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
.
Of course those men are rabid, status obsessed capitalists! But most don't hide behind some faux altruistic persona and ideology in pursuit of their rapacity. I'm not deciding what you care about, I'm calling you a self-serving, hypocrite. Just own it! Then the sane among us can stop rolling our eyes at you.
What are you even prattling on about? Yes how dare I expect to compete for the same jobs that men do. How self serving of me, truly repugnant. Are you serious with this shit you’re writing? You are a disgusting POS and I’m done giving you the platform by responding to you. Go crawl in a hole and die already.
This is not your platform. Thanks for trying though.
Your true colors come out with that bile invective you spew when you realize how badly exposed you are. Everyone sees through your act and nobody is falling for your crap. Be well.
Everyone saw what a shit person you were with your first post. You weren’t fooling anyone. Your gaslighting is hilarious but totally ineffective. Hope you choke on that BS you are spewing.
Can you please keep to your word for once and stop giving me a platform? Pretty please!
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
.
Of course those men are rabid, status obsessed capitalists! But most don't hide behind some faux altruistic persona and ideology in pursuit of their rapacity. I'm not deciding what you care about, I'm calling you a self-serving, hypocrite. Just own it! Then the sane among us can stop rolling our eyes at you.
What are you even prattling on about? Yes how dare I expect to compete for the same jobs that men do. How self serving of me, truly repugnant. Are you serious with this shit you’re writing? You are a disgusting POS and I’m done giving you the platform by responding to you. Go crawl in a hole and die already.
This is not your platform. Thanks for trying though.
Your true colors come out with that bile invective you spew when you realize how badly exposed you are. Everyone sees through your act and nobody is falling for your crap. Be well.
Everyone saw what a shit person you were with your first post. You weren’t fooling anyone. Your gaslighting is hilarious but totally ineffective. Hope you choke on that BS you are spewing.
Can you please keep to your word for once and stop giving me a platform? Pretty please!
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
.
Of course those men are rabid, status obsessed capitalists! But most don't hide behind some faux altruistic persona and ideology in pursuit of their rapacity. I'm not deciding what you care about, I'm calling you a self-serving, hypocrite. Just own it! Then the sane among us can stop rolling our eyes at you.
What are you even prattling on about? Yes how dare I expect to compete for the same jobs that men do. How self serving of me, truly repugnant. Are you serious with this shit you’re writing? You are a disgusting POS and I’m done giving you the platform by responding to you. Go crawl in a hole and die already.
This is not your platform. Thanks for trying though.
Your true colors come out with that bile invective you spew when you realize how badly exposed you are. Everyone sees through your act and nobody is falling for your crap. Be well.
Everyone saw what a shit person you were with your first post. You weren’t fooling anyone. Your gaslighting is hilarious but totally ineffective. Hope you choke on that BS you are spewing.
Can you please keep to your word for once and stop giving me a platform? Pretty please!
Feel free to stop responding 😁
I think I will. I try to be responsive to all of my fans, but you're coming across as an obsessive, creepy Stan now. I'm starting to fear for my safety. Good luck!
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
.
Of course those men are rabid, status obsessed capitalists! But most don't hide behind some faux altruistic persona and ideology in pursuit of their rapacity. I'm not deciding what you care about, I'm calling you a self-serving, hypocrite. Just own it! Then the sane among us can stop rolling our eyes at you.
What are you even prattling on about? Yes how dare I expect to compete for the same jobs that men do. How self serving of me, truly repugnant. Are you serious with this shit you’re writing? You are a disgusting POS and I’m done giving you the platform by responding to you. Go crawl in a hole and die already.
This is not your platform. Thanks for trying though.
Your true colors come out with that bile invective you spew when you realize how badly exposed you are. Everyone sees through your act and nobody is falling for your crap. Be well.
Everyone saw what a shit person you were with your first post. You weren’t fooling anyone. Your gaslighting is hilarious but totally ineffective. Hope you choke on that BS you are spewing.
Can you please keep to your word for once and stop giving me a platform? Pretty please!
Feel free to stop responding 😁
I think I will. I try to be responsive to all of my fans, but you're coming across as an obsessive, creepy Stan now. I'm starting to fear for my safety. Good luck!
But I’m just a little woman, and you’re so much stronger and better 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Anonymous wrote:Put up a better female candidate next time and stop blaming it on this.
In what world is a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon a better candidate?
In this case, it was. Tells you something about the female candidate, right?
No, it doesn't. It just says that you'd rather vote for a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon than a woman (and God forbid a black woman). But let me guess, you're an old white dude.
I’m not this poster but am a woman who voted for Hillary and did not vote for Kamala. But, sure, blame it on misogyny instead of looking at the candidate and the policy positions she’s taken over the years.
I really want just one of you to tell me in a way that makes sense how Kamala was less qualified than Trump, or Nikki.
Kamala has the intellect and communication skills of a fence post.
You are welcome even if you cannot comprehend.
Hmmmm not sure if you watched the same debate with Trump that I did, but she owned his ass.
So no, I cannot comprehend because it's just another "I hate Kalmala but I can't explain why."
You hate her because she is a black woman. just own it.
Kamala is Jamaican, British, and East Asian Indian. She is not black.
Anonymous wrote:You need to dispense of the notion that men and women are equally equipped and inclined to handled the same things. Much of what is deemed "misogyny" is simply just taking this reality as a first principle rather than seeking absolute "equality" in everything, which is folly. Equality is a mirage.
And here is why she lost. RIGHT HERE!!!! Blatant, unapologetic misogyny on display.
On the contrary, I think you are Exhibit A of why she lost. You can't even handle a little sober truth without freaking out. This behavior is repellant to most of America.
Please don't mistake your bigoted views for the "truth." Live with the fact that you think that women are inferior and accept the fact that you're a misogynist. That is the only truth. Another sad truth is that there were many of you this time around and you elected another bigot. Good for you. For now.
All I said was that men and women have different inclinations and capacities. This is the truth. Apparently this was too much for you to handle without getting bent out of shape and reading a bunch of mumbo jumbo into what was a very simple statement. You are the problem.
Yeah, I'm sure Kalmala wasn't qualified to be president because she can't bench press 200 lbs. GMAFB
Kamala is not a good candidate. It's ok to admit that without falling into the silly trap of calling everyone misogynist for pointing out her very obvious deficiencies, which are not counterbalanced by any particularly noteworthy gifts. In the realm of presidential politics, she's not particularly good or standout at anything. You may think you are helping, but it does no one any favors.
No, no. Not everyone. I called you a misogynist in direct response to your comments. So let's get that straight. Own your "truth."
You think an elected senator, an AG and a prosecutor is less qualified or not good at anything?
How about slowing down and stop frothing? In the realm of presidential politics, yes she is nothing special at all. She has no standout qualities or gifts. If all you can list are titles, perhaps you agree with me deep down.
Oh FFS it's like talking to a pigeon. What qualities does your guy have? Failed businesses? A criminal record? A filed TV show? Even if you take away all of the rhetoric he spews, Kamala is and always will be more qualified than Trump. She is more educated, has been elected to more positions and is younger and sharper.
What does qualities does your guy have? Won two national presidential elections. How about your girl?
Np. Right there is an example. Harris is a woman. Not a 'girl'. I agree orange dude ia a toddler bit you would never say boy
I was responding to a poster who called Trump a "guy." In the name of equity, shouldn't Harris be a "girl." If the poster referred to Trump as a man, I would have referred to Harris as a woman.
Anonymous wrote:It's apparent that it runs incredibly deep in this country, where a woman's professional status is put under a significantly higher scrutiny than a man's, or the standards for which she could be put in the same professional level with a man (or higher) are impossibly unrealistic. She will never be "enough" even compared to males with mediocrity.
If we can somehow avoid talking about politics, can we please have a serious discussion about how deep misogyny runs in America (and yes, much more than many other places--or at least in different ways) and how we can successfully combat it? Is it possible? What do you think works well in other countries? What can we do here?
I'm genuinely not seeing this with the organizations and companies I consult with. Lots of very talented women in very senior positions. This would be multilaterals and finance.
I think you are pushing some political bs or making excuses for your mediocrity. There are tons of very accomplished women in senior positions in DC.
Anonymous wrote:Put up a better female candidate next time and stop blaming it on this.
In what world is a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon a better candidate?
In a world where you have the choice of policies, direction of the county, etc. 5M+ more chose that direction. You can't label and accuse all of them as misogynists to make it make sense in your small mind.
The original post was about putting up a better female candidate, making it about the person, not the policies. That can't be the answer because in a person to person comparison, Harris is better. Maybe the better answer is the party should develop better policies that will draw voters to a candidate, regardless of gender (or if they are a convicted felon).
Anonymous wrote:Put up a better female candidate next time and stop blaming it on this.
In what world is a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon a better candidate?
In this case, it was. Tells you something about the female candidate, right?
No, it doesn't. It just says that you'd rather vote for a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon than a woman (and God forbid a black woman). But let me guess, you're an old white dude.
I’m not this poster but am a woman who voted for Hillary and did not vote for Kamala. But, sure, blame it on misogyny instead of looking at the candidate and the policy positions she’s taken over the years.
I really want just one of you to tell me in a way that makes sense how Kamala was less qualified than Trump, or Nikki.
Kamala has the intellect and communication skills of a fence post.
You are welcome even if you cannot comprehend.
Hmmmm not sure if you watched the same debate with Trump that I did, but she owned his ass.
So no, I cannot comprehend because it's just another "I hate Kalmala but I can't explain why."
You hate her because she is a black woman. just own it.
Kamala is Jamaican, British, and East Asian Indian. She is not black.
You might want to tell Jamaicans they are not black. 😂😂😂
seriously what is the Republican thing with Jamaicans not being black? Are Bob Marley, Usain Bolt, Harry Belafonte, and Shaggy not black either? Or just Kamala?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}