a process or people and control said process and people.

You are confusing puppet figure heads with leaders. It’s a false premise you’re putting out there.
[/quote]

Oh, I get your logic now, HoustonGuy. You ask for examples, I provide them and then you write them off as insignificant statistical outliers. Why even bother providing examples then?

Are there much less women leaders throughout history than men? Of course, but I don’t know how many different ways I can point out why that is the case. It isn’t simply because women are somehow inferior to men in their abilities to lead. It is much, much more complicated than that, and I have spent way too much time on here explaining why to rehash the same fucking arguments with you now.

And there’s no point in it anyways, because if I were to fill page after page with the names of women who have been great leaders in some capacity or another, you will simply write them off as outliers. Again, another intellectually dishonest approach on your part.

212

Lol.

Read back and find who started throwing around outliers and statistics. And yeah, considering the bulk of history, a handful of women are absolutely statistical outliers.

But take away your ability to manipulate the definition of leadership to your convenience and you’re a debased cry baby.

Women can absolutely follow orders and rehash them to people who have to listen if they want to keep a job/position et cetera according to a system larger than themselves and their direct supervisor.

You are right.

True leadership on the other hand did not manifest itself in the female gender until the legal ability to leverage system support allowed it to. And although it has, positions of true leadership are dispraportionately filled by men, even today, decades after any effective “glass ceiling” has been removed. But yes, more and more women are finding themselves in middle and frontline management roles, entrusted to dutifully delegate actual leadership initiatives from above.

Now we have a basis… and off you go.

Later.

213

And once again:

The idea that women needed legislation to allow them to step in to leadership roles is a huge detriment to their ability to lead vs. men.

CEO positions being the only arguable role dominated by men because of time contstraints aside, we still have a dispraportionate amount of men vs. women in lesser management roles. A competent leader wouldn’t be a victim of gender bias. Your argument is as much a false premise and misinformed assumption as any.

In fact, all arguments are a false premise in a conversation lacking any premise at all.

You are promoting alternative theories as if they are a definitive truth and using semantics to color issues with a “false premise” brush which is intellectually dishonest if anything.

Women can indeed fill a pre-existing role and dutifully carry out responsibilities. This is called Process Theory of Leadership. You are given a title with authority backed by a higher authority and people respect that overall authority even if not you as you delegate tasks and processes. A robot can do this with the right programming.

Then you have the Trait Theory of Leadership. This describes “born leaders”, people able to command a constituency on their own accord, people with the ability to command respect on their own merit, who can impose their will on others, charismatic, domineering when necessary, intelligent et cetera.

These people can and do fill Process Leadership roles but they are able to rise higher, largely due to their ability to command respect and domineer a group over and above a basic process of duty.

Typically, these domineering, respect commanding, imposing people are men and always have been, which is why men tend to hold the highest offices, have written history and and will be the majority sex in leadership for the forseeable future.

Testosterone does play a role in commanding respect, imposing your will et cetera. Nobody is talking about running in to an office and sledgehammering a coworker in to submission. There is more to dominance than physical violence and dominance is a masculine trait. An inborn trait too, minus outliers.

214

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Raj, just stop. There is absolutely no way to quantify the level of attractiveness of women in various industries. Like Orion, it’s an intellectually dishonest tact you’re using. You have arrived at your conclusion based on an assumption that cannot effectively be proven one way or the other.
[/quote]

I have provided what evidence there is available. The nature of this very discussion will mostly be on anecdotal evidence.

215

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Also Raj, your examples of industries with attractive women are also poor examples. OF COURSE a stripper is likely to be more attractive than a lawyer. Strippers are in an industry in which looks matter. The same could be said about bartending. Waitresses and hostesses? Not so much. I had dinner at a Pasta Pomodoro in Walnut Creek last night and both the hostess AND my waitress looked like radiation victims.
[/quote]

Compare the average 27-30 waitress to the average 27-30 partner tracked lawyer / investment banker etc.

While you may know several hot women that are also captains of industry, the rest of us men here are generally agree women in academia are much less attractive than less educated women

216

[quote]pushharder wrote:

C’mon, I’ve got to think you are performing an “exercise” in this thread, i.e., you’re taking the opposite argument of what you really believe and arguing it for the sake of arguing. You’re making a valiant effort but you simply can’t get the job done.[/quote]

Glad to see I’m not the only one who has had this suspicion.

217

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Raj, I’m really liking your posting outside of PWI, but you wiped out a LOT of the goodwill you’d made with me now that I’Ve had to scroll past that bug-eyed toad faced jezebal editor’s ugly mug 6 times now.

Yearggghh. [/quote]

I don’t recommend watching the video unless of course you’re into fat, shameless overly-sarcastic women like DB is.

218

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

This entire post is wrought with ignorance. Yeah, you know what? Most of the attractive women I know are pretty damn smart. Maybe you should ask yourself why the ones you know are dumbfucks. Maybe the issue is with you. [/quote]

I know you only surround yourself with 9’s and 10’s that are also solving the world’s problems.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

The fact is that you can NEVER prove that smarter, more educated women are also less attractive as a rule. It doesn’t break down that simply.[/quote]

No I cannot, I provided what is available. Again the nature of this subject will not have mounds of research done on it.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Femininity is submissive by nature? According to whose definition of femininity? Yours? Not mine, and certainly not most of the women I know. Do you even know any beautiful women, Raj? Probably not. [/quote]

LOL - Um, most guys?

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Physical attractiveness is NOT the sole deciding factor when couples get married. If that were the case, every guy out there would marry the hottest chick he ever banged and every woman would marry the hottest guy who ever fucked her. But that isn’t how things work out.[/quote]

What the hell does this have to do with anything?

219

So guys, what is femininity?

Is Submissiveness an aspect of femininity?

Long hair?

Stereotypically female clothing like dresses, skirts, heels?

How do you describe femininity?

220

Captainess of industry