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.

 

Women on the view imply we are bigots if we discuss certain facts on marriage

page: 2
40
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Oh yeah! The solution is, women need to start asking their employers to pay them less, and men more, so the poor, lonely incels won't do drugs and alcohol to drown their "I can't get laid" sorrows! LOL



The solution is for women not to have material gains high on the list of reasons to marry a man. Men who are financially stable are very desirable to women...even short fat ugly men...lol



Given the opportunity to support themselves, through educational opportunities and equal pay for equal work, women won't have to settle for a "less desireable" man to marry based on her own desperation and need to be taken care of. Women, and men, can choose their mates based on compatibility, rather than the ability to support the wife (ball and chain) and the kids.




posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

they're insecure because they have traditionally worked in manufacturing and have watched their jobs get shipped overseas. I don't think Tucker mentioned that little fact he just went off on the fact that women are earning more and blaming marriage going down the tubes because well, women are off working and not as into marriage. when the fact is that women need to be working because men's jobs have been hit real bad, this isn't women's fault but tucker sure does seem to want men to think it is!!!



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler



Oh yeah! The solution is, women need to start asking their employers to pay them less, and men more, so the poor, lonely incels won't do drugs and alcohol to drown their "I can't get laid" sorrows! LOL




So not only have you missed the point the OP was directed at, but you managed to inadvertently, exemplify the very thing it was meant to criticize: that even bringing up the data for discussion is reason enough to be insulted and the issue swept under the rug. Well done.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

It almost appears to me that talking about the true goals between males and females is strictly forbidden, especially if those goals show the other sex in poor light.

Some of the comments in this thread kind of made me sad. If the roles were reversed, I wonder if the comments would have been completely ignored as well.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Oh so you are a hypocrite


Wow! You really are trying to emulate Tucker Carlson! No, you're the hypocrite, siding with a rich white man using his platform to blame successful women for the sadness of unsuccessful men who can't get laid.



he did not say women should not make more money to stop this, he only pointed out that collapse of marriage has many bad consequences.


He's manufacturing a fake problem, the collapse of marriage, and blaming this manufactured problem on successful women in the work place.

Perhaps, traditional 1950s style marriage is in decline, but in the institution of marriage is not at risk. It's evolving, like all other human institutions do.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: timequake


What data? You're making a mistake in assuming that any statistics that Tucker Carlson eluded to are factual and non-bias. They aren't.

The institution of marriage is not in harms way. Incels not getting laid isn't the problem of successful women In the work place. No one is obligated to sleep with a lonely incel.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:31 AM
link   
ahhh, now this is a good thread. You can feel the tension already.

So the idea is that women are possibly inclined to seek resource stability and the ability to provide when looking for a mate. Is that a sexists idea? Is it biology? If it were completely choice instead of biology, would it make it worse?

Just like men valuing a female based on looks to determine fertility. Is that biology or just random choice? Is is wrong for a male to seek out fertility for procreation?



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Oh yeah! The solution is, women need to start asking their employers to pay them less, and men more, so the poor, lonely incels won't do drugs and alcohol to drown their "I can't get laid" sorrows! LOL



The solution is for women not to have material gains high on the list of reasons to marry a man. Men who are financially stable are very desirable to women...even short fat ugly men...lol



That would seem to be the solution, but the problem would be that pesky biology thing that the left is all in favor of until it goes against the Utopia they see in their empty heads.

Pregnancy has created a situation where the female wants a provider to help her while she is pregnant and less able to provide for herself and then through early childrearing where she has a young dependent.

That's the ugly little truth behind a woman's drive to find a man who can solidly provide and why she wants someone she can sort of look up to, not because she wants to be dominated but because she wants that security while she's bearing and rearing. The more capable she is, the more capable her internal instincts will insist he be. Instinct is a b**** to override.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I love this topic because it can get so heated.
I'm probably going to sit back and read more than add, Grambler.


Anything the cast of "The View" speaks about or has arguments over is blatantly hypocritical in my opinion, especially coming from the richest of women on TV these days. Entitlement is strong on that show. Of course, I've only viewed snippets from Youtube because I cut the cord a long time ago....

I don't care what gender, sex, race, color, or creed you are. If you work hard, becomed skilled or have an education, put work first and prioritize work ethics you will succeed. If women desire men that make more, so what? If men desire women who make less, so what?

Who actually cares to argue this? Oh yeah.
The entitled and priviledged women on The View.

I do agree with a few posts here.
Social media, consumerism, and narcissism are all killing relationships. No doubt about that.

Just look around. People value things more today than ever before. Even when they are made cheaper and from slave wages. Constant comparisons to the popularity contests online, depressingly fake profiles and pictures to glamorize posed behaviors, and people fall for it all with their intentions to "keep up with the Jones".

Its all sickening.
Even the media plants these seeds.






posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky



So the idea is that women are possibly inclined to seek resource stability and the ability to provide when looking for a mate. Is that a sexists idea? Is it biology? If it were completely choice instead of biology, would it make it worse?


It's a changing society. For thousands of years women were bought and sold in marriages, arranged by their families for financial and political reasons. That's rapidly and dramatically changed since the end of WWII.



Just like men valuing a female based on looks to determine fertility. Is that biology or just random choice? Is is wrong for a male to seek out fertility for procreation?


Taking the political and financial business arrangement out of the marriage contract, and marrying based on the participants' compatibility and physical attraction toward each other, is better for the species and the individual, don't you think?



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake



I wonder if the real problem is men feeling insecure about women making as much or more than them.


What a presumptuous load of crap.

I applaud the efforts that many sporting affiliations and their efforts to raise the contracts of female participants, Look at my nation, ten years ago they never got a televised cricket game, now some of these players are household names, and surprise surprise-got a pay rise.

The same can be said for other codes. Female footballers, rugby players, etc-the lasses deserved a pay rise.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


Taking the political and financial business arrangement out of the marriage contract, and marrying based on the participants' compatibility and physical attraction toward each other, is better for the species and the individual, don't you think?


What do you think Mother Nature (biology) is? It's a male and female pairing up based on compatibility and physical attraction.

And part of biology is that the female wants/needs some security during bearing and rearing so she seeks that compatible and reliable male who can provide it. The signals for that in our modern world are wealth and resources as much as love. Having to give up wealth (her own if she's better off) is a reduction in security in order to bear and rear.

To come up with an analog in the mammalian world, this is why in a wolf pack only the alpha female breeds and then she only breeds with the alpha male and the rest of the pack work to support them and their pups.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly. Maybe the female also seeks out height and looks in addition to wealth stability not for herself, but for the offspring. I personally have no problems with a female mate making more than I do. In fact, I would offer to stay home and raise the offspring, have dinner prepared and the house spotless if she had to go off to the grind while I got to make a nest. The only problem with that is you don't find very many females who are down with that living arrangement.

Is is wrong, selfish and amoral, or is it simple biology?

I wonder if all of the problems between the sexes that is coming more and more into the light are because we refuse to be honest with ourselves.

It is no cake walk for a male either. With this overwhelming drive to seek looks, it is easy to fall into the pitfall of a very poor matchup personality/emotional/intellect wise. But is that just the male being a misogynistic creature, seeking to dominate the other sex and inflate our meager ego, or is it maybe because we are operating under a machine like nature due to inborn wants.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:46 AM
link   
On a tangential point: I think many democrats are women who bought in to feminism, pursued a career and now find themselves miserable and alone. Lacking children or relationships they feel cheated (rightfully so IMO) and rather than admit they were sold a bill of goods and wasted their prime years they double down and angrily deny it was a mistake.

I'm not saying women shouldn't have careers.
I am saying their satisfaction with that alone never lived up to expectations.
edit on 6-1-2019 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
You realy are looking to be offended these days by TV (turn it of), try reading some threads on here for more misogyny than you can shake a stick
at
[snipped]



I just checked all the threads on the LIVE page. Didnt find any misogyny.

I think what you meant to say was, if you look far enough into the past and look hard enough, you might find some misogyny in other threads here at ATS.
edit on Sun Jan 6 2019 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: havok




Who actually cares to argue this? Oh yeah.
The entitled and priviledged women on The View.


Tucker Carlson cares and did a whole show segment blaming successful women for the "collapse of marriage". The women of the View do a talk show and discuss "Hot Topics", and chose as one of their "Hot Topics" Tucker Carlson's hot topic to discuss.



Anything the cast of "The View" speaks about or has arguments over is blatantly hypocritical in my opinion, especially coming from the richest of women on TV these days.


Are they richer than Tucker Carlson? Maybe Whoopie is. But Joy Behar, Sunny Hostin, Meghan McCain and Abby Huntsman are all successful, happily married women. I don't see why their opinions on the subject are less valid than Tucker Carlson's, who introduce the subject on hiis show.






edit on 6-1-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

whether it is better for the human race and will assist to become more evolved, I have no idea. Very possible and noble at least. I am not sure what reality has to say on it though. I have studied this subject more than most other things and I am still trying to form just a foundation on which to build from.

Even though our society has drastically changed over the last 100-200 years, how long will it take for our biology to change? Will it ever?



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky

It takes a well-adjusted and strong couple to work that arrangement.

My husband and I have talked about it. If I fell into a situation where I were suddenly offered more in a substantial way, I think we could do it. I know he'd be a great father at home. But, I also know from our last 20+ years together that he's a very successful man in his own right and more than capable of bringing home the bacon on his own. He's definitely been wearing the pants over here.

Now, if we had to start out that way? I don't know ... I do know that physically, I was more capable, but he showed he could keep up with me in that area, and mentally, we're well matched and he's smarter but not by too much.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


Nope. That's the kind of thinking Tucker Carlson would project on his guest.


You mean intelligent and mindful arguments vs. blind talking points barely understood by the purveyor?


I don't believe that the financial success of women, through equal opportunity and equal pay,


Equal opportunity laws = forced hire laws. All hiring should be race/sex blind, based solely and exclusively on merit. Equally qualified individuals performing the same job should receive equal pay, yes. Salary is commensurate to experience and actual work performed.

I assume you have actual data or at least some credible source to show where women are paid less for performing the same job at the same qualification level
Otherwise, I generally agree with what you say here other than the attack against Tucker. Tucker makes some excellent points, including the extremely negative effects the far left's war on marriage/morality have had on society over the last 15 years. This includes the drug epidemic, fewer people getting married/having healthy and normal families/etc.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: timequake


What data? You're making a mistake in assuming that any statistics that Tucker Carlson eluded to are factual and non-bias. They aren't.

The institution of marriage is not in harms way. Incels not getting laid isn't the problem of successful women In the work place. No one is obligated to sleep with a lonely incel.


So data doesn't exist because you don't like where it came from and what it suggest. Got it. Just like data showing fewer men wanting to get married and the fact that most marriages end up in a divorce can't exist either because you don't approve. Also, what is the deal with you and these "incels" you keep referring to? Why do you keep talking about them trying to get laid? You do realize that isn't what this is about right? Here is a hint: is about marriage, not just getting laid.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join