RLLD

Oh I know the bullsh!t they are trying to pull. I absolutely understand their game here. But hey, when your political party has failed miserably and people now want to vote for someone else, this is what you do Can't persuade people after sh!tting on them for years, so attempt to jail your political opponent on anything you can...... If I seem hesitant to embrace soviet doctrine, it might be due to not wanting that nonsense for this nation.

My Honda Accord is low maintenance, high MPG and low cost. I prefer that over the Tesla for now. Should that price get down into the low $30's then I would be willing to consider it.

Nope.....lawfare in action, political gamesmanship in action. Election manipulation in action. Importantly, its not working as well. Time to shift strategies

I would very much like to acquire one, but not willing to pay $40+k for a car.....

I don't think Trump is cool. This subjective consideration is meritless. He is a dooosh, an unlikable blowhard.....but who gives a fock You all need to stop worrying about irrelevant factors and get back to big boy stuff

His points are valid, as are those of his ideological opponents. And when the occasion arises that he has a debate with someone other than some college moron I think the discussions are really good.

Her education was focused in mathematics and later studied philosophy at the Sorbonne and wrote her MA thesis on Leibniz. Shew was at times a writer and a teacher, though her teaching career was short-lived due to being accused of corrupting kids by exposing them to feminism. She wrote multiple books but is perhaps best know for The Second Sex, published in 1949. Her early positions were that freeing women would also free men, and that through feminism we could unlock the societal confinements of roles etc. In her mind the world order existed because it was planned, structured and executed to the benefit of men and detriment of women. Her early positions assumed that disparity was a creation of men who structured the world to benefit them. Later she evolved her position a bit, suggesting that women were experiencing these "disparities" in society in large part from socialization within the family and society, so they would have to be compelled to break free and enjoy society in the same way as men. Ultimately she was mostly correct, but she presumed society was driving it....when in reality people drive society and the structure of society is based on simple human essence, not mystical man-made barriers.

I think she was correctly observed as an important feminist of her time, and I am disinclined to be distracted by the attempt to impugn her in this way. I disagree with her on a number of topics, but I will happily debate those positions....rather than resort to the personal takedown to refute her.

I dont know, are you seeking to mute her intellect through this tactic? As I see conservatives doing toward Biden?

He should not be ridiculed any more than someone suggesting women would be happier in the workplace. Two distinctive views, each with factual evidence to support them. I think the two points should be discussed and debated forthrightly, without suggesting that either camp us "stupid". People are not stupid simply because we might disagree with them.

Populism is typically at odds with elitism. It makes perfect sense that someone such as Pelosi would fear it. Unless....that populism was feeding her power. And people like Pelosi are pointedly about power, and lying to you in order to strengthen her power. Populism is a threat to authoritarian people like Pelosi...... not sure who is the more despicable.....her, McConnel or that coward Schiff.....

It’s not 2020 anymore. Smearing....labelling....disparaging....and fabricating misplaced hate has lost its power. People are increasingly not accepting these tactics. If anything, it has become a status marker—the regime only goes after the significant. And with each failed attempt, the threat becomes weaker, the opposition stronger.

I think this assertion is true, but rather than tell women we essentially have to let them discover it on their own. Its a simple truth that each woman should be allowed to discover on her own schedule. This will result in a variety of outcomes from perfectly happy CEO's to distraught 40-year olds as we already see, slowly realizing they were sold lies.....and they are just unhappy. I think his assertion is spot on, and I have no problem with him espousing it any more than I have with feminists espousing the opposite. Silencing people is not what we are about.

Men should not make choices for women. The study confirms that which worried Beauvoir all along; given the choice, women will not choose what feminists suggest they should. So they choose based on what they prefer, and the results will emerge as a disparity; this disparity has been used historically as a "proof" that women were being held back etc....which was not true..... So if we think trying to compel or encourage or motivate or manipulate or whatever....women....into pursuing things other than what they want, those women will ultimately return to the historical distribution...and this is not a problem, its not "wrong" and its not evidence of some "patriarchy"..... Its women choosing, even though they might choose something other than what we insist they should, and this is a very good thing

You are lying about my positions and what I have asserted, which to be fair is your defining tactic. But in this instance my discussion with Gutter has already gotten ahead of you, so as you post your standard lie.....others have already read the direct refutation of your misrepresentations of me

This. Moreover, this is Liberalism defined......

Argument from authority is not going to work here. My source is a peer-reviewed and relevant example of egalitarian systems. And your misrepresentation has already been refuted by my other conversations in this thread multiple times, so your lie is rather evident.

The nations which have made the greatest progress toward egalitarian outcomes are the Nordic nations. And the outcomes really surprised everyone as when left to their own choices women chose careers in opposition to feminist doctrines.

I think he has a reasoned position and is not all that far from where I am standing. I think you should consider giving him a little more credit as he is discussing this topic honestly, in stark contrast to some others. JMHO

Why lie and pretend I did not source my position? Why not talk thoughtfully on the subject? Why use this cultist behavior to avoid the conversation?

According to Beauvoir the problem is that they will not choose in line with feminism, and will instead make choices that either pull them out of the career path or focus them into specific career paths; as we observed with the Nordic experiment. So in the end both women were correct. If we do decide to let women choose and not try to coerce them into areas.....then we will have the Nordic model, and women will not choose in a way that creates the notion of "equity", but we need to not blame that outcome on society any more.....

I am not sure what the measure might be, but I am willing to consent that a significant portion of women do choose careers.....and also that this does not really fulfill them.... That is why we can observe these changes in career pursuits in their 30's......modern feminism suggests that they can and will find happiness in a career instead of the natural experience of being a mother.....I submit that the feminists are likely wrong....

I am asserting that the inclination of feminism to assert/insist women want the same things as men is fatally flawed. I agreed with Friedan that women should have a choice......and I agree with Beauvoir that if we give them the choice they will NOT choose in a manner that increases their integration into careers; more pointedly an equitable distribution into careers. Women are being sold a lie, that what they really want is a career and not a family, then later when they start to sense they want something different they are in a crisis.....

To be clear my study was more focused on choices overall and did not delve so much into career vs family so much as women will make choices that feed their desires; and their desires do not confirm to the stances around modern feminism at all.....

One can actually find studies that depict it both ways. And there are even studies that suggest woman are happiest when not married, or living with anyone. So, lets allow the studies to stand for themselves. And step away from it. And instead, let women choose for themselves what they want most. Sadly women have a disadvantage in this scenario. As women reach their 30's the career focus tends to give way to that built-in desire for a family. But the problem then is time, right now mid-30's is considered high risk for pregnancy. The window for women in terms of family is simply more constrained than it is for a man. I have seen attempts to reframe these decisions by women such as those who seem to depart law firms in their 30;s misconstrued as some form of problem with how women are treated, which is simply not true....its the natural pull for women that is built deeply into their DNA My wife was absolutely committed to a career, but then in her late 20's a shift emerged.....she wanted a family and she wanted to be home with the kids....it was remarkable, and she was not alone as it was happening in tandem with all her friends. We have to stop pretending to understand what women want, and/or insist that be what we think they should, and just let them pick. And later, when some study shows this glaring disparity we need to accept that its not a societal flaw....its a societal positive.