The link between feminism, his career dead end, and his claim Hilary asked for votes because she’s a woman.
I think the takeaway here is that militant feminists are now so loud, preposterous, and, most importantly, numerous, that most people think that feminism = militant feminism. It’s an observation that’s becoming fairer by the day.
Why wouldn’t their responses be close to 100%? We’re talking about a poll asking women if women should be treated equally to men. That only 60% answered in the affirmative is puzzling to say the least, and the way I see it there are only two explanations:
-
40% of American women genuinely believe that they’re demonstrably inferior to men, and should be treated accordingly.
-
40% of women don’t equate feminism with actual gender equality. They equate it with something else, something they don’t like.
Personally, I think the second explanation is more likely. Like it or not, feminism has a PR problem. Furthermore, it’s a self-made problem. It has nothing to do with MRAs, or Gamergate, or whatever eeeevil Patriarchal boogeyman feminists are all in a tizzy over this week. All that shit is irrelevant. Instead, it has everything to do with the antics of the obnoxious, hypocritical, intellectually dishonest, asshole crybullies most loudly proclaiming themselves to be feminists. Antics like #Shirtstorm, or the railroading of Tim Hunt, or the authoritarian “No platforming” of critics like Christina Hoff Summers or Milo Yiannopoulos, or the piranha-like maceration of Germaine Greer, or just the endless torrents of naked man-hating bile they puke over social media. These people may be in a minority, but they’re making more noise than the majority, and that’s what counts.
Well, it actually counts for a few really and it seems to me that these are good examples of nut picking used to score political points, since super majorities do agree with woman’s rights and equality, that some feminists are making all the noise does not enter in what many actually do think.
Adams has often stated that due to a desire for diversity his bosses in banking and telecommunications told him that could not be promoted because he is a white male. I doubt that he blames women for his whiteness. He goes on to point out that he wouldn’t have the career he has now if his previous careers hadn’t been stymied so he claims to not be bitter at all.
And really a quick google of "clinton gender card"will return about 2 million results including stuff all over the US media so it’s not just Adam’s claim that she did it.
Supermajorities agree with women’s rights and equality, but significant minorities of women don’t seem to think that feminism represents women’s rights and equality. I can’t think of any other reason why 40% of women at best (and about 70% of women at worst) don’t self-identify as feminists. The nuts may be a minority, but they’re an influential minority, and the main reason they’re influential is because there are lots of them, and they’re malicious, intellectually dishonest, and seem to delight in being obnoxious. It’s no wonder so many women don’t have time for them.
That was for men who identify with women’s rights. Again, you are talking about minorities.
And you are only falling for that, again you need to be aware that a lot is the reult of the media falling for controversy to attract eyeballs, that many women do not have time for them is precisely my point. They will ignore them but that does not lead many of them to stop to continue to support change to make things more fair and equal.
If a Hillary want the voters to vote for her on account of her pussy, the least she could do was to put out. Like Hillary could promise she’d institute a national lottery, and let, say, 10,000 random winners fuck her over the course of her presidency. That way the voters could get some actual benefit from having pussy in the White House, rather than just a person.
Nope. In his book, Amazon.com , Adams specifically says that his superiors told him that they were promoting women. That was the mandate. That’s how affirmative action typically works in practice. The least disadvantaged members, out of all the groups that qualify, benefit the most.
It’s reasonable to assume that these women were almost entirely white. Minority men may have caught a break, but there weren’t many of them in the banking trade anyway. If it were just a question of pushing minority men forward, there still would have been plenty of room for Adams to advance.
So in Chapter 8 of that book when he writes
and
he doesn’t mean white males he means whatever you choose to say that he wrote?
Another reason might be that a lot of women, for a variety of reasons, feel like it’s much more important to be likable/appealing to men than to worry about advancing their own gender’s interests. As such, they embrace beliefs and ways of thinking that seem like they will placate or even endear them to men.
His whiteness wasn’t the issue. His maleness was.
So you say. However you are basing your opinion on your stated position that, “Adams specifically says that his superiors told him that they were promoting women. That was the mandate.” Since he didn’t write that (correct me if I am wrong because I have checked the text of the book you are quoting) I will have to assume that your assertion is at least a little shaky.
Yay! ::claps hands:: It’s another “feminism” thread! Let’s see, what are we discussing this time?
:dubious:
I know I’ve asked this before, but don’t you have to have a position before there’s a Debate? What is your position on this issue LinusK?
Just to make things fair, my position is that the quoted statement is false. Her candidacy is not in tatters. See, victory in South Carolina.
Feminism is not in tatters. See, all of the other threads on feminism.
This sort of threadshitting is not necessary and not appropriate.
This is a Warning to refrain from engaging in this type of post in the future.
[ /Moderating ]
If most Americans believe in equality, but few agree with feminism, it could be:
1.) Feminism is really about equality, but Americans are idiots; or
2.) Feminism is not really about equality.
What? Half the replies in this thread - and most other threads for that matter – are just jokes like mine. Except mine is on-topic. And if Hillary actually do forwards being female as an important point for voting for her, what other tangible rewards could the voters possible gain from having a female president rather than a male president which is not due to her vagina? And considering other women have run on pretty much such a platform how on earth could you possible consider that an inappropriate or off-topic comment? If a candidate want me to vote for her because of her sex, she better give me some sweet loving or shut the fuck up and come with some real reasons to vote for her. I expect women voters would feel the same way for male candidate telling people to vote for him because he’s a man.
Well,
37% of Americans believe that houses can be haunted
32% of Americans believe that ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations
Tell me about that 5%, please.
42% believe in young-earth creationism
36% think climate change is not a serious threat.
So if your plan is to make me doubt feminism based on the sober judgment and clearheaded thinking of the American public, you have your work cut out for you.
I made the mistake of reading a few of his blog articles just this week, the dude has some serious issues, especially with women.
His recent diatribe against marriageis just bizarre.
There’s a #3, which is that some women think they’re treated better than men. Personally, I’d take better than equal treatment, if I could get it.
The Republican Party is reaping the whirlwind now, but Democrats have their own monster in the closet: identity politics. It’s an easy lever to pull, and effective, so I understand why it’s so attractive. But every time they do it, they’re feeding the monster.
Bernie’s just the canary in the coal mine.
I liked this article: When Hillary Clinton Killed Feminism
I’m not saying I agree with everything, but she makes some good points: for example, I predict trustworthiness will be a huge problem for Clinton, in the general.
When Hillary’s losing ground against a 73 year old socialist who plays nice, it bodes ill for her when the real thing starts.
I understand. You picked #2: Americans are dumb.
There’s also a #3.