Women's Fight to Vote Tied to Declining SMV

Off Topic
281

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[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![/quote]

What does that have to do with anything?

Men die years sooner, yet work more years, for more hours and they usually make more money.

Also, there are very few male single mothers.

The welfare state alone is a giant inter gender redistribution scheme.

Add to that divorce laws, the BS degrees that lead to more women with “higher education” than men and that those women with their BS degrees get jobs in BS public jobs and do BS things there and the playing field is so heavily tilted in the womens favor that the triumphant howl that “women are surpassing men”, “the end of men” and whatnot is hilarious because just imagine that all of this will one day simply…

stop.

282

[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]

Feminism is one giant shit test our culture has failed it.

283

[quote]debraD wrote:

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.
[/quote]

Thing is, any parent quickly learns that boys and girls act in disctinctly different ways from an extremely young age.

I neither encouraged nor discouraged my three year old son from watching, playing with, or liking certain television programs, characters and toys. He watched one of those Sailor Moon type shows with his mom and liked it a lot, along with more semi-boy-friendly fare and gender neutral stuff. From the time he was two, though, his tastes crystalized and they are decidely masculine leaning. He absolutely LOVES, and I mean LOVES the Power Rangers, and also cannot get enough of male superheroes. We’ve got Netflix now and he gets to choose what he wants, and there is plenty of “girl”-TV to choose from, but he has no interest in it.

There’s a reason for that. And I’ve heard the silliness about people subtly influencing their male or female children toward or against something. Sorry, I don’t buy it. My son is alone with my Japanese wife 70% of the day, and she SURE as hell isn’t doing any masculine based influencing. I have a student who has no father (that I know of, anyway), who’s mother used to actually actively try and dress his kid like a girl, tying his hair in a little topknot, buying him girls’ pink socks, painting his fingernails pink. We used to think it was pretty weird, but whatever, he was her son to raise. Well, sure enough, after a couple of years he is as boyish as any other boy, likes Pokemon, no more fingernail polish or pink clothes or topknots or anything.

Boys and girls are the way they are innately, I know that is highly distressing for some people to admit, but it is what it is. And it ain’t changing anytime soon short of some revolutionary genetic advancements that most people would almost certainly choose NOT to adopt anyway… I don’t know of too many people who would willingly choose to have an androgynous child. Most people would prefer to have masculine boys and feminine girls. And again, there is nothing wrong with that.

284

[quote]debraD wrote:

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.[/quote]

And those same 90% of women have no problem voting for basically feminist ideas and have no problem accepting government goodies that were forcibly extracted from men, by, horribile dictu, other men.

I like honest leeches so much more.

Or rather, dislike them so much less.

285

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[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]

It seems, Em, as though the distinction needs to be made, and shouldn’t have to be, that when we speak of such things we speak in general terms.[/quote]

I haven’t disagreed with you about the generalities. I have said that there were physiological barriers in addition to the social pressures. I have simply said that with those barriers falling, it will be interesting to me to see what happens. The history of women’s reproductive freedom is a very, very brief one.

I don’t argue that generally speaking, men have displayed far more aggressive interest in leading.

I also have stated over and over again that I see the gender differences, too. I have said over and over again, here and elsewhere, that I myself exemplify “feminine,” generally speaking. So I agree about the generalities. Don’t assign DB Cooper’s argument to me. I am saying that “most” is not “all,” and we have yet to see the new shape of history.

I will also remind you, though I shouldn’t have to, that “most” leaves out a large, large number of people. I work, as you know, in an industry that tends to draw sensitive types. I can’t imagine becoming romantically involved with any of the men I work with, given their slight skew to the feminine side (empathic, cooperative). They are not “most” men, but they are certainly not outliers.

I know a lot of women who do not fit the feminine ideal. They’re lovely people, but they are not girly girls. I might expect that they will do things I would not be interested in doing. While my boyfriend, and men like him, would not be interested in listening to teen girls talk about their eating disorders* for a living.

  • For example. This is not my specific job. lol

MOST men are NOT leaders, do not aspire to be, and would not be capable of. Does anyone really need me to state this?

286

Just to throw a few numbers in there, the Austrian income tax brings in roughly 23 billion EUR each year.

17 billion comes from men, 6 billion from women, meaning men pay 73% of the income tax.

The next biggest item would be VAT, which is usually on goods bought by women, but with money earned by men.

Since roughly 50% of all of Austrias GDP goes through the hands of the state, to pay for all the government goodies, this is a gigantic redistribution for a very small country.

287

I am also having a very hard time finding the same information for the US.

The IRS, which is basically able to tell me how much Eskimos paid in Caribou Taxes for each specific year somehow is not very forthcoming with this information.

288

Warning- anacdotes & observations

My fiance is far from what most people would consider a girly girl. She doesn’t wear make up, nail polish, etc. She likes to play outside, get dirty, has a good sense of humour and is level-headed (God is good!). However, these details do not At All diminish her femininity.

In a simlar vein, I am not a natural born leader-take over the world type in the least. However, she makes me more of a man (including the traditional stereotypes) and I hope/think that I’m helping her become more of a lady. How we are growing into these roles with each other, helping to complete and compliment each other towards a single ‘whole’(into a better reflection of the complete image of God, through His help)

All the work and other BS aside, this is where masculinity/femininity really is making sense to me. You need the other side to complete and contrast the first. This relation to each other is much more important than whether or not I have the same drives and interests as the top leader in every individual field (be it work/extracurricular etc) while those very leaders we’re comparing to are probably woefully inadequate in other ways unseen. All through history, most men were workers not CEO’s and execs. However, most men were still the head of their own household.

To say that work, as what we do, is an accurate representation of who we are is incorrect at best. But a man is a man and a woman is a woman, and the sooner men stand up and be men and in response the women stand up and be women, the better off we’ll all be. (note that both parties must ‘rise’ to their respective positions)

If a couple is fighting because they have both failed their roles and each of them waits for the other person to change, not much good is going to come of it. ->We could wait forever for the other side to change, and that’s not good for either side.

289

[quote]brian.m wrote:
Warning- anacdotes & observations

My fiance is far from what most people would consider a girly girl. She doesn’t wear make up, nail polish, etc. She likes to play outside, get dirty, has a good sense of humour and is level-headed (God is good!). However, these details do not At All diminish her femininity.
[/quote]

Something I’ve learned from this thread - Femininty now means whatever the hell you want it to mean.

Every girl is feminine no matter what traits and tendencies she possesses.

290

Getting back to generalities here…

Do these election results mean that women won? Or does it mean they lost?

confused

291

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Getting back to generalities here…

Do these election results mean that women won? Or does it mean they lost?

confused[/quote]

The only pertinent question is whether or not AMERICA won. I voted for Gary Johnson, so I’d say it was a lose-lose situation between the two candidates. There ARE more women in Congress than ever before, so I suppose that’s a good thing for women.

292

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Getting back to generalities here…

Do these election results mean that women won? Or does it mean they lost?

confused[/quote]

The only pertinent question is whether or not AMERICA won. I voted for Gary Johnson, so I’d say it was a lose-lose situation between the two candidates. There ARE more women in Congress than ever before, so I suppose that’s a good thing for women. [/quote]

But are they feminine enough? Not sure if masculine women in Congress is good for America.

293

therajraj -I may have misunderstood, but are you suggesting that femeninity is rooted in a pile of superficial stuff changing with the trends of society? -because if that’s the general concensus I could see why people think it’s just a social construct. I don’t believe that it is, but I could see us getting tripped up on terminology if that’s what some people in this thread are referring to.

…and for what it’s worth, my fiance is gorgeous and covering her up with a bunch of paint just detract from her natural beauty as far as I’m concerned. I know some people like that stuff and that’s fine, but you can’t equate it to femininity. She has too many overwhelmingly feminine qualities (beyond her looks which are as feminine as it gets) to get stuck on a couple interests or preferences.

here is a quick word from the start of my search on femininity and defining terms just for you therajraj.

"Femininity is more than the woman who is pretty, wears high heels, or dresses in skirts. One can name a host of attractive women who dress in heels and skirts but are not feminine. Makeup and dressing nice can be and are a part of it but only to accentuate, highlight, and idealize those features that make her a woman.

Do not let anyone fool you by saying that any other given culture did not have, say, women who wore makeup, therefore makeup is not a feminine trait or more importantly that there are no objectively definable feminine traits. Makeup is merely a concrete?only one possible application of femininity. What matters are not the concretes of femininity that are materialized, but the standard: femininity is defined as a woman who embraces her nature as a woman and acts accordingly. "

I strongly encourage everyone to take a look at the link below. I was about to start cutting bits and pieces but this post is getting long as it is, so I’m only going to include the definitions part, but it is a fantastic read (disclaimer-so far, not done yet).

For clarity, I went to start looking to define terms, and stumbled across this link. This is where the above quote is from and I left an excerpt below for clarity of what exactly is being discussed. I included the link below:

"It is the very nature of men that gives rise to masculinity and the nature of women that gives rise to femininity. Femininity and masculinity are the conscious, chosen behaviors of women and men to act in accordance with their nature as women or men respectively.

Femininity?the ?ought? of what a woman should do?is based on the nature of a woman, i.e., what a woman is. The same is true for masculinity. Let us now do something very unpopular: define the ?is? of men and women.

The nature of the woman, the reason for her existence as a woman differentiated from a man, is that she is the sex capable of child bearing. The nature of the man, his differentiation from a woman, is that he is the sex capable of fertilizing the woman.

This is not to say or even to suggest that all sexual interaction must be done with the intent to procreate. This is not to refer to the process of child making in any manner whatsoever. This is to suggest the definition of what makes a person a woman as opposed to a man. That difference, at its most fundamental level, is the woman is the child bearer and the man is not.

Many usually say in regards to this (dictionary) definition, ?But a woman is not just a uterus, she has a mind too!? A woman is indeed defined as a creature with a mind, but this defines her as a human not a woman.

Men, who do not carry the ?burden? of childbearing, are designed for one purpose: mastering reality. Men?s bodies are taller, bigger, and more muscular than a woman?s. They have less body fat, a higher center of gravity, and broader shoulders. Their entire design has one central purpose: efficacy.

Women?s bodies, on the other hand, are not designed solely for efficacy. A woman?s body is smaller, shorter, and less muscular than a man?s. It has a layer of body fat to protect her and a lower center of gravity. She has supple breasts, wide hips, and monthly periods. The central design of a woman?s body is not efficacy: it is child bearing.

I mentioned in the article before this that feminists have encouraged women to urinate in urinals, which is not appropriate for a woman?s anatomy. This is a clear-cut example of how a masculine woman behaves: by acting in a manner not in accordance to her nature as a woman.

Being male or female is an immutable fact of reality; being feminine or masculine is not?it is a chosen behavior. Whereas liberals tend to say gender is subjective, i.e., up to arbitrary preference, many conservatives argue that gender is intrinsic, i.e., automatically exists in a person. Gender is neither arbitrarily chosen nor automatic. It is, in fact, a choice, but a rational person would act in accordance to their nature. It is possible for a woman to act masculine or for a man to act feminine, but it is not rational."

294

*in reference to link above, I was half waiting for the mirroring side and didn’t see as much focus on man’s appreciation of women, but in the same way, I wholeheartedly agree that it is a 2way street, its just for different reasons that attract the man about the woman (as described) when discussing what is the sexuality or attraction for each gender. (JUUUST incase anybody thought I was a chauvinistic jerk who thought all women should adore men and wait on them. Mutual adoration, different reasons. Initiation and Response. Male and female. >Sounds like a good, sensible fit to me…almost like somebody know what They were doing when They designed it that way.

296

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[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?
[/quote]

I guess I see it as a product of history + male physical strength. You’d probably argue “culture” as to why certain countries/groups historically didn’t “rise up”… I guess I’m thinking of this in the same way.

What do you mean by “really equal to men”?

I’m not sure we see “evil” in the same way based on this post. I really don’t understand how what I wrote would imply that at all.

297

[quote]Cortes wrote:

I have a student who has no father (that I know of, anyway), who’s mother used to actually actively try and dress his kid like a girl, tying his hair in a little topknot, buying him girls’ pink socks, painting his fingernails pink. We used to think it was pretty weird, but whatever, he was her son to raise. Well, sure enough, after a couple of years he is as boyish as any other boy, likes Pokemon, no more fingernail polish or pink clothes or topknots or anything. [/quote]

I had a kid like that when I was in Japan…I wasn’t around long enough to see what happened when he got a bit older though… hopefully he was okay… The mother seemed… off a bit.

[quote]
Boys and girls are the way they are innately, I know that is highly distressing for some people to admit, but it is what it is. And it ain’t changing anytime soon short of some revolutionary genetic advancements that most people would almost certainly choose NOT to adopt anyway… I don’t know of too many people who would willingly choose to have an androgynous child. Most people would prefer to have masculine boys and feminine girls. And again, there is nothing wrong with that. [/quote]

Uh-oh, maybe they have innate sexual preferences too! lol…just kidding, ignore this tangent.

Semi-serious though, you can’t be saying that “nurture” doesn’t play any role, can you?

Re:netflix … can you actually get netfilx in Japan now?!? awesome.

298

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

…MOST men are NOT leaders, do not aspire to be, and would not be capable of. Does anyone really need me to state this?

[/quote]

MOST men compared to MOST women ARE.

Does anyone really need me to state this?
[/quote]
You have no way of ever actually demonstrating this. Earning power does not equal leadership, and even if it did, women’s earning power is lower than men’s for reasons way more numerous and complex than simple biological differences that cannot be overcome.

299

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
You have no way of ever actually demonstrating this. Earning power does not equal leadership, and even if it did, women’s earning power is lower than men’s for reasons way more numerous and complex than simple biological differences that cannot be overcome.[/quote]

Oh Don’t worry, they’re going to out-earn us very soon. It’s already happened in some age groups.

300

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

…MOST men are NOT leaders, do not aspire to be, and would not be capable of. Does anyone really need me to state this?

[/quote]

MOST men compared to MOST women ARE.

Does anyone really need me to state this?
[/quote]
You have no way of ever actually demonstrating this. Earning power does not equal leadership, and even if it did, women’s earning power is lower than men’s for reasons way more numerous and complex than simple biological differences that cannot be overcome.[/quote]

Look at small group behavior, especially in crisis situations. Men often rise to the leadership roles setting direction; women often execute on that direction and keep things running smoothly.