Women's Fight to Vote Tied to Declining SMV

Off Topic
81

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Study: Women Who Make More Decisions Have Less Sex

"Not only were these women having less sex, but ?the findings showed more dominant and assertive women had approximately 100 times less sex.?

Not surprising really - less assertive (typically submissive and feminine) women have more sex than assertive manly women who rule their men. [/quote]

But do they wish they had more sex?

Because I could see this hypothetical case where in the relationship men want to have sex all the time, and women only want to have sex rarely…

In which case, if the man is dominant, they’ll have more sex. If the woman is dominant, they’ll have less sex. Just talking about cases where she’s really not that interested but does it anyway.[/quote]

Possible also that in female dominant relationships the men don’t want as much sex. Lower test levels or something. Doesn’t necessarily mean the women are using their greater power to refuse. Most of the dominant-type women I know seem very sexual. Man-like, even. Not so the passive, indecisive men they tend to attract.[/quote]

lol - it’s not that, it’s that women DESIRE to be in their ancient biological roles. Why do you think households where housework is split have such high divorce rates? - Seeing a man wearing an apron vacuum causes a woman’s attraction to plummet.

Plus the spineless guys these modern women end up marrying are probably begging their wives every time they want to have sex. On a scale of 1 to 10, how attractive is it to you when a guy begs for sex?

82

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
This reminded me of this.

Any man who does not get why this is hilarious is doing it wrong. [/quote]

I’m literally lolling right now. Is that an actual picture? [/quote]

I know that the quote is real and I know what early sufragettes looked like so if its not real, it is real enough. [/quote]

As the Italians say, if it’s not real, it should be.

83

[quote]Typhoon wrote:
And there is nothing wrong with that if that is what both of you want. However not everyone wants this type of relationship. I for one hate most things that come with a woman that is a good nurturer. My preference is more of a tom boyish girl/woman. I hate girly girls. The gossiping, the constant make up, the bags/jewelry, painted nails, I don’t find any of that attractive.

Coincidentally most girls I’ve dated were not the marrying kind, did not want kids and generally were more like guys in behavior than the stereotypical woman in a relationship. If these girls were not given the chance (through today’s society) on being able to lead such an alternate lifestyle then more likely I would have been a very lonely guy.[/quote]

Plenty of dudes out there.

[quote]On the other hand some feminist can out right piss me off with their hypocrisy. Especially with the attitude we want equal right, we want to be treated just like men yet still expect, in relationships, to be treated like princesses.
[/quote]

So, you want to be treated like a princess?

84

[quote]harrypotter wrote:
Sorry, but I am not the type to get all cushy with women in a job that I had no interest in.

I could have been a high level manager in that company if I took the steps to become a manager but I cant stand retail, the environment and the majority of its employees.[/quote]

So, you worked as a foot soldier for four years instead of becoming management? Interesting.

85

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Study: Women Who Make More Decisions Have Less Sex

"Not only were these women having less sex, but ?the findings showed more dominant and assertive women had approximately 100 times less sex.?

Not surprising really - less assertive (typically submissive and feminine) women have more sex than assertive manly women who rule their men. [/quote]

But do they wish they had more sex?

Because I could see this hypothetical case where in the relationship men want to have sex all the time, and women only want to have sex rarely…

In which case, if the man is dominant, they’ll have more sex. If the woman is dominant, they’ll have less sex. Just talking about cases where she’s really not that interested but does it anyway.[/quote]

Possible also that in female dominant relationships the men don’t want as much sex. Lower test levels or something. Doesn’t necessarily mean the women are using their greater power to refuse. Most of the dominant-type women I know seem very sexual. Man-like, even. Not so the passive, indecisive men they tend to attract.[/quote]

It is known, real men want real women. Masculine finds feminine attractive.

86

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[u]there is nothing to suggest that there is any correlation whatsoever between gender role and “happiness factor”.[/u]
[/quote]

DB, my head is going to explode.

Now I really DO think you are just trying to be contentious.

87

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[u]there is nothing to suggest that there is any correlation whatsoever between gender role and “happiness factor”.[/u]
[/quote]

DB, my head is going to explode.

Now I really DO think you are just trying to be contentious. [/quote]

He’s not. This is 100% in line with feminist theory.

Gender roles are a social construct, men have been oppressing women through the patriarchy.

88

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Also, men and women are NOT more or less-inclined toward authority or nurture or anything like that as a matter of genetics or sex or whatever. Those differences ONLY exist as a social construct.

[/quote]

Sure, for 10,000 years of human history, in virtually every society that has ever existed, men have just, gotten lucky. Every. Single. Time.

Gotcha.

More, vast, sweeping generalizations from the ivory tower. Meanwhile, we here on the ground with kids and families, particularly those of us who’ve lived in two different societies with EXTREMELY different cultures and ideas about gender, have come to a different conclusion.

Want to test this conclusion? Try raising a child as good as any mother could and get back to me.

Or ask yourself why single-parent, fatherless families tend to do worse in almost every measurable category when compared to intact families with a mother and a father.

*edited quote snafu

89

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Also, men and women are NOT more or less-inclined toward authority or nurture or anything like that as a matter of genetics or sex or whatever. Those differences ONLY exist as a social construct.

[/quote]

Sure, for 10,000 years of human history, in virtually every society that has ever existed, men have just, gotten lucky. Every. Single. Time.

Gotcha.

More, vast, sweeping generalizations from the ivory tower. Meanwhile, we here on the ground with kids and families, particularly those of us who’ve lived in two different societies with EXTREMELY different cultures and ideas about gender, have come to a different conclusion.

Want to test this conclusion? Try raising a child as good as any mother could and get back to me.

Or ask yourself why single-parent, fatherless families tend to do worse in almost every measurable category when compared to intact families with a mother and a father.

*edited quote snafu
[/quote]

Because society oppresses them, man.

90

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[u]there is nothing to suggest that there is any correlation whatsoever between gender role and “happiness factor”.[/u]
[/quote]

DB, my head is going to explode.

Now I really DO think you are just trying to be contentious. [/quote]

He’s not. This is 100% in line with feminist theory.

Gender roles are a social construct, men have been oppressing women through the patriarchy.

And how did we do this, if there are actually more women than men and we just made shit up?

91

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Also, men and women are NOT more or less-inclined toward authority or nurture or anything like that as a matter of genetics or sex or whatever. Those differences ONLY exist as a social construct.

[/quote]

Sure, for 10,000 years of human history, in virtually every society that has ever existed, men have just, gotten lucky. Every. Single. Time.

Gotcha.

More, vast, sweeping generalizations from the ivory tower. Meanwhile, we here on the ground with kids and families, particularly those of us who’ve lived in two different societies with EXTREMELY different cultures and ideas about gender, have come to a different conclusion.

Want to test this conclusion? Try raising a child as good as any mother could and get back to me.

Or ask yourself why single-parent, fatherless families tend to do worse in almost every measurable category when compared to intact families with a mother and a father.

*edited quote snafu
[/quote]

Because society oppresses them, man.[/quote]

If tried opressing them man, but they just walk away…

Well, actually, most of them giggle.

Iz I doing it wrong?

92

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[u]there is nothing to suggest that there is any correlation whatsoever between gender role and “happiness factor”.[/u]
[/quote]

DB, my head is going to explode.

Now I really DO think you are just trying to be contentious. [/quote]

He’s not. This is 100% in line with feminist theory.

Gender roles are a social construct, men have been oppressing women through the patriarchy.

I’m specifically referring to the thread about gender roles and boys dressing like girls.

93

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Want to test this conclusion? Try raising a child as good as any mother could and get back to me.

Or ask yourself why single-parent, fatherless families tend to do worse in almost every measurable category when compared to intact families with a mother and a father.
[/quote]

I could raise children as well or better than the average woman. Easily. And so could many men, if - and this is a huge if - they were willing to learn and practice what we consider feminine traits like compassion, empathy, and patience.

And women will continue to be successful in business as they learn and master masculine traits like assertiveness and risk-taking.

I believe the truth falls somewhere in the middle. There are innate differences between the sexes but these differences can be overcome either through conditioning when young or a deliberate effort by an individual as an adult. The fact is, we don’t reward men for being compassionate (for the most part) and we don’t reward women for being assertive or aggressive (for the most part) so why would we spend any effort developing these latent traits in ourselves if there’s no payoff?

btw, your second paragraph above is true, but irrelevant. You would actually want to compare single income male head of household families against single income female head of household families. I would be interested in seeing how children from each of these households thrive into their adult years.

94

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

I have pointed out on these boards more than once that even today, with all the advantages women enjoy, it is terrifying to think about what it’s like to be an ugly woman. I don’t think that’s true for men, though maybe substitute extremely short or weak as similarly difficult challenges.[/quote]

Unemployed. The male equivalent of ugly is unemployed.

Without a job, with nowhere to live, with no car, a man is persona non grata.

95

to get back to the topic at hand - that of homely suffragettes - I do believe there’s some truth to the matter, as did the postcard artists as the time. Voting is about gaining access to resources, and it could be argued that attractive women had access to the resources of the time through their husbands. In fact, there was an incentive for them to not rock the boat, because they would lose access to wealth through divorce.

A woman who did not have her looks to barter for wealth would lose nothing by pushing to gain the right to vote. They had nothing to lose but their shackles.

96

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Want to test this conclusion? Try raising a child as good as any mother could and get back to me.

Or ask yourself why single-parent, fatherless families tend to do worse in almost every measurable category when compared to intact families with a mother and a father.
[/quote]

I could raise children as well or better than the average woman. Easily. And so could many men, if - and this is a huge if - they were willing to learn and practice what we consider feminine traits like compassion, empathy, and patience.

And women will continue to be successful in business as they learn and master masculine traits like assertiveness and risk-taking.

I believe the truth falls somewhere in the middle. There are innate differences between the sexes but these differences can be overcome either through conditioning when young or a deliberate effort by an individual as an adult. The fact is, we don’t reward men for being compassionate (for the most part) and we don’t reward women for being assertive or aggressive (for the most part) so why would we spend any effort developing these latent traits in ourselves if there’s no payoff?

btw, your second paragraph above is true, but irrelevant. You would actually want to compare single income male head of household families against single income female head of household families. I would be interested in seeing how children from each of these households thrive into their adult years.
[/quote]

Completely anecdotal, but the few people I’ve met who were raised without mothers have, to a man, been VERY socially maladjusted individuals. I KNOW this is not going to be true in every case, but it doesn’t take much of a logical leap to get to why both a mother’s and a father’s influences would be important.

Let me ask a different question: Do hormones affect human behavior, mood and personality?

Yes, it’s obviously a loaded question, but highly relevant to this discussion.

98

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

I have pointed out on these boards more than once that even today, with all the advantages women enjoy, it is terrifying to think about what it’s like to be an ugly woman. I don’t think that’s true for men, though maybe substitute extremely short or weak as similarly difficult challenges.[/quote]

Unemployed. The male equivalent of ugly is unemployed.

Without a job, with nowhere to live, with no car, a man is persona non grata.
[/quote]

Or, as was mentioned, short. But yes, a lot of money will cancel out shortness, oldness, ugliness, dullness, just about anything.

Which sort of begs a question: If men’s power is rooted in, well, power, and women’s in looks, what does that say about the arc this discussion has taken. WHY is this so?

If women and men are basically the same, and this is just learned behavior, why has it basically ALWAYS been the standard in pretty much every human society, ever.

99

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Also, men and women are NOT more or less-inclined toward authority or nurture or anything like that as a matter of genetics or sex or whatever. Those differences ONLY exist as a social construct. The fact is that many women do not exhibit the same ability to lead groups and all that shit that men do because they haven’t typically been placed in those roles to the same extent that men are.

[/quote]

You think like a woman.

Seriously.

If you are insulted you are sexist -----> double bind, yayyyy

“havent been placed in those roles”?

Fo realz?

You think leaders “are placed in roles”?

Ya, but they place themselves-[/quote]

And how does a woman think?

Leaders aren’t placed in roles, they earn them. What I meant, and what you are clearly not intelligent enough to understand, is that men in general have been given access to the public sphere that women have not had up until about 30 or 40 years ago.

Women are not typically found in leadership roles for myriad reasons, not the least of which is that men have traditionally dominated the workforce. Now that women are entering the corporate world at a much higher rate than ever before, we are seeing more and more women in positions of leadership: Hillary Clinton, Meg Whitman, Marissa Meyer and Gina Rommetti, to name a few.

Those women have placed themselves in those roles on their own merit. Now, are you trying to argue that there is some sort of biological predisposition that men have toward leadership roles that women don’t? Are you trying to insinuate that there is some sort of “leadership” gene or something like that which is only found in men?

If I recall correctly, there are 20 female CEOs in the Fortune 500. That is a record amount of women on that list. I GUARANTEE you that ten years from now that number will be bigger. Ten years after that, it will be even bigger and so on. The point is that as more and more women enter the corporate world and more and more men realize that leadership isn’t an exclusively male phenomenon, there will be more and more women “placing” themselves in leadership roles.

100

[quote]pushharder wrote:
REPEAL THE 19TH![/quote]

Heheh.