Women's Fight to Vote Tied to Declining SMV

Off Topic
261

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
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]

If what you were insinuating was actually true, it would mean that men have always been borderline evil; actively working to oppress and keep down anyone who was not basically white and male. But this isn’t a trait exclusive to man. This is a human trait. Men have done it to other men throughout most of history, as well. I can provide MANY examples. Think of Moses for the direction I would go if I were to do so.

What you are saying doesn’t add up. We see countless examples over time of people rising through unfavorable social structures , breaking through social barriers, and overcoming incredible odds to rise to the top. As a matter of fact, I would posit that many of the greatest leaders of all time have almost exclusively had to deal with extreme levels of oppression, conflict, backstabbing, and have had to face nearly insurmountable odds in order to become the leaders that they did. Since women have had so much more of this so-called oppression to deal with, if they were really equal to men, we should see many many more of them rise up despite it, or even because of it, to become great leaders. We should at least see a larger percentage than we do now.

Why is that?

262

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[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]

But, but, patriarchy dude!

265

[quote]orion wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

You can’t have it both ways. You cannot keep a woman home vacuuming and dependent on her “socially superior” (SMV) mate without the expectation that he’s signed on to support her, regardless of the outcome of their romance. If you want her to take care of herself financially (no transfer of money) then you can expect that she may be too busy and distracted to cheerfully bear a man’s children and load his dishwasher.

The problem is expecting women to fill a traditionally dependent feminine role, but without the courts judging her dependent and you the responsible party in the event of a dissolution of the relationship.

But I see independent people pairing up all the time, both with and without marriage. When both work, the only real risk is child support. Family courts prefer joint custody now, it’s considered best practice. If you can’t do that, you’ll pay. And men have reproductive freedom, too. They can also say they don’t want more children than be managed with both partners working. Although if she’s waitressing it’s going to be challenging. She’s going to wear out waiting tables and managing kids. But eh, with the kind of SMV she commands at the first, who cares.

266

[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]
Sleeping to the middle?

Come on, affirmative action and the ensuing laws REQUIRING companies to hire certain quota’s, to buy from “diverse” vendors including women against actual best interest in selecting vendors and employees on merit alone paved the way for women to fill process leadership roles.

The Peter Principle has been showing itself beyond the middle though.

Anybody can cross a bridge, building it is a different story and there is all of history to consider in that regard.

Come on, affirmative action and the early

267

Before gaining reproductive freedom women had to prioritize family building or eschew sexual relationships altogether. I don’t dismiss the other factors, I simply state that this is why women didn’t pursue leadership sooner. Let’s face it, it’s still a pain in the ass to deal with an employee who’s in the middle of her childbearing years. Exhausted and distracted for nine months…long leave to cover with a temp…back and tired for six months…finally refocuses and gets her edge back…year later, time for a little bro or sis and back to exhausted and distracted…meanwhile fill-in has been doing job for pregnant employee and resents being moved back to former position…promote her…six months later exhausted and distracted…ad infinitum…

268

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[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]

I disagree. It was the 19th Amendment, the legal system AND birth control/abortion. [/quote]
I’ve always kind of viewed abortion “rights” as a get out of jail free card for women. Where’s the get out of jail free card for us men?

270

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Before gaining reproductive freedom women had to prioritize family building or eschew sexual relationships altogether. I don’t dismiss the other factors, I simply state that this is why women didn’t pursue leadership sooner. Let’s face it, it’s still a pain in the ass to deal with an employee who’s in the middle of her childbearing years. Exhausted and distracted for nine months…long leave to cover with a temp…back and tired for six months…finally refocuses and gets her edge back…year later, time for a little bro or sis and back to exhausted and distracted…meanwhile fill-in has been doing job for pregnant employee and resents being moved back to former position…promote her…six months later exhausted and distracted…ad infinitum…[/quote]
You’re acting like motherhood was forced on women. It wasn’t and isn’t. Birth control is just more effective than pulling out, douching or most barriers.

The fact that women willingly submitted/submit to motherhood is another trait that doesn’t lead to leadership in the world though.

271

*birth control today

272

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

You can’t have it both ways. You cannot keep a woman home vacuuming and dependent on her “socially superior” (SMV) mate without the expectation that he’s signed on to support her, regardless of the outcome of their romance. If you want her to take care of herself financially (no transfer of money) then you can expect that she may be too busy and distracted to cheerfully bear a man’s children and load his dishwasher.

The problem is expecting women to fill a traditionally dependent feminine role, but without the courts judging her dependent and you the responsible party in the event of a dissolution of the relationship.

But I see independent people pairing up all the time, both with and without marriage. When both work, the only real risk is child support. Family courts prefer joint custody now, it’s considered best practice. If you can’t do that, you’ll pay. And men have reproductive freedom, too. They can also say they don’t want more children than be managed with both partners working. Although if she’s waitressing it’s going to be challenging. She’s going to wear out waiting tables and managing kids. But eh, with the kind of SMV she commands at the first, who cares. [/quote]

Ummmmhhh…

What!?!

273

[quote]DropKickNoxious wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Before gaining reproductive freedom women had to prioritize family building or eschew sexual relationships altogether. I don’t dismiss the other factors, I simply state that this is why women didn’t pursue leadership sooner. Let’s face it, it’s still a pain in the ass to deal with an employee who’s in the middle of her childbearing years. Exhausted and distracted for nine months…long leave to cover with a temp…back and tired for six months…finally refocuses and gets her edge back…year later, time for a little bro or sis and back to exhausted and distracted…meanwhile fill-in has been doing job for pregnant employee and resents being moved back to former position…promote her…six months later exhausted and distracted…ad infinitum…[/quote]
You’re acting like motherhood was forced on women. It wasn’t and isn’t. Birth control is just more effective than pulling out, douching or most barriers.

The fact that women willingly submitted/submit to motherhood is another trait that doesn’t lead to leadership in the world though.[/quote]

I’m not at all suggesting that it was forced, though an argument could be made that pressure was such that resistance was unthought of. But I’m not interested in making that argument.

Instead I will say that while many or most women welcome children, not all do/did and those women are the ones for whom freedom from pregnancy was meaningful. The women, let’s say, who yearned for something larger than family life. Who sought positions of leadership. :slight_smile:

I also never argue that women and girls don’t want traditional roles with bouncing children and strong but loving men. I know they do. But not all of them.

Men are fairly diverse in their wants, as well, aren’t they? Some guys want to work for a union shop and put in minimal hours and then go home and have a beer, some Dinty Moore beef stew, and three hours of television before going to sleep on the couch. Others want to rule the world. Both guys have testosterone, no?

274

[quote]Cortes wrote:
You just don’t get it do you?[/quote]

Lol. That was a fun thread.

275

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

You can’t have it both ways. You cannot keep a woman home vacuuming and dependent on her “socially superior” (SMV) mate without the expectation that he’s signed on to support her, regardless of the outcome of their romance. If you want her to take care of herself financially (no transfer of money) then you can expect that she may be too busy and distracted to cheerfully bear a man’s children and load his dishwasher.

The problem is expecting women to fill a traditionally dependent feminine role, but without the courts judging her dependent and you the responsible party in the event of a dissolution of the relationship.

But I see independent people pairing up all the time, both with and without marriage. When both work, the only real risk is child support. Family courts prefer joint custody now, it’s considered best practice. If you can’t do that, you’ll pay. And men have reproductive freedom, too. They can also say they don’t want more children than be managed with both partners working. Although if she’s waitressing it’s going to be challenging. She’s going to wear out waiting tables and managing kids. But eh, with the kind of SMV she commands at the first, who cares. [/quote]

Ummmmhhh…

What!?![/quote]

I said, if you don’t want to transfer money, find women who are not so far beneath you that society is delighted to have you pick up the tab for feeding them!

276

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]DropKickNoxious wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Before gaining reproductive freedom women had to prioritize family building or eschew sexual relationships altogether. I don’t dismiss the other factors, I simply state that this is why women didn’t pursue leadership sooner. Let’s face it, it’s still a pain in the ass to deal with an employee who’s in the middle of her childbearing years. Exhausted and distracted for nine months…long leave to cover with a temp…back and tired for six months…finally refocuses and gets her edge back…year later, time for a little bro or sis and back to exhausted and distracted…meanwhile fill-in has been doing job for pregnant employee and resents being moved back to former position…promote her…six months later exhausted and distracted…ad infinitum…[/quote]
You’re acting like motherhood was forced on women. It wasn’t and isn’t. Birth control is just more effective than pulling out, douching or most barriers.

The fact that women willingly submitted/submit to motherhood is another trait that doesn’t lead to leadership in the world though.[/quote]

I’m not at all suggesting that it was forced, though an argument could be made that pressure was such that resistance was unthought of. But I’m not interested in making that argument.

Instead I will say that while many or most women welcome children, not all do/did and those women are the ones for whom freedom from pregnancy was meaningful. The women, let’s say, who yearned for something larger than family life. Who sought positions of leadership. :slight_smile:

I also never argue that women and girls don’t want traditional roles with bouncing children and strong but loving men. I know they do. But not all of them.

Men are fairly diverse in their wants, as well, aren’t they? Some guys want to work for a union shop and put in minimal hours and then go home and have a beer, some Dinty Moore beef stew, and three hours of television before going to sleep on the couch. Others want to rule the world. Both guys have testosterone, no?[/quote]
We are discussing the population sample of leadership, and with history as a basis for the conversation we have a fucking huge statistical sample to work with.

As I interpret your point, the statistical outliers of the female gender who aspire to leadership roles in society when compared to the entire gender over the history of the world are anomolies, anomalies who still require leverage and assistance to rise to largely middle of the road positions even within their small sample group.

I believe women make excellent Process Leaders (team leaders, department managers, training managers et cetera). The nurturing, empathetic, motherly, care bear disposition lends itself handily to building loyalty, communication and blah blah. Necessary and awesome for business.

However the ability to formulate objective initiatives, build support around them while maintaining control, command the respect necessary to push them down through a chain of command and keep the objectivity necessary to enforce rules and regulations to keep an organization on track is another story altogether.

Excepting outliers and anomolies, women simply haven’t risen to the occasion. Ever. The idea that it’s because “pressure forced them in to a different life” only supports my point.

True leaders with inborn leadership traits certainly don’t fold under pressure and usually are the ones applying it. On their own merit.

What is being paraded as success in leadership by DB, yourself and a smattering of others is similar to winning a golf tournament from a heavy handicap anyways.

278

[quote]orion wrote:

But, but, patriarchy dude![/quote]

You know what I hate most about patriarchal theory?

It essentially takes women off the hook for all of their actions. I mean if men are oppressing women and women have no power or control, how can anything be their fault?

279

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
You just don’t get it do you?[/quote]

Lol. That was a fun thread.[/quote]

Heh.

280

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

But, but, patriarchy dude![/quote]

You know what I hate most about patriarchal theory?

It essentially takes women off the hook for all of their actions. I mean if men are oppressing women and women have no power or control, how can anything be their fault?[/quote]

That’s a pretty simplistic and inaccurate summary IMO.

It can be that for the ignorant and the lazy of course but the theory, at least the radical feminist theory and from a sociological perspective, is more about how women’s own behaviors are driven by social conditioning that happens to be favourable to men (in many but not all ways). If you accept that premise you can realize that the barriers that are ‘keeping you down’ are not real but social constructs. For example, a woman might not pursue something as aggressively as her male counterpart because domineering or aggressive behavior (masculine!) is considered unattractive. If you actually read the writings of radical feminists like Catherine Mackinnon, you’ll find they talk a lot about this. Not that you will, but just saying. :wink:

Understanding that feminine behavior, including passive, submissive or even child-like behavior might be encouraged and rewarded in patriarchal society is a far cry from pointing at evil men and saying ‘you are keeping me down.’ An intelligent woman might see a lightbulb and realize that whatever life has out there for her brother is hers for the taking, too–as opposed to a woman crying out of helplessness.

I don’t particularly care if you buy the theory but it’s incorrect to describe it as you did. I’m confident in saying that 90% of what people claim IS feminism is actually just made up nonsense and urban myths. True strawmen.