Hillary Clinton and Precarious Manhood Theory

Post Reply New Topic

I found it rather interesting to learn that one poster relates to women in authority as if they are in the role of mother. I still think we need more female roles in society. Right now we've got mother, wife, sex object and b***h. There's really no where else to go. I think the wise old woman should be resurrected, but our culture hates the aged. I'm personally trying to create one - middle aged, slightly overweight, dope smoking cat lady.

There are many more roles than those you mentioned - my favourite is Cool Aunt, everyone should get one of those. Plus women can step far more easily into "men's roles" than men can into "women's roles" (with the possible exception of b***h).

Agree with the ageist trend in modern Western society. Some of the comments aimed at 45+ Brits post-Brexit referendum were utterly despicable.

So no examples, no evidence to back up your assertion?
Do you know why?
Because it's a paranoid delusion.

Needs to be less ageism and more roles for women. I'm optimistic and believe there to be more, including executives and project leads. And they do indeed exist although not in as great numbers as their male counterparts. However, I don't think we should fill quotas for diversity's sake. The right person for the job should always come first.

I think if you look at cabinet positions in western government a lot of women have achieved things there.
There are international leaders that have a legacy such as Margaret Thatcher, and corrupt opposites like Dilma Rousseff from Brazil. Goes to show by no default is any one person great for a position.

Seconding the cool aunt role by the way. My aunt is cool

I read this story, about an autistic day, at Toys"R"Us, where people are asked to stay calm, and there's no musak, on the intercom, am surprised the forum is not alot more like that.

While I am not saying the news is damaging to my psyche, per se, I think the more-adamant sjw's found this place by being cyberchondriacs.

There are chauvinistic and third wave feminist scenes. It's easy enough to describe what each one says, academically, without putting eachother in the hot seat. We already get this all day, from NT's, over every thing.

It's probably just going to shut an autistic person down, or you won't get a rise off us, usually. Just saying.

I've said it a million times already, fried, in other threads, for us to remain civil and not label autistic people even further or lump them in with extreme versions of their belief systems. It alienates an already alienated group in the very site they seek support. Unfortunately saying such a thing falls on deaf ears and the post is conveniently ignored, or it is attacked by one or both extreme sides of the argument because doing so is pleasurable in some miserable format to the end user whereas the alternative is not as well as it not being their own choice.

You have to remember where we are, and that not everyone is able to follow that level of restraint. In cases like that moving on or moderation is the best way to go.

Crying wolf a lot is very tiresome indeed, and I definitely don't agree with the OP. Seems to have been debated rather well by the majority of the thread, mind you.

Last edited by TheSpectrum on 08 Nov 2016, 9:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Where's your something other than bigotry? I'm still waiting.

There was a buttload of sexism evident in Trump's campaign, if you don't think that's a big part of the Hillary hatred, you're delusional.

It used to be that people didn't live as long and age was something to be respected as it is associated with wisdom. But with modern medicine we get to see people grow to much older and unfortunately often to be more frail and confused. And less garnering of respect.


I don't like quotas either.
Roles like "medicine women" used to exist but have also been replaced by modern medicine.

There are lots of male roles, but I can't help but think that the nature of these roles will change as women take them on. Women have a different way of doing things than men and I think a blending of the two is good.

It's because women have only just in recent generations gotten more rights and more involved in prominent parts of workforces. In terms of numbers everything will even out eventually. But time is needed for that. Rushing things causes problems. Look at Yahoo!

I believe DNC is gonna run Michelle in 2020 or 2024 and loyal democrat voters should hold out for her. But that's just my two cents.

Did you miss my post androbot01 :s

Sorry sly, I'm not at 100 % right now.


Sounds like you are already comfortable with women in authority.

"If you disagree with my opinion you're delusional"

Are you sure you're not somebody's parodic sock account?

No, Mootoo was banned.

Thanks, but a mother can only domineer a helpless infant.

If you see someone like Marilyn Monroe, with many men fawning after her, in 'Girl's Best Friend,' that seems normal. She can call them pigs, and beat them. Many suitors support her, materially, even luxuriantly, as though she were the queen of Babylon. Now, what if that was a man.

Unaccompanied minors, and sometimes, slaves, used to be considered risqué. They had no presumptive, reproductive rights. Now, that is true of white men.

Authoritative, respectable people have to be reduced, in stature, in order to create a plausible place for her, demeaned to the level of a child. or, that's how the dynamic usually goes, imhblo.

Opposites attract.

You cannot create a surplus, without creating a deficit.

It's not my own, personal honor code. It just so happens to be Murphy's Law.

Hugs
Hope you feel better

Yeah plus most my teachers growing up were women and most my bosses were women.

Seems most women are more submissive or atleast looking to be so. Makes hard to find a more dominant woman interested in being in charge of the relationship:(