Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Backlash against college educated women
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
I've had the same thought, that this stuff is a pseudo-religion. Even the "in this house we believe" signs have the cadence of a prayer or chant. |
Anonymous
I’m not asking you to believe anything. I am speaking about facts. The PP asked for an example of an institution that has been made better by having women in leadership positions, trying to argue that there were none. I am pointing out that if your goal as government is preservation of the lives of citizens, particularly in violent conflict (e.g., state-level violence), there is a strong correlation between countries with significant presence of women in leadership roles and fewer deaths by armed conflict in the citizenry. Therefore, by that measure, having women in government has a clearly life-preserving impact on young men in particular. I said nothing about individuals or beliefs, so your response is orthogonal to the original line of discussion. I am speaking about demographic trends and the correlation of having women in leadership positions with the violent deaths of citizens. |
Anonymous
Oh, a lot of the identity-based behaviors and beliefs crossed into religion a long time ago. It has all the same characteristics: a fundamental/evangelical wing, chants and prayers, flags and banners, ritual, holy days, expulsion (sometimes violent) for heretics, baptismal events, community gatherings. This is how new religions are made. |
Anonymous
Is replication the new term for plagiarism, or does it refer to data used in scientific articles not being replicable? |
Anonymous
What are you talking about? I’m talking about moderates, people in the middle, and their daughters are absolutely going to college. The far right, which might not educate daughters, is not a happy group. Neither is the far left, which may educate daughters but only in a strictly nihilistic way. They are about equally unhappy and actually have a lot in common. |
Anonymous
Sounds like my MILs sister. only sent her son to college and not her daughters. Bother her daughters divorced and struggled. One is already deceased. MIL sent her sons and daughters to college. Her daughters also divorced but both had successful careers and were able to support themselves. One also had to raise her kids with minimal support from dirtbag GOP dad. Get an education girls regardless of mommy and daddy trashing the idea. |
Anonymous
Color me skeptical. You didn't present any evidence or cite any research, so we would have to take your word for it. But when you look at recent scandals involving military depravity, women were either in charge or involved. The Abu Ghraib scandal, for example, had a distinctly feminine face, with even the general in charge (Barbara Fast) being a woman. Victoria Nuland, while not a well known figure in the US, is feared by our adversaries as a personification of American aggression. I myself am a female who went to war. What you are saying is not the reality that I observe. I observe that women tend to be well prepared to defend their nations and to advance their nation's interests through all the traditional means, including war. And if what you're saying is true, I will reconsider supporting women as heads of state as their weakness would invite aggression. |
Anonymous
That could be your anecdotal experience, but not true in general. |
Anonymous
My “source” is the history of armed conflict in the world, something I’ve spent a lot of time studying. And you again are mixing up individuals with overall trends. I am not speaking about individuals. It is irrelevant that individual leaders may or may not be bellicose. But overall, governments with a larger proportion of women in the government have their citizenry die in armed conflict at lesser rates. I’ll put the question back on you: can you show me longitudinal global citizen armed conflict death statistics (e.g. country-level, longitudinal statistics) demonstrating globally that countries with a larger proportion of women in leadership have their citizenry die in armed conflict at higher rates than those countries with a smaller proportion of women in leadership? |
Anonymous
This makes no sense. Have you been to any of these churches who supports Trump and the GOP? |
Anonymous
Based upon your anecdotal experience? |
Anonymous
You don’t seem to be comprehending the difference between individuals and long-term overall statistical trends. You are correct that individual female leaders can be bellicose. But that’s not indicative (in fact is fairly irrelevant to) overall country-level longitudinal statistics regarding armed conflict. If you disagree, you need to show that over the history of women having significant roles in global governance globally (so say for the last hundred years or so), countries with women in government leadership had a higher level of population death by violent armed conflict. You simply are not going to be able to show that, however. To use an extreme example to make the point: Sudan and Spain have approximately the same population. Spain has a much higher proportion of women in leadership and over time, a much lower overall death rate of the citizenry by violent armed conflict, even if you are including the Spanish Civil War years in your time calculation. The Spanish lifespan is much longer. As a young man, you are far more likely to live to old age in Spain versus in Sudan. This says nothing about individual Sudanese or Spanish leaders, it’s merely a statistical analysis of the correlation of women in leadership and the statistical likelihood of death by armed conflict in each country. |
Anonymous
Answer the question. Post some sources than can be interrogated other than "trust me bro". While we're at it, please explain how armed conflict death statistics are a useful proxy for well run institutions, which was the original line of discussion. It's such a niche figure that indicates, what exactly? If a civilization goes to war more and has more armed conflict deaths, but also has more resources, territory and influence for the benefit of the rest of the citizens, is that a "worse-run" government than one that has fewer casualties but is completely subjugated economically, culturally and territorially. Do you not see how that falls into the same trap that PP alluded to regarding universities. Women are far more prone to harm-reduction and consensus/group think. As a result, universities have now evolved into places that stifle debate and conflict and enforce in-group thinking and conformity rather than being challenged. And we are seeing the results of that... |
Anonymous
It sounds like we agree. Of course girls are going flee from femininity when what is presented to them is Cardi B twerking in a thong for the male gaze. However, I disagree that they are not well served by being told that they can change their sex. They are not well served by being forced to compete in sports and undress in the locker room with boys. They are not served by the lie that a refusal to accommodate male sexual desire means that they are a boy. And I vote accordingly. |
Anonymous
How is this a backlash against college educated women? Trump lost support among white people generally including white men without college degrees (+48 in 2016, _42 in 2020 and +40 in 2024) In fact Trump lost support among whites generally. He picked up support among moderates, hispanics, blacks, asians, and young people. it might be more accurate to say the democrats lost support among these groups because they all generally still support democrats, just by less. This might be a backlash against that subset of college educated women that hates men and insists that everyone that doesn't agree with them is morally flawed. |