Backlash against college educated women

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can answer this one (and am a college educated white woman).

Liberal college educated white women suck the fun out of every.single.thing and make a big dramatic deal out of every.single.thing. It is annoying AF. Even to me. Imagine how a working class guy feels.

-their child rearing ideas are annoying AF and filter into our schools & children’s activities. Constantly harping and focusing on sugar, diversity, the environment, fairness, ZOMG Larlo’s dad served peanut butter!!!! blah blah. They have a fit if you give their kid a cookie for birthday or team snack. Fun suck.

-constant focus on racial issues and DEI that even people of the supposed “discriminated race or gender” do not EVEN REMOTELY agree with. Taking offense to silly jokes or language that even people of the “discriminate race or gender” think are funny. And they think you are annoying, a PITA, and all “Karens”

-ruining assorted cultural celebrations with your BS and whining

-weird ideas about gender and sexuality that no one actually agrees with at all

-anti Christian nonsense. I’m a freaking atheist and annoyed by the “it’s a WINTER party, not a Christian party” BS. Who cares?!

- hysteria surrounding Donald Trump. I do not like him either, but he is not Hitler, sexist, racist etc.

- obsession with gay and transgender issues

-horrendous ideas about public education in general

-COVID obsession and germaphobia that lasted for years and severely damaged public education

-censorship and/or attempted censorship

I could do this all day long and list approximately 50 more things. You are no fun and ruin so many things, judgy and annoying, whiny AF, overdramatic and so much more. Most people largely want to be left alone and do not want to listen to constant lectures and finger wagging- and have long ago lost patience with you.

Take a look in the mirror.

-

Wow, that is some rant.

I would note, for whatever reason, there is a significant number of kids who are deathly allergic to peanuts and peanut butter, so start with that and work backwards through your list of greviences as to why they are mostly wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one is more oppressed than gun owners, every time a democrat wins, they get their guns taken away.

no one has ever taken away anyone's guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most girls see their moms stressed out from work and see their grandmas generation are happier or at least it seems to be that way

My mother is retired so I guess that is why she is a "happy" grandma with a lot of time on her hands? I don't understand your premise, the parents raising teenagers now very likely had working mothers. I was a latch key kid.

Right. Gen Z are looking for an easy way to quick retirement and becoming women of leisure. They are not workhorses with a great work ethic. I expect many of these girls from Gen Z will fail in the 9-5 40 hour workplace. They have different priorities and don’t necessarily believe contributing to the “establishment”/government and society by working all the time is productive or noble. Gen Z do not like to even go outside to pick up groceries or food. They want everything delivered. This is the stay in place and stay home generation. The modern workplace has already done mass firings of Gen Z and they haven’t even been in the workplace or out of school for that long. Covid’s quarantines only made things worse.

Not the Gen Z ladies in college. They worked like dogs to get there and it continues while they are there. These girls are not fooling around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think half of women Today would prefer increasing wages and reducing college tuition for men if it meant they could be stay at home moms and one income families again.

Many of these young women have no idea what it means to properly run a household. No idea how to cook or clean. My mom actually majored in home economics in college. Graded on her ability to meal plan, dust and vacuum. Maybe we need to bring that back and give these young women an indication of what’s really involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think half of women Today would prefer increasing wages and reducing college tuition for men if it meant they could be stay at home moms and one income families again.

Many of these young women have no idea what it means to properly run a household. No idea how to cook or clean. My mom actually majored in home economics in college. Graded on her ability to meal plan, dust and vacuum. Maybe we need to bring that back and give these young women an indication of what’s really involved.

No one is born knowing how to cook a meal oe mow a lawn or do a load of laundry. Teach your sons and daughters how to do these things when they are old enough. This is part of parenting,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think half of women Today would prefer increasing wages and reducing college tuition for men if it meant they could be stay at home moms and one income families again.

Many of these young women have no idea what it means to properly run a household. No idea how to cook or clean. My mom actually majored in home economics in college. Graded on her ability to meal plan, dust and vacuum. Maybe we need to bring that back and give these young women an indication of what’s really involved.

No one is born knowing how to cook a meal oe mow a lawn or do a load of laundry. Teach your sons and daughters how to do these things when they are old enough. This is part of parenting,

Oh, I do. But let’s be real, since women went to work en masse, the art of housekeeping has been in steady decline. So do all of these supposed trad wives really want to go back to how it used to be? Because that sh*t is hard work. Harder than working in many cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think half of women Today would prefer increasing wages and reducing college tuition for men if it meant they could be stay at home moms and one income families again.

Many of these young women have no idea what it means to properly run a household. No idea how to cook or clean. My mom actually majored in home economics in college. Graded on her ability to meal plan, dust and vacuum. Maybe we need to bring that back and give these young women an indication of what’s really involved.

No one is born knowing how to cook a meal oe mow a lawn or do a load of laundry. Teach your sons and daughters how to do these things when they are old enough. This is part of parenting,

Oh, I do. But let’s be real, since women went to work en masse, the art of housekeeping has been in steady decline. So do all of these supposed trad wives really want to go back to how it used to be? Because that sh*t is hard work. Harder than working in many cases.

A lot of these young women actually brag about not being able to cook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think half of women Today would prefer increasing wages and reducing college tuition for men if it meant they could be stay at home moms and one income families again.

Many of these young women have no idea what it means to properly run a household. No idea how to cook or clean. My mom actually majored in home economics in college. Graded on her ability to meal plan, dust and vacuum. Maybe we need to bring that back and give these young women an indication of what’s really involved.

No one is born knowing how to cook a meal oe mow a lawn or do a load of laundry. Teach your sons and daughters how to do these things when they are old enough. This is part of parenting,

Oh, I do. But let’s be real, since women went to work en masse, the art of housekeeping has been in steady decline. So do all of these supposed trad wives really want to go back to how it used to be? Because that sh*t is hard work. Harder than working in many cases.

I don't recommend it. You are better off earning an income and hiring someone to cook and clean IMO.

But if your daughters or sons really do want to do that kind of work all day and night, make sure they understand the true costs and risks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think half of women Today would prefer increasing wages and reducing college tuition for men if it meant they could be stay at home moms and one income families again.

Many of these young women have no idea what it means to properly run a household. No idea how to cook or clean. My mom actually majored in home economics in college. Graded on her ability to meal plan, dust and vacuum. Maybe we need to bring that back and give these young women an indication of what’s really involved.

I would rather die than be stuck doing all the housework.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a massive backlash against women. Look at these cabinet nominees! How many have had sexual assault/harassment charges? Completely gross! Women are paying for the lonely boy pathology of these bros.

I think the issue is that we've had women in institutions for a generation now. Can anyone point to an institution that is--in an absolute sense--better with women involved in leadership? Look at universities: The parties are lamer, the grades are easier, the number of useless degrees has proliferated, the quality of scholarship has declined (see, e.g., the replication crisis), and the ability to debate has evaporated. All that has happened as women have become a larger portion of faculties, administrative leadership, and student bodies.

Globally, countries with a larger proportion of women in government leadership positions tend to have fewer population deaths by violent military conflict. It’s actually pretty closely correlated.

My personal theory is that women in government leadership means that these are societies where women have more control over birth control, meaning that there isn’t a well of young men to send into the grinder of war, because birth rates decline. That leads to stability because the leadership prioritizes keeping the young men of these societies alive. It also leads to existential questions about population collapse, but if your goal for governance is, at a basic level, to keep more of your population out of armed military conflict, women in leadership have done much better.

Essentially, women in government leadership roles is a proxy for a higher value placed on the lives of young men.

Please post your source. There is a body of literature that suggests that female leaders have historically been more bellicose, owing to their insecurity and overcompensation for being perceived as weak. It's like those female cops that freak out, lose their composure and needlessly shoot people or escalate situations because they know they are physically weaker and need to somehow assert "control" over the situation.

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?

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...

Let’s test your theory: by percentage of population, list out the countries with highest and lowest percentage of citizen death by armed conflict over the past 100 years. And then let’s compare things like average lifespan, happiness of the populace, wealth of the populace, cultural influence, etc. You seem to believe that citizen lives are irrelevant to the purpose of government, which is a bizarre take but okay. So show us all those countries with high percentages of citizen violent death, and we can all see whether we would consider those countries to have successful governments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a massive backlash against women. Look at these cabinet nominees! How many have had sexual assault/harassment charges? Completely gross! Women are paying for the lonely boy pathology of these bros.

I think the issue is that we've had women in institutions for a generation now. Can anyone point to an institution that is--in an absolute sense--better with women involved in leadership? Look at universities: The parties are lamer, the grades are easier, the number of useless degrees has proliferated, the quality of scholarship has declined (see, e.g., the replication crisis), and the ability to debate has evaporated. All that has happened as women have become a larger portion of faculties, administrative leadership, and student bodies.

Globally, countries with a larger proportion of women in government leadership positions tend to have fewer population deaths by violent military conflict. It’s actually pretty closely correlated.

My personal theory is that women in government leadership means that these are societies where women have more control over birth control, meaning that there isn’t a well of young men to send into the grinder of war, because birth rates decline. That leads to stability because the leadership prioritizes keeping the young men of these societies alive. It also leads to existential questions about population collapse, but if your goal for governance is, at a basic level, to keep more of your population out of armed military conflict, women in leadership have done much better.

Essentially, women in government leadership roles is a proxy for a higher value placed on the lives of young men.

Please post your source. There is a body of literature that suggests that female leaders have historically been more bellicose, owing to their insecurity and overcompensation for being perceived as weak. It's like those female cops that freak out, lose their composure and needlessly shoot people or escalate situations because they know they are physically weaker and need to somehow assert "control" over the situation.

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?

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...

Someone who thinks the quality of life in Sudan is better than the quality of life in Spain is not a serious person to have a discussion with.

[Anonymous]

If you all really believe that Americans hate non-white, college educated, lgbtq, women, et al, it seems really odd to run a female BIPOC for the most important election of our lifetime. I mean, democracy was on the line! Why would you run someone that would be in a weaker demographic position, for the election that will either allow America to continue, or plunge us into a fascist hellscape?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most girls see their moms stressed out from work and see their grandmas generation are happier or at least it seems to be that way

Dear God not most people I know, whose grandmothers got through their days drugged to the gills and alcoholic. Weird idealization of a past that didn’t exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most girls see their moms stressed out from work and see their grandmas generation are happier or at least it seems to be that way

Dear God not most people I know, whose grandmothers got through their days drugged to the gills and alcoholic. Weird idealization of a past that didn’t exist.

Drug and alcohol use are at historic highs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a massive backlash against women. Look at these cabinet nominees! How many have had sexual assault/harassment charges? Completely gross! Women are paying for the lonely boy pathology of these bros.

I think the issue is that we've had women in institutions for a generation now. Can anyone point to an institution that is--in an absolute sense--better with women involved in leadership? Look at universities: The parties are lamer, the grades are easier, the number of useless degrees has proliferated, the quality of scholarship has declined (see, e.g., the replication crisis), and the ability to debate has evaporated. All that has happened as women have become a larger portion of faculties, administrative leadership, and student bodies.

We’ve had men in MOST leadership positions in this country for hundreds of years! It that why things are soooooo great?

I mean yes. What other society would you prefer to live in?

While I don’t disagree with the PP, a lot of the nonsense that these College educated women believe are ideologies initiated by men:
Anti - racism - Kendi
Critical legal theory - Unger
Marx
Transgender/transexual - John money
Intersectionality with Crenshaw is an exception.

But yes, women are pulled into these nonsensical ideologies at higher rates than men. I believe the poster on the first page correctly attributed this to women’s long observed tendency to be more religious than men. In this case as an atheist I agree that they are better served following Christianity than harmful pseudo intellectual nonsense.

Wokeness really is a religion, complete with catechisms and rites.

Incredibly, Women are the second class to men in wokeism too despite being the major believers, brains, and advocates of it.

Men don’t necessarily feel the need to be part of an ingroup or social network so it makes sense women are part of the woke faith

Yes, the role of women in the woke movement is very similar to the role of women in major religions. They are the enforcers of morality, but have little power themselves. Any woman who starts to accumulate real power is driven out as a heretic, because they threaten the men who rule. It’s not really any different than any other major intolerant religion.