Women No Longer Care

reply to post by InTheLight

but I did open up an interesting theory/fact as to why most women are submissive (being held back) in relationships, which you both have skipped over for whatever reasons.

I didn´t skip over anything. I didn´t know it was a fact that most woman are submissive in relationships, and I definately didn´t know it would be because the man holds the woman back.

As far as I can tell, in most marriages and longterm relationships I see, the woman always has the last word and usually gets her way.

reply to post by InTheLight


Thats a good question. Comprimise to me is saying to my wife "uhhgghh I dont want to clean the bathroom" Then her saying, "I dont either".

The comprimise would be for both of us to do parts.

Being submissive is her saying "I have a better job than you so and make more money, so I make all the decisions". Then me sayng "Okay honey".

Just because she has a higher position doesnt give her the right to make her partner submisive, and it goes both ways. Its like a tug of war these days. Society has us fighting for power in relationships based upon income. What I said was just an example, but it shows the difference.

Tylerdurden1
reply to post by InTheLight

 

Thats a good question. Comprimise to me is saying to my wife "uhhgghh I dont want to clean the bathroom" Then her saying, "I dont either".

The comprimise would be for both of us to do parts.

Being submissive is her saying "I have a better job than you so and make more money, so I make all the decisions". Then me sayng "Okay honey".

Just because she has a higher position doesnt give her the right to make her partner submisive, and it goes both ways. Its like a tug of war these days. Society has us fighting for power in relationships based upon income. What I said was just an example, but it shows the difference.

I don't disagree with the power struggles in certain relationships, but I don't put it solely down to income earning as the deciding factor, but rather a lack of mutual respect and perhaps confusion from societal and peer pressures as to what are acceptable male and female roles in the younger generational relationships.

Throughout my longterm marriage, we have flipped back and forth as to whom brings home the bigger pay cheque, and there were no power struggles pertaining to that, so it appears to me that the woman seeking submission from a man scenario above raises warning flags that something else is going on there.

reply to post by InTheLight


I agree with you there, its not just a financial situation that would warent some submisivness.

greyer

Women appear to be starting a large movement of apathy in this modern day because they care more about being ambitious for themselves rather than caring about anything else. Before in history, men would be ambitious for the purpose of supporting women and their family, it was never a selfish desire to be ambitious for selfish reasons as women do today...

Horrible, horrible human beings.

This goes right to the heart of the nature of the female when it comes to her competitiveness.

Don't be fooled. While females may claim to be non-competitive, they are, in actuality, savagely competitive.

The thing is that females will not compete on the basis of performance standards. No! Females compete on the basis of the elimination of their competition.

What will make the ever-threated female feel most insecure about her competitive standing?

Well, here are the top three things:

1.) a male who is perceived to be smarter and/or more capable than the female;

2.) a male who is perceived to be prettier than the female. It's not just a matter of facial looks. It wasn't until the movie "Good Hair" came out that I realized how sensitive and viciously envious females can be when it comes to a male's having a superior head of hair;

3) (and this is a biggie) a male who is perceived (correctly or incorrectly) as having achieved some degree of favor from a common male manager. (You know whores will claw at each other for the distinction of being pimp daddy's favored bed partner for the night.)

Females will go bonkers when they sense any of the above threats, and they will pull out all the stops to eliminate them.

This is why female managers settle in with a staff of subordinates who are grossly inferior. Those subordinates may be female, moronic, obese, insane, incredibly ugly, maybe smelly, sexually perverse, dishonest, etc.

Again, don't be fooled. A female manager will occasionally bite the bullet and employ a highly capable, model-of-an-employee male, BUT ONLY WHEN SHE IS DESPERATE to get over some critical hurdle that her work involves. When that feeling of desperation goes, she goes into seek-out-and-exfoliate mode to rid her area of the capable male. It's hasta la vista baby time (unless, of course, this male is the paramour of the female, and then she will embezzle for him).

Bottom line is this (and a female stopped me dead in my tracks with this during a prior discussion on this subject): males let it happen.

So, males are a very big part of the problem, and it makes little sense to refer a problem back to its source for resolution.

So, where does this leave us? Beats the L out of me!

P.M.

reply to post by theworldisnotenough


That's not true. My sister has had plenty of very capable employees under her direct supervision that included males. She's actually a ruthless stickler for performance and her employees actually fear that about her. I know from my own experience with her that she demands perfection and doesn't tolerate defect so I can't imagine what it would be like to work under her. My best friend is friends with some of her former employees and the funniest thing happened when they started talking about their boss. My best friend actually recognized and correctly guessed that it was my sister, lol.

Some women might actually be concerned about promoting or employing comparably capable men but not all. That's kind of the problem with many of the statements going on in this thread. They are all based on generalizations and every one of you should know that generalizations are prone to err.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

They are all based on generalizations and every one of you should know that generalizations are prone to err.

Generalisations.

That's not true. My sister........

reply to post by FancyName


dictionary.reference.com...

Generalizations tend to be fallacious:

en.wikipedia.org...

To ignore an instance that negates a generalization is to commit yet another fallacy:

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by WhiteAlice


You are a continuous source of entertainment.

Let me try to explain what the point was.

You warn people not to generalize but your post starts out with a major generalization, namely that if your sis experienced it, it is the standard for everybody.

And here you are qouting the definition of the word "generalization".

FancyName
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

You are a continuous source of entertainment.

Let me try to explain what the point was.

You warn people not to generalize but your post starts out with a major generalization, namely that if your sis experienced it, it is the standard for everybody.

And here you are qouting the definition of the word "generalization".

edit on 8-4-2014 by FancyName because: (no reason given)

You should probably re-read what I was responding to. The generalizing statement that I was responding to was this:

Females will go bonkers when they sense any of the above threats, and they will pull out all the stops to eliminate them.

This is why female managers settle in with a staff of subordinates who are grossly inferior. Those subordinates may be female, moronic, obese, insane, incredibly ugly, maybe smelly, sexually perverse, dishonest, etc.

Again, don't be fooled. A female manager will occasionally bite the bullet and employ a highly capable, model-of-an-employee male, BUT ONLY WHEN SHE IS DESPERATE to get over some critical hurdle that her work involves.

In that case, my sister would be an exception to the above generalizations as she regularly employed individuals on the basis of quality and ability of work. Exceptions are the things that disprove a faulty generalization and are not the basis of a generalization in itself.

My statement which you quoted has a logical basis. In philosophy, one of the most basic concepts that is cautioned against are "all" statements. In fact, generalizations (all statements) fall under what is called inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning, by default, holds that the proposition may be false. If there is a case that proves a generalization (inductive reasoning) to be false, then it is a faulty generalization or an incorrect inductive reasoning. Sometimes inductive reasoning can be beneficial but only if it is passes the test where there are no known exceptions to the reasoning.

It's called logic. If I may make a suggestion, you might find reading "The Philosopher's Toolkit" by Baggini and Fossi helpful.
www.amazon.com...

reply to post by WhiteAlice

In that case, my sister would be an exception to the above generalizations as she regularly employed individuals on the basis of quality and ability of work. Exceptions are the things that disprove a faulty generalization and are not the basis of a generalization in itself.

Exceptions don't make the original statement untrue, as you called it, otherwise it wouldn't be an exception.

Like I said, you are generalizing an exception, or an individual case in order to disqualify the original statement.

It's a generalization just like the original statement was a generalization.

Good post though.

FancyName
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

In that case, my sister would be an exception to the above generalizations as she regularly employed individuals on the basis of quality and ability of work. Exceptions are the things that disprove a faulty generalization and are not the basis of a generalization in itself.

Exceptions don't make the original statement untrue, as you called it, otherwise it wouldn't be an exception.

Like I said, you are generalizing an exception, or an individual case in order to disqualify the original statement.

It's a generalization just like the original statement was a generalization.

Good post though.

edit on 8-4-2014 by FancyName because: (no reason given)

On the contrary, I stated that generalizations (inductive reasoning) are still useful until there are exceptions to them. Then they are considered faulty. Einstein's Theory of Relativity would be a case of inductive reasoning and that is why so many experiments are put against it to either prove or disprove his theory, once and for all.

Here's an example of inductive reasoning (or generalizations):

All human beings have two legs and two arms. (generalization) What about those who have lost an arm or leg? (exception) What about children who are born without either? (exception) If the "all" statement were actually true, then these exceptions would no longer be human beings. Obviously they are so the generalization that all human beings have two arms and two legs is false. Way to make it a little better would be "all human beings, normally, have two legs and two arms" but that's still sticky as define normal.

Get it?

Another exception to the original generalization: Indra Nooyi of Pepsico

reply to post by WhiteAlice

All human beings have two legs and two arms.

That is not true. My sister has only one arm........

FancyName
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

All human beings have two legs and two arms.

That is not true. My sister has only one arm........

Which is what I said in my post and that's my point--either your sister is an exception (which you dismissed in the case of my sister for the other generalization) or your sister is a human being and the generalization is faulty. I'm guessing that you can see that an exception proves a generalization faulty. Can't have it both ways. That would be illogical and irrational.

I think that you should probably work on reading others' posts and working on your communication skills. You seem to consistently have issues with both, based on your myriad exchanges on this thread, but, instead choose to reflect them upon others.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

Which is what I said in my post and that's my point--either your sister is an exception (which you dismissed in the case of my sister for the other generalization) or your sister is a human being and the generalization is faulty. I'm guessing that you can see that an exception proves a generalization faulty. Can't have it both ways. That would be illogical and irrational.

I already said that the statement you reacted to is a generalisation.

I didn't dismiss your sister' case as not being an exception. I said this,

Exceptions don't make the original statement untrue, as you called it, otherwise it wouldn't be an exception.

If your sister is the exception, the original statement is the norm.

Semantics, I know.

In your example you said "all humans" so that one exception would prove the statement faulty.

Try this, "Humans have two arms and two legs"

"This is not true, my sister has only one arm"

Does the latter statement make the first a faulty generalization? I don't think so, humans have two arms and legs.

The poster that made the original statement never said "all women" specifically, but was talking about women in general.

See the difference, in this case there is no added semantic backdoor you can use to be right in this argument.

WhiteAlice

You should probably re-read what I was responding to. The generalizing statement that I was responding to was this:


"Females will go bonkers when they sense any of the above threats,
and they will pull out all the stops to eliminate them.

"This is why female managers settle in with a staff of subordinates
who are grossly inferior. Those subordinates may be female,
moronic, obese, insane, incredibly ugly, maybe smelly, sexually
perverse, dishonest, etc.

"Again, don't be fooled. A female manager will occasionally bite the
bullet and employ a highly capable, model-of-an-employee male,
BUT ONLY WHEN SHE IS DESPERATE to get over some critical hurdle
that her work involves."


In that case, my sister would be an exception to the above generalizations as she regularly employed individuals on the basis of quality and ability of work.

When I wrote that "female managers settle in with a staff of subordinates who are grossly inferior," the operative words were "settle in." I will concede that, very frequently, when female managers are new to their positions, they will, in fact, employ quality workers, but as I noted about desperation (see above) when they are new to their positions, there is a degree of desperation to get off the ground on the right foot. Then later, the female managers are not under the gun so much, and they will invariably settle in and be true to form and insist upon having incredibly inferior subordinates.

Nothing is what it appears to be. When you have a female who is a stickler for perfection, it is she who is on the back on just the one worker who does all the work while the queen-goddess-of-the-universe manager takes all the glory and credit.

Note: generalizations cover most cases and sometimes not even the majority of cases. Exceptions to generalizations do not disprove generalizations. The only thing that will disprove a generalization is its being downright false.... and I speaketh the truth.

Whenever a female is in charge of a realm, the realm goes toxic.

Females are in control of the electorate in the United States. Think about it!

P.M.

reply to post by FancyName


Then I suppose "your sister" is also an exception to being a human being despite lacking one arm while others would not qualify. That is, essentially, what you are saying when you make this kind of argument that an exception to a generalization is only an exception in that one case and true in other instances. Actually, the number of legs and arms that a human being has already has been philosophically decided as irrelevant. It is not part of the definition of what it means to be human. That's the rub.

If you don't want to follow what is accepted logical thinking, then that's your business. Overall, the onus on the proof of whether a valid generalization exists is upon the declarant along with also proving that such behaviors do not exist in the opposite gender. The act of knocking competitors down off the corporate ladder is not specific to any one gender but can be a behavior found in both. Again, faulty generalization inclusive of cherry picking coupled with confirmation bias.

Here's another term for you which is very appropriate: slothful induction.

Dear White Alice:

You make a very good case why females should be totally repressed and not be allowed any say in anything.

You, like your sisters, are very sophistic.

Sophistry poses a never ending burden on the correct side of a debate.

P.M.

theworldisnotenough
Dear White Alice:

You make a very good case why females should be totally repressed and not be allowed any say in anything.

You, like your sisters, are very sophistic.

Sophistry poses a never ending burden on the correct side of a debate.

P.M.

edit on 8-4-2014 by theworldisnotenough because: Corrected typo

]


Why Because she has an opinion and isn't afraid to put it forward? I have opinions as well, I put them out every day, should I be repressed or be called sophistic for it? I don't think so..

The fact that you cannot handle an opinion coming from a woman, makes me form yet another opinion of you as a person.. 1) you are a troll that is just trying to offend to get a reaction, or 2) I cannot say in polite company.

We women are just as entitled to an opinion as any men are.. we are all humans..

jacygirl
reply to post by DrumsRfun

 

Huh? Really? Or are you being sarcastic?
I wear yoga pants on laundry day.
Are you blaming women for dressing sexy? Why do women get hit on when they're not dressed sexy? I got hit on when I was pregnant, for Pete's sake!!
When I was younger I wore high heels because I liked them. Now I have a bad back and am forever stuck in flats. Has nothing to do with men, no thoughts about men whatsoever. I just like heels.

I had a strange man come up to me downtown when I was getting in my family minivan, who told me I was the most beautiful woman he had ever seen....and that I would be a lovely afternoon distraction. I told him I was no one's distraction! I was just minding my own business....not strutting down main street in hot pants and stiletto's.
Sheesh.

jacy

i'm going to guess..... the man was not attractive or financially secure.
if he had been either of those, the story would have ended more like:

he was a nice man and i was flattered by his kind words.