Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CA renter
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]I think most men feel that women’s constant housecleaning has very little to no value. It’s just too much. Just let it be.[/quote]
Have to disagree about that one. My DH cares quite a bit, and I know a number of other husbands who complain that their wives aren’t clean enough.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]Microrwaves. A quick pass with a swiffer. I see minivans with families scaring McDonald’s in temecula. Day care. I’m not sure it’s worth much in general, just to the right buyer. Limited market.
Men also a net loss.[/quote]
Quality matters.
You and I have different opinions about the importance of cleanliness. đ
Regarding day care, that’s just shifting the work from one person to another. There is still a human being doing the work. As to the value? Well, a lot of people claim that their children are the most important things in their lives, but complain if the people caring for their children make as much as their hairdressers or maids or gardeners do (and that’s just using low-paid workers as a contrast). I’ve always thought that was a bit ironic.
ParticipantAnd you know what happened the last time someone seriously suggested that we select for certain physical and intellectual attributes.
Yes, there is logic to it, but not sure that you would really want to go down this road in real life.
ParticipantScaredy, if you think women’s work is losing value, check out what’s happening to the value of “men’s work” in an age where machines can do almost all of the physical labor; and where machines can’t do the work, desperately poor, exploitable laborers will do it, instead.
And women’s work doesn’t involve only birthing, nursing, and childcare. It involves physical caregiving (even for husbands, parents, and others whose families want to outsource the tasks), nurturing, and emotional support of all kinds.
No, cleaning, cooking, caregiving, etc. are not at all obsolete. Even if people outsource these things, a person is still needed to do the work…the work has simply been shifted from one person to the next.
Participant[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]
You are right, brian, women do have the power, technically speaking, which is why our laws and customs (and religion!) were created to make them subservient to men. [/quote]The language of victimhood.
Pro Tip: Next time you “have the power” when laws are customs are being created, consider using that powers to influence the outcome.[/quote]
Yes, feel free to go back thousands of years — to the earliest years of human existence, when physical strength was all that mattered — and change things. Good advice, Pri, thanks for the “pro tip.” Another “win” for you.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]But women can do whatever they like now.
Except they cant.
Because biology is destiny.[/quote]
Correct…biology is, for the most part, destiny.
We still have a long, long way to go before we get equality between the sexes. That does not mean that we would be the same, just that we would have equal power, prestige, access to resources, etc. because the things we women contribute would be valued appropriately.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=scaredyclassic][quote=FlyerInHi]If you’re a 6’4, 180 athlete you should care about mating with another genetic blue blood.
The rest of us short guys have to use social artifices of masculinity.[/quote]
A woman will rarely doubt that she will reproduce if she wants to. A male is never certain he will be accepted … big difference in reality that no social justice warrior can begin to eradicate.[/quote]
If biology is destiny, and women have the ultimate power of choice as to whom to reproduce with, then they have all the power. Like the Amazons.
CAr may argue that men have the power to force themselves upon women. Either that, or men are really good at fooling women, or women are desperate for any Dick.[/quote]
You are right, brian, women do have the power, technically speaking, which is why our laws and customs (and religion!) were created to make them subservient to men. It’s why the work that women have traditionally done has been devalued — our economy is structured specifically to value what men have traditionally done, while giving “women’s work” little to no value.
Participant[quote=harvey][quote=zk][quote=CA renter]
ZK, you only notice sexism and misogyny when you determine it exists, as per your definition.
[/quote]
CA renter, does it not even occur to you that the exact same thing must be said of you (and everybody else)? The question is, whose perception is closer to reality? And, given your situation with your mother (and your vastly different perception of whatâs happening from most peopleâs), Iâd say your perception is quite skewed.
[…]
[/quote]Good effort, but the message won’t get through.
You can’t overcome DunningâKruger .[/quote]
…said the person who loses every argument with me; the one who resorts to ad hominem attacks in every single argument and intentionally “edits” other posters’ quotes and quotes things out of context on a regular basis; the one who almost never cites any data or facts and who doesn’t use logic in his arguments (and complains when others include actual studies and data, with citations), and who never reads about or studies any of the topics he argues about…
Yeah, we get it, Pri…you’re an “expert”!
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]What about the memes and aphorisms like:
“Argument with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement.. At the end, You ignore everything and click âI Agreeâ!!..”
Sexist, or indicative of a deeper reality?
Maybe men and women think differently…
Do they need to be right for some reason?[/quote]
Women don’t need to be right, they need to be heard and understood. Big difference.
Why not look at the merits of each person’s arguments and think more deeply about what they are saying, instead? No need to agree with what they are saying, just agree to think about things from a different perspective.
Participant[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]
ZK, you only notice sexism and misogyny when you determine it exists, as per your definition.
[/quote]
CA renter, does it not even occur to you that the exact same thing must be said of you (and everybody else)? The question is, whose perception is closer to reality? And, given your situation with your mother (and your vastly different perception of whatâs happening from most peopleâs), Iâd say your perception is quite skewed.
[quote=CA renter]The objectification of women is one component of sexism, and you don’t even notice how some of your own beliefs and behaviors contribute to the objectification and denigration of women.
[/quote]
You just made that up, and you have no idea what youâre talking about.[quote=CA renter]
The fact that you have a daughter does not mean that you can spot sexism or misogyny in the same way that a woman can because you have never had to live as a woman. You have never been told that your (less experienced, less educated, less valuable) male peers were paid more than you because they were men or because they have families to support.
[/quote]
So no man can ever spot sexism or misogyny the same way that any woman can? Thatâs patently ridiculous, and that flawed thinking is more evidence of your irrationality on this matter.[quote=CA renter]
You have probably never been catcalled and groped by strangers on the street, even when you were a kid. You have no idea what that feels like.
[/quote]
Well, actually I have been catcalled by strangers a couple times. And, I gotta tell you, it felt great. I only wish Iâd been groped. That wouldâve been really great.[quote=CA renter]
You are not an expert regarding sexism and misogyny, and you certainly don’t know more than I do about it because of the simple fact that you are not a woman.
[/quote]
So no man is an expert on sexism and misogyny, and no man knows more than any woman? Do you honestly think that makes sense? By that reasoning, a woman with an IQ of 70 who never leaves the house, sits around watching television all day, and never gives sexism a second thought knows more about misogyny and sexism than a man whoâs studied it his whole life and has a PhD in Womenâs Studies from Harvard. Brilliant.
[quote=CA renter]Again, the fact that you can’t grasp how the most insulting terms in our show how sexism and misogyny are alive and well in our society is a very clear indication that you are not nearly as aware of sexism and misogyny as you seem to think you are.
[/quote]
You keep twisting this away from what I originally said.
[quote zk]You really think the fact that female insults are sex-specific while male insults are not is âproofâ that misogyny exists âto a large extent?â If that’s all the “proof” you need, then it’s no wonder you overestimate it.[/quote]
It could be considered evidence that misogyny is alive and well to a large extent. Something to be considered in the larger conversation. But proof, all by itself? No.[quote=CA renter]
The fact that you think that being female makes one biologically inclined to like shopping shows how naive you are regarding this topic.
[/quote]
Good god, youâre exasperating. The fact that you have to misquote me shows how weak your arguments are. I never said that I think being female makes one biologically inclined to like shopping. I said (or implied) that, in general, girls like girlsâ activities, and boys like boysâ activities. And that that’s largely due to biological differences.[quote=CA renter]
I appreciate the fact that you want to be a feminist
[/quote]
I want to be a feminist?
Your condescension is amazing, disgusting, and pathetic all at the same time.
[quote=CA renter]What we do need to do is get a better understanding of the history and the facts that contribute to our biases and the way we value people, professions, contributions to society, etc.
[/quote]
I concur with that. But starting with the distorted positions and failing logic that youâre starting with wonât make anything better.
[quote=CA renter]Everything I’ve said here is a fact
[/quote]
I dare you to challenge me to list the non-factual things youâve said.You can tell stories about parents segregating their boys from girls. And you can tell us how often it happens. And you can claim that, in every single instance, it was for fear of feminizing boys. But if you ignore the question I asked about whether they actually told you this, and you canât find one of the people who have done it to explain to you why they think exposing their boys to girls will feminize them, and if no one else has ever witnessed such a thing for such a reason even once, then nobody will believe you.
[quote=CA renter]— nothing that I’ve written here was imagined or made up — from what girls have to endure on a regular basis, to the way that parents, peers, and others guide very young girls and boys toward behaviors and activities that are gender-based, irrespective of what is natural for those children.
[/quote]
Iâm not saying that girls and women donât have to endure sexism and misogyny. Iâm saying that it doesnât happen to the extent that you see it. You see things as âfactsâ because you think youâve seen them with your own eyes. But if your upbringing-addled brain is distorting what youâre seeing, then what youâre âseeingâ isnât really fact.
[quote=CA renter]Yes, there are biological differences that are related to our different reproductive roles, but these differences are not nearly as dramatic as you think they are.
[/quote]
You wanting that to be true does not make it true.[/quote]ZK, you can keep trying to convince yourself that you’re a feminist who is an expert on sexism and misogyny, but you’re not. The things you’ve written here show that you don’t even have a basic understanding of it.
No, a male “expert” on feminism will not understand sexism and misogyny even as well as an “average” woman would. That’s like claiming that a white “expert” on racism would know more about racism than an average black person, or that a tall person who’s an “expert” on the lives of little people would understand the discrimination and experiences better than (or even the same as) an actual little person. That’s purely delusional thinking.
Participant…and we’re right back to Karl Marx and Bernie Sanders. đ
ParticipantThanks for sharing this Lincoln quote, scaredy, it’s one of my favorites. I think the entire related portion of this speech is both important and timely:
————-
“It continues to develop that the insurrection is largely, if not exclusively, a war upon the first principle of popular government–the rights of the people. Conclusive evidence of this is found in the most grave and maturely considered public documents, as well as in the general tone of the insurgents. In those documents we find the abridgment of the existing right of suffrage and the denial to the people of all right to participate in the selection of public officers except the legislative boldly advocated, with labored arguments to prove that large control of the people in government is the source of all political evil. Monarchy itself is sometimes hinted at as a possible refuge from the power of the people.
In my present position I could scarcely be justified were I to omit raising a warning voice against this approach of returning despotism.
It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.
Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.
Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class–neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families–wives, sons, and daughters–work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.
Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.”
ParticipantBrian and njtosd,
I’ve never said that males and females were the same. In multiple posts, in this thread and others, I’ve stated quite matter-of-factly that there are differences between the sexes, particularly as it relates to our biological/reproductive roles. It’s even in the post just above your most recent post, Brian.
What I’m arguing against is the assumption that gender differences, which are the direct and indirect result of socialization, are the same as biological differences. They are very different, and I firmly believe that children brought up in a truly gender-neutral environment will tend to overlap in the grey are between “masculine” and “feminine” far more than most people would think.
Most of all, I’m arguing against the socially imposed sexism and misogyny that are rampant in our society and are often overlooked and/or accepted because we are trained from infancy that this is the natural order of things.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Nice lamp, gzz.
Unfortunately, I don’t have enough space so I have banned table and floor lamps from my life. Only lamps on the wall or ceilings allowed so minimize clutter. I’m actually looking forward to LED taking over and the new designs inspired by LED.
Thanks for the comments. I’m trying to figure out the design elements that have maximum impact for the preponderance of people.
BTW, I did install the gold sconces. They seem to work. But I do get what you’re saying about the holiday inns of the 1990s.
This is a brand new middle of the range apartment complex in Las Vegas. The style progressively is more modern from a decade ago. Countertops are no longer bullnozed, they are square edged. Counter/bar area is now a large flat worksurface. No longer do they have a step up higher bar. I like the modern doors, no longer do they use the italianate molded fake woodgrain doors. rectangle lavatories and rectangle kitchen sinks.
Good improvements.
http://www.lyriclv.com/Gallery.aspx%5B/quote%5D
Very nice, Brian.
-
AuthorPosts
