~ archived since 2018 ~

Society doesn't need more women as CEOs, politicians, and in positions of power over others

November 11, 2021
22 upvotes

In this study, we see evidence for precisely that, and the implications seem profound and generally unacknowledged.

High status males share more than their high status female counterparts with lower status same-sex collaborators. This can be seen at the academic level when publishing research and sharing the credit, and extends far beyond it. But what's quite interesting is that it's not a trait that we can directly blame women for, it's only a negative trait that becomes expressed once they acquire status and power over others. So the problem appears to be power itself and presumably it's corrupting influence on human psychology, not their sex/gender.

We know this is true because the study found no sex difference in sharing between low to low status collaborators. And before you go blaming the patriarchy for this phenomena, the same selfish bias is seen in non-human primates as well. So clearly this is some sort of evolutionary psychological phenomena. It's possible men in particular were forced to adapt to healthy management of hierarchical structures, and this imparted them a reproductive advantage over more oppressive high status individuals hoarding their inherent advantages over others.

Lets face facts folks, women have questionable judgment once granted power over others. Anecdotally, this has been obvious for a long time that female bosses tend to suck, powerful female politicians are highly disliked by both men and women (see Hillary Clinton and now Vice President Harris) and dating women of higher status is an inherently unstable arrangement (on average) compared to the reverse, and now we have the proof. How do I know this, because studies prove that as women outearn their husbands the risk of divorce drastically increases. Presumably women of high status begin to resent "carrying" someone else of lesser status.

While this study only dealt with same sex interactions, I'm sure it bleeds into male-female relationships as well based on other evidence I've seen. The higher status a woman achieves, the more her standards and demands go up for any sort of social interaction (romantic or otherwise). Men, however, are quite willing to 'date down' as they say and share resources with someone who is obviously beneath them, thus having a moderating effect on income inequality overall in society. If you're wondering why housing prices got so ridiculous, it's partially the increase in pair bonding of high to high status individuals that has accelerated in the last 50 years or so.

Generalizations like this are obviously not perfect, but they are useful. So before you decide to dazzle me with your personal anecdote about being a stay-at-home dad or working for a great female boss, please know that I will dismiss your anecdotal data as irrelevant.

Again, this is not because women are inherently bad or worse than men. This phenomena is an artifact of modern society's ample opportunities for women to excel economically despite their lesser physical strength, as such attributes are not as valued as they were for most of human history. Given this radical departure from historical norms, adverse and unintended consequences were bound to happen, as women possessing status and power is an inherently unnatural state of being that is maladaptive for healthy societal cooperation with a proven history of dramatic success over the long run.

So, no, we do not need more women as CEOs, politicians, and the like, to create a more harmonious and successful society. We need less. The wage gap is a good thing, the only problem is that it's not larger than it already is. Women's primary purpose has always been to reproduce and raise kids. Any significant deviation from this core principle is a mistake, and will inevitable lead to societal decline in the long run, perhaps even to the point of full scale collapse. I'm not saying women should never have careers, but it should always take a backseat to their family, raising the next generation, and supporting their husband's career.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/PurplePillDebate.

/r/PurplePillDebate archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title Society doesn't need more women as CEOs, politicians, and in positions of power over others
Author TriggurWarning
Upvotes 22
Comments 182
Date November 11, 2021 11:37 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit /r/PurplePillDebate
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/society-doesnt-need-more-women-as-ceos-politicians.1084592
https://theredarchive.com/post/1084592
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/qry5jt/society_doesnt_need_more_women_as_ceos/
Red Pill terms in post
Comments

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children) | Copy Link

Flaired CMV as this is an affirmative claim.

[–]Willow-girlRetired dairy farm worker 11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women's primary purpose has always been to reproduce and raise kids.

Um, NO THANKS!

[–]goatismycopilotcatladycatladycatlady🐐🐐🐐🐐 35 points36 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

Most men and women are not CEOs so your arguement makes no sense. Most men are not leaders or innovators nor do you have to be to have a semi functional career. I have had male and female bosses and there was not much difference.

[–]fakingandnotmakingit 23 points24 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Here's something from the same source you linked from about why we do need more female ceos

https://hbr.org/2019/06/research-women-score-higher-than-men-in-most-leadership-skills

So uhhh no. Will have to disagree.

How do I know this, because studies prove that as women outearn their husbands the risk of divorce drastically increases. Presumably women of high status begin to resent "carrying" someone else of lesser status.

Or possibly the men didn't like being out earned by their female partner? Like that's also a thing.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167219883611

So you know, maybe it's not women's fault this time?

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 0 points1 point  (15 children) | Copy Link

Biased and subjective.

The women-are-wonderful effect is the phenomenon found in psychological and sociological research which suggests that people associate more positive attributes with women compared to men. This bias reflects an emotional bias toward women as a general case. The phrase was coined by Alice Eagly and Antonio Mladinic in 1994 after finding that both male and female participants tend to assign positive traits to women, with female participants showing a far more pronounced bias. Positive traits were assigned to men by participants of both genders, but to a far lesser degree.

The authors supposed that the positive general evaluation of women might derive from the association between women and nurturing characteristics. This bias is suggested as a form of misandry/'benevolent misogyny', the latter being a concept within the theoretical framework of ambivalent sexism.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect

[–]fakingandnotmakingit 20 points21 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

Oh and you're not being biased and subjective?

Pull the other one

[–]TriggurWarning[S] -2 points-1 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

No, I'm showing you what research shows, people are biased in favor of women, and you're just going to ignore it because it doesn't fit your narrative. That's why men get harsher sentences and jail time for the same offences.

[–]fakingandnotmakingit 19 points20 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Umm our research papers came from the same website

But somehow yours is valid but mine isn't. Sure. You're not biased at all

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy Link

Your "research" is literally based on people's individual assessments, and I just showed you why we should be skeptical of individual assessments between men and women. Even judges who are trained to be fair and impartial give men harsher sentences than women for the same offences. Why do you think that is? It proves the 'women are wonderful' theory is correct about people's bias towards women.

[–]fakingandnotmakingit 18 points19 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

And yet shit like this is also a thing

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103120303607

Man I love the men here. Research is only valid if its my research.

Men are more logical and better than women. But also your research is invalid because x, y, z but my half baked hypothesis with no backing and only anecdotal evidence say that women abuse power more.

Oh and also this one, solitary research, from the "same peer reviewed journal* as yours overrides your multiple ones.

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 6 points7 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

No backing? There's plenty of backing proving the 'women are wonderful' theory is correct. You just don't want to see it because it violates your worldview. You can't see it.

[–]fakingandnotmakingit 11 points12 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I never commented on the "woman are wonderful" effect.

I'm replying to your original post where you go off about how we shouldnt have more women in high position roles backed by one measley study and a lot of ranting

Women are wonderful effect is affects emotional evaluations. For example women are more likely to be evaluated as nice, nurturing, pleasant, and good.

However being "smart" or being a "leader" or being "capable" has biases in favour of men.

Wow, look at that! There's more nuance after all!

Also the woman are wonderful effect is smaller in more egalitarian societies. So you know thank feminists for that

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28295294/

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 4 points5 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

You know what else is smaller in more egalitarian societies like the nordic countries? Less women in STEM, more women in nurturing vocations like nursing and teaching, relative to the US and other 'less egalitarian' societies. You know why? Because they are allowed to follow their true desires relative to hyper-feminists nations like the US that pressure women to seek gender equity in all things except the shit and dirty jobs no one wants to do like trash collector. Allow women to be women and they will show you equity is a joke and it's inherently punitive to seek it.

You can dismiss the study as one measly study, but I guarantee you there is more evidence supporting these notions.

[–]Throwaway18077 25 points26 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

This post was a really long way of saying “I’m scared women are going to take up jobs making it more competitive for men to acquire high earning positions”

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

No, it's really not, it's about the darker side of power and what it does to otherwise lovely and wonderful people we know as women.

[–]Throwaway18077 10 points11 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

And your thoughts on the #metoo movement that was created to fight against men taking advantage of their powerful professional positions to literally rape women?

[–]TriggurWarning[S] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Clearly it was needed in the case of the democrat Governor of New York, and many others who love to spout nonsense about how they support women and then abuse them. It really shows you how little they actually believe in their own bullshit. I don't support women being raped, but that doesn't change anything about what I stated in the OP. The stinginess of women is a proven fact at this point as far as I'm concerned.

[–]Throwaway18077 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

What a load of bs. Rape is worse than stinginess. Millions of people marched in the street saying enough is enough. When millions are marching over the stinginess of women call me.

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Rape is certainly worse for the individual, but in aggregate many smaller wrongs can eventually exceed it for a society.

[–]Elevatedheart 13 points14 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The only thing it’s corrupting is the male ego. A woman can do any job she’s capable of. Misogynistic men just want to be in control, so the idea of a woman leader makes him feel de - masculine. That’s his insecurity and problem. He’s only hurting himself by complaining about it.

A self assured man won’t care about that. He will be secure with his masculinity regardless of a woman’s status.

[–]Elevatedheart 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Secondly, why can’t a man stay home with kids and be in support of his wife’s career? I actually know several couples where the women is the bread winner and they do just fine. Your model is kind of outdated. Modernly, particularly in my field, it’s mostly women, and it pays pretty well. You have society in a box, that only one particular thing, should work for everyone and simply that’s untrue.

No, not all women are happier as housewives. Some of us have a brain in our head and want something more meaningful than just pumping out babies. Most women I know that even have babies, still work. Day care isn’t the best option but if you want to provide a decent life for your family in modern day with the cost of living astronomically high, real estate off the charts in recorded history, and healthy food costing 100 bucks a week, than women need careers and have no choice. Otherwise, most people, will live in poverty levels. Buying ramen noodles from sams club and won’t ever be able to put kids through college.

Therefore a repeated cycle of boys that work laborious jobs that they hate, never associated with kids in school that are education driven or business mind driven, consequently not rising above the system.

Unless a man is wealthy, he’s not going to be able to provide this on his own. Wealthy men or women, are in the minority.

//Proven history of dramatic success in the long run // How would you know? Have you actually seen the results of women in the “ long run” when it’s only within the last 30 years that women have risen to these positions in America? Prior to that , no study of substantiated evidence could have even been conducted because their wasn’t enough of us even in those positions to conduct a legitimate study.

[–]JoeRMD77 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think it's the financially successful men who have the most problems with women gaining power. I was reading something about women choosing useful men over non-useful men. If a man's rich but useless, he's no better than a poor useless man. Being useful supersedes wealth or lack thereof. It basically says you can be as rich or poor as you want but if you're not useful to a woman, it doesn't matter. This is basically Jordan Peterson stuff, which is God to TRP guys, so. It explains the concept of stay-at-home dads and those situations working as long as the guy's actually helping out with the domestics at home.

If wealth and status were the only things that mattered, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos wouldn't have recently gotten divorced.

Elliot Rodgers failed to understand this.

[–]Elevatedheart 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You can add Elon Musk to the divorce list also.. along with Trump and several others. I do respect Jordan Peterson. I think he’s an excellent role model for boys that have poor upbringing and have had no positive male role model their life. However, I only partly agree with Peterson’s generalization on young career women being depressed because they don’t have children. I don’t think the reason behind it that he gave is completely accurate. Not all women are suited to have children. Not just career women but those who stay home as well.

If a woman doesn’t want kids, she shouldn’t have them. He shouldn’t shame her for that, as Iv heard Peterson do a few times.

I’m a mother and a professional. I did fine in those roles. Iv also been a provider when my x husband was out of work and correct depressed and useless.

His problem was that of many guys, including OPs problem here. His ego couldn’t handle it. If he would have just let go of his pride and accepted his role for a short while, things may have been different. I’m not putting up with verbal abuse just because I worked hard and got a education and a career.

Wealth and status absolutely aren’t the only things that matter. However, in order to keep kids out of low socioeconomic groups, most people need 2 incomes.. and usually substantial incomes.

It is astronomically expensive to live almost everywhere. Corporations are now paying cash for houses, leaving rents in affordable and real estate unaffordable for the average income people.

It’s honestly not reality to complain about women with professional jobs. These same men that complain about it, will be the first ones to encourage their daughters to get an education. Would you really want your daughter dependent upon a man in modern day? That’s the biggest question

[–]poppy_bluget off my lawn 21 points22 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

So women shouldn’t be CEOs because then they won’t marry losers? That’s your argument?

Most women today aren’t and will never be a CEO. They still aren’t marrying losers.

Loser males have a choice today: 1) stop being a loser, 2) adjust your expectations and get with your loser match 3) opt out. That’s it.

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

No, they're also bad leaders, as proven in the study above.

[–]Yupperdoodledoo 11 points12 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

And ignoring this one too. You’ve responded to a ton of comments, but not the ones linking data that contradicts your Op.

https://www.thebalance.com/do-companies-with-female-executives-perform-better-4586443

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Fundamentally biased and subjective assessment.

The women-are-wonderful effect is the phenomenon found in psychological and sociological research which suggests that people associate more positive attributes with women compared to men. This bias reflects an emotional bias toward women as a general case. The phrase was coined by Alice Eagly and Antonio Mladinic in 1994 after finding that both male and female participants tend to assign positive traits to women, with female participants showing a far more pronounced bias. Positive traits were assigned to men by participants of both genders, but to a far lesser degree.

The authors supposed that the positive general evaluation of women might derive from the association between women and nurturing characteristics. This bias is suggested as a form of misandry/'benevolent misogyny', the latter being a concept within the theoretical framework of ambivalent sexism.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect

[–]Yupperdoodledoo 10 points11 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You still ignoring this? Why aren’t you commenting on this?

https://hbr.org/2019/06/research-women-score-higher-than-men-in-most-leadership-skills

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Subjective and biased assessment seeking a predetermined outcome. No one wants to shit on women, women are wonderful (and truthfully they often are, until they acquire power). It's like ranking what the most free nation is in the world. But that all comes down to how you define freedom and measure it.

The women-are-wonderful effect is the phenomenon found in psychological and sociological research which suggests that people associate more positive attributes with women compared to men. This bias reflects an emotional bias toward women as a general case. The phrase was coined by Alice Eagly and Antonio Mladinic in 1994 after finding that both male and female participants tend to assign positive traits to women, with female participants showing a far more pronounced bias. Positive traits were assigned to men by participants of both genders, but to a far lesser degree.

The authors supposed that the positive general evaluation of women might derive from the association between women and nurturing characteristics. This bias is suggested as a form of misandry/'benevolent misogyny', the latter being a concept within the theoretical framework of ambivalent sexism.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect

[–]poppy_bluget off my lawn 22 points23 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ohms2North 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Nah. Companies that are more profitable tend to then promote a woman to CEO

[–]Sen_ri 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah. If your theory was correct then female CEO’s would earn more on average wouldn’t they? But that’s not the case, they earn less on average.

[–]AnActualPersonGirthy 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lame made up excuse is lame.

[–]NotGoingoutofMW -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I can't for all sources but at least the Mcinsey studies are using junk data.

https://medium.com/asymmetries/the-diversity-myth-junk-research-and-media-manipulation-81305701c652

The results in their studies (handpicked sections btw.) are not statistically significant. They coated this by applying an intern factor to make it look like the data is good. You need to dive deep to actually see that the p-values are in fact not reaching statistical significance. Obviously they never mentioned it outright in the texts.

It's logical to assume that all similar studies that reference it are also junk.

[–]Cool_Weather_7763 5 points6 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

We should work on hiring the best for the job and who ever the best is will win. To your point about gender roles I think a woman can have a career if her partner agrees to pick up the slack at home. I think 2 full time career people can’t properly raise kids.

[–]Stomach-Competitive 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Of course they can. However, it more than it needs to be.

The problem is that modern America still wants to function as though the one working parent, one stay at home parent even though that model is outdated and not feasible for most families.

Our country needs to invest in a better support system for working parents, especially for low-earning two-income households.

[–]Cool_Weather_7763 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Or maybe if they can’t do it they shouldn’t have kids. The government has nothing to do with it. It’s the same issue kids need their mom and dad equally. The old dynamic was closer than what you’re proposing.

[–]Stomach-Competitive 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree that if a couple can’t afford a kid, they shouldn’t have them. In fact, many of the single-income families my age can’t survive without government assistance. Whereas many of the two-income homes (where both parents have a career) are raising kids on just their incomes and they only reach out to family to help out occasionally.

So, maybe I was wrong and today’s career oriented parents are doing just fine as parents.

[–]Cool_Weather_7763 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The issue is that people don’t plan their lives for kids the way they should. But people are having less kids and only doing so when they are ready which is a good start. It’s not impossible to make it work in other circumstances but if you don’t have kids yet it’s fully in your control to prepare for the best outcome.

[–]rhinetine -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Do you think that nannies are bad for children?

[–]Cool_Weather_7763 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think when you have to think about hiring someone to do your job you’re already reaching danger territory. Most kids who are raised by a nanny resent their parents.

[–]rhinetine 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Source?

If both parents make far more than a nanny who is paid six figures, has an early childhood degree, and second language to teach kids, is that really neglect?

That doesn’t mean that both parents aren’t putting in hours every day. And as mom I would be stepping back a degree (as in not seeking promotion from lead until they were in school).

[–]JoeRMD77 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd venture to guess latchkey kids dislike their parents more so than ones who weren't latchkey kids. Cable TV raised me, basically.

[–]_HEDONISM_BOTThe Red Pill is a Delusion 35 points36 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

Another post about why women should center their life around a man’s penis and not her career or herself or other shit.

This is ✨so original✨

[–]anonymousUser1SHIFT 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hey hey hey now, don't get a head of yourself. My penis is so large is has a gravitational field around it so yes I do thing women should be orbiting it.

Also call for help.

[–]TriggurWarning[S] -1 points0 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

But can you dispute the facts? They speak for themselves, women are bad leaders, period.

[–]CFinCanada 18 points19 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure women leaving lower-earning husbands has nothing to do with the fact that men only ever seem able to soothe their fragile bruised little egos with a vagina: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2010/08/16/129229205/men-who-make-less-more-likely-to-cheat

How many times am I going to have to post the same data and prove the same point? Every group of men women leaves more cheats more.

Black men- highest infidelity rates- highest divorce rates

Asian men- lowest infidelity rates - lowest divorce rates

Lower-earning men: cheat more - get left more

Tall men - cheat more - get left more

Women leave men who deserve it

[–]anonymousUser1SHIFT 4 points5 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

What about men who lose their jobs. I literally just read a study that showed that a man being unvolunteering unemployment is more likely to be divorced in a financial stability family (like financially stable without his job).

I will assume they didn't lose his job because they was having an affair with coworkers.

[–]CFinCanada 4 points5 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I've seen the study and the women were 3.1% more likely to leave the men who were unemployed. Men were also 2.5% more likely to leave women who became unemployed. These are not big numbers. Compare that to 1 in 3 men who are fathers who choose to cheat on their wives (the numbers are much lower for men who women don't give kids to, however).

[–]anonymousUser1SHIFT -1 points0 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

3% are big numbers.

Moreover the study I read said that the in unvolunteer unemployment of women didn't not affect divorced rates. Moreover in marriages where the woman didn't work as much and took over the majority of the choice, were less likely to be divorced. The study couldn't determine that that was because if gender roles of a better deviation of work.

Moreover, please cite your 33% of guys cheat. That number is way to high as I have more that 3 guy friends and non of them have cheated.

[–]CFinCanada 4 points5 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

You can find the numbers about fathers being more likely to cheat on their wives and particularly while they are pregnant here: https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/qeqvcz/are_men_incentivizing_low_birth_rates/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Various sources are contained within.

[–]anonymousUser1SHIFT -3 points-2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

You can't cite Reddit as your source, that's worse than Wikipedia.

Yes I do know you said the sources are in the link. However that also not how citing works. You need to provide a link to the articles them selfs, and not expect other people to find arbitrary numbers is a sea of information.

You pull a figure of 33.33%, again cite your sources or I'm assuming you made it up.

[–]CFinCanada 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

The Reddit post is my own and the second paragraph contains the figures (30% for fathers 17% for non-fathers). The first paragraph contains the study from which that figure was pulled. Subsequent paragraphs contain various other studies, it's a wealth of data.

Basically, your post was an admission of literacy issues. Those are yours to contend with, I'm not here to hold your hand and teach you how to read and click.

[–]anonymousUser1SHIFT -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

My argument was on the click part. Again citations can not be links to a page with the links on them, you would get a zero for any paper with that kind of citations.

[–]Kaisha001 -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe men simply cheat on women who deserve it?

[–]Devourer_of_felines -2 points-1 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The same link also says men who make substantially more are also more likely to cheat. Yet there aren't a lot of stats on women leaving their higher earning husbands. Hmm.

[–]CFinCanada 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Well why don't we ask Jeff Bezos and Arnold Schwarzenegger how it works out for the rich men who have affairs and see what they think.

[–]Devourer_of_felines -2 points-1 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Worked out fine for Jay-Z, Kobe, and Dwyane Wade. Regardless sample sizes of 2 doesn't disprove women are more willing to stay with a cheating spouse if they make substantially more money.

[–]CFinCanada 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Also didn't work out so well for Gavin Rossdale, Dr. Dre, and Lamar Odom. Your sample size of three does?

Beyonce will eventually leave her cheating husband just like her mother did. It's a business decision she is making now.

[–]5x_the_CharmRed diagnosis, purple solutions 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Clinton and Harris aren't disliked by a massive amount of people because they're women. It's a combination of them following the cookie cutter Democrat agenda mixed with the media shoving them in everyone's faces that gives them additional hate regardless of what they do. Not defending either because I'm not a Democrat, but objectively it has everything to do with media trying to push not just any woman into a leadership position but one with a certain set of beliefs and then they push them to annoying levels.

Throw a Tulsi Gabbard or even Elizabeth Warren up there and you might get a different result because they're different people holding different views. When one of them or a Republican female takes office, let's see what happens then.

[–]poppy_bluget off my lawn 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Hillary’s just an unlikeable person.

[–]5x_the_CharmRed diagnosis, purple solutions 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm just trying to show why Clinton and Harris are not unlikable as leaders simply because they're women.

[–]poppy_bluget off my lawn 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I know. That’s why I said Hillary’s PR problem isn’t that she’s a woman it’s that she comes off like a cold snobby elitist:

[–]Ok-Talk-4303( . Y . ) Booba 9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Here we have another instance of biological determinism being used to justify the oppression of a demographic.

[–]TriggurWarning[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No oppression is being advocated here.

[–]Traditional-Worth295 8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Just admit that there is no such thing as “purple pill”; this is just red pill in disguise.

[–]TriggurWarning[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The red pill despises tradcon ideology, which is precisely what this is. The only thing we agree about is that society is in a long term decline and there is no way to stop it.

[–]CimZim35F Autistic Egalitarian 17 points18 points  (44 children) | Copy Link

No human has a predetermined "primary purpose", we're all individuals. We all make our own purpose dependent on what we want out of life and what will lead us to maximize our happiness and fulfillment.

I'm never having kids or getting married, ergo will never support a husband's career or raise a new generation that is directly related to me. There's a growing number of both men and women who are deciding the same thing, and are likewise charting their own non-traditional course. People are free to do whatever they want with their lives, there is no such thing as inherent purpose.

[–]TriggurWarning[S] -1 points0 points  (43 children) | Copy Link

Maximization of personal happiness and fulfillment may run counter to societal stability in the long run, as I have explained. So in that sense, in the interests of maximizing the longevity of this amazing thing we call civilization, they do have a primary purpose.

Also, there's the paradox of declining female happiness to contend with as well.

By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women's happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women's declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging -- one with higher subjective well-being for men.

So by any objective measure women are not happier as a result of the destruction of gender roles in society. Most women are never going to speak before the supreme court, or address the house of representatives, or lead a fortune 500 company, that's a privilege for the top 1% of women. The rest of them have much more grounded aspirations. Modern society has forced women to work whether they want to or not, because it now requires two incomes in many instances to provide the same middle class lifestyle that a single one did in 1970.

[–]Elevatedheart 11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women were oppressed and not allowed to act unhappy.. later to find out they were controlled and beat by their husbands.

They weren’t allowed to express emotions, they weren’t allowed to yell back. They weren’t allowed to get a loan.. so with man 100% in control that won’t make anyone happy.

Hence the reason we fought for our rights..

Men can’t provide.. so if they want that model, they better move to the Middle East.

[–]quiturbitchn 16 points17 points  (29 children) | Copy Link

You know a lot of that is based in the fact that women in the not so distant past were not allowed to admit they were unhappy to the public. Women weren’t happier when subjugated and they sure as hell couldn’t say anything if they weren’t happy

[–]TriggurWarning[S] -1 points0 points  (28 children) | Copy Link

I don't think there is any evidence to suggest this is true.

[–]quiturbitchn 14 points15 points  (27 children) | Copy Link

My other fave reason is the one that men here hate and it’s that women have an undue burden of work in the home even when they are working full time. That and more modern women compare themselves to the accomplishments of all successful people. Traditional women compare themselves to only other women, capping their achievement expectations https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/may/18/womens-rights-happiness-wellbeing-gender-gap

[–]Kaisha001 1 point2 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

My other fave reason is the one that men here hate and it’s that women have an undue burden of work in the home even when they are working full time.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/atus.pdf

Sorry but men are working just as hard as women. The fact that women spend more hours working at home, and men more outside the home, doesn't change the fact that this silly myth that 'men are lazy and women do all the work!!' is just feminist outrage porn.

[–]quiturbitchn 4 points5 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

Never said men weren’t working outside of the home. I said they weren’t pulling adequate weight at home. If both parents work they should both be contributing at home. Which the brief you posted supports. Men did less childcare and housework than women

[–]Kaisha001 1 point2 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

Men did less childcare and housework than women

And spent more time working outside the home.

So while you say:

I said they weren’t pulling adequate weight at home.

The implications of this are incorrect.

[–]quiturbitchn 1 point2 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

But not the same amount of time outside of the home. Even if a man works he needs to be a present and active father. Always shocking when men can write off their involvement in childrens lives because they are “working” and in the next breath berate single mothers. Both children in those scenarios have the same level of parental involvement by their fathers.

[–]Kaisha001 1 point2 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Even if a man works he needs to be a present and active father.

Someone has to pay the bills. Why is a man working extra hours to ensure there's a roof over his children's head or food on their plate a bad thing?

Always shocking when men can write off their involvement in childrens lives because they are “working” and in the next breath berate single mothers.

Always shocking that women berate men for being lazy, when they are working for their family.

Both children in those scenarios have the same level of parental involvement by their fathers.

I'm sure you're very good at inventing fictitious scenarios to justify your outrage. But the reality is men are working just as hard as women are, except somehow women get praised non-stop, while men berated non-stop, for the same level of commitment.

Gotta love feminism's version of 'equality'.

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Men are not naturally inclined towards caregiving, it's not in our dna. Of course there are some great stay-at-home dads out there, but it'll never be that common for valid reasons. Women are making their lives more stressful in more ways than one by trying to break traditional gender roles. Women who choose traditional gender roles are also bullied socially in their peer groups by other women who are social guarding their own aspirations, thus making them unhappier.

[–]quiturbitchn 13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men aren’t great at caregiving because they don’t ensure proper bonding with their children. They don’t get nor take adequate leave at birth. It’s been shown men who care for their infants experience chemical changes in their brains that turn on caregiver aspects. There’s nothing about having a vagina that makes someone more inclined to be a good cook or house cleaner. Many women hate those things so no traditional gender roles aren’t inherent to being a specific sex

[–]Aclopolipse 9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If that were true, we'd expect that single-father households would have worse outcomes for kids than single-mother household, and a similar story for lesbian couples vs. straight couples vs. gay male couples.

In fact, life outcomes for kids are far better in single-father households, and outcomes across sexual orientations are pretty equal when you account for the differing rates of adoption vs. biological children.

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men often make more money, of course they have better outcomes.

[–]Stomach-Competitive 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

“…caregiving, it’s not in our dna.” What? What are you talking about?

[–]CimZim35F Autistic Egalitarian 7 points8 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Then those women can go back to having traditional gender roles and be happy, just as we who prefer egalitarianism and childfree lives can keep to our path.

Civilization will continue regardless, there aren't enough people globally who are running against it to do it any longterm harm.

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 3 points4 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Then those women can go back to having traditional gender roles and be happy, just as we who prefer egalitarianism and childfree lives can keep to our path.

No, they can't, because in 1970 a single breadwinner could easily provide for an entire family, but because of the liberalization of the labor market (essentially doubling the available pool of qualified laborers), it has devalued work to the extent that it usually requires two incomes now to support a family. So whether women like it or not, they must make a sacrifice and neglect their family.

70% of people say the country is on the 'wrong track' regardless of who is in charge, as they do right now. There is ample evidence that things are spinning out of control. Just look at the value of a worthless digital bitcoin with no inherent value. There was an initial wave of prosperity as women entered the workforce in mass, but now we are going through the withdrawal process of this heroin injection. Now it is unaffordable to raise a family in most major cities.

[–]CimZim35F Autistic Egalitarian 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

There's still many men who would be fine with his wife only working part time, if it meant the children were cared for and the household work was done. The answer is not to revoke women's rights or ability to live alone and support ourselves. The solution is for both sexes to start "acting their wage".

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not suggesting the revocation of rights, I'm suggesting the need for cultural change and reprioritization of personal time over corporate profit maximization.

[–]CimZim35F Autistic Egalitarian 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well good luck. Hopefully you'll be able to change it so that those of us who don't have any desire for tradcon stuff can live harmoniously with those who do.

[–]Urbantexasguy 12 points13 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

You can’t remove the most basic personal freedoms, because it’s inconvenient for society. This is knee jerk alt-right crap, and it’s detestable, especially to a libertarian such as myself.

Men and women will simply have to learn to balance work and child care in a two-income family. That being said, I wouldn’t be opposed to an extension on paid leave for childbirth, and maybe an increase in the child deduction, even if it is a bit un-libertarian.

You can’t magically put wages back to 1950’s levels by halving the work force. That ship has sailed, it’s time to look forward not back.

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm not suggesting the removal of basic personal freedom, I'm arguing for cultural reform that makes it a desirable and willing proposal. Just as the pendulum has swung far to the left in terms of feminism, logic suggests it may swing back, through no one's special doing by legislative force. If women start voluntarily working part time instead of full time, the cost dynamic will begin to shift towards affordability again.

[–]Urbantexasguy 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don’t have a problem with that, but men are really going to have to step up our commitment and fathering game, to make that happen, and I don’t care how blue-pilled that sounds.

The current culture of baby mama farming, divorce and dodging child support, doesn’t exactly inspire trust in either sex.

[–]Urbantexasguy 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for the award!

[–]Stomach-Competitive 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

That makes what a desirable proposal? Giving up our rights or simply choosing to opt out using our rights?

[–]Megabyte7637Red Pill Man 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Right

[–]JoeRMD77 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

70% of people say the country is on the 'wrong track' regardless of who is in charge

And most people are worried about the economy. People want more for their money and they want more back for their taxes. If anything, the situation will only get more egalitarian.

That child credit tax has me ready to start a family. /s

[–]flapperfemmefataleew gender roles 22 points23 points  (41 children) | Copy Link

Why should women seek to achieve less because the male ego can't handle it?

[–]TriggurWarning[S] -1 points0 points  (40 children) | Copy Link

I don't think it's quite that simple.

[–]flapperfemmefataleew gender roles 16 points17 points  (39 children) | Copy Link

I think it is. My dad was quite abusive to my mom over the fact that she always made more money. Even without abuse, I don't think we should be concerning ourselves with appeasing men like that.

There's nothing stopping a man, or woman, from having a traditional relationship where he has more power and wealth, and she is his dependent. But I have no interest in that kind of relationship, and I would never agree to curb my own ambition for the sake of men who can only thrive in a world where women are lesser.

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 0 points1 point  (38 children) | Copy Link

One personal anecdote is not very convincing. I'm not disputing it doesn't happen, but I think women's revulsion to supporting a "loser" which many openly use that word literally to describe people who make less than them makes it quite obvious that women are inherently quite stingy when it comes to supporting a man who makes less.

[–]Dapper_Art_8269 10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

My father was also bitter and became abusive, because my mom was more succesfull, he worked for her and she was really ambitious.

Men are bitter when women don't only focus on pleasing them. I make more than my fiance and my brother for some reason hates that. He thinks that feminism damaged me because I make great money and want to do more things instead of being a houswife.

[–]Sekina7FDS Femme Fatale 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Stats show domestic violence , male to female increases to 35% when the women earns more …

[–]peteypete78 -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And most DV is reciprocal, so that would suggest that as a women earns more she is more likely to throw her weight around.

[–]flapperfemmefataleew gender roles 13 points14 points  (34 children) | Copy Link

And why is that a problem? There's nothing stopping men from having the same standard. My husband expects me to pay my half of shared expenses for the same reason I expect him to do the same: neither of us want to be with a financial dependent.

If you want a sugar mama, go for it. No one is stopping you. But it's also not everyone else's responsibility to make sure you have an easy time finding one.

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 0 points1 point  (32 children) | Copy Link

Because women are inherently more stingy than men once they acquire status, resources, and power. That's why it's a problem. If men and women were equally stingy, then I'd be ok with the situation. Hand waving that men can just become as stingy as women isn't helpful to your cause of eliminating gender roles. How about women become LESS stingy? See how that works? Either way it's not going to change a damn thing.

[–]flapperfemmefataleew gender roles 10 points11 points  (31 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I think other people have posted enough studies that counter your claims about the nature of women lol

And I say men should make the changes because they're the ones who seem to be complaining.

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]flapperfemmefataleew gender roles 6 points7 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

You're really trying to argue that this applies to all of the studies others have linked?

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I think I've seen a grand total of two, and one is literally just asking people what their opinion is of women. Hardly reliable data given the known bias people in general have towards women. That's why men get harsher sentences for the same criminal offenses. Remember that.

[–][deleted]  (22 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]kittenated 9 points10 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

So should we put you back in the kitchen by force then?

Fucking . YIKES.

It's funny how you act like some kind of sober intellectual, deeply concerned with people here giving you "biased / unreliable sources" and shit, and then we see you just come out with this. Most telling.

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's a rhetorical device. Did you just ignore the rest?

[–][deleted]  (17 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted]  (16 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]JoeRMD77 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

neither of us want to be with a financial dependent.

I think that is hard for trad men to accept: that a lot of men want a woman to work too and don't want a deadbeat woman just like a woman doesn't want a deadbeat man.

I've literally passed up dating women because they don't work. I'm not taking care of a woman when I can barely take care of myself, but some of those types don't even care about money - they just wanna' pop out babies and worry about the rest later. In this society, you have the green light to do it too but I didn't wanna' get wrapped up in the trailer park life with 5 kids.

My brother on the other hand ended up settling for one of these types and 15 years later he's still complaining bills are too tight because she still doesn't work.

It makes sense when you read stuff like "one of the reasons home prices have gone up is due two-income households". It sure as hell isn't single people who earn the income of two that's making it rise. People who earn that much are few and far between.

[–]januaryphilosopherBlue Pill Woman 7 points8 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

It's very possible that an entirely equal society would erase this effect and be more harmonious and stable. Current imbalances are likely contributing to a lot of problems that equality would solve or lessen.

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't even know what entirely equal means. You mean equity of outcomes? That doesn't even happen in extremely egalitarian nations like Sweden and Norway. In fact, I think there are less women in STEM degrees and jobs there than the United States. You know why? Because true egalitarianism is not pressuring women to study something they're fundamentally not that interested in just to prove a point or seek a predetermined equitable outcome. Conversely, no one is suggesting more women need to take undesirable jobs like trash collection to make the bottom more equitable as well.

[–]Urbantexasguy 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

All you can really do, is provide a few financial incentives, a carrot on a stick here and there. The rest is up to the individual man and woman to figure it out. Couples who know how to plan, compromise and conserve resources will do well, others won’t.

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

That strategy has clearly failed.

[–]HillaryLostTheEC 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Big time and they still keep pushing it with women only scholarships aka sexism

[–]januaryphilosopherBlue Pill Woman 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean equity of outcomes. Sweden and Norway haven't solved sexism which means that women are still feeling pressures to do or not do certain things and are able to afford to do so. Even if there is no society where women and men would choose the same careers in exactly the same quantities, I think that a society that did would certainly work out better, as many problems with women in these fields are contributed to by the fact that they're minorities. (And I believe they generally are suited to the women who enter them. Some women are absolutely terrible at traditional feminine tasks and want to centre their lives around the gender-atypical things they're actually interested in.)

[–]Yupperdoodledoo 8 points9 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Sorry dude we aren’t going back. Ever. You’re going to just have to deal with it.

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Then why do 60% of Dutch women work part time instead of full time? You may no be going back, but there is a middle ground between being a housewife and a hardcore careerist. They already proved it's possible, and likely to happen at some point here as well as people start prioritizing personal time over corporate profits.

[–]goatismycopilotcatladycatladycatlady🐐🐐🐐🐐 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The Dutch also have universal healthcare and subsidized daycare and other social programs aimed at supporting families which do not exist in the US so if you want to be like them you have an even bigger cultural shift to push. The Dutch also have more maternity and parental leave made available.

Americans have none of that so sure make us more like them.

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Many other European countries have the same, but they do not have a high proportion of women working part time. There's something unique at work here, so your argument is insufficient to explain the observables.

[–]AquaChiphamster wheel dismantler 10 points11 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Point to a society on earth where there is only men in power and it’s not a shithole. I’ll wait.

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, they're not only in power, but the difference between us and them couldn't be more stark.

Nearly 60% of women in the Dutch labour market work part-time, roughly three times the OECD average for women, and over three times the rate for Dutch men

This is the way. It's not handmaid's tale, it's just people learning to value their time appropriately between work and family.

[–]AquaChiphamster wheel dismantler 10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The average age of marriage in the Netherlands is late 30s and they have an average of 1.5 kids per family (and that number is dropping rapidly) which I’m sure you oppose since you think a woman’s primary purpose is raising kids or whatever. Dutch women clearly aren’t working part time to raise kids. Dutch women would literally laugh at the thought of having kids and a husband in their 20s.

[–]BadRevolutionary3034 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, OK? And?

[–]superlurkage 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

We don’t need more people either, so there’s no problem as far as I can tell

[–]ledatherockbandBased & Red Pilled 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If people want something in a free society, they have the chance to work for it. 🤷‍♀️

[–]HedgeRunner 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't even need to read. I will say, society doesn't need entitled and selfish assholes as CEOs or key decision makers.

Turns out, most people get to these positions by being extremely selfish and manipulative, giving no fucks to everyone else.

[–]anonymousUser1SHIFT 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

...and that last paragraph is where you flew directly into the sun.

[–]Five_Decadesstopped caring 8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

disagree. women are in general somewhat more risk adverse and more empathetic.

I believe in the run up to the 2008 financial collapse, female financial leaders were less willing to make risky bets that destroyed the economy.

[–]Aclopolipse 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

We'll never know for sure what would have happened with more women in charge, but it's a fairly reasonable assumption. The connection between testosterone and risk taking behavior is well known.

[–]sarkington 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

We also don’t need doorstops, dog sweaters and pre-cut fruit

[–]spinsterchachkiesPost Wall Stacy 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Be brave, say society doesn’t need more tr*ns people in positions over them.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Personally I think it's a joke that Women think they're entitled to just be handed some Exec position and a 6 figure salary; so much so that they're literally legislating it lol

And honestly? As sad as it sounds; I would never have a business/company in the Western Countries these days. Why should I be obligated to cater to some "Woke" stupidity because someone thinks they're entitled to a leadership spot in my organization?

There's been very reliable Women in my life who have quite literally helped "carry" a business I've started (and basically worked for free to get it off the ground; like their Male counterparts); they deserve a leadership spot because they earned it/helped build it.

And all my female bosses have (for the most part) been chill/reasonable people; just like their male counterparts.

But nobody should get handed a position based simply on race/gender/sexuality. It's like Court enforced Nepotism lol

[–]SaBahRub 4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Any society that follows your prescription is going to get stomped. Especially by China

The singular exception — oil producers

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't see how that is true.

Nearly 60% of women in the Dutch labour market work part-time, roughly three times the OECD average for women, and over three times the rate for Dutch men

I am advocating for nothing more than is found among the Dutch, hardly a Handmaid's Tale in the making. People have to start prioritizing their own free time over monetary gains and forcing businesses to adjust to the new paradigm.

[–]SaBahRub 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The Netherlands has high powered female leaders, executives and politicians.

Societies that actually follow your ideal already exist. They are not rich or functional places

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, and they're actively harming their society. The top 1% of overachieving women will never change, they will keep trying to compete with men for resources they don't need to support a family, but the rest of the population is more malleable. If women rise on their own merit, more power to them, but ideologies that seek equitable outcomes at the upper levels are inherently flawed.

[–]SaBahRub 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Blocking competition always harms a society in the end. Just ask China or Japan, or the Native Americans for that matter

Or rather, don’t. They’re still all pretty sensitive about that

[–]Urbantexasguy 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

He wants to bring back “1950’s Wonderland”, where a guy can make $50/hr bolting the left front fender on Chevys all day long, and then go home to June Cleaver, 2 kids, 2 cars and 2500 sq feet.

We need to put him back in the time capsule.

[–]PlayfulLawyer 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

If they get there, cool, I'm against Government interference where they say "each company must have a woman in the boardroom" or whatever that rule California put out

[–]TriggurWarning[S] 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

That is precisely what I am arguing against. I'm also arguing against corporate culture that voluntarily seeks these outcomes in the mindless pursuit of 'diversity' for diversity's sake alone. That is not only unwise economically to raise people up without merit, but also socially as this study proves.

[–]PlayfulLawyer 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Yup, working in corporate America myself the effects are detrimental, but I'll be outta this shit show soon enough lol

[–]poppy_bluget off my lawn 6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

How many shitty and inept male bosses and executives have you seen in your time working in corporate America?

[–]PlayfulLawyer -2 points-1 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Not many, granted I've worked at the same company since 2008 (2005 if you count my time being an intern there) , and I'm pretty high up myself over there so I don't have too much bad to say about most of my higher-ups and peers, could I point out a couple dumbasses? Sure but even then their heart was in the right place 😂

[–]poppy_bluget off my lawn 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I’m pretty high up myself

The lack of self awareness is astounding

[–]PlayfulLawyer -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I had some chicken salad for dinner that was pretty astounding as well, preciate it 👍

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]poppy_bluget off my lawn 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Anyone else feel bad for the future mail order bride?

[–]VexingTetrimino 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

omg you guys OP made this same post in the jordan peterson sub and in there the sentiments are "troll", "high octane neck beard," and "no way anyone is this fucking stupid lol"

[–]sarkington 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean, the username gives it away

[–]kittenated 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"high octane neck beard,"

Lmfao!

[–]Ok_Razzmatazz_1751 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

There are more careers that women have that are not CEO or political based . Alot of political women have ample amount of childern . So maybe your under the presumption they don't procreate , why is that ? Hilary had one child and VP Harris has 2 It's your political opinion these ladies are disliked . However they both have been married for years , produced childern and have excellent careers.
How is their arrangements unstable because it's not your ideal ? Most men in society are not CEOs , so why speak or formulate this hypothesis like most men are rich , CEO material when they are not .

You can look around in general society and see visually who pairs together , go outside , visit places . I've raised my kids , I'm 42 . What would I do with my time if I didn't have a career in Nursing ?
How many times can you clean a house , cook a meal , gotta be more to life than prissy parties , and home association meetings. Especially once your kids are grown. You can still have a career, and raise childern very easily . Most women don't have a CEO , political type career . Childern if raised correctly leave the nest , childern still at home in their mid twenties with no goals are all failure to launch . No reason for a parents life to be stunned , childern in general in the USA have so many opportunities .

[–]TriggurWarning[S] -2 points-1 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes, the top 1% have that privilege, because they do not require two incomes to achieve a desirable lifestyle with kids. They can hire nannies to take care of their kids, private schools are no problem, etc. That exception doesn't disprove the underlying facts. And yes, those two women are extremely disliked. VP Harris has the worst approval rating in like 30-40 years for a VP. It's like 28% last time I saw it, worse than Dick Cheney and others.

[–]poppy_bluget off my lawn 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ok_Razzmatazz_1751 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You can still raise childern ,be married, and have a career. It's called middle class people . The problem that you are having here is that you don't like that people can do this, (I'm guessing woman are your problem ) that you have a preference that people shouldn't , and there's lots of things in this world that we shouldn't do, but we have to do , like pay for medical insurance , and that's just the way Society is in America.

[–]Ok_Razzmatazz_1751 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Normal society can't relate to the 1%

[–]Separate-Presence 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Speaking as a professional and having had a mix of male and female bosses- majority of the best ones for me were female. They actually cared about my career path and growth, and took time to discuss continuous improvement projects with me. Majority of my male bosses were…useless.

Just my own anecdote.

[–]billsull_02842 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

women take jobs away from men but still lie down like luggage waiting for a bell boy.

[–]SuspiciousRule 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women are good leaders. Leadership skill are needed to raise and teach kids. You can't be calling your husband for every little problem you have.

[–]Stomach-Competitive 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

There is nothing wrong or unnatural about women having self-determination. If we want to put our husband and children first, fine; but if we want to be a valuable member of our community and/or a specialist industry/field, as well as raise a family, we should feel free to do so.

And that is the best part of today’s world. Both men and women are free to determine our own purpose for our life. And because of this, I’m going to hold a career and become a mother someday. I want to be an asset to my community, my industry, and help raise the next generation.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter