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:

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
.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a 44 year old mixed European-Asian who has lived on several continents.

I have yet to meet anyone, of any gender, who isn't prejudiced about gender, race, religion, socio-economic status, etc. Some ethnic groups take stereotypes for granted and state it as established fact, while Americans and western Europeans, for the most part, know misogyny (and any other prejudice) is something they need to keep under wraps and possibly work to refute.

But deep down? We're all like this. My husband is like this. My father is like this. My best friend's super progressive, self-proclaimed feminist husband is like this. They don't come out and say it! But it colors their entire way of relating to the world. Sometimes I think the least misogynist man I know is my deeply conservative and pious Catholic godfather. He has integrated from his religion that he needs to respect all humans. But then... he also attended an anti-gay marriage rally. Sigh.

Gender equality, sexual orientation and race-blindness, are all mirages.

Anonymous wrote:We'll never overcome it unless we can find the perfect female candidate. I mean, this woman would have to tick every box and pretty much be AI-generated to perfection. And even then, realistically, she's only going to please half the voters anyway.

I watched an Instagram live on election night of a woman interviewing people around Howard and other parts of DC. I was shocked to hear some of the things the men interviewed said. One that stuck out was a black guy who said Harris would have been his ideal candidate if she'd been a guy, but he couldn't vote for a black woman for president because he knows how fired up his mom and aunties get over certain topics and "a black woman with that much power? No sir! Dangerous!"

Other comments were about how the US always needs to be seen as the most powerful and a woman POTUS doesn't project power.

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:

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
.

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.

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:

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
.

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.

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.

How nice to start playing dumb now. It's one thing to say Kamala was not qualified to be president because of her record, policy plans or any number of things. It's entirely different to say that Kamala lost because women are not capable of being president which is what you did and continue to do even though you're pretending not to.

And NO, women do not have different abilities or inclinations when it comes to running for office. Only a misogynist would say that. Which is what you are.

Please show me where I said that.

Your last few sentences are silly. Of course they do. Unless you believe that all of those studies touting women as more empathetic leaders than men are complete bunk. Yeah...thought so.

What a beta you are - it makes perfect sense why you feel threatened by intelligent women. I’m glad my husband is a real man who doesn’t spend his afternoons trolling mommy blogs.

Oh, no! Not beta!! I am finished!

Funny how you probably balk at men calling themselves "alpha" but fall right into the same paradigm when you get rattled to try to score points. You're a hypocrite.

I laugh at all the men who call themselves alphas because they simply aren’t. Men calling themselves alphas are such low value men that they need to try to convince people they aren’t losers. If you need to say it…

I fully acknowledge there are alphas and betas in this world. I believe women or men can be alphas. And I admit I find betas a total turn off. I married an alpha (he would never call himself that because he thinks it’s dumb) but it’s true. He has a high pressure, high paying job. I wouldn’t settle for a poor loser that tells everyone they are an alpha while spending the day arguing with a stay at home mom sitting in the carpool lane.. But I’m sure you have other redeeming qualities other than being a total beta.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

In this case, it was. Tells you something about the female candidate, right?

No it tells me a lot about my fellow Americans who voted for a rapist.

This. Harris is very flawed, but she's not a convicted rapist, admitted sexual abuser, felon, and insurrectionist.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

In this case, it was. Tells you something about the female candidate, right?

No it tells me a lot about my fellow Americans who voted for a rapist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

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:

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 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?

In this case, it was. Tells you something about the female candidate, right?

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?

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.