Anonymous wrote:

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?

deep misogyny = Iran 2024, USA 1800

plenty of opportunities for women = USA 2024

How can we combat deep ignorance?

India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Liberia, Mexico all had female leaders. All definitely less misogynistic than the good ol USA where it runs deeeeeeep.

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?

deep misogyny = Iran 2024, USA 1800

plenty of opportunities for women = USA 2024

How can we combat deep ignorance?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great news. First female chief of staff!

Doesn't count!

Will she last long if she can’t pass the FBI background check?

Anonymous wrote:Personally I’m starting with my daughters and the issues they face at school.

As an example, DD was talking with a friend and school and a boy came over and immediately hijacked the conversation, kept telling DD she’s wrong, being overall obnoxious. DD asked him to leave them alone and he refused.

The school teaches the kids to just walk away in that situation. DD instead told the guy to move on or she’d kick his ass.

DD got in trouble and I stood up for her. I explained that the boys need to learn no means no. They aren’t entitled to a conversation with my daughter, they aren’t entitled to make her leave an area she wants to be in.

I’m just so tired of the “boys will be boys” mentality when they’re young. It leads to them growing up to be entitled men.

So DD knows if a boy is giving her problems, we fully support her doing whatever she needs to do to get him to go away.

Nothing in your story indicated a “boys will be boys” mentality.

And your daughter’s reaction was inappropriate. Imagine if a boy said that to her. It’s not ok for any kid to threaten another with physical violence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty simple, actually.
Trump ran 3x. Won against 2 women, lost to one very old man.
Sounds like sexism to me.

Yup.

And not just any man. A total POS.

So what does that say about the losing side? A total POS was the better choice.

It says the people who chose a total POS over her prefer POSs over a competent woman. Based on who I know who voted for him that tracks.

Most voters aren’t rational. In no scenario was he the rational choice.

Lemme guess, "rationality" just so happens to always line up with whatever you think is right for everybody? Did I get it right?

No. If you look at actual issues and policies, some are objectively better than others.

Trump offered no real solutions to the actual issues. He did push a whole lot of misinformation though.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The first thing that women can do to gain more respect is to stop blaming their failures on misogyny. - Gen X woman

The first thing we can do is not blame ourselves for misogyny.

-GenX woman

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty simple, actually.
Trump ran 3x. Won against 2 women, lost to one very old man.
Sounds like sexism to me.

Yup.

And not just any man. A total POS.

So what does that say about the losing side? A total POS was the better choice.

It says the people who chose a total POS over her prefer POSs over a competent woman. Based on who I know who voted for him that tracks.

Most voters aren’t rational. In no scenario was he the rational choice.

Lemme guess, "rationality" just so happens to always line up with whatever you think is right for everybody? Did I get it right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because they both have a political past, and we were better off with his. Why can’t you comprehend this?

It is just unfathomable that people believe this.

Sounds like an issue you need to take up with the majority of the electorate. Maybe, perhaps, you are the problem if you can't even fathom that people believe this? Expand your circle and information ecosystem or prepare to keep being "shocked".

I know they do, including people in my extended family. I'm just shocked by it because it makes no sense, and I'm a logical thinker.

If you were so logical, then you would know that it is impossible for you know better than people themselves how they would subjectively perceive their own experiences of whether they felt better off during Trump's time in office versus Biden/Harris. It makes no sense to you, but you are not them and your experiences are not theirs. It is the height of arrogance to try to substitute your judgement of what people can and should think and feel for their own. You do not know their utility function. You know yours.

Moreover, people have been shouting from the rooftops about their gripes with the direction Biden/Harris were taking the country and expressing their discomfort with certain positions and ideas with which they aligned themselves. You may not have agreed with their assessments, but why would it come as a shock to you that their protestations have actually borne out in this election? Did you just choose to stick a finger in your ears?

Yes, it’s tough to predict how irrational voters will vote for because we don’t know what disinformation they are consuming and what is triggering them. Could be anything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty simple, actually.
Trump ran 3x. Won against 2 women, lost to one very old man.
Sounds like sexism to me.

Yup.

And not just any man. A total POS.

So what does that say about the losing side? A total POS was the better choice.

It says the people who chose a total POS over her prefer POSs over a competent woman. Based on who I know who voted for him that tracks.

Most voters aren’t rational. In no scenario was he the rational choice.

Anonymous wrote:Personally I’m starting with my daughters and the issues they face at school.

As an example, DD was talking with a friend and school and a boy came over and immediately hijacked the conversation, kept telling DD she’s wrong, being overall obnoxious. DD asked him to leave them alone and he refused.

The school teaches the kids to just walk away in that situation. DD instead told the guy to move on or she’d kick his ass.

DD got in trouble and I stood up for her. I explained that the boys need to learn no means no. They aren’t entitled to a conversation with my daughter, they aren’t entitled to make her leave an area she wants to be in.

I’m just so tired of the “boys will be boys” mentality when they’re young. It leads to them growing up to be entitled men.

So DD knows if a boy is giving her problems, we fully support her doing whatever she needs to do to get him to go away.

Newsflash: schools stopped letting boys be boys a long time ago. The prevailing message these days is boys will be girls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty simple, actually.
Trump ran 3x. Won against 2 women, lost to one very old man.
Sounds like sexism to me.

Yup.

And not just any man. A total POS.

So what does that say about the losing side? A total POS was the better choice.

A half-competent POS is better than a fully incompetent half POS.

Personally I’m starting with my daughters and the issues they face at school.

As an example, DD was talking with a friend and school and a boy came over and immediately hijacked the conversation, kept telling DD she’s wrong, being overall obnoxious. DD asked him to leave them alone and he refused.

The school teaches the kids to just walk away in that situation. DD instead told the guy to move on or she’d kick his ass.

DD got in trouble and I stood up for her. I explained that the boys need to learn no means no. They aren’t entitled to a conversation with my daughter, they aren’t entitled to make her leave an area she wants to be in.

I’m just so tired of the “boys will be boys” mentality when they’re young. It leads to them growing up to be entitled men.

So DD knows if a boy is giving her problems, we fully support her doing whatever she needs to do to get him to go away.

Anonymous wrote:If the Dems had run any straight white male under 60 they would have run. America elected a black man twice. They did not elect a woman twice. If Kamala had been Kenan they might have won.

If Kamala had been Vivek, she would’ve won

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty simple, actually.
Trump ran 3x. Won against 2 women, lost to one very old man.
Sounds like sexism to me.

Yup.

And not just any man. A total POS.

So what does that say about the losing side? A total POS was the better choice.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because they both have a political past, and we were better off with his. Why can’t you comprehend this?

It is just unfathomable that people believe this.

Sounds like an issue you need to take up with the majority of the electorate. Maybe, perhaps, you are the problem if you can't even fathom that people believe this? Expand your circle and information ecosystem or prepare to keep being "shocked".

I know they do, including people in my extended family. I'm just shocked by it because it makes no sense, and I'm a logical thinker.

If you were so logical, then you would know that it is impossible for you know better than people themselves how they would subjectively perceive their own experiences of whether they felt better off during Trump's time in office versus Biden/Harris. It makes no sense to you, but you are not them and your experiences are not theirs. It is the height of arrogance to try to substitute your judgement of what people can and should think and feel for their own. You do not know their utility function. You know yours.

Moreover, people have been shouting from the rooftops about their gripes with the direction Biden/Harris were taking the country and expressing their discomfort with certain positions and ideas with which they aligned themselves. You may not have agreed with their assessments, but why would it come as a shock to you that their protestations have actually borne out in this election? Did you just choose to stick a finger in your ears?