How can we combat deep misogyny?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to dispense of the notion that men and women are equally equipped and inclined to handled the same things. Much of what is deemed "misogyny" is simply just taking this reality as a first principle rather than seeking absolute "equality" in everything, which is folly. Equality is a mirage.

And here is why she lost. RIGHT HERE!!!! Blatant, unapologetic misogyny on display.

On the contrary, I think you are Exhibit A of why she lost. You can't even handle a little sober truth without freaking out. This behavior is repellant to most of America.

Please don't mistake your bigoted views for the "truth." Live with the fact that you think that women are inferior and accept the fact that you're a misogynist. That is the only truth. Another sad truth is that there were many of you this time around and you elected another bigot. Good for you. For now.

All I said was that men and women have different inclinations and capacities. This is the truth. Apparently this was too much for you to handle without getting bent out of shape and reading a bunch of mumbo jumbo into what was a very simple statement. You are the problem.

This kind of gaslighting works on uneducated women. Not the vast majority of us on here (who have at least a BS/BAdegree). We are capable of having discussions with nuance and reading between the lines. You have said women are not capable of the job.

You are bringing your own baggage into your reading of what I said. Plenty of women are capable of being President. Choose and create for them instead of trying to force a mediocrity like Kamala down our throats.

But that's not what you said!!!!! You said women are not equal to men. We "need to dispense of the notion that men and women are equally equipped and inclined to handled the same things."

Yes, if you take the average man and the average woman, they are not equal in inclination or capacity. It's ok to acknowledge this and silly to present otherwise. It does not mean that no woman has the capacity or inclination to be the President. I thought this thread was about misogyny, broadly speaking.

How nice to start playing dumb now. It's one thing to say Kamala was not qualified to be president because of her record, policy plans or any number of things. It's entirely different to say that Kamala lost because women are not capable of being president which is what you did and continue to do even though you're pretending not to.

And NO, women do not have different abilities or inclinations when it comes to running for office. Only a misogynist would say that. Which is what you are.

Please show me where I said that.

Your last few sentences are silly. Of course they do. Unless you believe that all of those studies touting women as more empathetic leaders than men are complete bunk. Yeah...thought so.

Dude, I quoted you like 15 times already. You said it over and over and continue to say it. You're pathetic and your gaslighting is gross.

I never said it. You got all worked up and read what you wanted to into a simple statement. Then started with the "gaslighting". Gross, indeed.

"You need to dispense of the notion that men and women are equally equipped and inclined to handled the same things. Much of what is deemed "misogyny" is simply just taking this reality as a first principle rather than seeking absolute "equality" in everything, which is folly. Equality is a mirage."

Get f-ed already.

Ah, yes, exactly as I thought. You have poor reading comprehension. Pretty impressive for an educated woman with a BA/Masters!!

I keep waiting for you to explain what you actually meant. Clarify your stance. But you just keep doubling down. So let's have it!

Slow down and read the OP, which requested that we avoid talking about politics and talk about misogyny broadly. You somehow took that statement and twisted into "no woman ever is qualified to be President". I get that you are all worked up and emotional today, but chill out a bit. I mean exactly what I wrote. It was about broad conceptions of misogyny, as OP requested, not about politics or who is qualified to be President, which seem to want to harp on.

Rigghhhhhhttt. Still gaslighting and not wanting to answer. Fine by me. Let your previous comments stand.

Do you just write "gaslighting" whenever you're stumped and have no idea what you're talking about? I've explained my stance; I'm not even sure what you think there is to "answer".

You keep coming back to tell me how wrong I am in my understanding that you're just a misogynist based on the things you wrote, but continue to say more things that are nothing but misogynistic drivel. Do you know what gaslighting is? I don't think you do.

[Anonymous]

I watched Gaslight on TCM the other day. It’s ok, nothing special.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put up a better female candidate next time and stop blaming it on this.

In what world is a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon a better candidate?

In this case, it was. Tells you something about the female candidate, right?

No, it doesn't. It just says that you'd rather vote for a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon than a woman (and God forbid a black woman). But let me guess, you're an old white dude.

I’m not this poster but am a woman who voted for Hillary and did not vote for Kamala. But, sure, blame it on misogyny instead of looking at the candidate and the policy positions she’s taken over the years.

I really want just one of you to tell me in a way that makes sense how Kamala was less qualified than Trump, or Nikki.

Kamala has the intellect and communication skills of a fence post.
You are welcome even if you cannot comprehend.

Hmmmm not sure if you watched the same debate with Trump that I did, but she owned his ass.

So no, I cannot comprehend because it's just another "I hate Kalmala but I can't explain why."

You hate her because she is a black woman. just own it.

NP. She was rehearsed, rehearsed, rehearsed for the debate. That's not good communication skills; that's just acting. People who are really smart and good communicators can carry conversation without teleprompters and endless practice. Like JD Vance.

JD isn’t president, Trump is. Why didn’t you cite him as good ar debating or communicating. The amount of gaslighting…

I'm perfectly willing to state that JD had a much better debate against Walz than Trump did against Kamala. I disagree with you that she "owned him." She had a few well-practiced lines that landed well, but she came across as stilted and over-rehearsed overall. She practiced and practice her opening line - I was born in a middle class family - and was going to use that as a first response, no matter what the question.

That is not a sign of a quick-thinking, intelligent person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to dispense of the notion that men and women are equally equipped and inclined to handled the same things. Much of what is deemed "misogyny" is simply just taking this reality as a first principle rather than seeking absolute "equality" in everything, which is folly. Equality is a mirage.

And here is why she lost. RIGHT HERE!!!! Blatant, unapologetic misogyny on display.

On the contrary, I think you are Exhibit A of why she lost. You can't even handle a little sober truth without freaking out. This behavior is repellant to most of America.

Please don't mistake your bigoted views for the "truth." Live with the fact that you think that women are inferior and accept the fact that you're a misogynist. That is the only truth. Another sad truth is that there were many of you this time around and you elected another bigot. Good for you. For now.

All I said was that men and women have different inclinations and capacities. This is the truth. Apparently this was too much for you to handle without getting bent out of shape and reading a bunch of mumbo jumbo into what was a very simple statement. You are the problem.

This kind of gaslighting works on uneducated women. Not the vast majority of us on here (who have at least a BS/BAdegree). We are capable of having discussions with nuance and reading between the lines. You have said women are not capable of the job.

You are bringing your own baggage into your reading of what I said. Plenty of women are capable of being President. Choose and create for them instead of trying to force a mediocrity like Kamala down our throats.

But that's not what you said!!!!! You said women are not equal to men. We "need to dispense of the notion that men and women are equally equipped and inclined to handled the same things."

Yes, if you take the average man and the average woman, they are not equal in inclination or capacity. It's ok to acknowledge this and silly to present otherwise. It does not mean that no woman has the capacity or inclination to be the President. I thought this thread was about misogyny, broadly speaking.

How nice to start playing dumb now. It's one thing to say Kamala was not qualified to be president because of her record, policy plans or any number of things. It's entirely different to say that Kamala lost because women are not capable of being president which is what you did and continue to do even though you're pretending not to.

And NO, women do not have different abilities or inclinations when it comes to running for office. Only a misogynist would say that. Which is what you are.

Please show me where I said that.

Your last few sentences are silly. Of course they do. Unless you believe that all of those studies touting women as more empathetic leaders than men are complete bunk. Yeah...thought so.

Dude, I quoted you like 15 times already. You said it over and over and continue to say it. You're pathetic and your gaslighting is gross.

I never said it. You got all worked up and read what you wanted to into a simple statement. Then started with the "gaslighting". Gross, indeed.

"You need to dispense of the notion that men and women are equally equipped and inclined to handled the same things. Much of what is deemed "misogyny" is simply just taking this reality as a first principle rather than seeking absolute "equality" in everything, which is folly. Equality is a mirage."

Get f-ed already.

Ah, yes, exactly as I thought. You have poor reading comprehension. Pretty impressive for an educated woman with a BA/Masters!!

I keep waiting for you to explain what you actually meant. Clarify your stance. But you just keep doubling down. So let's have it!

Slow down and read the OP, which requested that we avoid talking about politics and talk about misogyny broadly. You somehow took that statement and twisted into "no woman ever is qualified to be President". I get that you are all worked up and emotional today, but chill out a bit. I mean exactly what I wrote. It was about broad conceptions of misogyny, as OP requested, not about politics or who is qualified to be President, which seem to want to harp on.

Rigghhhhhhttt. Still gaslighting and not wanting to answer. Fine by me. Let your previous comments stand.

Do you just write "gaslighting" whenever you're stumped and have no idea what you're talking about? I've explained my stance; I'm not even sure what you think there is to "answer".

You keep coming back to tell me how wrong I am in my understanding that you're just a misogynist based on the things you wrote, but continue to say more things that are nothing but misogynistic drivel. Do you know what gaslighting is? I don't think you do.

Ok, so the answer to my question is yes. Got it lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put up a better female candidate next time and stop blaming it on this.

In what world is a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon a better candidate?

In this case, it was. Tells you something about the female candidate, right?

No, it doesn't. It just says that you'd rather vote for a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon than a woman (and God forbid a black woman). But let me guess, you're an old white dude.

I’m not this poster but am a woman who voted for Hillary and did not vote for Kamala. But, sure, blame it on misogyny instead of looking at the candidate and the policy positions she’s taken over the years.

I really want just one of you to tell me in a way that makes sense how Kamala was less qualified than Trump, or Nikki.

Kamala has the intellect and communication skills of a fence post.
You are welcome even if you cannot comprehend.

Hmmmm not sure if you watched the same debate with Trump that I did, but she owned his ass.

So no, I cannot comprehend because it's just another "I hate Kalmala but I can't explain why."

You hate her because she is a black woman. just own it.

NP. She was rehearsed, rehearsed, rehearsed for the debate. That's not good communication skills; that's just acting. People who are really smart and good communicators can carry conversation without teleprompters and endless practice. Like JD Vance.

JD isn’t president, Trump is. Why didn’t you cite him as good ar debating or communicating. The amount of gaslighting…

I'm perfectly willing to state that JD had a much better debate against Walz than Trump did against Kamala. I disagree with you that she "owned him." She had a few well-practiced lines that landed well, but she came across as stilted and over-rehearsed overall. She practiced and practice her opening line - I was born in a middle class family - and was going to use that as a first response, no matter what the question.

That is not a sign of a quick-thinking, intelligent person.

Oh FFS, the quick thinking moron you revere was baited time and time again. Why wasn't he able to think quickly on his feet and not take the bait? Being well prepared served her well. She knew exactly what to say and when to say it in order to get him to lose his mind. Are you under the impression that Trump had any fresh material during that debate? That he spoke from the heart?

Like i said, it didn't matter because no one was changing their minds at that point. But please stop the BS of how she was overly prepared.

[Anonymous]

So what woman do you think is qualified to be POTUS? If not Harris, Clinton, etc. I'm curious who one would think is "ready" or 'good enough" to be on a ticket? Either this year, or next election?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what woman do you think is qualified to be POTUS? If not Harris, Clinton, etc. I'm curious who one would think is "ready" or 'good enough" to be on a ticket? Either this year, or next election?

I guess I would be most curious about this from the R side, but any side. What woman out there do the Harris & Clinton haters think is ready? Or has been ready?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what woman do you think is qualified to be POTUS? If not Harris, Clinton, etc. I'm curious who one would think is "ready" or 'good enough" to be on a ticket? Either this year, or next election?

I think Clinton is qualified and would be credible/competent but it may be too late for her. Harris is not. Lauren Underwood seems like a promising up and comer for a Post-Trump era, but she probably needs a little bit more time and seasoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to dispense of the notion that men and women are equally equipped and inclined to handled the same things. Much of what is deemed "misogyny" is simply just taking this reality as a first principle rather than seeking absolute "equality" in everything, which is folly. Equality is a mirage.

And here is why she lost. RIGHT HERE!!!! Blatant, unapologetic misogyny on display.

On the contrary, I think you are Exhibit A of why she lost. You can't even handle a little sober truth without freaking out. This behavior is repellant to most of America.

Please don't mistake your bigoted views for the "truth." Live with the fact that you think that women are inferior and accept the fact that you're a misogynist. That is the only truth. Another sad truth is that there were many of you this time around and you elected another bigot. Good for you. For now.

All I said was that men and women have different inclinations and capacities. This is the truth. Apparently this was too much for you to handle without getting bent out of shape and reading a bunch of mumbo jumbo into what was a very simple statement. You are the problem.

Yeah, I'm sure Kalmala wasn't qualified to be president because she can't bench press 200 lbs. GMAFB

Kamala is not a good candidate. It's ok to admit that without falling into the silly trap of calling everyone misogynist for pointing out her very obvious deficiencies, which are not counterbalanced by any particularly noteworthy gifts. In the realm of presidential politics, she's not particularly good or standout at anything. You may think you are helping, but it does no one any favors.

No, no. Not everyone. I called you a misogynist in direct response to your comments. So let's get that straight. Own your "truth."

You think an elected senator, an AG and a prosecutor is less qualified or not good at anything?

How about slowing down and stop frothing? In the realm of presidential politics, yes she is nothing special at all. She has no standout qualities or gifts. If all you can list are titles, perhaps you agree with me deep down.

Oh FFS it's like talking to a pigeon. What qualities does your guy have? Failed businesses? A criminal record? A filed TV show? Even if you take away all of the rhetoric he spews, Kamala is and always will be more qualified than Trump. She is more educated, has been elected to more positions and is younger and sharper.

Trump has many foibles, but on the plus side his has incredible political instincts, is exceptionally good at branding/marketing, has exceptional fortitude in the face of adversity where many others would have folded or moderated. He is historically good at each of these things. Kamala is a standout at nothing.

Translation: he's a compelling, persistent liar.

It's ironic that in a thread about misogyny you are the one that is centering and can't stop talking about a man.

I have talked about many things on this thread, including a reply to the PP who was pumping up the orange turd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to dispense of the notion that men and women are equally equipped and inclined to handled the same things. Much of what is deemed "misogyny" is simply just taking this reality as a first principle rather than seeking absolute "equality" in everything, which is folly. Equality is a mirage.

And here is why she lost. RIGHT HERE!!!! Blatant, unapologetic misogyny on display.

On the contrary, I think you are Exhibit A of why she lost. You can't even handle a little sober truth without freaking out. This behavior is repellant to most of America.

Please don't mistake your bigoted views for the "truth." Live with the fact that you think that women are inferior and accept the fact that you're a misogynist. That is the only truth. Another sad truth is that there were many of you this time around and you elected another bigot. Good for you. For now.

All I said was that men and women have different inclinations and capacities. This is the truth. Apparently this was too much for you to handle without getting bent out of shape and reading a bunch of mumbo jumbo into what was a very simple statement. You are the problem.

This kind of gaslighting works on uneducated women. Not the vast majority of us on here (who have at least a BS/BAdegree). We are capable of having discussions with nuance and reading between the lines. You have said women are not capable of the job.

You are bringing your own baggage into your reading of what I said. Plenty of women are capable of being President. Choose and create for them instead of trying to force a mediocrity like Kamala down our throats.

But that's not what you said!!!!! You said women are not equal to men. We "need to dispense of the notion that men and women are equally equipped and inclined to handled the same things."

Yes, if you take the average man and the average woman, they are not equal in inclination or capacity. It's ok to acknowledge this and silly to present otherwise. It does not mean that no woman has the capacity or inclination to be the President. I thought this thread was about misogyny, broadly speaking.

Saying that women are less capable of being POTUS is 100% misogyny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to dispense of the notion that men and women are equally equipped and inclined to handled the same things. Much of what is deemed "misogyny" is simply just taking this reality as a first principle rather than seeking absolute "equality" in everything, which is folly. Equality is a mirage.

And here is why she lost. RIGHT HERE!!!! Blatant, unapologetic misogyny on display.

On the contrary, I think you are Exhibit A of why she lost. You can't even handle a little sober truth without freaking out. This behavior is repellant to most of America.

Please don't mistake your bigoted views for the "truth." Live with the fact that you think that women are inferior and accept the fact that you're a misogynist. That is the only truth. Another sad truth is that there were many of you this time around and you elected another bigot. Good for you. For now.

All I said was that men and women have different inclinations and capacities. This is the truth. Apparently this was too much for you to handle without getting bent out of shape and reading a bunch of mumbo jumbo into what was a very simple statement. You are the problem.

Yeah, I'm sure Kalmala wasn't qualified to be president because she can't bench press 200 lbs. GMAFB

Kamala is not a good candidate. It's ok to admit that without falling into the silly trap of calling everyone misogynist for pointing out her very obvious deficiencies, which are not counterbalanced by any particularly noteworthy gifts. In the realm of presidential politics, she's not particularly good or standout at anything. You may think you are helping, but it does no one any favors.

No, no. Not everyone. I called you a misogynist in direct response to your comments. So let's get that straight. Own your "truth."

You think an elected senator, an AG and a prosecutor is less qualified or not good at anything?

How about slowing down and stop frothing? In the realm of presidential politics, yes she is nothing special at all. She has no standout qualities or gifts. If all you can list are titles, perhaps you agree with me deep down.

Oh FFS it's like talking to a pigeon. What qualities does your guy have? Failed businesses? A criminal record? A filed TV show? Even if you take away all of the rhetoric he spews, Kamala is and always will be more qualified than Trump. She is more educated, has been elected to more positions and is younger and sharper.

Trump has many foibles, but on the plus side his has incredible political instincts, is exceptionally good at branding/marketing, has exceptional fortitude in the face of adversity where many others would have folded or moderated. He is historically good at each of these things. Kamala is a standout at nothing.

Translation: he's a compelling, persistent liar.

It's ironic that in a thread about misogyny you are the one that is centering and can't stop talking about a man.

I have talked about many things on this thread, including a reply to the PP who was pumping up the orange turd.

I think it was the electorate that did that. Proof is in the pudding and he wins in politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to dispense of the notion that men and women are equally equipped and inclined to handled the same things. Much of what is deemed "misogyny" is simply just taking this reality as a first principle rather than seeking absolute "equality" in everything, which is folly. Equality is a mirage.

And here is why she lost. RIGHT HERE!!!! Blatant, unapologetic misogyny on display.

On the contrary, I think you are Exhibit A of why she lost. You can't even handle a little sober truth without freaking out. This behavior is repellant to most of America.

Please don't mistake your bigoted views for the "truth." Live with the fact that you think that women are inferior and accept the fact that you're a misogynist. That is the only truth. Another sad truth is that there were many of you this time around and you elected another bigot. Good for you. For now.

All I said was that men and women have different inclinations and capacities. This is the truth. Apparently this was too much for you to handle without getting bent out of shape and reading a bunch of mumbo jumbo into what was a very simple statement. You are the problem.

This kind of gaslighting works on uneducated women. Not the vast majority of us on here (who have at least a BS/BAdegree). We are capable of having discussions with nuance and reading between the lines. You have said women are not capable of the job.

You are bringing your own baggage into your reading of what I said. Plenty of women are capable of being President. Choose and create for them instead of trying to force a mediocrity like Kamala down our throats.

But that's not what you said!!!!! You said women are not equal to men. We "need to dispense of the notion that men and women are equally equipped and inclined to handled the same things."

Yes, if you take the average man and the average woman, they are not equal in inclination or capacity. It's ok to acknowledge this and silly to present otherwise. It does not mean that no woman has the capacity or inclination to be the President. I thought this thread was about misogyny, broadly speaking.

How nice to start playing dumb now. It's one thing to say Kamala was not qualified to be president because of her record, policy plans or any number of things. It's entirely different to say that Kamala lost because women are not capable of being president which is what you did and continue to do even though you're pretending not to.

And NO, women do not have different abilities or inclinations when it comes to running for office. Only a misogynist would say that. Which is what you are.

Please show me where I said that.

Your last few sentences are silly. Of course they do. Unless you believe that all of those studies touting women as more empathetic leaders than men are complete bunk. Yeah...thought so.

What a beta you are - it makes perfect sense why you feel threatened by intelligent women. I’m glad my husband is a real man who doesn’t spend his afternoons trolling mommy blogs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to dispense of the notion that men and women are equally equipped and inclined to handled the same things. Much of what is deemed "misogyny" is simply just taking this reality as a first principle rather than seeking absolute "equality" in everything, which is folly. Equality is a mirage.

And here is why she lost. RIGHT HERE!!!! Blatant, unapologetic misogyny on display.

On the contrary, I think you are Exhibit A of why she lost. You can't even handle a little sober truth without freaking out. This behavior is repellant to most of America.

Please don't mistake your bigoted views for the "truth." Live with the fact that you think that women are inferior and accept the fact that you're a misogynist. That is the only truth. Another sad truth is that there were many of you this time around and you elected another bigot. Good for you. For now.

All I said was that men and women have different inclinations and capacities. This is the truth. Apparently this was too much for you to handle without getting bent out of shape and reading a bunch of mumbo jumbo into what was a very simple statement. You are the problem.

This kind of gaslighting works on uneducated women. Not the vast majority of us on here (who have at least a BS/BAdegree). We are capable of having discussions with nuance and reading between the lines. You have said women are not capable of the job.

You are bringing your own baggage into your reading of what I said. Plenty of women are capable of being President. Choose and create for them instead of trying to force a mediocrity like Kamala down our throats.

But that's not what you said!!!!! You said women are not equal to men. We "need to dispense of the notion that men and women are equally equipped and inclined to handled the same things."

Yes, if you take the average man and the average woman, they are not equal in inclination or capacity. It's ok to acknowledge this and silly to present otherwise. It does not mean that no woman has the capacity or inclination to be the President. I thought this thread was about misogyny, broadly speaking.

Do you think that men and women have the "inclination" and "capacity" at equal rates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to dispense of the notion that men and women are equally equipped and inclined to handled the same things. Much of what is deemed "misogyny" is simply just taking this reality as a first principle rather than seeking absolute "equality" in everything, which is folly. Equality is a mirage.

And here is why she lost. RIGHT HERE!!!! Blatant, unapologetic misogyny on display.

On the contrary, I think you are Exhibit A of why she lost. You can't even handle a little sober truth without freaking out. This behavior is repellant to most of America.

Please don't mistake your bigoted views for the "truth." Live with the fact that you think that women are inferior and accept the fact that you're a misogynist. That is the only truth. Another sad truth is that there were many of you this time around and you elected another bigot. Good for you. For now.

All I said was that men and women have different inclinations and capacities. This is the truth. Apparently this was too much for you to handle without getting bent out of shape and reading a bunch of mumbo jumbo into what was a very simple statement. You are the problem.

This kind of gaslighting works on uneducated women. Not the vast majority of us on here (who have at least a BS/BAdegree). We are capable of having discussions with nuance and reading between the lines. You have said women are not capable of the job.

You are bringing your own baggage into your reading of what I said. Plenty of women are capable of being President. Choose and create for them instead of trying to force a mediocrity like Kamala down our throats.

But that's not what you said!!!!! You said women are not equal to men. We "need to dispense of the notion that men and women are equally equipped and inclined to handled the same things."

Yes, if you take the average man and the average woman, they are not equal in inclination or capacity. It's ok to acknowledge this and silly to present otherwise. It does not mean that no woman has the capacity or inclination to be the President. I thought this thread was about misogyny, broadly speaking.

How nice to start playing dumb now. It's one thing to say Kamala was not qualified to be president because of her record, policy plans or any number of things. It's entirely different to say that Kamala lost because women are not capable of being president which is what you did and continue to do even though you're pretending not to.

And NO, women do not have different abilities or inclinations when it comes to running for office. Only a misogynist would say that. Which is what you are.

Please show me where I said that.

Your last few sentences are silly. Of course they do. Unless you believe that all of those studies touting women as more empathetic leaders than men are complete bunk. Yeah...thought so.

What a beta you are - it makes perfect sense why you feel threatened by intelligent women. I’m glad my husband is a real man who doesn’t spend his afternoons trolling mommy blogs.

Oh, no! Not beta!! I am finished!

Funny how you probably balk at men calling themselves "alpha" but fall right into the same paradigm when you get rattled to try to score points. You're a hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what woman do you think is qualified to be POTUS? If not Harris, Clinton, etc. I'm curious who one would think is "ready" or 'good enough" to be on a ticket? Either this year, or next election?

I think Clinton is qualified and would be credible/competent but it may be too late for her. Harris is not. Lauren Underwood seems like a promising up and comer for a Post-Trump era, but she probably needs a little bit more time and seasoning.

Thanks for the response.

Anybody else from either the left or the right, care to offer up names from the past decade or so (to present), who you think was sufficiently qualified to be POTUS and commander in chief while being a woman?