Who are you voting for?

[MFCGod]

You can't really be a camgirl and say with a straight face that men and women aren't different.

In general I would agree men and women are different, but thinking certain virtues are totally exclusive is silly

I would say women are more emotionally intelligent than men generally, but it doesn't mean a man can't be emotionally intelligent

In the context of the conversation, there's no reason to think a woman couldn't have all the attributes you would want in a leader, unless you have your own biases.

 

[TeganTrex]

Traditional male virtues: action, reason, determination, strength, courage, practicality, long term thinking.

Traditional female virtues: repose, sensitivity, constancy, devotion, sensuality, persuasiveness.

Action, Reason, Determination, Strength, Practicality, long-term thinking? These are all virtues that are needed to successfully to raise children. If women didn't have those strengths, children and society would BE fucked. Devotion is just another synonym for determination, and men can absolutely be persuasive and sensual.

Hilary Clinton displayed every single "male" virtue you listed and that's why she was hated so much. Because she wouldn't bow down and "shut up and bake cookies." Because she was too cold and too loud and too determined. And I find it incredibly interesting that the one time she displays a "traditional female weakness" people are criticizing her for it.

Hell, YOU display at least two-thirds of the male virtues that are listed, and you certainly do not have sensitivity as a virtue.

You can't really be a camgirl and say with a straight face that men and women aren't different. Have you ever paid a man to jerk on cam for you? Would you ever?

Nope, but I would hire a male prostitute without hesitation if I thought the man was sexy enough.

It is rooted in biology because the survival of our species depends on reproduction and sex is the determining factor. So one sex does the attracting and the other sex does the pursuing and that keeps things in motion. Even gametes act according to their sex, sperm being active and determined, while eggs attract and wait.

On top of it women evolved to respond to their nature which is mediated by pregnancy, 9 months in which she will be undisposed to provide for herself.

Eggs have to travel halfway to meet sperm. It is only after they reach the uterus that they "wait". In fact, if you are gonna go there, eggs are actually taking action to reproduce far often than sperm do. They actually do it monthly. So I argue that according to gametes, women take action and men take their sweet-ass time.

And women are NOT indisposed for 9 months. Hell, they are hardly indisposed for 3. Their life becomes harder, but they still work and they still survive. We don't fucking lay around eating bon-bons from the sperm-donor who is just happily feeding.

If anything, men might be stronger but women are just as tough.

 

[Deleted member 31926]

The only difference between men and women is physical.

I think @Kitsune did a fine job responding to this, @TeganTrex, but to you and anyone else who is still unconvinced that men and women are really so different I offer this video:



Men and women really are very different, and our differences are apparent at practically every observable level: From some of the most basic aspects of our biology (as @Kitsune mentioned) all the way up to the types of societies we tend to form and, most relevant to this discussion, the kind and amount of leadership we display.

 

[TeganTrex]

I think @Kitsune did a fine job responding to this, @TeganTrex, but to you and anyone else who is still unconvinced that men and women are really so different I offer this video:



Men and women really are very different, and our differences are apparent at practically every observable level: From some of the most basic aspects of our biology (as @Kitsune mentioned) all the way up to the types of societies we tend to form and, most relevant to this discussion, the kind and amount of leadership we display.

You do realize that most of those differences are physical, as I already mentioned?

And do you also realize that few, if any of them, directly cause the traditional male values that @Kitsune listed?

I didn't say that men and women weren't different. I said they weren't THAT different, and that is an important qualifier that you shouldn't ignore if you want to fully understand my perspective.

 

[Mila_]

Action, Reason, Determination, Strength, Practicality, long-term thinking? These are all virtues that are needed to successfully to raise children. If women didn't have those strengths, children and society would BE fucked. Devotion is just another synonym for determination, and men can absolutely be persuasive and sensual.

Hilary Clinton displayed every single "male" virtue you listed and that's why she was hated so much. Because she wouldn't bow down and "shut up and bake cookies." Because she was too cold and too loud and too determined. And I find it incredibly interesting that the one time she displays a "traditional female weakness" people are criticizing her for it.

Hell, YOU display at least two-thirds of the male virtues that are listed, and you certainly do not have sensitivity as a virtue.



Nope, but I would hire a male prostitute without hesitation if I thought the man was sexy enough.



Eggs have to travel halfway to meet sperm. It is only after they reach the uterus that they "wait". In fact, if you are gonna go there, eggs are actually taking action to reproduce far often than sperm do. They actually do it monthly. So I argue that according to gametes, women take action and men take their sweet-ass time.

And women are NOT indisposed for 9 months. Hell, they are hardly indisposed for 3. Their life becomes harder, but they still work and they still survive. We don't fucking lay around eating bon-bons from the sperm-donor who is just happily feeding.

If anything, men might be stronger but women are just as tough.

Sure, there are masculine women, and feminine men. We aren't robots. Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher were political leaders and displayed many masculine traits, but they displayed those traits in spite of their sex, and it is precisely because they were masculine that they were good leaders.

The same thing happens with feminine men. They excel at being home makers or raising kids, or baking pastries because they have feminine traits in spite of being men. The fact that there are outliers doesn't mean there isn't a real and observable pattern, a certain nature to each sex that springs from biology.

Since it seems you want to drag this to the personal level and roll around in the mud, I will take your bait because it amuses me. I am personally less in touch with my femininity than I would like to be and I blame it on feminism. I am, after all, a product of my time. It was only through camming that I learned to connect to that forgotten part of myself and I realized how powerful I am when I do it.

We, as women, will never be better than men at what they excel at. And men will never be as good as we are at our own strengths. So why should we shy away from femininity when we are naturally virtuosas at it, reject it, deny all the differences that makes us great, convince each other that being feminine equals being weak, and then try to supplant men in their own territory? It is stupid.

 

[TeganTrex]

We, as women, will never be better than men at what they excel at. And men will never be as good as we are at our own strengths. So why should we shy away from femininity when we are naturally virtuosas at it, reject it, deny all the differences that makes us great, convince each other that being feminine equals being weak, and then try to supplant men in their own territory? It is stupid.

Because when people act like being leaders of the country and making laws are strictly male territory, it silences women.

Because when a woman is shamed for being sad at very real worries in the world, and told she is a poor leader because of it,
it hurts the rest of us.

Because the things you listed are personality traits, and aren't mutually exclusive, and it isn't useful to act like they are.

 

[Mila_]

Because when people act like being leaders of the country and making laws are strictly male territory, it silences women.

Because when a woman is shamed for being sad at very real worries in the world, and told she is a poor leader because of it,
it hurts the rest of us.

Because the things you listed are personality traits, and aren't mutually exclusive, and it isn't useful to act like they are.

It is funny that you mention being "shamed" for being sad at the very real worries in the world. Do you imagine a man whining like this over "muh feelings"? "it hurts the rest of us!" you are so feminine.

Politics IS male territory. It has been since the dawn of humanity. Men created the societies we live in. If women had been in charge of society we would still be living in mud huts. Women should have never gotten the vote. Because men fought wars and provided for the family while women nurtured the children, it was a natural order that benefitted everyone. Why should a woman participate in politics and have a say in what wars the men will fight and what measures will be taken in the economy that her husband will have to deal with when none of that affected her directly? Spirituality and education were female territory, it was the wife who represented the family in front of the church and who educated the children. Men didn't involve themselves in that area. But it is only us who want to squat in every male inch of society, not even video games are safe from TOTAL FEMINAZITION.

Complimentary roles create a harmonious society. When we are all fighting for half of the roles, and the other half are vacant because nobody wants to do them, children suffer, society collapses, and all the cushy benefits of civilized life go down the drain in 2 generations. It is what happened to every civilization before ours.

 

[TeganTrex]

Because we are affected by the shit that they do (even if you want to act like we aren't) and as such, we have a say in how our lives go, and your entire diatribe is the exact goddamn cultural conditioning I was talking about. Women have been murdered, dehumanized, and treated like property for thousands of years, so excuse me if I decide I want to be in control of my life and the shit that happens to me.

Tell a little girl from the beginning that she will never be as a strong as a man and thus doesn't deserve to say anything and you will create weak ass, whiny ass women.

Tell a little girl that she needs to be as tough as a man, and she will learn to be so. I did.

 

[Deleted member 31926]

You do realize that most of those differences are physical, as I already mentioned?

All of our differences necessarily have a physical underpinning. The point (which @Kitsune has expressed so well) is that these differences have ramifications that reach well beyond biology, into our personal life and our society. There really are such things as gender roles, a "male" archetype and a "female" archetype, and we weaken our society to the extent we fail to observe these simple facts.

 

[Mila_]

Tell a little girl from the beginning that she will never be as a strong as a man and thus doesn't deserve to say anything and you will create weak ass, whiny ass women.

This is the feminist myth. Female power comes from sensuality/spirituality and we are just as powerful in our own domain as men are in theirs. What you propose is to teach girls how to be boys. Then console her when she feels inadequate by blaming her failures on the patriarchy.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Nope, but I would hire a male prostitute without hesitation

if I thought the man was sexy enough.

 

[TeganTrex]

This is the feminist myth. Female power comes from sensuality/spirituality and we are just as powerful in our own domain as men are in theirs. What you propose is to teach girls how to be boys. Then console her when she feels inadequate by blaming her failures on the patriarchy.

Oh women are SO strong in their domain*

*limited to the bedroom, the kitchen, and the office where they can be secretaries but not CEOs because society is male and if women can't put up, we'll tell them to shut up and never give them the skills they need to "put up".

 

[Mila_]

Oh women are SO strong in their domain*

*limited to the bedroom, the kitchen, and the office where they can be secretaries but not CEOs because society is male and if women can't put up, we'll tell them to shut up and never give them the skills they need to "put up".

How can you be a sex worker and be so fucking blinddddddd hahaha

 

[TeganTrex]

How can you be a sex worker and be so fucking blinddddddd hahaha

Because men like conflict and taking risks and a challenge and I'm interesting and hard to tame /shrug.

Edit: Also, trying to think like a man helps me understand them. Men like different types and conquering an untamable shrew is a tantalizing challenge. There's a whole play about it.

 

[MFCGod]

I despair

 

[TeganTrex]

This is now the place the say that while I don't like trump, I'm not anti-republican or anti-conservative and people who won't talk or try to work with conservatives to find compromise really piss me off.

If we don't learn to work with Trump supporters, listen to why they voted him in, and figure out what we all need to do to break the establishment and build a better system, liberals are fucked.

 

[Gen]

I feel We need a president who is strong and can hold emotions in check.

Remember when Donald Trump called for SNL to be cancelled because they said mean things about him? So rational, so collected.

 

[mynameisbob84]

I heard Hillary was crying when she lost. I believe in it because when she gave her speech she looked like she been crying literally moping and she talked about pain. It was very off putting to me. Am even more glad she did not win because of that.
I feel We need a president who is strong and can hold emotions in check.

But... you support Trump...

 

[eyeteach]

Superdelegates and the electoral college should be scrapped.

Agree on superdelegates. Absolutely no place for superdelegates in a democratic system as it supresses voters and leads to rigged primaries. 100% agreement with you on this.

Disagree re: the electoral college. It's the electoral college, and not popular vote, that decides presidents. It guarantees smaller states have an equal say in deciding the Executive branch as the larger states.

 

[EspiKvlt]

Remember when Donald Trump called for SNL to be cancelled because they said mean things about him? So rational, so collected.

Also tried to sue Bill Maher for saying mean things about him LMAO

Like Maher compared him to an orangutan and his reaction was to sue him

 

[Lili_xo]

Yes his reaction is to fight and keep going not to cry.

 

[mynameisbob84]

Some times I read things, and I feel like I must live on a completely different planet to the person who wrote that thing.

 

[Vera]

Tell a little girl from the beginning that she will never be as a strong as a man and thus doesn't deserve to say anything and you will create weak ass, whiny ass women.

Tell a little girl that she needs to be as tough as a man, and she will learn to be so. I did.

This is going to come across a little heated, and I apologize in advance. @Kitsune I agree with you on a lot of things, but in this matter we differ, and that is fine. These are my opinions and my experiences and everyone is entitled to their own.

I agree with @TeganTrex entirely. Anyone who claims women can only be strong in their own domain (i.e. sensually) can tell that to ME and the entire horse industry, which is overwhelmingly female dominated in spite of the physical danger involved. I have been a professional showjumping trainer for the last 6+ years. I have moved to part time as I make better money *literally beating the shit out of men* as a professional dominatrix but the fact remains. Even after breaking my back in two places two years ago I still have no issue climbing on young, explosive, thousand-pound animals and getting them around a course of jumps. I am not alone in this attitude, almost every experienced horseperson has similar stories. I can stack bales of hay bigger than I am. I live for that shit. There are legions of women brave and tough as nails in their own fields-- business, sports, sexwork, who are just as strong, who hold their own, and make their own path.

Don't coddle little girls. I grew up tough because I had to, and if we raised girls the same as boys, i.e. encouraged them to play outside instead of play with dolls, to climb trees, told them they were smart instead of defaulting to telling them they are pretty, we would have a very different culture. I am NOT politically correct, I believe in putting on your big kid pants and making a way for yourself. No room for hurt feelings here. But those saying women can only be strong in the traditional feminine sense are so very mistaken. I grew up Southern Baptist. I was told I couldn't every step of the way. Get mad, make life happen for yourself, and don't surrender to those who try to put you in a box.

See: Simone de Beauvoir's "The Second Sex." Philosophize This! actually has a very good episode on this very topic.

This is spoken as a former stripper who wears drag queen levels of makeup and loves nothing more than a good pair of stilettos.

 

[JickyJuly]

I'm going to need to congratulate my toddler on her strength and fight more often. Maybe she'll use her ability to tantrum to be President someday!
Oh wait... my kids are girls. We'll be over here in our mud hut.

 

[paige_orion]

Yes his reaction is to fight and keep going not to cry.

New York Times posted an article about how Trump's twitter got taken away days before the election, because he couldn't be trusted to hold his emotions in check. His own staff didn't trust him to control his anger on social media. I mean... Look at his Twitter history and then say he can hold his emotions in check. That isn't fighting. That is throwing a tantrum, which is an even more dangerous trait to have in the leader of our nation.

I'd rather have a woman who is human enough to cry at a deep personal loss, than to rage out and go insane and throw a tantrum over unimportant things like being insulted.... There is a big difference between being a grown, human woman and a silly little manchild.

 

[Mila_]

This is going to come across a little heated, and I apologize in advance. @Kitsune I agree with you on a lot of things, but in this matter we differ, and that is fine. These are my opinions and my experiences and everyone is entitled to their own.

I agree with @TeganTrex entirely. Anyone who claims women can only be strong in their own domain (i.e. sensually) can tell that to ME and the entire horse industry, which is overwhelmingly female dominated in spite of the physical danger involved. I have been a professional showjumping trainer for the last 6+ years. I have moved to part time as I make better money *literally beating the shit out of men* as a professional dominatrix but the fact remains. Even after breaking my back in two places two years ago I still have no issue climbing on young, explosive, thousand-pound animals and getting them around a course of jumps. I am not alone in this attitude, almost every experienced horseperson has similar stories. I can stack bales of hay bigger than I am. I live for that shit. And guess what? There are legions of women brave and tough as nails in their own fields-- business, sports, sexwork, who are just as strong, who hold their own, and make their own path.

Don't coddle little girls. I grew up tough because I had to, and if we raised girls the same as boys, i.e. encouraged them to play outside instead of play with dolls, to climb trees, told them they were smart instead of defaulting to telling them they are pretty, we would have a very different culture. I am NOT politically correct, I believe in putting on your big kid pants and making a way for yourself. No room for hurt feelings here. But those saying women can only be strong in the traditional feminine sense are so very mistaken. I grew up Southern Baptist. I was told I couldn't every step of the way. Get mad, make life happen for yourself, and don't surrender to those who try to put you in a box.

See: Simone de Beuvoir's "The Second Sex." Philosophize This! actually has a very good episode on this very topic.

I know Simone de Beauvoir's entire works, I used to be a feminist when I was 16 and I used to love her. Now I consider her a sophist of the lowest caliber.

Like I said before, there are exceptions. I am not saying every woman is good at femininity or that they should be raised a certain way. What I am saying is men and women are fundamentally different and the differences spring from biology. My beef is not with women who found their place within male territory, my beef is not with masculine women. My problem is with educating women by telling them that being feminine equals being weak. That motherhood is a low goal, unimportant and unrewarding and that being an office employee is more respectable. That she should think and fight like a man to be strong, instead of nurturing her feminine strengths. This is the problem, because it creates a lopsided society full of unfulfilled people. Men who are redundant, children who are unnurtured, women who wake up at 45 and realize they wasted their lives working at a bank or as CEO of someone else's company when all they truly want is children and a family but it is too late. My problem is the cultural brainwashing of the marxist propaganda that instructs people that men and women are equal in everything but genitals when it is a lie.

You know what the saddest part is? That no matter how much you try to teach your girls that they are just like men and their sensuality shouldn't be a factor of importance in their lives, true nature is stronger than these lessons and it will bend them and break their will and they will be unprepared and feel inadequate. Do you think only sex workers trade in sex? All women trade in sex. You get hired at an office because the boss thought your legs were hot. Susie from Sales gets that promotion you were lusting after because she blew the owner of the company who then made a phone call. That friend of yours from college who just bought a penthouse with views of Central Park and is plastering the pictures all over Facebook? She married well because vagina. So by teaching your girls their sex doesn't matter you are making them weaker, dumber, and inadequate in a world that doesn't care for your flavor of morality.

Women can be smart and strong and powerful but the sources of these qualities come from a very different place than men's. While a source of man's smarts is reason, the source of women's smarts is intuition. While the source of men's power is money, the source of women's power is intrigue and seduction. And listen, I am not saying you can't be a woman and be smart in a masculine way. I am really masculine in the way I think, I have 0 intuition because I never developed it, but I do realize that there are different ways of being and femininity is just as strong as masculinity is, only we are already equipped for it.

Edit: and just as you recommended me Beauvoir, I recommend you Camille Paglia, pick up something of hers if you ever get a chance, she is a provocative writer with powerful insights on sex essentialism.

 

[mutantdonut]

looking at her other posts, it's like a continuous exercise in shortsighted hypocrisy

 

[JerryBoBerry]

I despair

You forgot the whack job's other tweet on the subject.

 

[Vera]

I know Simone de Beauvoir's entire works, I used to be a feminist when I was 16 and I used to love her. Now I consider her a sophist of the lowest caliber.

Like I said before, there are exceptions. I am not saying every woman is good at femininity or that they should be raised a certain way. What I am saying is men and women are fundamentally different and the differences spring from biology. My beef is not with women who found their place within male territory, my beef is not with masculine women. My problem is with educating women by telling them that being feminine equals being weak. That motherhood is a low goal, unimportant and unrewarding and that being an office employee is more respectable. That she should think and fight like a man to be strong, instead of nurturing her feminine strengths. This is the problem, because it creates a lopsided society full of unfulfilled people. Men who are redundant, children who are unnurtured, women who wake up at 45 and realize they wasted their lives working at a bank or as CEO of someone else's company when all they truly want is children and a family but it is too late. My problem is the cultural brainwashing of the marxist propaganda that instructs people that men and women are equal in everything but genitals when it is a lie.

You know what the saddest part is? That no matter how much you try to teach your girls that they are just like men and their sensuality shouldn't be a factor of importance in their lives, true nature is stronger than these lessons and it will bend them and break their will and they will be unprepared and feel inadequate. Do you think only sex workers trade in sex? All women trade in sex. You get hired at an office because the boss thought your legs were hot. Susie from Sales gets that promotion you were lusting after because she blew the owner of the company who then made a phone call. That friend of yours from college who just bought a penthouse with views of Central Park and is plastering the pictures all over Facebook? She married well because vagina. So by teaching your girls their sex doesn't matter you are making them weaker, dumber, and inadequate in a world that doesn't care for your flavor of morality.

Women can be smart and strong and powerful but the sources of these qualities come from a very different place than men's. While a source of man's smarts is reason, the source of women's smarts is intuition. While the source of men's power is money, the source of women's power is intrigue and seduction. And listen, I am not saying you can't be a woman and be smart in a masculine way. I am really masculine in the way I think, I have 0 intuition because I never developed it, but I do realize that there are different ways of being and femininity is just as strong as masculinity is, only we are already equipped for it.

Edit: and just as you recommended me Beauvoir, I recommend you Camille Paglia, pick up something of hers if you ever get a chance, she is a provocative writer with powerful insights on sex essentialism.

Hasty reply because I am between clips and only have a few minutes.

Thank you for elaborating. Yes, much of that, I do agree with. I believe in living life with a minimum of regrets, and in that regard, if a woman wants children and a family, that is a wonderful thing. I, personally, do not for an enormous combination of reasons but I respect those who do. Women shouldn't be shamed for making that choice. It's just when domesticity is the only option that it becomes problematic. I recognize the converse is true, which is exactly what you are pointing out i.e. that a woman has failed if she chooses to embrace traditional roles. I also never said that sex and gender doesn't matter, just that we should raise our little girls to be tougher rather than the limp-wristed "everyone gets a trophy" flavor of parenting that is endemic now, and that little girls should be encouraged to be bold and intelligent rather than coddled. I just wanted to clarify that. I get what you are saying, though.

Ha, and no, I understand the notion of sex as a commodity all too well. It isn't necessarily a bad thing, one just has to learn to use it. I don't know about reason vs. intuition-- I think both can be cultivated in either gender, and it is very dependent on individual personalities. I am similarly wired in that I am more logic-oriented, and I think it boils down to a combination of things. I think if a woman can leverage sensuality, intuition, and reason, she really has it made.

I have actually heard of Camille Paglia but haven't read anything of hers. I am always interested in differing points of view, though, so I will check her out. (I do really appreciate the recommendation.) I am an existentialist in the Camus sense at heart, which tinges most of my worldview and contributes to an appreciation of Beauvoir.

 

[Nordling]

That's the crux of it. The Supreme Court ruled spending money is a form of free speech. You're seeing corporations an artificial legal constructs that are not entitled to First Amendment rights. But the ruling says they are. All those corporations, all run by people who have the right of free speech to spend their corporations money as they see fit.

Corporations are legally a person, afforded all rights thereof. Legal definition: "a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law." That corporation is one person who has the same rights as anyone else (except voting and some other limitations of course). It doesn't matter how big the corporation either.

"The Supreme Court ruled that independent political expenditures by corporations and unions are protected under the First Amendment and not subject to restriction by the government."

If they hadn't done that, yes, the NRA could be limited in their spending. But at the same time, so could Planned Parenthood. And then you've opened the door to Government deciding who or what has the right to free speech. Once that happens, they can move that threshhold. The threshold they tried for was already too far.

Again, you're thinking large NRA type corporations. But this would also ban small corporations from doing it as well. Picture a veterinarian who owns a few clinics and has incorporated for tax reasons. Suppose there was a law being proposed that would force all pit bulls in a town to be euthanized instead of being adopted out. (like they really did in Montreal) It would be illegal for him spend money in political support of anyone who could get that law shut down.

That law also mentions unions. So unions have no right to place any ads or spend any money on any political views or in support of any political party. Imagine a small union of hotel housekeeping workers wanting to place an ad in support of a candidate who promises to push for better working environments for hotel workers. Well, that law would have prevented them from doing that. Why is that not free speech? Every member of that union is hard working individuals who collectively voted to try to influence the political arena to help themselves. Don't they have that right?

Once you say the NRA doesn't have that right, you also deny it to laundry cleaners at your local Drury Inn, and the vet who takes care of your dog.

That law also prevented even a non-profit group from distributing a film or even a book that criticized a candidate. That was actually brought up about Hillary Clinton during her run for presidency in 2008. Yeah, that idiotic law gave the government direct power to ban films and books.

Any constitutional amendment that limits free speech should be opposed, no matter what form. Hillary flat out saying she'd get that ruling overturned so the government then has to power to decide who has the right of free speech is an affront to the constitution. That's one of the issues over which I'm ecstatic she lost. She tried to twist it around so it looked like just the big evil corporations would be stopped from spending billions to influence all us simple minded folk and get their bad ways in place. But no, it was a direct power grab designed to strip away constitutional rights from everyday citizens and give more power to the government.

F THAT! When the ACLU is even against a liberal democrat trying to do something you know it's messed up.

No, limiting the spending of money of a corporation does not deny an individual that right. When giant corporations and billionaires can buy our elections, that's what's fucked up. I can live with Joe's Dry cleaners not allowed to spend money on politics...as long as Joe can.