Went on to successfully orchestrate a peace treaty between Palestine and Israel
Future steel tycoon
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What I meant in the previous thread was that forcing a child to occupy a male gender role if he is in fact transgendered can be horrific.
What I mean in this thread is that there is no correlation between how a gender role is identified and happiness.
The claim was that women in a “traditional” gender role in which they are relegated to the private sphere leads to increased happiness. I argued otherwise based on the fact that countries with much less distinction between gender roles than what we have here have FAR higher levels of happiness, according to the HPI.
There is a difference between deciding for women what their gender role entails and deciding for your child what gender he/she is without regard to what gender they actually are.[/quote]
And what is the difference? I’m not getting where the transition occurs.
[/quote]
What is there not to get?
If a woman is born into the female gender role, what exactly that role entails is pretty much already decided for her. Women are supposed to be nurturing, better suited for motherhood than men and not as well-suited for leadership roles or whatever, according to the prevailing opinion in this thread.
With a transgendered child who is not allowed to wear a dress to school, the gender ITSELF is what is being decided without input from the child, not what the gender role entails. The child is basically told that he cannot wear a dress because boys don’t wear dresses. Is that defining the gender role itself? Sure, but it ignores the fact that the child itself may not be of the male gender to begin with, so defining what the male gender role is to him is completely irrelevant.
My argument was that societies in which gender roles are delineated as sharply as they are here compared to other societies do not have the same levels of happiness as those other societies. The argument put forth to me was that societies where women and men occupy different spheres (public vs private) have higher levels of happiness. That is not the case, as I have argued with actual evidence instead of totally unverifiable assertions, which is what Raj, yourself and Orion are guilty of.
[/quote]
Cool, you like totally destroyed our arguments with your superior intellect and criticizing of the studies that were provided without even providing any of your own, and stuff.
Now, if you don’t mind directly addressing the testosterone thing that keeps getting brought up over and over again, that’d be cool.
[/quote]
I recommended two books to you. I have provided links to the HPI below. You have provided nothing but demands that I address testosterone. What do you want me to address? The fact there is no link to testosterone and leadership qualities? And how could there be? Leadership qualities are a totally subjective, arbitrary concept. Aggression and nurturing are both qualities that a leader should possess, in my opinion.
If you ask me, I don’t think the qualities of a good leader are exclusively a masculine phenomenon. As I have pointed out, there are all sorts of women who are and have been great leaders throughout history. There are also many, many examples of men who were NOT great leaders.
So unless all of the women I previously listed (and I could fill an entire thread with lists of women in leadership roles if I performed about ten minutes of research) are biological oddities, as are men like Hitler, Mussolini, President Obama, President Bush (not trying to equate the dictators with the Presidents), Mao, Pol Pot, Ngho Din Diem and so forth, there is no merit to the argument that men, by nature, are better suited to be leaders than women are.
http://www.happyplanetindex.org/assets/happy-planet-index-poster.pdf
[/quote]
So instead of dealing with this:
You spend the next three pages twisting the definition of “leadership” into: whenever a woman or man anywhere, does anything, that’s leadership.
Also, you don’t get to call Sean Connery a statistical outlier and then post about the Hibitoe Tribe in Papua New Guinea and then whine that we are calling all your examples…wait for it…statistical outliers.
This thread is dumb.
*edit: damnable quote function
[quote]therajraj wrote:
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?[/quote]
Emotional warmth and generosity.
A kind, nurturing and supportive soul.
The ability to wear a dress and make it say thank you for allowing it to touch her skin.
I will never forget the girl I saw with a red summer dress and Timberland boots.
It should not have worked and the women right next to her were probably at least if not more beautiful than her, wearing outfits that cost her months wages, but I doubt that anyone remembers them after 15 years.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What I meant in the previous thread was that forcing a child to occupy a male gender role if he is in fact transgendered can be horrific.
What I mean in this thread is that there is no correlation between how a gender role is identified and happiness.
The claim was that women in a “traditional” gender role in which they are relegated to the private sphere leads to increased happiness. I argued otherwise based on the fact that countries with much less distinction between gender roles than what we have here have FAR higher levels of happiness, according to the HPI.
There is a difference between deciding for women what their gender role entails and deciding for your child what gender he/she is without regard to what gender they actually are.[/quote]
And what is the difference? I’m not getting where the transition occurs.
[/quote]
Femininess is directly connected with motherhood, masculiness is directly connected with fatherhood. These are the gender roles, can a woman work in an office? Yes, but if she lacks motherhood whether that be biological or “spiritual” she is less attractive beyond her sexual values (how she looks) why? Because she is not whole. Can she be a manager and still retain her motherhood? Sure, but it won’t match what we deem as leadership within business likely not allowing her the opportunity to become a manager. Same for men. The difference is that fatherhood is easily portrayed within being a leader as men are supposed to be the head of the woman.
Women gain the right to vote in 1920. 1929 the Great Depression happens. Coincidence? I think not.
Really women have been destroying men’s lives ever since Eve lied to Adam and fed him the forbidden fruit because she was too lazy to spend a couple extra minutes picking other fruit. It’s history people.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
Del denies it but I’m not convinced. He’s too smart. I still suspect he’s playing this thing out for personal gratification reasons; I think he may be challenging his own self to perform an intellectually herculean task.[/quote]
Yeah, God forbid I have a differing opinion than you guys. You’re right Push. If I disagree with the common opinion on this thread then I MUST be doing so purely out of spite because there is absolutely NO way that anyone could disagree with you and Cortes and Raj and Orion and HoustonGuy on any other terms, right?
You guys disagree with me, fine. I’m over it. I’ve said all I have to say on the matter and now it’s time to lift.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What I meant in the previous thread was that forcing a child to occupy a male gender role if he is in fact transgendered can be horrific.
What I mean in this thread is that there is no correlation between how a gender role is identified and happiness.
The claim was that women in a “traditional” gender role in which they are relegated to the private sphere leads to increased happiness. I argued otherwise based on the fact that countries with much less distinction between gender roles than what we have here have FAR higher levels of happiness, according to the HPI.
There is a difference between deciding for women what their gender role entails and deciding for your child what gender he/she is without regard to what gender they actually are.[/quote]
And what is the difference? I’m not getting where the transition occurs.
[/quote]
Femininess is directly connected with motherhood, masculiness is directly connected with fatherhood. These are the gender roles, can a woman work in an office? Yes, but if she lacks motherhood whether that be biological or “spiritual” she is less attractive beyond her sexual values (how she looks) why? Because she is not whole. Can she be a manager and still retain her motherhood? Sure, but it won’t match what we deem as leadership within business likely not allowing her the opportunity to become a manager. Same for men. The difference is that fatherhood is easily portrayed within being a leader as men are supposed to be the head of the woman. [/quote]
I was just going to say that if you want a good distillation of what masculine and feminine is represented by, look no further than the idea of the father and the mother.
The father is the protector, fighter, LEADER, arbiter, decision maker, disciplinarian. He represents logic, integrity, independence, virility and confidence. The father teaches his child how to be strong and take care of himself.
The mother is the nurturer, caregiver, comforter, and listener. She represents compassion, patience, affection, gentleness, emotion, sensuality and reception.
There is nothing either good or bad about either one of these, and before someone moronically says, “Well I know women who are independent,” that’s not what this is about. This is about dominant characteristics of either sex. As a general rule, men possess more of the former, women more of the latter. It amazes me that I actually felt I needed to type that last sentence.
I just can’t believe a grown man in his early 30s hasn’t figured out men and women are inherently different creatures.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I just can’t believe a grown man in his early 30s hasn’t figured out men and women are inherently different creatures.
[/quote]
And I CAN believe that you are incapable of understanding why men and women are inherently different in ways that do not include a (false) biological inclination toward leadership based solely on sex/gender.
[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]
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.[/quote]
Dear Moderators,
Will you please NOT kick HG out this time? I know I know, I hate him too but at least he starts new topics and keeps the threads moving along. It has been getting a little stale in here without him.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
Del denies it but I’m not convinced. He’s too smart. I still suspect he’s playing this thing out for personal gratification reasons; I think he may be challenging his own self to perform an intellectually herculean task.[/quote]
Yeah, God forbid I have a differing opinion than you guys. You’re right Push. If I disagree with the common opinion on this thread then I MUST be doing so purely out of spite because there is absolutely NO way that anyone could disagree with you and Cortes and Raj and Orion and HoustonGuy on any other terms, right?
You guys disagree with me, fine. I’m over it. I’ve said all I have to say on the matter and now it’s time to lift. [/quote]
I didn’t suggest you were doing it out of spite. I suggested you were doing it for a challenge. A self challenge.[/quote]
Oh, believe me, I see this as a challenge. But my arguments are pure, as are my intentions. I truly believe what I am arguing about. If I were participating in this thread simply to play devil’s advocate I would be flying off the handle with insults and derogatory comments and all that kind of shit in an overly provocative manner. I can troll this site with the best (or worst) of them if I so choose. It’s why HoustonGuy hates me. I’m better at being a pathetically contentious loser than he is. This is not one of those instances.
Regardless, I’m done with this thread. I’ve said all I have to say and now my arguments are just repeating themselves. You guys feel one way, I feel another. I think I’m right and quite frankly, no one here has even come close to convincing me otherwise. Clearly I haven’t brought anyone closer to my way of thinking either, so to continue is nothing more than the same mental masturbation that goes on in virtually every PWI thread after a few pages.
[quote]Grimlorn wrote:
Women gain the right to vote in 1920. 1929 the Great Depression happens. Coincidence? I think not.
Really women have been destroying men’s lives ever since Eve lied to Adam and fed him the forbidden fruit because she was too lazy to spend a couple extra minutes picking other fruit. It’s history people.[/quote]
No nuclear weapons before women could vote.
Coincidence?
I think not.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
In Germany, this eventually led to the development of kindergartens (children gardens) where women were the teachers. But teaching was not seen as work but rather as a familial duty that women were best suited for. Of course, there was no legitimate basis for this assumption other than that women did NOT belong in the workforce, so by default they belonged at home.[/quote]
I would prefer that women fill the majority of jobs involving teaching and caring for children for the simple fact that 99% of pedophiles are male.
(I know this doesn’t directly address what you wrote, but your post triggered this thought.)
[/quote]
That is not necessarily true, women have way more undetectable ways to indulge in it than men do, as part of their professions.[/quote]
Explain please.[/quote]
Most kindergarden whatevers are female.
If they wash or cuddle a child noone thinks twice.
How would you know what goes through her head?
[/quote]
How does this mesh with your claim that all women are hypergamic?
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
In Germany, this eventually led to the development of kindergartens (children gardens) where women were the teachers. But teaching was not seen as work but rather as a familial duty that women were best suited for. Of course, there was no legitimate basis for this assumption other than that women did NOT belong in the workforce, so by default they belonged at home.[/quote]
I would prefer that women fill the majority of jobs involving teaching and caring for children for the simple fact that 99% of pedophiles are male.
(I know this doesn’t directly address what you wrote, but your post triggered this thought.)
[/quote]
That is not necessarily true, women have way more undetectable ways to indulge in it than men do, as part of their professions.[/quote]
Explain please.[/quote]
Most kindergarden whatevers are female.
If they wash or cuddle a child noone thinks twice.
How would you know what goes through her head?
[/quote]
How does this mesh with your claim that all women are hypergamic?
[/quote]
Healthy women are.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I’m sorry, but how do you know what women DESIRE to be?? I don’t see anything emasculating about a man vacuuming, though if he felt the need to wear an apron to do it I might get turned off, because that’s sort of bizarre and cross-dressy, which are turn-offs to me. But just plain vacuuming? Neutral. I envision a couple deciding she’ll load the dishwasher while he runs the vacuum because they both worked all week and now want to get chores done quickly so they can go outside and play.
[/quote]
Its not so much what they desire, it is what they are programmed to be.
If you do more housework than her you are her bitch and you are out as soon as she no longer needs you.
If you do an equal amount and she tells you what to do, the same applies.
On the other hand, if you lift no hand in the household whatsoever you can reduce her to tears by filling the dish washer once every blue moon.
Ya, I know, that does not make sense, at least not emotionally, but this is how it is.
If you want a woman to be happy you position yourself above her in the social hierarchy and you stay there no matter how much she tries to pull you down.
I for one have no desire to be the guy she comes home to and kisses with the same mouth some immature, alcoholic and broke Alpha-oid just came into just because he pushed the right buttons.
Fuck no.
Practical solution for men, get a cleaning lady.
If you cant afford one, do the job while she is away and claim the pumpkin fairies did it or some other bullshit. [/quote]
There are all sorts of potential role scenarios that make willingness to engage in housework more or less sexy. She may or may not be in the workforce, which makes a difference.
Seems to me housework should be divided according to available time and circumstance. A stay at home mother of two children with a working husband should be managing the house as her contribution. A couple with two working parents should divide it evenly unless someone works more hours. Which isn’t to say they should do the same things, but time invested should match.
Your scenario above makes me once again speculate about the quality of woman you’re envisioning. I see your weep-with-joy woman as working at the Walmart or Denny’s and desperate for escape, because a higher quality, more self-respecting woman would label you “lazy” and GTFO.
I do agree with this. It’s not sexy at all and that relationship is doomed. Women are more likely to accept being ordered around by a mate, but that, too, is unsexy, and sex will probably be grudging and unwanted.
The idea of “positioning yourself above her” has merit to me, but I think there are a thousand and one ways to do this with dignity and honor and without stooping to being the lazy fuck who expects to be waited on by a woman who’s been on her feet all day. A man with a good, strong sense of self will always be someone a woman can look up to with admiration. Of course, in order to be someone with a strong sense of self he probably does things that correlate with success. But she doesn’t have to be less successful to admire him. She just has to be less physically strong or fast or good at math or quick with jigsaws or whatever.
Personally, I admire men’s maleness. I don’t have that. I have an income and a nice car and a graduate degree, but I can’t always get the pickles out of the jar. I also don’t have a penis or the testosterone that runs those. He can position himself above me by…well, by positioning himself above me. We don’t need manipulation, nature has taken care of it. If he’s a good guy and satisfies me sexually and isn’t a lazy asshole or a demanding prick, my mouth will be clean when he kisses it*.
*My mouth will be clean regardless. I don’t cheat. I would end the relationship. I can because I have a career, so I don’t HAVE to stay with a man I don’t respect.
Actually, Orion, respect is what you’re talking about generally. I think you seek it in ways that guarantee poor outcome. Respecting a guy because he has a job and a car is a pretty minimal standard. Respecting a guy because he acts like a self-centered boor…what does that say about me if I am that woman?