Yeah, but take a look at the FIRE poll about attitudes towards free speech men vs women. Women as a group are far more censorious, presumably because of how they exhibit aggression - gossip and slander.
Also, as a consequence of this, many women are incapable of understanding when verbal aggression crosses the line into violence. Men are more familiar with violence (generally) and are more supportive of working things out rationally before it escalates to that.
Additionally, as someone who has been an engineer for a long time, about 10 years ago I got really tired of hearing "we need more women in STEM". Somewhat recently, the concept of "validating feelings" was introduced to me and it clicked... There's no objective to a lot of what women do. When they say they want "more women", there's no success criteria. There's no stop condition. They literally have no goal when they bring identity politics into work.
I'm really, really sick of it. Yes, conservative women do exist, and I'm happy for that, but as a group, women create serious problems when they involve themselves in goal oriented affairs.
You're arguing that women be treated as individuals, and that I'm buying into the Marxist group idea, and I understand your point. But honestly, how are men supposed to deal with this, other than viewing women with skepticism? It only takes one of the "believe all women" crowd to wreck my (or any other man's) life. Why would I want to subject myself to that?
No conservative woman would demand that anyone should "believe all women." Biden is a man. Schumer is a man. General Milley is a man. Governor Pritchard is a man. Rachel Levine is a man, and the Pennsylvania governor who hoisted him up to national prominence is a man. Larry Fink is a man. Those men have pushed this marxist ideology and have found plenty of men to endorse and enforce it. I truly think they've succeeded when they convince "goal-oriented" men that women as a group, and not the enforced ideology, are the problem. N.B.: The FIRE poll is of ~1200 college students and professors - hardly a picture of the nation.
Yes, all that is true. There's variance among men and women. Some women are far more rational and goal-oriented then some men. I find Garland to be particularly stomach churning.
What I'm saying is that if men are put together as a group, the hyper-romantic and delusional men are generally sidelined by the other men.
Once a certain type of woman is allowed into goal oriented endeavors, they absolutely wreck things, and because men cannot speak to women as they speak to each other, there is no corrective mechanism. Either that corrective mechanism needs to be restored (or developed if it never existed), or women simply need to be excluded as a group.
I think you may be generalizing your personal experience and frustration too much. "Once a certain type of woman is allowed into goal oriented endeavors..." is an introductory clause that makes your closing phrase overkill. It is "a certain type of woman" that is the problem, not women as a group.
Anyway, I suspect you and I will continue to disagree. And I have stuff to do. So I wish you peace, joy, and effective achievement of your goals despite your dislike of certain types of women. Bye.
Yeah, but take a look at the FIRE poll about attitudes towards free speech men vs women. Women as a group are far more censorious, presumably because of how they exhibit aggression - gossip and slander.
Also, as a consequence of this, many women are incapable of understanding when verbal aggression crosses the line into violence. Men are more familiar with violence (generally) and are more supportive of working things out rationally before it escalates to that.
Additionally, as someone who has been an engineer for a long time, about 10 years ago I got really tired of hearing "we need more women in STEM". Somewhat recently, the concept of "validating feelings" was introduced to me and it clicked... There's no objective to a lot of what women do. When they say they want "more women", there's no success criteria. There's no stop condition. They literally have no goal when they bring identity politics into work.
I'm really, really sick of it. Yes, conservative women do exist, and I'm happy for that, but as a group, women create serious problems when they involve themselves in goal oriented affairs.
You're arguing that women be treated as individuals, and that I'm buying into the Marxist group idea, and I understand your point. But honestly, how are men supposed to deal with this, other than viewing women with skepticism? It only takes one of the "believe all women" crowd to wreck my (or any other man's) life. Why would I want to subject myself to that?
No conservative woman would demand that anyone should "believe all women." Biden is a man. Schumer is a man. General Milley is a man. Governor Pritchard is a man. Rachel Levine is a man, and the Pennsylvania governor who hoisted him up to national prominence is a man. Larry Fink is a man. Those men have pushed this marxist ideology and have found plenty of men to endorse and enforce it. I truly think they've succeeded when they convince "goal-oriented" men that women as a group, and not the enforced ideology, are the problem. N.B.: The FIRE poll is of ~1200 college students and professors - hardly a picture of the nation.
PS: You might enjoy reading about Carol Kaye, one of the greatest bass players in the world. She's played on over 10,000 songs and had a hand in some of rock history's most celebrated hits. https://www.loudersound.com/features/meet-carol-kaye-the-genius-musician-behind-the-worlds-favourite-basslines
Yes, all that is true. There's variance among men and women. Some women are far more rational and goal-oriented then some men. I find Garland to be particularly stomach churning.
What I'm saying is that if men are put together as a group, the hyper-romantic and delusional men are generally sidelined by the other men.
Once a certain type of woman is allowed into goal oriented endeavors, they absolutely wreck things, and because men cannot speak to women as they speak to each other, there is no corrective mechanism. Either that corrective mechanism needs to be restored (or developed if it never existed), or women simply need to be excluded as a group.
I think you may be generalizing your personal experience and frustration too much. "Once a certain type of woman is allowed into goal oriented endeavors..." is an introductory clause that makes your closing phrase overkill. It is "a certain type of woman" that is the problem, not women as a group.
Anyway, I suspect you and I will continue to disagree. And I have stuff to do. So I wish you peace, joy, and effective achievement of your goals despite your dislike of certain types of women. Bye.
Thanks. Have a nice day.