Women's Fight to Vote Tied to Declining SMV

Off Topic
341

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

To the regret of many on this board I’m sure, women are viewed as being much more equal to men in all respects far more than they have in the last several hundred years. [/quote]

These kinds of comments, O’ White Knight, indicate an insecurity with your position.

On top of the weak “You hate girls!” there is also the fact that, if anyone were in a position to actually make this claim, you’d think Emily would have made it by now so that you wouldn’t have to. But she, unlike you, has not chosen to see things that do not exist or read words into our side that were never written.[/quote]

Oh. come off it dude. This is just a thinly-veiled attempt on your part to try and divorce yourself from the issue in a manner that allows you to take whatever high road you think you’re traveling down without having to actually confront the veracity of my position. A total copout, in other words.

The fact is that YOUR comments reveal an insecurity. You only chose to respond because you’ve been worried that people might think you fit into the category I identified, and once you saw it in front of you, you assumed you were being targeted specifically by me with that statement. I guess perhaps it hit a little too close to home for your comfort.

If I was insecure with my position I would have left well enough alone back when I initially said I was done with this thread. But I’m back because I have conviction in my opinion to the point where it was easy for me to be lured back into the fray.

[/quote]

“I know you are but what am I?”

I’ve not attempted to divorce myself from one single thing. I’ve was here before you showed up. You are the one making fallacious insinuations about the desires of posters who do not happen to toe the particular line you do. Other than yourself, you don’t know the first thing about what anybody here “desires” for women. Don’t tell me what I think or feel. You are losing this argument and losing it bad, clearly. Quit projecting.

I’m here to deal with reality, not emotions. That’s what men do. ('_^)

342

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
This isn’t really relevant to the discussion at all, but I couldn’t think of anywhere else to post this and I figured this was as appropriate a place as any to.

Wow. Very interesting. Good for her. In fact. That was such an unusual story they actually wrote a news article about it.

I wonder how well she’d do as quarterback?

343

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

It isn’t a coincidence that as women’s rights have increased and as they have been viewed as more equal to men than ever, they have gained more and more leadership positions in business and politics. Men HAVE taken a lot of steps to keep women out of these arenas in the past. If women were inherently adverse toward leadership roles, then why is it as they are given more access we see more women leaders?

.[/quote]

Because a small group of undesirable women have been pushing their crappy lifestyle on the majority. They’ve successfully infiltrated public policy causing a trickle down effect on the public school system. Women are being conditioned to pursue their careers and thus leadership roles in place of family at the expense of their own happiness.

Furthermore, this has drastically damaged boys as these policies have essentially attempted to outlaw typical male behaviour. I mean seriously, do you think it’s a coincidence boys are softer than ever?

Yesterday’s masculinity is today’s misogny.

344

I mean feminists complain about shit like this:

And you expect stuff like this not to have an effect on society?

345

FTR, I think both nature and nurture have effects on gender roles with nature playing the bigger role by a longshot.

346

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

…I understand that some statistic pertaining to some random group of women in Africa that RajRaj pulls out of his ass…

[/quote]

Great fuckin day in the a.m., Delbert. Did you, the Papua New Guinea amateur sociologist, honest to Zeus, just call out Raj for bring up some women in Africa?

Did you?
[/quote]

I provided ONE example of MANY that have existed throughout time. I provided that particular example because it is a perfect example of a pre-industrial, hunter-gatherer society in which men and women are equal. It is an example of how societies prior to industrialization did not have the same delineated gender roles that occurred after the Industrial Revolution.

In other words, it’s an entirely appropriate comparison relevant to this discussion. Throughout Germany and parts of Austria and Hungary there were many, many small enclaves of societies in which gender roles were reversed or were not very different from one sex to the next.

347

[quote]therajraj wrote:
DB, I posted a single study based on African women.

You still haven’t explained why female happiness has been on a steady decline and why working moms aspire to put their careers on the back burner and become full time moms. Not African women but American women[/quote]

SOME working women in America are doing that. I explained why this happens, and why women’s happines levels are on the decline in this country, several pages ago. It’s linked to the fact that Americans’ level of happiness in general is on the decline. Like I posted several links to earlier, the level of happiness in this country is ranked 114th out of 148 according to the HPI.

My argument is that as women, or people in general, become more affluent, they become more materialistic as well. After all, wealthy countries can afford to be very materialistic. As wealth increases, so does materialism, and so does our desire for more and more things. The more we want, the more it takes for us to be happy. This is actually a major concept within Buddhism.

This is why, according to the HPI, that the happiest industrialized, developed country is still ranked 28th out 148 and almost all of the top 50, including 1-27, are extremely poor countries. The three “happiest” countries in the world are Costa Rica, Vietnam and Colombia.

It has nothing to do with equal rights or anything like that, Raj. If it did you wouldn’t see countries like Iraq, Guyana, Albania, Mexico or Laos ranked well ahead of the U.S. As women gain more rights, they basically gain access to the same levels of materialism that men have access to, which spells unhappiness in the long run. It’s a society-wide issue that has nothing to do with feminism.

348

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

To the regret of many on this board I’m sure, women are viewed as being much more equal to men in all respects far more than they have in the last several hundred years. [/quote]

These kinds of comments, O’ White Knight, indicate an insecurity with your position.

On top of the weak “You hate girls!” there is also the fact that, if anyone were in a position to actually make this claim, you’d think Emily would have made it by now so that you wouldn’t have to. But she, unlike you, has not chosen to see things that do not exist or read words into our side that were never written.[/quote]

Oh. come off it dude. This is just a thinly-veiled attempt on your part to try and divorce yourself from the issue in a manner that allows you to take whatever high road you think you’re traveling down without having to actually confront the veracity of my position. A total copout, in other words.

The fact is that YOUR comments reveal an insecurity. You only chose to respond because you’ve been worried that people might think you fit into the category I identified, and once you saw it in front of you, you assumed you were being targeted specifically by me with that statement. I guess perhaps it hit a little too close to home for your comfort.

If I was insecure with my position I would have left well enough alone back when I initially said I was done with this thread. But I’m back because I have conviction in my opinion to the point where it was easy for me to be lured back into the fray.

[/quote]

I think it’s quite obvious this has become a personal matter for you. You mentioned that both your girlfriend and sister are attractive AND successful women.

The idea that career women are unhappy, butch and terrible at leading completely spits in the face of your claim.

[/quote]

Now I’m really starting to question just how fucking stupid you really are, Raj. I never said anywhere in this thread that I even HAVE a sister, let alone an attractive one. I never mentioned the girlfriend I do not currently have either.

349

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I mean feminists complain about shit like this:

And you expect stuff like this not to have an effect on society?[/quote]

What do you think about this, DB? Do the feminists in this article have a point?

350

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

To the regret of many on this board I’m sure, women are viewed as being much more equal to men in all respects far more than they have in the last several hundred years. [/quote]

These kinds of comments, O’ White Knight, indicate an insecurity with your position.

On top of the weak “You hate girls!” there is also the fact that, if anyone were in a position to actually make this claim, you’d think Emily would have made it by now so that you wouldn’t have to. But she, unlike you, has not chosen to see things that do not exist or read words into our side that were never written.[/quote]

Oh. come off it dude. This is just a thinly-veiled attempt on your part to try and divorce yourself from the issue in a manner that allows you to take whatever high road you think you’re traveling down without having to actually confront the veracity of my position. A total copout, in other words.

The fact is that YOUR comments reveal an insecurity. You only chose to respond because you’ve been worried that people might think you fit into the category I identified, and once you saw it in front of you, you assumed you were being targeted specifically by me with that statement. I guess perhaps it hit a little too close to home for your comfort.

If I was insecure with my position I would have left well enough alone back when I initially said I was done with this thread. But I’m back because I have conviction in my opinion to the point where it was easy for me to be lured back into the fray.

[/quote]

“I know you are but what am I?”

I’ve not attempted to divorce myself from one single thing. I’ve was here before you showed up. You are the one making fallacious insinuations about the desires of posters who do not happen to toe the particular line you do. Other than yourself, you don’t know the first thing about what anybody here “desires” for women. Don’t tell me what I think or feel. You are losing this argument and losing it bad, clearly. Quit projecting.

I’m here to deal with reality, not emotions. That’s what men do. ('_^)[/quote]

I’m losing the argument? This from someone who argued with me about gender roles for about half a dozen pages in a previous thread before revealing that you had NO FUCKING CLUE what gender even was? Do you remember that? Do you remember telling me I was confusing gender for something else before I had to explain to you just what it even is? And now you expect me to take you seriously on this matter?

You’re coming at this argument based entirely on your own anecdotal observations in a culture far different than the one we are arguing about. You have provided zero factual evidence to support anything you’ve said. The fact that most people here agree with you does not make you right. I AM right and I understand the history of gender roles in such a way that you never will. I’ve studied it in depth, you have not. So as far as I’m concerned, you’re coming at this from a position of complete ignorance. You know NOTHING about the history of gender roles in western society. I do. You can call this an arrogant, pretentious stance, but the fact is that I know much more about this subject than you do, so forgive me if I loe patience when I hear you continually tell me that 2+2=5.

351

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

To the regret of many on this board I’m sure, women are viewed as being much more equal to men in all respects far more than they have in the last several hundred years. [/quote]

These kinds of comments, O’ White Knight, indicate an insecurity with your position.

On top of the weak “You hate girls!” there is also the fact that, if anyone were in a position to actually make this claim, you’d think Emily would have made it by now so that you wouldn’t have to. But she, unlike you, has not chosen to see things that do not exist or read words into our side that were never written.[/quote]

Oh. come off it dude. This is just a thinly-veiled attempt on your part to try and divorce yourself from the issue in a manner that allows you to take whatever high road you think you’re traveling down without having to actually confront the veracity of my position. A total copout, in other words.

The fact is that YOUR comments reveal an insecurity. You only chose to respond because you’ve been worried that people might think you fit into the category I identified, and once you saw it in front of you, you assumed you were being targeted specifically by me with that statement. I guess perhaps it hit a little too close to home for your comfort.

If I was insecure with my position I would have left well enough alone back when I initially said I was done with this thread. But I’m back because I have conviction in my opinion to the point where it was easy for me to be lured back into the fray.

[/quote]

I think it’s quite obvious this has become a personal matter for you. You mentioned that both your girlfriend and sister are attractive AND successful women.

The idea that career women are unhappy, butch and terrible at leading completely spits in the face of your claim.

[/quote]

Now I’m really starting to question just how fucking stupid you really are, Raj. I never said anywhere in this thread that I even HAVE a sister, let alone an attractive one. I never mentioned the girlfriend I do not currently have either.[/quote]

I’m almost positive you said you had a sister in the tech industry and girlfriend that had more education that you or I will ever have.

352

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
This isn’t really relevant to the discussion at all, but I couldn’t think of anywhere else to post this and I figured this was as appropriate a place as any to.

Wow. Very interesting. Good for her. In fact. That was such an unusual story they actually wrote a news article about it.

I wonder how well she’d do as quarterback? [/quote]

She IS the quarterback. You didn’t notice her taking direct snaps out of the shotgun? At that level they all run some sort of option/wildcat-based offense. She didn’t take a single handoff in the whole video.

Jesus fucking Christ. The fact that you just watched her score about a dozen touchdowns from the QB position before wondering how she would do at QB leads me to believe that your observational skills are completely stunted to the point where I’m not sure I should trust your judgment on ANY of the observations you’ve made about gender roles and used to support your fallacious arguments. You’re not very good at observing and evaluating at all, clearly. As such, your own anecdotal observations are not trustworthy.

353

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
My sister is a very attractive woman who works in the high-tech sector in Silicon Valley and is very successful and competent. I personally don’t find Kerri Walsh, Misty May-Treanor, Serena Williams or Abby Wambach attractive at all, but they are considered by many to be attractive women (well, maybe not Wambach) and they are clearly driven, competent, successful women.

[/quote]

Nice try

354

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I mean feminists complain about shit like this:

And you expect stuff like this not to have an effect on society?[/quote]

What do you think about this, DB? Do the feminists in this article have a point? [/quote]

Yes, they do. The toys clearly create the impression that a woman’s place in society is in the kitchen and their appearance should be geared toward pleasing men. Women’s place in society is wherever they want to go. It isn’t predetermined by societal norms. Women are not and should not be made to feel abnormal or like a statistical outlier or whatever if they want to strive for something more than being a housewife.

It creates the impression that women who strive for something more, who strive to make their own way in life independent of men, are somehow different than a “normal” woman. This sort of thing happened at a HUGE level throughout most of the 19th and 20th centuries. When you have countries like England that, up until the early years of the 20th century, allowed men to beat the shit out of their wives for not having sex often enough or for striving to work (yes, men had the right to beat their wives if they tried to seek a job) it creates a horrible precedent that isn’t undone by 30 or 40 years of modern feminist movements.

355

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

“Women are never seen as attractive and competent?” What fucking world do you live in pal? I work with women every single day who have degrees and are very attractive. I am currently dating a woman with a much higher education than you or I will ever have. She is competent and attractive. Where do you come up with these generalizations?

[/quote]

…

Lie much?

356

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I mean feminists complain about shit like this:

And you expect stuff like this not to have an effect on society?[/quote]

Why don’t you hear guys complaining about how LEGO portrays men as only driving fast cars and dump trucks? (And the occasional space ship.)

357

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I mean feminists complain about shit like this:

And you expect stuff like this not to have an effect on society?[/quote]

Why don’t you hear guys complaining about how LEGO portrays men as only driving fast cars and dump trucks? (And the occasional space ship.)[/quote]

Lol!

358

Perhaps anti-femenist claims would go over better from a woman. She makes some interesting points, all of which go against femenist theory. There are a bunch of videos.

Objectification of Women, or lack their of

The Disposable Male

She has plenty of videos, intersting to hear coming from a woman.

359

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
and their appearance should be geared toward pleasing men. Women’s place in society is wherever they want to go. [/quote]

LOL - and you think it’s a bad thing to teach both men and women that they should gear their appearance towards pleasing the opposite sex?

No wonder women are so fat, they’re listening to bullshit feminist nonsense such as this. Soon beautiful will mean “whatever the hell I look like currently.”

And it’s all because of idiots like you pushing this shit on women. The average woman can no longer be bothered to fix her hair or wear anything but sweats when leaving the house, let alone maintain a healthy weight.

360

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I mean feminists complain about shit like this:

And you expect stuff like this not to have an effect on society?[/quote]

What do you think about this, DB? Do the feminists in this article have a point? [/quote]

Yes, they do. The toys clearly create the impression that a woman’s place in society is in the kitchen and their appearance should be geared toward pleasing men. Women’s place in society is wherever they want to go. It isn’t predetermined by societal norms. Women are not and should not be made to feel abnormal or like a statistical outlier or whatever if they want to strive for something more than being a housewife.

It creates the impression that women who strive for something more, who strive to make their own way in life independent of men, are somehow different than a “normal” woman. This sort of thing happened at a HUGE level throughout most of the 19th and 20th centuries. When you have countries like England that, up until the early years of the 20th century, allowed men to beat the shit out of their wives for not having sex often enough or for striving to work (yes, men had the right to beat their wives if they tried to seek a job) it creates a horrible precedent that isn’t undone by 30 or 40 years of modern feminist movements.

[/quote]

If “normal” guys spend their lives driving dump trucks (LEGO, Hasbro), getting mocked and pushed around by women (pretty much any sitcom in the past 20 years), getting manicures (Mattell/Barbie)… or, hell ANY masculine stereotype in the media, from “action hero” to “abusive cheating ex-husband” to “lazy beer-drinking pizza-eating tv-watching bum” to “exploitative self-centered finance geek” to whatever… well, then I’m glad I’m not “normal”.

If you live your life limited by whatever image society presents you, then you’re doing something wrong.

Male, or female.

EDIT: If any woman feels constrained by this imagery, well, um, good for her. Because those who actually want to do something with their life, are actually too busy doing something with their life.