Women's Fight to Vote Tied to Declining SMV

Off Topic
361

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

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]

Oh don’t worry, women are ahead of the curve now when it comes to spousal abuse.

Women perpetrate physical domestic violence significantly more often than men, in both teen and adult couples.

“Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.”

362

[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]

How about this: If you don’t want your daughter playing with this toy, buy a different fucking lego set.

Is it possible that maybe, just maybe some girls would naturally be inclined to choose this specific lego set over another?

This is EXACTLY what I’m talking about - feminists are out to demonize women who choose and have interest in sterotypical gender roles.

What’s funny is, even on the internet in highly female spaces you’re seeing women naturally gravitate to typically female interests.

“But the site’s popularity highlights an uncomfortable reality: Pinterest’s user-generated content, which overwhelmingly emphasizes recipes, home decor, and fitness and fashion tips, feels like a reminder that women still seek out the retrograde, materialistic content that women’s magazines have been hawking for decades â?? and that the internet was supposed to help overcome.”

363

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[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]

How about this: If you don’t want your daughter playing with this toy, buy a different fucking lego set.

Is it possible that maybe, just maybe some girls would naturally be inclined to choose this specific lego set over another?

This is EXACTLY what I’m talking about - feminists are out to demonize women who choose and have interest in sterotypical gender roles.

What’s funny is, even on the internet in highly female spaces you’re seeing women naturally gravitate to typically female interests.

“But the site’s popularity highlights an uncomfortable reality: Pinterest’s user-generated content, which overwhelmingly emphasizes recipes, home decor, and fitness and fashion tips, feels like a reminder that women still seek out the retrograde, materialistic content that women’s magazines have been hawking for decades â?? and that the internet was supposed to help overcome.”

[/quote]

I was going to post, well, this. Thanks for sparing me some typing, raj.

364

On this very site, an entirely separate section, basically a completely separate site, was developed for women, because the very smart team that Tim and TC put together saw that the market wanted a place just for women. If it were just about physiology, they could have stuck with the subforum they had and bought products from the store like any man, but they wanted an entirely woman-centered forum.

365

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

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. [/quote]

If they want male attention and companionship it should be.

366

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[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.

[/quote]

Maybe I mentioned my sister, but I never mentioned how attractive she is. Although, we ARE twins and she looks a lot like me, so obviously she looks absolutely ravishing.

367

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[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?[/quote]

I’m dating her. She isn’t my girlfriend. There’s an obvious distinction Raj. Have you not dated women without being committed in the way that GF would imply?

368

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[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[/quote]

Well, whatever. I forgot I mentioned she is attractive. What does this have to do with anything? It’s pure sophistry on your part.

369

[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]

Gee, maybe it’s because having a job and driving fast cars is a lot cooler than spending your life in the kitchen in a subservient role to your husband.

370

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[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[/quote]

Well, whatever. I forgot I mentioned she is attractive. What does this have to do with anything? It’s pure sophistry on your part.[/quote]

O_o

371

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[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?[/quote]

I’m dating her. She isn’t my girlfriend. There’s an obvious distinction Raj. Have you not dated women without being committed in the way that GF would imply?[/quote]

In the MLB thread you told me your girlfriend’s mom had a master in economics. I assumed this girl you were dating was your girlfriend.

Maybe you’re just not accustom to people actually paying attention to what you say?

372

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[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[/quote]

Well, whatever. I forgot I mentioned she is attractive. What does this have to do with anything? It’s pure sophistry on your part.[/quote]

O_o[/quote]

I know right?

The guy insults my intelligence based on a false claim, then when I point out his lie he calls it sophistry.

374

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[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[/quote]

Well, whatever. I forgot I mentioned she is attractive. What does this have to do with anything? It’s pure sophistry on your part.[/quote]

It’s the 5th fucking word you wrote in what I quoted…

I think I’m being trolled.

376

I think this sort of ties in. Hitchens talking about how women aren’t funny. In summary his points are:

Women never needed to evolove a sense of humor.

The women that are succesful comedians, all take on masculine traits to present their comedy.

377

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[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[/quote]

Well, whatever. I forgot I mentioned she is attractive. What does this have to do with anything? It’s pure sophistry on your part.[/quote]

It’s the 5th fucking word you wrote in what I quoted…

I think I’m being trolled.[/quote]
Yeah, I made a mistake in calling you out on that. I’ve written about a million words in this thread so forgive me if I forget about something that isn’t material to the discussion. See, this is me admitting when I was wrong. Try it out sometime.

edit: and I’m sure you wish I was trolling you. It would that much easier for you to simply write off whatever I’m saying instead of having to face my arguments on their own merit.

378

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

…I AM right…

[/quote]

But that would make me wrong.

And that’s impossible.

You need to head back to the drawing board.
[/quote]

I don’t draw very well right now. Pinched my finger between two 45s in the gym yesterday and now my thumb is a little fucked up.

379

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[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[/quote]

Well, whatever. I forgot I mentioned she is attractive. What does this have to do with anything? It’s pure sophistry on your part.[/quote]

O_o[/quote]

I know right?

The guy insults my intelligence based on a false claim, then when I point out his lie he calls it sophistry.[/quote]

I am still waiting on his points on how he explains tons of emotional and physical features of men that lead to hypergamy.

He never addressed one of them, except for declaring ex cathedra that that they do not matter.