Harrison Butker, geek club hero

[The Real timschochet 6,760]

I have some Muslim friends that feel exactly the same way. Religious people of all stripes seem to have chauvinism in common. 

Personally I hope my daughters find happiness however they can. It’s not my place, or society’s, to direct them on what will make them happy. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,545]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

told half of them they just wasted 4 years and $200k

Willing to bet he's right.

[squistion 2,197]

For those who don't want to read the entire thread here's a summary of why the OP thinks Butker is a "geek club hero"

 

[Fumbleweed 547]

1 hour ago, BeachGuy23 said:

I know tons boyo.  I interact with them at work all the time.  Wrench turners, educated, storeroom workers and I get along with all of them.  Most are good men.

That doesn't mean that I want them running the country and their antiquated ideas of what women should do and should behave is backwards and based on their need for power since they don't get it anywhere else.

Look at the comments on this board for example, conservatives trying to put forward what women want is beyond hysterical.

Still a lot of prejudicial and pre-conceived stuff in these comments. 

And, you lost me at boyo. I'm 53 with a grandkid. Not going to get into a juvenile back and forth. 

[GutterBoy 2,899]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

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. 

Can you provide any evidence of this?  Any poll?  Any study?  I read your opinion piece but it's simply an opinion with no basis in fact, much like yours.

I did find evidence to the contrary of your opinion.

This study suggests a slight advantage:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254964997_The_Happy_Homemaker_Married_Women's_Well-Being_in_Cross-National_Perspective#:~:text=All things considered%2C homemakers are,advantage over part-time workers.

Here is a reddit thread discussing the topic as well with data that disproves your theory: https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/4d7kf1/are_women_happier_as_housewives_science_says_no/

Another article: https://womensenews.org/2006/03/women-happier-homemakers-time-recheck-data/

And I say all this as husband to a wife that chose to leave her career to be a homemaker and was very happy doing so.  I've also met many women that chose to go back to work to achieve happiness and fulfillment that they didn't get as a homemaker.

 

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,545]

1 hour ago, Fumbleweed said:

How many “wrench turning” men do you actually know? That’s the statement I am referencing. There are some wonderful, secure, high character men that work blue collar stuff for a living. I know many. THIS disposition of yours is why the left has lost the rural vote. Self-righteous condescension. 
As for Trump, I can hardly stand him. That’s got nothing to do with the snobbery of your comments. You need to get out your ivory tower and meet some people. 

You're responding to a troll account.  No need to be logical, you're wasting your time... just go at him with attacks like he puts out or don't respond at all.

[BeachGuy23 642]

11 minutes ago, Fumbleweed said:

Still a lot of prejudicial and pre-conceived stuff in these comments. 

And, you lost me at boyo. I'm 53 with a grandkid. Not going to get into a juvenile back and forth. 

It’s a form of endearment like buddy.  Not sure why folks get hung up on that.

And if you’re saying I’m prejudiced because I want the learned members of society making decisions that impact my family, then guilty as charged.

[Horseman 2,453]

37 minutes ago, BeachGuy23 said:

The target is now $3M boyo.  The age is lower too.

Update your stalking.

Oh I just have to hear this.  What's the "finance executive's" reasons for the revised projection?

[RLLD 4,230]

6 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Can you provide any evidence of this?  Any poll?  Any study?  I read your opinion piece but it's simply an opinion with no basis in fact, much like yours.

I did find evidence to the contrary of your opinion.

This study suggests a slight advantage:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254964997_The_Happy_Homemaker_Married_Women's_Well-Being_in_Cross-National_Perspective#:~:text=All things considered%2C homemakers are,advantage over part-time workers.

Here is a reddit thread discussing the topic as well with data that disproves your theory: https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/4d7kf1/are_women_happier_as_housewives_science_says_no/

Another article: https://womensenews.org/2006/03/women-happier-homemakers-time-recheck-data/

And I say all this as husband to a wife that chose to leave her career to be a homemaker and was very happy doing so.  I've also met many women that chose to go back to work to achieve happiness and fulfillment that they didn't get as a homemaker.

 

 

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.

[BeachGuy23 642]

14 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Oh I just have to hear this.  What's the "finance executive's" reasons for the revised projection?

Of course I have to explain it to a stalking nitwit like yourself Tony.

Ask yourself this stalker, where was the S&P when you first stalked that post, and where is the S&P now.

That will get you part of the way there...although simple math may in fact elude you since you can't afford a $7 stream and run like a bish from $500 bets.

Dummy

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,099]

1 hour ago, cyclone24 said:

I don’t think just because you have educational and career goals for yourself as a woman you are somehow a feminist.
 

I mean, this has roots in religion, and there are many Bible verses, talking about the women being quiet and submissive and essentially answering to her man. Well these goofballs get it ingrained in them that they get to make decisions for human beings that they find inferior. Luckily women are saying you can keep that nonsense and they are getting smarter getting more powerful and good for them if they earn it. They should. 
 

Saying they would prefer to be at home is a wild thing to say in 2024. 

Everything feminism teaches is against the biological nature of women.  I respectfully disagree with you that women would prefer to work and play the game.  The problem is that feminists who push this make up a small percentage of women but they're controlling the narrative.  I think most women if they had the choice - and this bears out in actual practice as @RLLD mentioned above in Norway - they would choose their traditional role of motherhood/raising kids/staying at home.

Kind of a side note but this also plays out in the fact that in order to get women to vote in 1919, MOST women at that time were against it so the feminists at the time (called suffragettes) didn't want their input because they couldn't convince even close to a majority of women to jump on board, so they effectively shut them out and convinced the men at the time to pass the Amendment but claimed they were advocating on behalf of "all women" - which they weren't.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,099]

11 hours ago, DonS said:

Interesting how someone starts a thread on a FOOTBALL board and can't even spell the player's name correctly. 

At least Yahoo sports got his name right.

It's what happens when you let Retards in the forum like GutterBoy and his 1500 aliases.  He probably does the same on his ghey bodybuilding forum too.

[GutterBoy 2,899]

14 minutes ago, RLLD said:

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.

So you're saying we don't understand what women want?  Therefore we shouldn't let them have a choice of their lives?

You're saying that it's in a woman's DNA to be a wife & mother, therefore we should choose that for them to make it easier for them?

[RLLD 4,230]

2 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Everything feminism teaches is against the biological nature of women.  I respectfully disagree with you that women would prefer to work and play the game.  The problem is that feminists who push this make up a small percentage of women but they're controlling the narrative.  I think most women if they had the choice - and this bears out in actual practice as @RLLD mentioned above in Norway - they would choose their traditional role of motherhood/raising kids/staying at home.

Kind of a side note but this also plays out in the fact that in order to get women to vote in 1919, MOST women at that time were against it so the feminists at the time (called suffragettes) didn't want their input because they couldn't convince even close to a majority of women to jump on board, so they effectively shut them out and convinced the men at the time to pass the Amendment but claimed they were advocating on behalf of "all women" - which they weren't.

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.....

[BeachGuy23 642]

1 minute ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

It's what happens when you let Retards in the forum like GutterBoy and his 1500 aliases.  He probably does the same on his ghey bodybuilding forum too.

Calm down tubby.

And no, modern and confident woman no longer adhere to whatever sky fairy directed stereotype you have for them.

Sure, who wouldn't want to be dependent on life on some troglodyte like you and your fellow cultist.  You really do need to step away from the trailer park girls you hang with and start spending time with confident, educated women.

Love the incels in here speaking for woman, so on script for you idiots. 

[BeachGuy23 642]

5 minutes ago, RLLD said:

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.....

The vast vast majority of women choose to have careers.  We see IRL what women want.

More and more women are going to college.  They're waiting longer to get married.  They're having fewer kids.

Women are telling us exactly what they want with their actions.  And it ain't got nothing to do with how you cultist think women should want or act.

Sucks for you insecure cultists. 

[RLLD 4,230]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

So you're saying we don't understand what women want?  Therefore we shouldn't let them have a choice of their lives?

You're saying that it's in a woman's DNA to be a wife & mother, therefore we should choose that for them to make it easier for them?

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.....

[iam90sbaby 2,610]

5 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

So you're saying we don't understand what women want?  Therefore we shouldn't let them have a choice of their lives?

You're saying that it's in a woman's DNA to be a wife & mother, therefore we should choose that for them to make it easier for them?

Yes

[iam90sbaby 2,610]

Based Harrison Butker

[GutterBoy 2,899]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

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.....

So you agree it's wrong to tell women what they want?  So do I.

Again, what is wrong with letting a woman choose her path in life?

[RLLD 4,230]

2 minutes ago, BeachGuy23 said:

The vast vast majority of women choose to have careers.  We see IRL what women want.

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....

[GutterBoy 2,899]

1 minute ago, iam90sbaby said:

Yes

Oh look the misogynistic twerp is showing everyone how much of a POS he is.  Ironically he'll never get married or have a family.

[Fireballer 2,642]

Not taking a side here, everyone do what they want.  But, the number of lonely self proclaimed  “boss b!tches” will only rise.  

[BeachGuy23 642]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

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....

Just like usual, you make assumptions based on nothing but your Feelz.

What women are actually choosing to do should tell any intelligent person that that's what they want.

Career, family.  In that order. 

[iam90sbaby 2,610]

2 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Oh look the misogynistic twerp is showing everyone how much of a POS he is.  Ironically he'll never get married or have a family.

If your mom was a homemaker you probably wouldn't of turned out to be the piece of sh!t you are, just saying. 

[RLLD 4,230]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

So you agree it's wrong to tell women what they want?  So do I.

Again, what is wrong with letting a woman choose her path in life?

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.....

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,099]

4 minutes ago, RLLD said:

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.....

The fatal flaw in his pretzel logic is "choice".  The modern feminists and soy boy weak male like GutterDouche proclaim to want to give them a choice but then shame them for making the choice they don't want them to make.  "Choice" is an illusion in the feminist and soy boy weak male movements.  There is no choice at all. 

[cyclone24 1,913]

13 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Everything feminism teaches is against the biological nature of women.  I respectfully disagree with you that women would prefer to work and play the game.  The problem is that feminists who push this make up a small percentage of women but they're controlling the narrative.  I think most women if they had the choice - and this bears out in actual practice as @RLLD mentioned above in Norway - they would choose their traditional role of motherhood/raising kids/staying at home.

Kind of a side note but this also plays out in the fact that in order to get women to vote in 1919, MOST women at that time were against it so the feminists at the time (called suffragettes) didn't want their input because they couldn't convince even close to a majority of women to jump on board, so they effectively shut them out and convinced the men at the time to pass the Amendment but claimed they were advocating on behalf of "all women" - which they weren't.

True, but in the end history will show that allowing him to vote was correct. I look at women getting careers in the same light in that the narrative is that they would rather be at home raising the kids which I think overtime will develop into more women wanting the careers because they have that opportunity that they didn’t have before.
 

So you’re looking at it through the lens of well that’s what they would prefer and that’s their nature where I’m looking at it through the lens of well yeah because they weren’t given any other option. And when they are given options like they are now many are choosing careers and education.

by no means am I saying you are wrong and I’m correct I just think we’re looking at it through different glasses is all

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,099]

1 minute ago, iam90sbaby said:

If your mom was a homemaker you probably wouldn't of turned out to be the piece of sh!t you are, just saying. 

This is FACT.  Not even debatable.

I'm guessing GutterDouche was an abortion attempt gone wrong.

[RLLD 4,230]

1 minute ago, BeachGuy23 said:

Just like usual, you make assumptions based on nothing but your Feelz.

What women are actually choosing to do should tell any intelligent person that that's what they want.

Career, family.  In that order. 

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?

[RLLD 4,230]

1 minute ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

The fatal flaw in his pretzel logic is "choice".  The modern feminists and soy boy weak male like GutterDouche proclaim to want to give them a choice but then shame them for making the choice they don't want them to make.  "Choice" is an illusion in the feminist and soy boy weak male movements.  There is no choice at all. 

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

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,099]

4 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

True, but in the end history will show that allowing him to vote was correct. I look at women getting careers in the same light in that the narrative is that they would rather be at home raising the kids which I think overtime will develop into more women wanting the careers because they have that opportunity that they didn’t have before.
 

So you’re looking at it through the lens of well that’s what they would prefer and that’s their nature where I’m looking at it through the lens of well yeah because they weren’t given any other option. And when they are given options like they are now many are choosing careers and education.

by no means am I saying you are wrong and I’m correct I just think we’re looking at it through different glasses is all

And I think that's fine that you have that view, but they're choosing careers in their early 20's - nothing wrong with that - but regretting it by the time they're hitting their 30's so I think your logic only works if you're talking about women in their early to mid 20's.  Of course, there are exceptions to EVERY rule, but I believe the vast majority of women prefer the traditional role but are being told or "guilted" into pursuing a career.

Again, like I said above, it's an illusion of "choice" because the second they choose the traditional role they are mocked and shamed by the feminists and weak soy boys (not you).

[GutterBoy 2,899]

2 minutes ago, RLLD said:

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.....

What is this Nordic Model?  If we let women choose their life path, then they will not choose?  Therefore men have to choose for them?

[BrahmaBulls 763]

56 minutes ago, squistion said:

For those who don't want to read the entire thread here's a summary of why the OP thinks Butker is a "geek club hero"

 

You seem to respect his religious beliefs as much as he respects where you stick your c0ck.   Go F yourself, h0m0.

[BeachGuy23 642]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

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?

You sourced an article that's outdated.

And I'm sourcing what women are actually choosing to do.

Feel free to keep telling yourself that you no what women want which flies in the face of what women are actually doing. 

[BeachGuy23 642]

5 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

This is FACT.  Not even debatable.

I'm guessing GutterDouche was an abortion attempt gone wrong.

Wow, over the line even for a sick animal like yourself.

Man you people...SMH

[BeachGuy23 642]

2 minutes ago, BrahmaBulls said:

You seem to respect his religious beliefs as much as he respects where you stick your c0ck.   Go F yourself, h0m0.

Anyone who lives life according to some sky fairy's rules deserves ridicule boyo...oh wait, that's you too.

LMFAO

Moron caveman, nothing more.

[GutterBoy 2,899]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

I have some Muslim friends that feel exactly the same way. Religious people of all stripes seem to have chauvinism in common. 

Personally I hope my daughters find happiness however they can. It’s not my place, or society’s, to direct them on what will make them happy. 

Agreed.  I have 2 daughters.  One is almost done with college and has her sights set on a career and doesn't have any interest in having kids of her own right now.  My other daughter just started college and is interested in a career as well, but her career will be more flexible towards having a family, and she talks about her interest in having kids of her own someday.  I support them both equally and would be pissed at anyone telling them that they need to find husbands and take care of them.

[GutterBoy 2,899]

3 minutes ago, BeachGuy23 said:

Wow, over the line even for a sick animal like yourself.

Man you people...SMH

That's the guy that reported me and got me banned for 6 months too.

[Horseman 2,453]

Just now, BeachGuy23 said:

Of course I have to explain it to a stalking nitwit like yourself Tony.

Ask yourself this stalker, where was the S&P when you first stalked that post, and where is the S&P now.

That will get you part of the way there...although simple math may in fact elude you since you can't afford a $7 stream and run like a bish from $500 bets.

Dummy

I knew you were going to say that.  But, just let me make sure I got this right:

The "finance executive" thinks that he's going to permanently benefit from a two year period where the S&P is up 30% instead of using the historical average (or conservatively less) when doing a projection?  That this 2 year period is somehow going to transform into a 33% increase in the projection in 10 years or sooner?

Surprising since just two years ago you told us this:

Quote

 Also, your 6% return was way too optimistic given the chit show Trump left Biden, but yes you've outlined the best possible ten years strategy.

What if the wrong guy gets elected again!?!?!  lol

I kind of hope you do have a good job in finance and all these hot takes on the economy and your inability to know how your own finances work is just all shtick and not what you've told us in your own words.  "non-essential"  "wfh".  Otherwise it's just pathetic.