Women's Fight to Vote Tied to Declining SMV

[quote]orion wrote:

[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]

Oh. Okay, fair enough. I GUESS.

Why am I so fucking long winded? Christ. It’s a wonder I find time to manage a job or sex!

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[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.

I have a friend who is married to an Air Force officer. She’s only worked sporadically, in low paying jobs (e.g. retail clerk). He does not do housework or yard work. She gripes occasionally and personally, I’m a little offended when she does. So sorry princess! I find them both mildly unsexy.

Another friend is married to an attorney and works part time for their church. They have someone come in to clean bi-weekly. She doesn’t expect help, and in fact is very tuned into what he may need (comfort foods during trials, when he’s working a lot). They tend to host friends and family, when they do he helps clean up while they talk about the evening. They do laundry together usually because it means carrying stuff and sitting in the basement of their building. It’s hang-out time for them. I find them sexy.

Another friend is married to an older man who is retired. She works and he does only minimal housework. On the weekends she cooks for the week. Previously he worked while she stayed home (with no kids home). He grosses me out (zero respect) and I find her persistent simmering resentment depressing. Not sexy.

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?

[/quote]

Good post, Emily.

Matter of fact, I have no problem with almost anything you’ve said in this entire thread.

You are a stunningly effective troll.

('_^)

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

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]

Thanks. It was fun. I mean that.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
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]

Women suck at the whole catching Bin Laden thing:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

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]

Thanks. It was fun. I mean that.
[/quote]

I do have one other issue that just popped into my head, and I can’t believe this issue never occurred to me before.

If testosterone has some sort of correlation to leadership qualities, which is essentially what you and others have argued on here, then what happens as our natural test levels decrease with age?

In other words, if men are natural-born leaders, then why is it that virtually ALL world leaders today are well beyond the age at which their testosterone levels decrease?

I’ll tell you why. Because there is no correlation between testosterone and the ability to lead. Now, I understand that many men get into positions within the corporate world or the politics who are under the age of 30, which is about the age at which testosterone levels begin decreasing. However, wouldn’t that mean that men’s desire or ability to lead diminishes over time and that they should eventually hit some sort of ceiling or whatever? And how does this explain the fact that virtually all politicians enter that arena (assuming we consider them “leaders” as well) beyond the age of 30? You can’t even run for President until the age of 35.

The fact is that, while testosterone is the biggest thing that separates men from women as relevant to this discussion, it is not a determining factor whatsoever in leadership qualities.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

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]

Thanks. It was fun. I mean that.
[/quote]

I do have one other issue that just popped into my head, and I can’t believe this issue never occurred to me before.

If testosterone has some sort of correlation to leadership qualities, which is essentially what you and others have argued on here, then what happens as our natural test levels decrease with age?

In other words, if men are natural-born leaders, then why is it that virtually ALL world leaders today are well beyond the age at which their testosterone levels decrease?

I’ll tell you why. Because there is no correlation between testosterone and the ability to lead. Now, I understand that many men get into positions within the corporate world or the politics who are under the age of 30, which is about the age at which testosterone levels begin decreasing. However, wouldn’t that mean that men’s desire or ability to lead diminishes over time and that they should eventually hit some sort of ceiling or whatever? And how does this explain the fact that virtually all politicians enter that arena (assuming we consider them “leaders” as well) beyond the age of 30? You can’t even run for President until the age of 35.

The fact is that, while testosterone is the biggest thing that separates men from women as relevant to this discussion, it is not a determining factor whatsoever in leadership qualities.[/quote]

I was under the impression that male and female brains actually operated differently in certain ways. That there was actually more to it than testosterone.

Of course, the presence of increased testosterone for a long period of time COULD actually be the reason for differences in brain function. Certain chemical balances/imbalances can cause genuine structural changes in the brain over time.

If that’s the case, then even with declining testosterone levels, the brain would still have lingering changes.

Male & female brains are wired differently. There was a study done that proved this. I’m sure there’s also much more evidence than just this one study. For the study, they had cops show up to 1st grade classes to talk to the kids. The cops pull out their handguns (unloaded) to show the kids.

A call then pulls both the cop and the teacher out of the room and the cop tells the kids not to touch the gun that is left on the table. As soon as the cop and the teacher leave the boys always jump up to get a closer look and some of the boys pick it up. None of the girls do this.

Hey guys, lets entertain every roundabout explanation we can think of and ignore the simplest and most straight forward explanation we have.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

When it comes to the NBA…White men 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 black men traditionally have occupied (for the past 50 years or so). Twenty years from now I have no doubt that the basketball landscape will reflect this growing amount of white men seeking out starting positions.[/quote]

See ^, I can use your arguing methodology too, Del.[/quote]

This is very clever, let me try

[quote]therajraj wrote:

When it comes to interior decorating…Straight men 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 gay men traditionally have occupied (for the past 50 years or so). Twenty years from now I have no doubt that the interior decorating landscape will reflect this growing amount of straight men seeking out interior design careers.[/quote]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

…In other words, if men are natural-born leaders, then why is it that virtually ALL world leaders today are well beyond the age at which their testosterone levels decrease?..

[/quote]

Maybe because a typical 60 year old man still has test levels several times that of a 60 year old woman.

And that’s the way it’s been his and her entire lives.

And just because his levels drop with age it, a higher test level, was still a strong determinant in who he was and how he turned out to be.[/quote]
Yep. And younger men do replace older men as father time ticks on. Plus, as has been mentioned, once in place, people can fill a role with robot like obedience. The drive and fight to get to a high level happens years before the title is achieved.

Trait Leaders can and do fill Process Leadership roles, but with the right work ethic have the cajones to move higher. Women, excepting random outliers, do not have the inborn trait leadership qualities necessary to take genuine leadership roles, be it hormonal, brain wiring or what have you.

If they did you would see more equal contributions from women through out history before a legal system granted them the leverage to move in to front line and middle management roles through, largely through affirmative action initiatives.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

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]

Thanks. It was fun. I mean that.
[/quote]

I do have one other issue that just popped into my head, and I can’t believe this issue never occurred to me before.

If testosterone has some sort of correlation to leadership qualities, which is essentially what you and others have argued on here, then what happens as our natural test levels decrease with age?

In other words, if men are natural-born leaders, then why is it that virtually ALL world leaders today are well beyond the age at which their testosterone levels decrease?

I’ll tell you why. Because there is no correlation between testosterone and the ability to lead. Now, I understand that many men get into positions within the corporate world or the politics who are under the age of 30, which is about the age at which testosterone levels begin decreasing. However, wouldn’t that mean that men’s desire or ability to lead diminishes over time and that they should eventually hit some sort of ceiling or whatever? And how does this explain the fact that virtually all politicians enter that arena (assuming we consider them “leaders” as well) beyond the age of 30? You can’t even run for President until the age of 35.

The fact is that, while testosterone is the biggest thing that separates men from women as relevant to this discussion, it is not a determining factor whatsoever in leadership qualities.[/quote]

Testosterone changes the brain before a man is even born.

That is pretty much irreversible.

Thanks for the thread guys. It was an interesting read. Overall, I actually find myself on DBs side on this one. While there are rather obvious differences between the sexes, I don’t think that “leadership” is inherently male or masculine.

I remember talking with an older female family member* about education. She was a brilliant woman who managed the finances in her household. She brought up many kids, put a good number of them through college, and adequately put money away for “the bad years” (strokes, illnesses, needing a new house, etc) as well. Despite her obvious-to-anyone-who-met-her intellect, she was a janitor. I asked her why she didn’t get a college degree.

“College?!? Hell, I had to fight my father just to get him to let me attend High School.” She went on to tell me of her fight with her father.

Many of her children got college degrees. Many of her grandchildren are now in positions of authority. I would guess that some of them will have some serious money and power before I die. Yes, some of them are female. Obviously this is just anecdotal. But with headwinds like “you shouldn’t even be attending High School,” there is little doubt in my mind as to why fewer females are in leadership positions today.


I see no correlation between attractiveness and education/occupation. “Causation” has got to be one of the silliest arguments I’ve heard on here outside of PWI.

*Edit to remove personal information.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

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]

Thanks. It was fun. I mean that.
[/quote]

I do have one other issue that just popped into my head, and I can’t believe this issue never occurred to me before.

If testosterone has some sort of correlation to leadership qualities, which is essentially what you and others have argued on here, then what happens as our natural test levels decrease with age?

In other words, if men are natural-born leaders, then why is it that virtually ALL world leaders today are well beyond the age at which their testosterone levels decrease?

I’ll tell you why. Because there is no correlation between testosterone and the ability to lead. Now, I understand that many men get into positions within the corporate world or the politics who are under the age of 30, which is about the age at which testosterone levels begin decreasing. However, wouldn’t that mean that men’s desire or ability to lead diminishes over time and that they should eventually hit some sort of ceiling or whatever? And how does this explain the fact that virtually all politicians enter that arena (assuming we consider them “leaders” as well) beyond the age of 30? You can’t even run for President until the age of 35.

The fact is that, while testosterone is the biggest thing that separates men from women as relevant to this discussion, it is not a determining factor whatsoever in leadership qualities.[/quote]

Testosterone changes the brain before a man is even born.

That is pretty much irreversible.

[/quote]

You just don’t get it do you? Everything works in an intractably linear fashion. And everything we say is to be taken at its most extreme connotation. So when we mention testosterone, that means that we believe that it is the sole contributing factor to leadership. Period. That’s it. Absolutely nothing else, including those bodily systems that are in turn affected by testosterone, which in turn affect other bodily systems, could possibly have any effect whatsoever on the all too conspicuous fact that every single major society from the very beginning of time, on every continent, in every single place we’ve ever found evidence for humans having come together, aside from a few, a very very few, statistical outliers, MEN have by and large been the leaders.

But no, it had NOTHING to do with testosterone or any other hormonal, genetic, or physiological factor other than the fact that the MAN, in this case quite literally, was keeping woman down.

[quote]DropKickNoxious wrote:

If they did you would see more equal contributions from women through out history before a legal system granted them the leverage to move in to front line and middle management roles through, largely through affirmative action initiatives.[/quote]

It wasn’t the legal system. It was the birth control pill and abortion, which together brought reproductive freedom. THAT is what really turned the tide for women.

It will be interesting to see what the next few decades bring.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]DropKickNoxious wrote:

If they did you would see more equal contributions from women through out history before a legal system granted them the leverage to move in to front line and middle management roles through, largely through affirmative action initiatives.[/quote]

It wasn’t the legal system. It was the birth control pill and abortion, which together brought reproductive freedom. THAT is what really turned the tide for women.

It will be interesting to see what the next few decades bring.[/quote]

A pretty hefty backlash or the economic breakdown of our culture and a mind blowing backlash.

Its inevitable, we have transferred so much money from men to women so that that they could feel “equal” that when we “run out of other peoples money” (TM Margaret Thatcher) it will snap back all the very long way.