It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Barack Obama says women should not be shamed for having sex while men get a pat on the back

page: 4
31
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I like how with these issues between the sexes, everyone just assumes it's a social issue and has no root in biology and evolution. But apparently, the whole transgender thing is entirely rooted in biology. Odd, that.

The reason promiscuous women are shamed and trashed is because promiscuously lowers their value as a mate. Think about it--- the imperative for men is to "spread their seed", try to spawn the most offspring so that his genetic line isn't extinguished. A woman who is promiscuous and sleeps around is a liability for a man in a monogamous relationship; she might be cheating, and there's that possibility that the offspring aren't his own. Therefore, there's the risk that his genetic line might fail. Of course we have tests now that can determine the father of kids, but that's a new thing. This is all rooted in biology and instinct.

I think that women should start being more rational about this stuff and less reactionary and emotional. There is a rational, evolutionary reason why you are shamed for being a whore.
edit on 18-6-2016 by Talorc because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Didn't Obama just have a closed door meeting with some Saudi?

Yeah, I hear they treat their women will all sorts of equality.

What did he say about their treatment?



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc
I like how with these issues between the sexes, everyone just assumes it's a social issue and has no root in biology and evolution. But apparently, the whole transgender thing is entirely rooted in biology. Odd, that.

The reason promiscuous women are shamed and trashed is because promiscuously lowers their value as a mate. Think about it--- the imperative for men is to "spread their seed", try to spawn the most offspring so that his genetic line isn't extinguished. A woman who is promiscuous and sleeps around is a liability for a man in a monogamous relationship; she might be cheating, and there's that possibility that his offspring aren't his own. Therefore, there's the risk that his genetic line might fail. Of course we have tests now that can determine the father of kids, but that's a new thing. This is all rooted in biology and instinct.

I think that women should start being more rational about this stuff and less reactionary and emotional. There is a rational, evolutionary reason why you are shamed for being a whore.


That sounds more like Game of Thrones than anything in modern day life. Has nothing to do with evolution and is a useless idea now.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Didn't Obama just have a closed door meeting with some Saudi?

Yeah, I hear they treat their women will all sorts of equality.

What did he say about their treatment?


You just said the door was closed. How would anyone know?



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy
He said hey listen here, if your married and having a problem with sex I have this special blue pill I pop nightly.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quantum12
a reply to: DBCowboy
He said hey listen here, if your married and having a problem with sex I have this special blue pill I pop nightly.

*picturing Quantum at that door with a glass and his ear to it"



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Lol you got it!❤️



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   
With his wonderful brethren The IDF setting Alsations on scared frail old women and his brethren Saudi flogging adulteress' he is some sort of feminist I've never heard of before...

Because he gave Israel $30 billion to massacre Gazan mothers and funded Saudi Arms for their slaughter in Yemen too.


Didn't he drone a pregnant woman and a bride as well...


Feminist my #ing arse!!!



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   
When's Obama going to tell the black community blacks shouldn't be shamed for "acting white" and "talking white" and getting an education, instead of promoting thug life, gang life, shooting one another, selling drugs, etc?



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

I think you're misrepresenting the survey.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Talorc
I like how with these issues between the sexes, everyone just assumes it's a social issue and has no root in biology and evolution. But apparently, the whole transgender thing is entirely rooted in biology. Odd, that.

The reason promiscuous women are shamed and trashed is because promiscuously lowers their value as a mate. Think about it--- the imperative for men is to "spread their seed", try to spawn the most offspring so that his genetic line isn't extinguished. A woman who is promiscuous and sleeps around is a liability for a man in a monogamous relationship; she might be cheating, and there's that possibility that his offspring aren't his own. Therefore, there's the risk that his genetic line might fail. Of course we have tests now that can determine the father of kids, but that's a new thing. This is all rooted in biology and instinct.

I think that women should start being more rational about this stuff and less reactionary and emotional. There is a rational, evolutionary reason why you are shamed for being a whore.


That sounds more like Game of Thrones than anything in modern day life. Has nothing to do with evolution and is a useless idea now.


Yeah, it does have to do with evolution. What's one of the primary imperatives in evolution? Sexual selection, i.e. the unconscious drive to look for certain characteristics in a mate. Promiscuity is not a desirable characteristic, from an evolutionary standpoint. Women shouldn't whine at men, they should whine at nature and natural laws. See what good that does them.

Maybe it doesn't have any place in the modern world, but who's really to say? Are you really going to ask people to fight their own nature?

Why should humanity change to fit the modern world? Maybe, and this is such a radical thought--- maybe we should change the modern world to better accomodate humanity? It's like giving young kids amphetamines because they can't sit still in class. Did these enlightened modern people ever stop to think that maybe instead of trying to change the nature of young kids, we should change the educational system to better accomodate their perfectly normal, natural behavior?

I swear, the "modern world" is going to be the death of us. It's all about trashing humanity and poisoning our bodies and minds to fit some abstract ideal of "progress."
edit on 18-6-2016 by Talorc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Ha! That I can agree with however... this whine fest as all about 2 words none of these people (YUP I did!) can handle... Obama and Feminism. T-T-Triggered!



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Ha! That I can agree with however... this whine fest as all about 2 words none of these people (YUP I did!) can handle... Obama and Feminism. T-T-Triggered!


Lulz.

Yeah, it's a quality read to be honest.
I'm sure if Trump said this they'd all be ejaculating over who could congratulate and agree with him first.


"I'm a feminist. OK. And we have some great feminists. I have feminist friends all over America and they're great people. OK."



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Didn't Obama just have a closed door meeting with some Saudi?

Yeah, I hear they treat their women will all sorts of equality.

What did he say about their treatment?


You just said the door was closed. How would anyone know?


Obama is a feminist. Why isn't he speaking out against it?



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




Obama is a feminist.

Nah.
Equalist.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy




Obama is a feminist.

Nah.
Equalist.


He referred to himself as a feminist.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

It's called emotional suppression, people learn to control their emotions in public situations. Combined with a person can rationally fight their emotions over behavior.
Over time it can lead to dysfunctional behaviors. Such as a person may learn to push away from someone who they had casual sex to pre empt emotional rejection. In a future situation this dysfunctional behavior may pre emptively sabatoge a relationship.

I am 26, things in the dating world are messed up, everyone waste a lot of time trying to figure out each others intentions.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy




Obama is a feminist.

Nah.
Equalist.



He referred to himself as a feminist.

Which would fall under the general heading.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Still doesn't explain why, as a feminist, he didn't speak out about the mistreatment of women in the Middle East.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

I think you're misrepresenting the survey.


From the second article, penned by the creator of the survey:
(Apologies for the giant quotation, but is a long article)
pwq.sagepub.com...



Like the developers of the Modern Sexism and Neosexism scales, we took inspiration from contemporary racism research. In particular, racism theorists (e.g., Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; McConahay, 1986) had focused on two key changes in racist attitudes in response to changing social norms. Specifically, racism had become (a) more subtle and (b) ambivalent. The first point certainly seemed to hold true for sexism. In U.S. samples, the instrument most frequently used to assess sexist attitudes, Janet Spence and Robert Helmreich’s (1972) Attitudes Toward Women scale (AWS), had shown a steady decline in endorsement to the point that the variance on some items reflected differences in just how strongly people disagreed with them.

. . . .

Although we had set out to construct a more subtle and contemporary scale, it was ambivalence, the other issue racism researchers had focused on, that became our persistent intellectual irritation, eventually producing a crucial pearl of wisdom. Theories about racist ambivalence were rooted in the “American dilemma,” which applied specifically to Whites' treatment of Blacks. For example, aversive racism theory (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986) proposed that well-meaning Whites now regularly tried to suppress and deny overlearned, negative stereotypes of Blacks. The Civil Rights movement had successfully created dissonance between American ideals and the undeniable history of brutal racism, slavery, and segregation in the United States. Sympathy for Blacks (motivated by egalitarian ideals and “white guilt”) created the “positive” pole of ambivalence toward Blacks. In short, racism theorists viewed racial ambivalence as a contemporary phenomenon, a post-Civil-Rights-Era syndrome, in contrast to “old-fashioned racism,” which had been open, explicit, and unconflicted.

A similar analysis might seem to apply to sexism. Not only had gender role norms and attitudes clearly been changing, but by the late 1980s and early 1990s, Alice Eagly and Antonio Mladinic (Eagly & Mladinic, 1989, 1994) had demonstrated that American students (male as well as female) had more favorable stereotypes of women than men. Nobody was arguing that sexism (then defined primarily as hostility toward women) had disappeared, but the “women are wonderful effect” seemed to confirm that attitudes toward women had, like attitudes toward Blacks, transformed from hostile to ambivalent.

But was ambivalence toward women a recent phenomenon? Eagly and Steffen (1984) had already pointed out that positive attitudes toward women were rooted in women’s role as nurturers. As these researchers noted, people think women are wonderful because of (not in spite of) traditional stereotypes about them.

. . . .

Our epiphany was that the subjectively positive side of sexist ambivalence had also been there all along—it was not a response to more egalitarian norms. Subjective benevolence toward women represented an old, not a new prejudice, and it probably had not changed much. Indeed, we informally noted that the benevolent items “sounded Victorian,” an observation that Stephanie Shields's (2007) historical analysis of complementarity in Victorian gender attitudes appears to confirm. These subjectively favorable attitudes did not require subtle assessment—unlike sexist hostility, such “positive” attitudes toward women elicited less social pressure toward suppression or change; instead of seeming prejudicial, many people still viewed these attitudes as “nice” and “romantic.”

. . . .

Thus, benevolently sexist attitudes had not prevented men from behaving horribly toward women, including violent assault and murder. The protection and affection BS promises (and sometimes delivers) is readily withdrawn when women fail to conform to sexist expectations. But unlike most intergroup relations, in which “we” not only can but often prefer to live without “them,” heterosexual men truly could not imagine completely living without women. It is hardly a consolation to female victims of male brutality that men’s aim is not to eliminate all women. But it is nevertheless important to understand that men’s hostility represents an attempt to control (rather than avoid completely or eliminate) women—intimidating them to keep them “in their place” and safely serving men’s needs without challenging men’s status, authority, and power (see Jackman, 1999, 2001). This helps to explain why women are often more at risk of violence from the men they love (i.e., with whom they are intimately interdependent) than from strangers.

The truth about sexism seems stranger than fiction, or at least stranger than any prior theory had suggested. BS does not represent sympathy for the underdog stemming from a contemporary sense of fair play. Rather it is a fundamentally antiegalitarian, gender-traditional attitude. Yet it is not only positively valenced, but intensely so, representing a genuine affection deeply rooted in a highly romanticized and intimate interdependence between the sexes. The label benevolent sexism represented our attempt to encapsulate the odd and jarring conjunction of what at first seemed inherently incompatible: subjective affection as a form of prejudice. This analysis, however, made perfect sense when considering BS as a paternalistic prejudice (see Jackman, 1994, for an incisive and comprehensive analysis of paternalism).


They are essentially claiming that the interdependence gives rise to one form of sexism or the other. The study has no neutral baseline and merely measures to what extent the taker expresses hostility or benevolence.

This survey stems from the same theory which has given rise to the 'everything is sexist, everything is racist' approach often seen on certain blogs which get made fun of by other blogs.

Essentially because society is is not homogeneous all members express prejudice to a certain extent, in this case meaning that all members are sexist.

-FBB




top topics



 
31
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join