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: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?

No, of course not. As one simple example, men seek risk more, which means they die more frequently from dumb risky things but also reap more benefits from risk-seeking behavior. This desire for forced equality of outcomes benefits no one.

Let me ask this question again. Do you think that men and women have the "inclination" and "capacity" to be POTUS or in high status positions at equal rates?

Define "high status position"? If it means something like law firm partner, then women probably have more capacity than men to do that work but, from my experience, less inclination. More women I know who hold such roles would rather be doing something else (at least relative to the men I know who hold those roles), though some do actually genuinely enjoy it. The equal rates thing is a mirage and only really ever comes up in the context of apex, status positions.

Regarding President, the short answer is probably no as of right now. But that could shift and depends on what cluster of traits the electorate (which is majority female) deems desirable in a President. If you take a snapshot at the present of what those traits are, it appears to fall around things that more men have than women. That is not to say that no woman has these things. If women eventually choose to desire traits in a President that cluster more about what women have, then men would be less equipped. Men are women being equal and outcomes being equal is a mirage.

So you believe, in general, that women are less capable of being POTUS?

[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.

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?

No, of course not. As one simple example, men seek risk more, which means they die more frequently from dumb risky things but also reap more benefits from risk-seeking behavior. This desire for forced equality of outcomes benefits no one.

Let me ask this question again. Do you think that men and women have the "inclination" and "capacity" to be POTUS or in high status positions at equal rates?

Define "high status position"? If it means something like law firm partner, then women probably have more capacity than men to do that work but, from my experience, less inclination. More women I know who hold such roles would rather be doing something else (at least relative to the men I know who hold those roles), though some do actually genuinely enjoy it. The equal rates thing is a mirage and only really ever comes up in the context of apex, status positions.

Regarding President, the short answer is probably no as of right now. But that could shift and depends on what cluster of traits the electorate (which is majority female) deems desirable in a President. If you take a snapshot at the present of what those traits are, it appears to fall around things that more men have than women. That is not to say that no woman has these things. If women eventually choose to desire traits in a President that cluster more about what women have, then men would be less equipped. Men are women being equal and outcomes being equal is a mirage.

But these views are not misogynist? Right? It's what you keep coming back to say. Just want to make sure I understand for the 15th time.

[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.

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?

No, of course not. As one simple example, men seek risk more, which means they die more frequently from dumb risky things but also reap more benefits from risk-seeking behavior. This desire for forced equality of outcomes benefits no one.

Let me ask this question again. Do you think that men and women have the "inclination" and "capacity" to be POTUS or in high status positions at equal rates?

Define "high status position"? If it means something like law firm partner, then women probably have more capacity than men to do that work but, from my experience, less inclination. More women I know who hold such roles would rather be doing something else (at least relative to the men I know who hold those roles), though some do actually genuinely enjoy it. The equal rates thing is a mirage and only really ever comes up in the context of apex, status positions.

Regarding President, the short answer is probably no as of right now. But that could shift and depends on what cluster of traits the electorate (which is majority female) deems desirable in a President. If you take a snapshot at the present of what those traits are, it appears to fall around things that more men have than women. That is not to say that no woman has these things. If women eventually choose to desire traits in a President that cluster more about what women have, then men would be less equipped. Men are women being equal and outcomes being equal is a mirage.

So you believe, in general, that women are less capable of being POTUS?

Of course he does. But I love how he wrapped it in "If women eventually choose..." BS. Class A gaslighter.

[Anonymous]

Maybe don’t label every traditionally masculine behavior you don’t like as “toxic masculinity”? Just a thought. Maybe stop placing men under a microscope?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe don’t label every traditionally masculine behavior you don’t like as “toxic masculinity”? Just a thought. Maybe stop placing men under a microscope?

Maybe learn how to be masculine but not toxic at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stop teaching our daughters that men will EVER view them as equals. Stop teaching our daughters that they should keep leaning in to bring home the bacon, raise the kids, and be sexually available to men. Because this ultimately only benefits men. That glass ceiling is made out of bricks, actually.

Women should actually come together and say enough of this shit. No abortion rights? Fine - no more sex. Worker bees only but never going to make the decisions? Okay - no more above and beyond poorly compensated competence. No more volunteering for greater good.

In other words, stop helping men do “their” jobs. You think we all need to be taken care of and condescended to like little children? Great! Take care of us then. We’re done helping.

White women voted for Trump. Misogyny is religious, not gender-based.

[Anonymous]

We can combat deep misogyny by doing things in our daily lives like refusing to take on the unpaid, unappreciated work that women tend to do. Planning family holidays with no help from spouse? Stop. Scheduling all the family events? Stop. Force men in your life to step up.

[Anonymous]

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.

Even if we accept that what you are saying is correct, or "the truth," it's still a misogynistic statement because it presupposes that the presidency requires male inclinations and capacity to be carried out effectively. Operating on the assumption that what you are saying is the truth, it may well be that women's inclinations and capacities are better suited to leadership.

I don't really disagree with much of what you are saying and have addressed this in another post, but the proof is always in the pudding. Depends on results. People's intuitions, preferences and instincts are refined in the face of evidence over time. However, inclinations as I am using them are preferences and propensity to gravitate toward a certain activity and enjoy or deal with whatever might accompany said activity. No matter how much you try to push for equal outcomes of women going into engineering it will probably never be equal because women are not as inclined to do those things. That is ok and it is not helpful to keep pushing for equal outcomes in such contexts.

[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.

Even if we accept that what you are saying is correct, or "the truth," it's still a misogynistic statement because it presupposes that the presidency requires male inclinations and capacity to be carried out effectively. Operating on the assumption that what you are saying is the truth, it may well be that women's inclinations and capacities are better suited to leadership.

I don't really disagree with much of what you are saying and have addressed this in another post, but the proof is always in the pudding. Depends on results. People's intuitions, preferences and instincts are refined in the face of evidence over time. However, inclinations as I am using them are preferences and propensity to gravitate toward a certain activity and enjoy or deal with whatever might accompany said activity. No matter how much you try to push for equal outcomes of women going into engineering it will probably never be equal because women are not as inclined to do those things. That is ok and it is not helpful to keep pushing for equal outcomes in such contexts.

That's all fine and dandy, but no one is pushing women into engineering. Women have been denied a seat at the table fo centuries because of thinking like yours. All we want, all we ever wanted is the opportunity to go into engineering if we so choose. But your BS about different inclinations will always make sure that we don't get the opportunity.

[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.

Even if we accept that what you are saying is correct, or "the truth," it's still a misogynistic statement because it presupposes that the presidency requires male inclinations and capacity to be carried out effectively. Operating on the assumption that what you are saying is the truth, it may well be that women's inclinations and capacities are better suited to leadership.

I don't really disagree with much of what you are saying and have addressed this in another post, but the proof is always in the pudding. Depends on results. People's intuitions, preferences and instincts are refined in the face of evidence over time. However, inclinations as I am using them are preferences and propensity to gravitate toward a certain activity and enjoy or deal with whatever might accompany said activity. No matter how much you try to push for equal outcomes of women going into engineering it will probably never be equal because women are not as inclined to do those things. That is ok and it is not helpful to keep pushing for equal outcomes in such contexts.

That's all fine and dandy, but no one is pushing women into engineering. Women have been denied a seat at the table fo centuries because of thinking like yours. All we want, all we ever wanted is the opportunity to go into engineering if we so choose. But your BS about different inclinations will always make sure that we don't get the opportunity.

Women don't like engineering as much as men. And that's ok! Pushing for equality is folly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe don’t label every traditionally masculine behavior you don’t like as “toxic masculinity”? Just a thought. Maybe stop placing men under a microscope?

Maybe learn how to be masculine but not toxic at the same time.

Maybe stop tying to police masculinity. You're not very good at it. I laugh whenever I hear a clueless woman tell me what a "real man" is. Girl, bye!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Hillary Clinton and Nikki Haley are two that come to mind right away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe don’t label every traditionally masculine behavior you don’t like as “toxic masculinity”? Just a thought. Maybe stop placing men under a microscope?

Maybe learn how to be masculine but not toxic at the same time.

DP. What does masculine mean in this context? How does a person "be masculine?"

[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.

Even if we accept that what you are saying is correct, or "the truth," it's still a misogynistic statement because it presupposes that the presidency requires male inclinations and capacity to be carried out effectively. Operating on the assumption that what you are saying is the truth, it may well be that women's inclinations and capacities are better suited to leadership.

I don't really disagree with much of what you are saying and have addressed this in another post, but the proof is always in the pudding. Depends on results. People's intuitions, preferences and instincts are refined in the face of evidence over time. However, inclinations as I am using them are preferences and propensity to gravitate toward a certain activity and enjoy or deal with whatever might accompany said activity. No matter how much you try to push for equal outcomes of women going into engineering it will probably never be equal because women are not as inclined to do those things. That is ok and it is not helpful to keep pushing for equal outcomes in such contexts.

That's all fine and dandy, but no one is pushing women into engineering. Women have been denied a seat at the table fo centuries because of thinking like yours. All we want, all we ever wanted is the opportunity to go into engineering if we so choose. But your BS about different inclinations will always make sure that we don't get the opportunity.

NP. Disagree. The STEM fields that are dominated by men are begging women to join. The problem is one of critical mass. There are all sorts of stories out there about women in STEM fields who become completely uncomfortable with the attention/harassment that they get because they suddenly are the only women that these men interact with.

[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.

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.

Even if we accept that what you are saying is correct, or "the truth," it's still a misogynistic statement because it presupposes that the presidency requires male inclinations and capacity to be carried out effectively. Operating on the assumption that what you are saying is the truth, it may well be that women's inclinations and capacities are better suited to leadership.

I don't really disagree with much of what you are saying and have addressed this in another post, but the proof is always in the pudding. Depends on results. People's intuitions, preferences and instincts are refined in the face of evidence over time. However, inclinations as I am using them are preferences and propensity to gravitate toward a certain activity and enjoy or deal with whatever might accompany said activity. No matter how much you try to push for equal outcomes of women going into engineering it will probably never be equal because women are not as inclined to do those things. That is ok and it is not helpful to keep pushing for equal outcomes in such contexts.

That's all fine and dandy, but no one is pushing women into engineering. Women have been denied a seat at the table fo centuries because of thinking like yours. All we want, all we ever wanted is the opportunity to go into engineering if we so choose. But your BS about different inclinations will always make sure that we don't get the opportunity.

Women don't like engineering as much as men. And that's ok! Pushing for equality is folly.

Complete BS and pure misogyny.