[quote]orion wrote:
Well if you claim that there is no inherent difference between men and women that is exactly what you are saying. [/quote]
I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying what inherent differences do exist are magnified in Western society. Our society does not value patient, empathetic men, so men generally do not learn those traits. Forceful, assertive women are valued in the business place, somewhat, and therefore we see more and more women attempting to learn those traits.
[quote]orion wrote:
Its not so much what they desire, it is what they are programmed to be.
[/quote]
Yep, that’s a better word than desire. Funny enough, in polls one of the sexiest things a man can do according to women is housework.
Then a study like I posted above comes out.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]pushharder 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]
[/quote]
You know what Push, I like you and all that, but you seriously undermine your credibility in these arguments when you post something like this without explaining yourself as well.
Okay, you think what I wrote is bullshit. Care to explain why? BUT, before you do that, I suggest you familiarize yourself with some regional societies in Europe and the U.S. in which gender roles were completely reversed in terms of the workplace.[/quote]
I think it’s bullshit mainly because…I can feeeeeeeel it in me bones that it’s bullshit.
I tire of this nouveau, and oh so trendy concept that some “stuff” that has stood the test of time - thousands of years, that is - is now outdated and anarchistic in the minds of those who view themselves as so progressive and enlightened. Some things are just the way they are, Senor Delbert, and some of us just don’t need contorted, new wave thinking to straighten us out.
You asking me to explain why I think what you wrote is bullshit is like asking me to explain why the San Francisco Giants should be capable of beating the Idaho Falls Chukars. We don’t have to analyze it, we just know it’s the way it is.[/quote]
See, this is where you err. There have NOT been delineated gender roles within western culture the way they are now. Prior to the Industrial Revolution men and women’s gender roles were much more similar.
The idea that women are best suited to raising children and should stay at home and manage the household and all that is a very recent phenomenon. Beginning around the middle of the 18th century men in Western Europe began to condemn women who entered the workforce. As purely agriculture-based economies/societies began to disappear from Europe and were replaced by more and more industrial economies and labor became more and more specialized, populations began to boom.
As populations exploded exponentially jobs became more and more scarce, so men began to persecute women who entered the workforce and took jobs from men. Over the course of most of the 19th century the idea of the household as a haven from the harsh realities of factory life took hold and women were expected to prepare this haven for men returning from work each day.
Slowly, women were relegated to the home and kept out of the workforce. Lower-class women still had to work to survive and as more and more women were denied work despite not being married or whatever, prostitution became rampant. What began happening is that women were assigned all the typical stereotypes that we assign to the “fairer” sex as a way of justifying and legitimizing their exclusion from one whole half of society, the public sphere.
To be concise for once, most of the stereotypes that we have held about women did not exist 300 years ago. Prior to the Industrial Revolution women worked alongside men all the time and bore many of the same responsibilities. There wasn’t the same sense that women are incapable of certain things strictly because they were women. So the system that you claim has been in place for thousands of years has only been in place for 250-300 years and has been seriously eroded and RETURNED to its previous state over the last 30 or 40 years.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Its not so much what they desire, it is what they are programmed to be.
[/quote]
Yep, that’s a better word than desire. Funny enough, in polls one of the sexiest things a man can do according to women is housework.
Then a study like I posted above comes out.[/quote]
While the authors of the article you linked to looked for social reasons why they saw more divorce in couples who split housework, I’d be more inclined to look for economic reasons. If one partner is working and the other is not, then each doing an equal share of housework is bound to engender resentment on the part of the person who is also working. If both parties are working, what does is say about their income that they are not able/willing to hire a maid? In this case, equal housework is correlated with low aggregate income, and low aggregate income can certainly cause dissatisfaction within a relationship.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
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.[/quote]
Women like men, have big brains too (well slightly smaller technically). They certainly can be trained, educated and motivated to reach the highest ranks of the corporate world, medicine etc. just as well as man.
However that does not mean they are happiest in these roles. You see, what happening is this small group of undesirable women (physically undesirable to men) are pushing their unhappy lifestyle on the majority of women. This lifestyle of being in the workplace is only beneficial to these small groups of ugly women and or lesbians who have no use for traditional roles.
Women who want to become housewives are now considered “oppressed.” Women who conform to gender roles by tailoring their appearance to impress men (long hair, makeup, heels etc) are “victims” of the patriarchy.
The reality is, women who go far in academia/career only do so because they are unable to attract a high quality man. And it’s backed by science!
"A controversial study has concluded that the real reason women pursue careers is because they fear they are too unattractive to get married.
The research team, made up of three women and two men, said that when men are thin on the ground, â??women are more likely to choose briefcase over babyâ??.
And the plainer a woman is, they claim, the more she is driven to succeed in the workplace.
Central to their argument was the idea that women have evolved to become homemakers and men, providers.
They said this means that when men are scarce in a particular area, women, and particularly less attractive ladies, may decide they need to provide for themselves with a well-paid career. […]
After collecting data from across the U.S., they found that as the number of eligible men in a state decreased, the proportion of women in highly paid careers rose.
In addition, the women who became mothers in those states did so at an older age and had fewer children. […]
The final experiment tested the researchersâ?? suspicion that less attractive women would be more interested in careers because they might find it difficult to secure a partner.
The 87 young women were given mocked-up newspaper articles describing the sex ratio in nearby university campuses and were asked about their views on family and career.
They were also asked how attractive they believed themselves to be to men.
Those women who saw themselves as being less desirable than average were highly likely to be career-orientated."
[/quote]
This is another bullshit study. A grand total of 87 women were interviewed to come to these conclusions. That is NOT a statistically-significant sample size. Jesus Fucking Christ Raj. The fact that you keep posting these irrelevant, poorly-designed studies and surveys leads me to believe that you don’t one single fucking thing about statistics and as such, I would appreciate it if you stop referring to sabermetrics over in the MLB thread.
Women who have degrees and choose to stay at home are not oppressed, like you claim they feel they are. A majority of 87 women does not make that claim of yours any more valid. The fact is that women who have degrees and CANNOT get certain jobs because they are women are oppressed.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Its not so much what they desire, it is what they are programmed to be.
[/quote]
Yep, that’s a better word than desire. Funny enough, in polls one of the sexiest things a man can do according to women is housework.
Then a study like I posted above comes out.[/quote]
While the authors of the article you linked to looked for social reasons why they saw more divorce in couples who split housework, I’d be more inclined to look for economic reasons. If one partner is working and the other is not, then each doing an equal share of housework is bound to engender resentment on the part of the person who is also working. If both parties are working, what does is say about their income that they are not able/willing to hire a maid? In this case, equal housework is correlated with low aggregate income, and low aggregate income can certainly cause dissatisfaction within a relationship.
[/quote]
Coupled with other studies I’ve seen, I honestly believe it has to do with dissatisfaction in roles.
For instance, households where the female contributes 60% or more to household income have extremely high divorce rates, regardless of income level.
Financially dependent Men that are stay-at-home dads have extremely high rates of infedility while the exact opposite is true of stay-at-home moms. They are MUCH less likely to cheat.
Biology wins out EVERY SINGLE TIME.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[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.[/quote]
First of all, and you are clearly not clever enough to understand that, MAN BUILT THE FUCKING PUBLIC SPHERE.
Men will always have a natural advantage because of that alone.
Then, 20 out of 500?
Impressive.
It might even double?
Fuck me, I guess its settled then.
And no, there is no “leadership” gene, but there is such a thing as social dominance and that actually is kind of hard to pull off if you have the testosterone level of a hamster.
If you have equal intelligence, dominance and the natural ability to fit into hierarchies matters.
Also, women are basically hypergamic, meaning they fuck upwards, almost with no exception, which means men will always have a stronger incentive to rise to the top because it makes their options increase, whereas womens options decrease the higher they climb.
Summary:
Men have more to gain, reproductively speaking, therefore have the instincts to pull it off and the drive to do so.
Voila, men make more money. [/quote]
I’m not clever enough to understand that men built the public sphere? I’ve only stated as much several times in this thread already.
And thank you for making my point for me. I could never be as succinct as you have been.
Men created the public sphere. They created it and kept women out of it because women were a threat to the scarce jobs available. It was not a naturally constructed concept that evolved on its own. Men consciously kept women from working. Women were not excluded because they were incapable of working but simply because they were women. The fact is that women were better at many industrial jobs than men were and men initially stayed at home.
Your claim that women are hypergamic is rooted entirely in assumption and innuendo, something I am starting to see is a pattern here with you. You start with a totally false premise and your conclusion builds from that. I love how these premises are such that they can never be quantified either. You are completely intellectually dishonest in this respect. How the FUCK can anyone prove that women only fuck upwards? Especially given that women in general earn less than men and as such, are much more likely to fuck someone earning more than them no matter what.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
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.[/quote]
Women like men, have big brains too (well slightly smaller technically). They certainly can be trained, educated and motivated to reach the highest ranks of the corporate world, medicine etc. just as well as man.
However that does not mean they are happiest in these roles. You see, what happening is this small group of undesirable women (physically undesirable to men) are pushing their unhappy lifestyle on the majority of women. This lifestyle of being in the workplace is only beneficial to these small groups of ugly women and or lesbians who have no use for traditional roles.
Women who want to become housewives are now considered “oppressed.” Women who conform to gender roles by tailoring their appearance to impress men (long hair, makeup, heels etc) are “victims” of the patriarchy.
The reality is, women who go far in academia/career only do so because they are unable to attract a high quality man. And it’s backed by science!
"A controversial study has concluded that the real reason women pursue careers is because they fear they are too unattractive to get married.
The research team, made up of three women and two men, said that when men are thin on the ground, �¢??women are more likely to choose briefcase over baby�¢??.
And the plainer a woman is, they claim, the more she is driven to succeed in the workplace.
Central to their argument was the idea that women have evolved to become homemakers and men, providers.
They said this means that when men are scarce in a particular area, women, and particularly less attractive ladies, may decide they need to provide for themselves with a well-paid career. […]
After collecting data from across the U.S., they found that as the number of eligible men in a state decreased, the proportion of women in highly paid careers rose.
In addition, the women who became mothers in those states did so at an older age and had fewer children. […]
The final experiment tested the researchers�¢?? suspicion that less attractive women would be more interested in careers because they might find it difficult to secure a partner.
The 87 young women were given mocked-up newspaper articles describing the sex ratio in nearby university campuses and were asked about their views on family and career.
They were also asked how attractive they believed themselves to be to men.
Those women who saw themselves as being less desirable than average were highly likely to be career-orientated."
[/quote]
This is another bullshit study. A grand total of 87 women were interviewed to come to these conclusions. That is NOT a statistically-significant sample size. Jesus Fucking Christ Raj. The fact that you keep posting these irrelevant, poorly-designed studies and surveys leads me to believe that you don’t one single fucking thing about statistics and as such, I would appreciate it if you stop referring to sabermetrics over in the MLB thread.
Women who have degrees and choose to stay at home are not oppressed, like you claim they feel they are. A majority of 87 women does not make that claim of yours any more valid. The fact is that women who have degrees and CANNOT get certain jobs because they are women are oppressed. [/quote]
LOL dude, why don’t veer outside once in a while and observe if this is true before doubting the study.
Go compare women in academia to women you see working as waitresses, hostesses, bartenders, strippers.
9 times out of 10 who would you rather see naked, the 31 year old woman behind the bar serving you drinks, or the 31 year old partner-tracked lawyer? There’s a reason women are never seen as both comptent and feminine.
Heck, why don’t you at the very least click on feminist blogs? Start with the one in the OP Jezebel, Look at the writers, see how many Taylor Swifts you see.
I’ll give you a head start, here is a video made by senior jezebel writer Lindy West:
Raj, just stop. There is absolutely no way to quantify the level of attractiveness of women in various industries. Like Orion, it’s an intellectually dishonest tact you’re using. You have arrived at your conclusion based on an assumption that cannot effectively be proven one way or the other.
I know two women who are bartenders and I know several who earn six figures. One of the bartenders I wouldn’t fuck with your dick, the other is a lesbian. The six-figure earners? Two of them are competitive figure models in their spare time, one of them is mildly attractive and the other is a complete train wreck.
“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?
As far as Jezebel goes, it is hardly representative of the entirety of feminist ideology. You focus almost exclusively on that one site because it validates the erroneous assumptions you think hold true for ALL women. Why don’t you try branching out into the real world for once. Clearly you haven’t seen much of it based on the misconceptions you constantly pass off as fact around here.
Also Raj, your examples of industries with attractive women are also poor examples. OF COURSE a stripper is likely to be more attractive than a lawyer. Strippers are in an industry in which looks matter. The same could be said about bartending. Waitresses and hostesses? Not so much. I had dinner at a Pasta Pomodoro in Walnut Creek last night and both the hostess AND my waitress looked like radiation victims.
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.
There are a lot of people over in PWI who would say the same thing about Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman.
Testosterone.
There. I said it.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Raj, just stop. There is absolutely no way to quantify the level of attractiveness of women in various industries. Like Orion, it’s an intellectually dishonest tact you’re using. You have arrived at your conclusion based on an assumption that cannot effectively be proven one way or the other.
I know two women who are bartenders and I know several who earn six figures. One of the bartenders I wouldn’t fuck with your dick, the other is a lesbian. The six-figure earners? Two of them are competitive figure models in their spare time, one of them is mildly attractive and the other is a complete train wreck.
“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?
As far as Jezebel goes, it is hardly representative of the entirety of feminist ideology. You focus almost exclusively on that one site because it validates the erroneous assumptions you think hold true for ALL women. Why don’t you try branching out into the real world for once. Clearly you haven’t seen much of it based on the misconceptions you constantly pass off as fact around here.[/quote]
Hook me up with one of those rich women.
Plz sir
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Testosterone.
There. I said it. [/quote]
Yeah, well a little late. I already mentioned it last night.
[quote]DBCooper 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]
Really? You think I have zero credibility on this issue or something?
Take a look at the HPI. The happiest countries are dirt poor. The entire concept of modern gender roles has its roots in the dawning of the Industrial Age. Prior to that, agriculture-based economies were the norm and in these economies men and women did not have nearly the delineation between roles in the workforce or in the household. There’s a very interesting book by Judith Walkowitz called “City of Dreadful Delight” which examines the change in gender roles in London during the Victorian Age which goes into great detail about the origins of the modern female/male gender roles.
Anyways, my point is that in these underdeveloped countries the same shift in gender roles has not occurred to the extent it did more than a hundred years ago in most of Western civilization. While women have more rights in this country than they do in virtually all third-world countries, the roles that women occupy in these poor countries are much closer to the roles that men occupy as well. Men and women traditionally have worked side by side in places like Vietnam and so forth, and as such, women are just as necessary to maintain some level of subsistence that men are.
I would argue that, along with the very low level of materialism present in third-world countries, is why the overall population tends to be happier than in places like the U.S., where women may have more rights but have traditionally been viewed as belonging in the private sphere (the household) than in the public sphere (the workforce).
There’s nothing contentious about that assertion at all. I have given you a pretty reasonable hypothesis with roots in actual fact, not whimsical assumptions like what you have made.[/quote]
Again, my point in this specific post was that you pounded me over the head with the idea that people absolutely positively have to be true to their “gender” or else their families had better go on suicide watch. And now, in what is practically the very next thread we engage in regarding gender, you are saying that there is no correlation between gender role and happiness.
You’ll have to forgive me if I have trouble taking your seriously. You’re starting to bear a striking resemblance to another infamous poster on this website.
[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Raj, just stop. There is absolutely no way to quantify the level of attractiveness of women in various industries. Like Orion, it’s an intellectually dishonest tact you’re using. You have arrived at your conclusion based on an assumption that cannot effectively be proven one way or the other.
I know two women who are bartenders and I know several who earn six figures. One of the bartenders I wouldn’t fuck with your dick, the other is a lesbian. The six-figure earners? Two of them are competitive figure models in their spare time, one of them is mildly attractive and the other is a complete train wreck.
“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?
As far as Jezebel goes, it is hardly representative of the entirety of feminist ideology. You focus almost exclusively on that one site because it validates the erroneous assumptions you think hold true for ALL women. Why don’t you try branching out into the real world for once. Clearly you haven’t seen much of it based on the misconceptions you constantly pass off as fact around here.[/quote]
Hook me up with one of those rich women.
Plz sir
[/quote]
I just found out one of them is getting a divorce. Apparently her husband was a recovering alcoholic and relapsed about a year ago. Things have become ugly very quickly for those two and their differences are now irreconcilable. She earns about 150K running a rest home or some shit like that. She’s tiny and has huge fake tits too. You’d love her.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]DBCooper 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]
Really? You think I have zero credibility on this issue or something?
Take a look at the HPI. The happiest countries are dirt poor. The entire concept of modern gender roles has its roots in the dawning of the Industrial Age. Prior to that, agriculture-based economies were the norm and in these economies men and women did not have nearly the delineation between roles in the workforce or in the household. There’s a very interesting book by Judith Walkowitz called “City of Dreadful Delight” which examines the change in gender roles in London during the Victorian Age which goes into great detail about the origins of the modern female/male gender roles.
Anyways, my point is that in these underdeveloped countries the same shift in gender roles has not occurred to the extent it did more than a hundred years ago in most of Western civilization. While women have more rights in this country than they do in virtually all third-world countries, the roles that women occupy in these poor countries are much closer to the roles that men occupy as well. Men and women traditionally have worked side by side in places like Vietnam and so forth, and as such, women are just as necessary to maintain some level of subsistence that men are.
I would argue that, along with the very low level of materialism present in third-world countries, is why the overall population tends to be happier than in places like the U.S., where women may have more rights but have traditionally been viewed as belonging in the private sphere (the household) than in the public sphere (the workforce).
There’s nothing contentious about that assertion at all. I have given you a pretty reasonable hypothesis with roots in actual fact, not whimsical assumptions like what you have made.[/quote]
Again, my point in this specific post was that you pounded me over the head with the idea that people absolutely positively have to be true to their “gender” or else their families had better go on suicide watch. And now, in what is practically the very next thread we engage in regarding gender, you are saying that there is no correlation between gender role and happiness.
You’ll have to forgive me if I have trouble taking your seriously. You’re starting to bear a striking resemblance to another infamous poster on this website. [/quote]
What I meant in the previous thread was that forcing a child to occupy a male gender role if he is in fact transgendered can be horrific.
What I mean in this thread is that there is no correlation between how a gender role is identified and happiness.
The claim was that women in a “traditional” gender role in which they are relegated to the private sphere leads to increased happiness. I argued otherwise based on the fact that countries with much less distinction between gender roles than what we have here have FAR higher levels of happiness, according to the HPI.
There is a difference between deciding for women what their gender role entails and deciding for your child what gender he/she is without regard to what gender they actually are.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Testosterone.
There. I said it. [/quote]
Yeah, well a little late. I already mentioned it last night.
[/quote]
Didn’t see that.
Busy now so I’ll give the short form response: No one ever said or even implied that test MAKES one a good leader. But it does strongly affect emotion, decision making, desire, aggression, energy, ambition, motivation, courage, strength, social dominance, virility…do I really need to go on?
Does this thread really need to go on?
Raj, I’m really liking your posting outside of PWI, but you wiped out a LOT of the goodwill you’d made with me now that I’Ve had to scroll past that bug-eyed toad faced jezebal editor’s ugly mug 6 times now.
Yearggghh.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Raj, just stop. There is absolutely no way to quantify the level of attractiveness of women in various industries. Like Orion, it’s an intellectually dishonest tact you’re using. You have arrived at your conclusion based on an assumption that cannot effectively be proven one way or the other.
I know two women who are bartenders and I know several who earn six figures. One of the bartenders I wouldn’t fuck with your dick, the other is a lesbian. The six-figure earners? Two of them are competitive figure models in their spare time, one of them is mildly attractive and the other is a complete train wreck.
“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?
As far as Jezebel goes, it is hardly representative of the entirety of feminist ideology. You focus almost exclusively on that one site because it validates the erroneous assumptions you think hold true for ALL women. Why don’t you try branching out into the real world for once. Clearly you haven’t seen much of it based on the misconceptions you constantly pass off as fact around here.[/quote]
Hook me up with one of those rich women.
Plz sir
[/quote]
I just found out one of them is getting a divorce. Apparently her husband was a recovering alcoholic and relapsed about a year ago. Things have become ugly very quickly for those two and their differences are now irreconcilable. She earns about 150K running a rest home or some shit like that. She’s tiny and has huge fake tits too. You’d love her.[/quote]
Sounds good and damaged…
She like BBC?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What I meant in the previous thread was that forcing a child to occupy a male gender role if he is in fact transgendered can be horrific.
What I mean in this thread is that there is no correlation between how a gender role is identified and happiness.
The claim was that women in a “traditional” gender role in which they are relegated to the private sphere leads to increased happiness. I argued otherwise based on the fact that countries with much less distinction between gender roles than what we have here have FAR higher levels of happiness, according to the HPI.
There is a difference between deciding for women what their gender role entails and deciding for your child what gender he/she is without regard to what gender they actually are.[/quote]
And what is the difference? I’m not getting where the transition occurs.