How can we combat deep misogyny?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is huge. Within your own family, shift the dynamic where the wife/mom does all the planning, communicating, gift shopping, etc. A small step, but because it directly involves others outside the nuclear family, it sends a bigger societal message than 'we take turns buying milk'.

I don't think that will ever happen en masse. Sure, buy milk, but if it's something involving the kids or school, I want to be involved.

Fine, but your spouse should be equally involved. The school shouldn’t be calling you about everything kid-related.

No, I want to be called. That's the problem (and my point). I don't think I'm that unusual. I know people on this board want their husbands called equally or instead, but I know plenty of moms who want to know what is going on and want to be the ones who get the call (me included!). You can't have the cultural shift you want if moms don't want to give up control (same for hosting, planning parties, etc.).

Well, you’re not allowed to complain about being overwhelmed or unappreciated. If you willingly take on the grunt work of your marriage, don’t expect to have the time or energy for things like community involvement or participation in more valued activities outside the home.

[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.

Am I reading this correctly? You think gender equality is "folly"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 learn to speak English.

Which part didn't you understand? It was pretty straight forward. DP.

Cool. Maybe learn to be feminine and not toxic.

Also, maybe learn to articulate your points and be less cryptic.

[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: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.

You think it's a man? Might be a trad wife. Maybe brunch granny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is huge. Within your own family, shift the dynamic where the wife/mom does all the planning, communicating, gift shopping, etc. A small step, but because it directly involves others outside the nuclear family, it sends a bigger societal message than 'we take turns buying milk'.

I don't think that will ever happen en masse. Sure, buy milk, but if it's something involving the kids or school, I want to be involved.

Fine, but your spouse should be equally involved. The school shouldn’t be calling you about everything kid-related.

No, I want to be called. That's the problem (and my point). I don't think I'm that unusual. I know people on this board want their husbands called equally or instead, but I know plenty of moms who want to know what is going on and want to be the ones who get the call (me included!). You can't have the cultural shift you want if moms don't want to give up control (same for hosting, planning parties, etc.).

I also want to take care of my kids. I’m not doing everything anymore though. If women are basically walking wombs and the hired help, I can accept that. But my womb and my domestic labor are EXPENSIVE. No more gaslighting me that equality and women’s empowerment means I have to do everything.

[Anonymous]

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?

That is something you need to ask Yourself. Ask Why did many people who think Trump is a horrible person, and agree with you that he is a "grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon" think he was a better choice than the other candidate? That says more about the other candidate than it does about Trump.

No, it speaks volumes for the voters who chose him.

[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?

Still waiting on an honest answer to this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 learn to speak English.

Which part didn't you understand? It was pretty straight forward. DP.

Cool. Maybe learn to be feminine and not toxic.

Also, maybe learn to articulate your points and be less cryptic.

It’s only cryptic if you’re really dumb, which you are.

[Anonymous]

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?

That is something you need to ask Yourself. Ask Why did many people who think Trump is a horrible person, and agree with you that he is a "grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon" think he was a better choice than the other candidate? That says more about the other candidate than it does about Trump.

No it doesn’t. It says something about the AH’s who voted for him.

[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.

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.

Am I reading this correctly? You think gender equality is "folly"?

Yes, pushing for 50/50 absolute equality of outcomes across the board in every sphere is folly. And truth be told most women don't want that anyway. What these loud voices really want is what they call a "seat at the table", meaning apex, status jobs and positions like the rabid, status-obsessed capitalists they are. They don't care about true equality because if they did, they would realize that something would have to give further down the chain, but they would never for a second even deign to look at those "below" them to even get a read on what equality looks like down there.

[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: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.

Am I reading this correctly? You think gender equality is "folly"?

Yes, pushing for 50/50 absolute equality of outcomes across the board in every sphere is folly. And truth be told most women don't want that anyway. What these loud voices really want is what they call a "seat at the table", meaning apex, status jobs and positions like the rabid, status-obsessed capitalists they are. They don't care about true equality because if they did, they would realize that something would have to give further down the chain, but they would never for a second even deign to look at those "below" them to even get a read on what equality looks like down there.

You don’t get to decide what I should care about as a woman. Do you call men rabid, status obsessed when they aim for these positions? Of course not! They belong there, RIGHT? For the same reason women in those positions should they dare excel to them, need to never sound like men because that’s just too upsetting to your little egos. You’re just gross and your disdain for women in revealed a bit more with each post you wrote
.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is huge. Within your own family, shift the dynamic where the wife/mom does all the planning, communicating, gift shopping, etc. A small step, but because it directly involves others outside the nuclear family, it sends a bigger societal message than 'we take turns buying milk'.

I don't think that will ever happen en masse. Sure, buy milk, but if it's something involving the kids or school, I want to be involved.

Fine, but your spouse should be equally involved. The school shouldn’t be calling you about everything kid-related.

No, I want to be called. That's the problem (and my point). I don't think I'm that unusual. I know people on this board want their husbands called equally or instead, but I know plenty of moms who want to know what is going on and want to be the ones who get the call (me included!). You can't have the cultural shift you want if moms don't want to give up control (same for hosting, planning parties, etc.).

Well, you’re not allowed to complain about being overwhelmed or unappreciated. If you willingly take on the grunt work of your marriage, don’t expect to have the time or energy for things like community involvement or participation in more valued activities outside the home.

Who said I complain? I actually spend very little time talking to the school or planning a Thanksgiving dinner. I don't feel overwhelmed or underappreciated. I'm just offering a perspective on why things won't change a lot. Maybe some people should just hand out their husband's number as the first contact? I do know a couple families where the woman has the more demanding job and the husband is the first one called.

Personally, I want to know if they are sick and who their friends are. Something must happen when a kid comes out of your body, I don't know. You don't have to feel that way, but I know plenty of women who do. Anyway, maybe this contributes to misogyny, I don't really care. My children are my number one priority.

[Anonymous]

I think it's going to continue until the religions address it.

It's one thing to give women the rights they deserve. But when they go to church and their groups insist on misogynist beliefs, they go on. Look at tradwives.

[Anonymous]

NP. It starts by not thinking that misogyny is the province of one political party. It requires being honest about your own deep misogyny.

I suspect all the people here castigating Republicans are big supporters of wildly misogynist gender ideology.

[Anonymous]

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

Just stop you elected a rapist.