Women's Fight to Vote Tied to Declining SMV

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Have you never met a girl who enjoyed baking?

EDIT: For that matter, where do you think those pictures on Pinterest and Facebook and all the cooking blogs come from? You really don’t think their husbands forced them to upload pictures of their baked goods… right?

sigh

An ad that stated the following was pulled due to complaints:

“It’s Friday night,” the ad said. “You can either go out and attempt to pick up sixes and sevens or stay home and watch (Knicks guard Jason) Kidd dish out dimes.”’

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Have you never met a girl who enjoyed baking?

EDIT: For that matter, where do you think those pictures on Pinterest and Facebook and all the cooking blogs come from? You really don’t think their husbands forced them to upload pictures of their baked goods… right?[/quote]

Of course I have. I also enjoy cooking, not necessarily baking but not limited to grilling and barbecuing either. I’m actually quite accomplished at it. I also know a lot of women who don’t enjoy baking and suck at it. I don’t use Facebook so I’m unfamiliar with what you’re talking about there.

Look, I get it. There are all sorts of women who enjoy “feminine” things. That doesn’t mean a thing. Women’s interest in “feminine” things is not a biological response, it’s a socially-constructed thing. I don’t know how many times I have to explain this. MOST women behave in typically feminine ways for a variety of reasons. The stereotypes exist as a social, cultural phenomenon, NOT a biological one.

I mean, what, am I some sort of biological aberration because I like to cook? I like eating good-tasting food so I taught myself how to cook since my mother wasn’t very good at it. It certainly didn’t affect her ability to marry or anything like that.

[quote]orion wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Hypergamy doesn’t mean shit in this conversation. Gee, women want to marry successful men. What a fucking revelation. Where is the connection between the desire to have a successful partner and a women’s alleged biological aversion to leadership?

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Hypergamy doesn’t mean shit in this conversation. Gee, women want to marry successful men. What a fucking revelation. Where is the connection between the desire to have a successful partner and a women’s alleged biological aversion to leadership?[/quote]

There is no aversion as such, but if women want to fuck upwards men necessarily must fuck downwards and therefore develop traits that help them to climb up as high as possible.

Put very simply, men are more driven and risk taking than women because the payoff is greater.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Hypergamy doesn’t mean shit in this conversation. Gee, women want to marry successful men. What a fucking revelation. Where is the connection between the desire to have a successful partner and a women’s alleged biological aversion to leadership?[/quote]

There is no aversion as such, but if women want to fuck upwards men necessarily must fuck downwards and therefore develop traits that help them to climb up as high as possible.

Put very simply, men are more driven and risk taking than women because the payoff is greater.[/quote]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Hypergamy doesn’t mean shit in this conversation. Gee, women want to marry successful men. What a fucking revelation. Where is the connection between the desire to have a successful partner and a women’s alleged biological aversion to leadership?[/quote]

There is no aversion as such, but if women want to fuck upwards men necessarily must fuck downwards and therefore develop traits that help them to climb up as high as possible.

Put very simply, men are more driven and risk taking than women because the payoff is greater.[/quote]

The relevant question is why women generally find themselves “below” men in such a way that they have to “fuck upwards”. To say that a person who wants to be married to a successful person is “fucking upwards” denigrates the whole thing.

“Develop traits”. So they aren’t born with these traits after all, eh? I guess that means that their allegedly superior leadership skills are not biological in nature but are actually developed and nurtured. Thanks for making my point for me.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Have you never met a girl who enjoyed baking?

EDIT: For that matter, where do you think those pictures on Pinterest and Facebook and all the cooking blogs come from? You really don’t think their husbands forced them to upload pictures of their baked goods… right?[/quote]

Of course I have. I also enjoy cooking, not necessarily baking but not limited to grilling and barbecuing either. I’m actually quite accomplished at it. I also know a lot of women who don’t enjoy baking and suck at it. I don’t use Facebook so I’m unfamiliar with what you’re talking about there.

Look, I get it. There are all sorts of women who enjoy “feminine” things. That doesn’t mean a thing. Women’s interest in “feminine” things is not a biological response, it’s a socially-constructed thing. I don’t know how many times I have to explain this. MOST women behave in typically feminine ways for a variety of reasons. The stereotypes exist as a social, cultural phenomenon, NOT a biological one.

I mean, what, am I some sort of biological aberration because I like to cook? I like eating good-tasting food so I taught myself how to cook since my mother wasn’t very good at it. It certainly didn’t affect her ability to marry or anything like that.[/quote]

I think you’re reading too much into what I said. I don’t remember ever saying anything about it being a biological response… it IS a socially constructed thing. I did question this idea that “women are only in the kitchen because they’re being subservient to their husbands”.

But the “nurturing” aspect is a biological trait. How that manifests itself in a society really depends on the society; I would say that women have EXPRESSED this nurturing aspect via cooking/baking and various other domestic activities, within modern American society at least. I also know other women that have this same trait, but express it via entirely different means.

However, I really really really don’t think that perpetuating a stereotype via a bunch of toys is limiting women or holding them back at all. Especially considering the audience; while boys and girls can be shaped by early experience, the toys and career paths that appeal to children rarely align with that of their adult self.

Toys for young boys usually revolve around construction related activities, whether overtly with hard hats, dump trucks, bulldozers, or more covertly with building blocks, LEGOs, etc. And yet, most boys don’t grow up to work in the construction industry.

Likewise, just because young girls like playing with dolls [motherly modeling], or bake sets, or various activities involving beautification/dressing-up, doesn’t mean they’re going to grow up to enjoy those same things.

Now, granted, I’ve more adult women doing the same things they did for play as a girl, than I have adult men… but I find it very hard to believe that women are choosing to do these things ‘because they’re forced to play a submissive role to their husband’.

It’s not purely biological, but I would say “biological traits as expressed through modern society” is a significant factor.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Hypergamy doesn’t mean shit in this conversation. Gee, women want to marry successful men. What a fucking revelation. Where is the connection between the desire to have a successful partner and a women’s alleged biological aversion to leadership?[/quote]

There is no aversion as such, but if women want to fuck upwards men necessarily must fuck downwards and therefore develop traits that help them to climb up as high as possible.

Put very simply, men are more driven and risk taking than women because the payoff is greater.[/quote]

The relevant question is why women generally find themselves “below” men in such a way that they have to “fuck upwards”. To say that a person who wants to be married to a successful person is “fucking upwards” denigrates the whole thing.

“Develop traits”. So they aren’t born with these traits after all, eh? I guess that means that their allegedly superior leadership skills are not biological in nature but are actually developed and nurtured. Thanks for making my point for me.[/quote]

Developed as in evolutionary developed.

Also, 80% of all women had children, only 40% of men did, we have developed adaptions that only make sense if females indeed are very likely to fuck upwards, even while being in a relationship.

Also, women do not necessarily find themselves below men, they are just not interested in men below or even equal to them.

So either we have developed an astonishing amount of mate guarding adaptions in the few thousand years or so that we call civilization, or you have it exactly ass backwards.

What I do not get is this insistence on a stance which has no explanatory power whatsoever when it comes to hard biological facts, is contrary to the social dynamic in all other observable species and is diametrically opposed to almost all observable cultures, ever.

You bring nothing to the table but wishful thinking.

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
…because if all he has is some fake form of being indignant, screw him, neh?[/quote]

Wow, who knew you speak Japanese?

Or did you once read Shogun?[/quote]

Me! I read Shogun! And in fact it is my all-time favorite book. I was a sixteen-year-old runaway when I read it. I’ve read better books since, but none have offered as complete or as needed an escape. I swiped the copy I was reading, earning my street cred and my nerd cred simultaneously.

Naturally I am practically fluent in Japanese as a result.

[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]

I think you may need to state it and explain it, because if there were an emergency need for leadership and it seemed to be either the confident, sort of butch woman who sells me my (omg so good) breakfast sandwiches every Thursday morning and the male neighbor who compulsively overshares and has a painful, nervous laugh…please God, for all our sakes, let it be her.

MOST people are not leaders. MOST people are followers. MANY men display aggression. That is not leadership.

For the record…

… I fucking LOVED me some Legos.

Damn things were expensive as hell, though.

Oh, I did sleep with my sisters dolls, too.

I think I covered all the bases as a child.

[quote]imhungry wrote:
For the record…

… I fucking LOVED me some Legos.

Damn things were expensive as hell, though.

Oh, I did sleep with my sisters dolls, too.

I think I covered all the bases as a child.[/quote]

Lego was cool until you stepped on one.

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
…because if all he has is some fake form of being indignant, screw him, neh?[/quote]

Wow, who knew you speak Japanese?

Or did you once read Shogun?[/quote]

Me! I read Shogun! And in fact it is my all-time favorite book. I was a sixteen-year-old runaway when I read it. I’ve read better books since, but none have offered as complete or as needed an escape. I swiped the copy I was reading, earning my street cred and my nerd cred simultaneously.

Naturally I am practically fluent in Japanese as a result.[/quote]

Wow, Em, you are chock full of surprises.

YOU were a runaway?

YOU swiped a book?

Not what I would have imagined.

That book gave impetus to me wanting to live in Japan and master the language.

I sure hope you’ve made it here to see Japan and make good use of your hard-earned language skills! [/quote]

Is it a good book? I will shamefully admit I have never even read the book jacket summary.

Also Chushin, did you manage to get that Netflix account set up, or have you not messed with it yet?