RLLD

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.

It might be wrong to do that, but he is not exactly wrong either. This for the same reason that Mao could not create a new human and the Russians could not reimagine humanity.... Our nature leads us toward our happiness, and there is merit toward the notion that a career will not fulfill a woman as much as a family. That is why when given full and uncoerced choices, women choose along the lines of the deep programming that has ensured human success. There will be some women who find that sense of fulfillment in a career vs a family, but the majority will not..... I think that is true and I think there is enough content and data out there to corroborate this. The driver behind this discussion is the misguided notion that women would be more plentiful in careers if not for men....when in reality their own choices were as impactful as any other of the variables in play.

Right now its a figurehead in the form of Joe Biden, but in reality its Obama and his actions behind the scenes. The beauty of the design is that its now simply in place. When someone dares to stand up to the insanity that arises from the left they know very well that they face cancellation. So if you are say.....Kanye West, you can say as much crazy as you want....so long as you are impugning the right people, once you start straying outside the lines of the cult....you become a target. No one was cancelling West when he was laying into conservatives....only when he appeared to be cozying up to conservatives did we observe a move to shelve the man.... These are your people, you need to step up and help them.....they really need to stop this kind of behavior or we might one day see terrorists in our institutions supporting anti-Semitism.. nazi-style

You are on the side of Friedan, as am I....... That is not to say that de Beauvoir was "wrong" so much as perhaps.....misaligned..... like when she stated...."women should not be offered the choice of staying home to raise children, 'precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction." I submit that her point, at the time, was more along the lines of needing to "break the cycle" and women needed to be compelled more at that time which sorta makes sense I think..... but then it becomes more difficult to explain this What is being missed, in some cases, is that we have some deep programming.....down to our DNA. We are evolved by the past we will gravitate toward roles..... naturally. Society is not dictating gender roles....society is a product of our deep programming

These women from 50 years ago had a great debate, that the truths which were evident then....or even 100 years ago remain true is not the question here. As my link toward those nations who are the most egalitarian have shown, de Beauvoir was correct in her stance that given the choice women will choose in ways we do not prefer. They will focus on lives that feed their desires and this is proven by my further link. We seem to think that we have to encourage/compel women to do something against their own personal will, and I think that does not contribute to their happiness. JMHO