Fox News: "Liberals who reject that men should dominate women are anti-science."

Originally posted by amazing
Pathetic. Even worse...after reading some of the posts on this thread. It would appear that some of you would have been against women being granted the right to vote because it would be psychologically damaging to men. Lol. This...this is why Obama won the last election.

i dislike obama, but this has absolutely NOTHING to do with obama. mentioning it like you have makes everyone who dislikes obama's policies look like they can think of nothing else to do but hate on obama.

reply to post by muse7


You do realize your post pionts out how the eagle and lion make the females do all the work.

Originally posted by muse7

The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complementary role.”

Im not sure if this has been said. But his last sentence, not females, is HIS antithesis. If the man is dominant, and complentary means

Completing; forming a complement. (of two or more different things)
Combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasize each other's qualities.

by definition of Complementary, he isnt dominant, he is made to look/ complemented to look dominant. Therefore the man isn't dominant, but equal in a differing way.

Opinion: Money makes a man, and thats a crime.
Fact: Some people make more than you, and less than you, but character is judged by the numbers with your name.

By definition of Dominant

Adjective Most important, powerful, or influential: "they are now in an even more dominant position in the market".
Noun A dominant thing, in particular.
Synonyms predominant - ruling - prevailing - commanding

Since he is using it as an adjective, apparently, men are more powerful and important, but women complement them to look so. Even if a woman makes more and works harder, by being complementary to men, they complement the man by having a strong woman, and he becomes dominant over the non-strong women holding dominant males.

Clearly, perspective dominates who is dominant and who is not, and even the place of work defines dominance by a different set of goals. I.e. who can take the most # from rude people, who can handle themselves, who can work harder and independtly. But even at that, the work place breeds independence, only to be downplayed the media, much less someone who thinks science is opinions and grammar and denotations are irrelevent.

Needless to say, I disagree with this man statement, regardless of his philosophy and insight to who rules who.

Originally posted by muse7
Fox News outdoes itself.

I know that some people out there still think that women should only stay in the kitchen, cook and clean around the house. I just didn't know Fox News was hiring them as contributors.

Apparently this guy thinks he knows science, but I think he forgot about Bald Eagles where the female is the one that builds and keeps the nest and lays her eggs, goes out and brings food back to her offspring. Or even female Lions thay go out and hunt in packs and bring back food so their kittens can eat.

Societies that choose conservative politics will by definition not move forward.

We are humans not eagles or lions. I think most people would be willing to build a house anytime are you? Unfortunately regulations prevent that. Are you willing to build your own house? Do you garden, have you grown your own food before?

reply to post by muse7
They want to bring in nature ...maybe they should think about the Black Widow. They call her a widow for a reason.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by muse7

 

Societies that choose conservative politics will by definition not move forward.

Well, I guess the U.S. is doomed then. Going by the last 4 Presidential Elections? We seem to have a pretty evenly divided nation by ideology. If Conservative thinking is doom to liberals ..and I know Conservatives have little respect back the other direction? Just where does that leave a nation near 50/50 split down the middle? In deep, I suppose.

By the way.... Fox news has about 25% news reporting and about 75% news commentary and editorial comment shows. They make that distinction themselves. I wish they wouldn't mix and I'd have killed for HARD news in the evenings from CNN or Fox many times, prior to ditching Cable TV news entirely last year.

However... Judging half a nation's population by the comments of a few that self describe as among the more extreme right? Hardly seems like a fair or honest presentation. Just my thoughts... (Kinda like using the bigger idiots of the left to say...ALL people on the left are just big idiots. It just isn't honest, IMO)

Two posts in one, 1st just to comment on how refreshing a post like Wrabbit's here is to see anywhere on the internets from time to time. The other, my comment on the OP topic at hand. Just want to point that out as the 2nd section isn't in reply to the quoted post. I'm just in brutally slow at&t cell network land, so I have to use screen refreshes efficiently haha. Here goes:


Yum! Is that some truth and reason with my morning coffee?! Great points - though unfortunate it even needs to be said, and worse that only those whose heads aren't twisted up with the "left/right" absolute dogmas they're trained to think in will "get it", but glad you wrote the post - reinforces what needs to be repeated often, and, well, like I said, it just goes down well with the morning cuppa Joe after all the political nonsense from folks who haven't the foggiest I subject myself to regularly LOL.

As for my own thoughts on the issue fromthe OP, the fact alone that the Fox commentary automatically equates a woman's higher income as "dominance" concerns me. How does that convey "dominance?" I know guys making $250k+/year who would likely break down in tears if a woman (or man) half their size asked them a question too abruptly. I guess whqt whoever it was who said that figures is that males should be better than females at everything. Either that, or annual income is of such great importance to him that it trumps everything else. Come to think of it, I think that just answered what drives him to do what he does. He feels like an extremmely inferior man in all of the ways he grew up thinking were important, and thus took the one thing he felt he could control, monetary earnings, and pushed hard, and did whatever it took to earn a very high income, thus making him feel justified and fulfilled looking at all of the inferior women around him, and knowing that he, with his high income, is "The Man", and worthy of respect, while they are little more than meat puppets, far below his greatness. Kind of seems like the mindset of a sociopath and/or one with a high potential for rape.

Men should be more dominate with income and power or society will get worse.Women deserve just as much credit if different ways.

I love seeing the cognitive dissonance in people whether on the right or left. In this instance, the conservatives usually tout "We are not animals" and yet when it supports the Pauline doctrines of the bible it's perfectly ok to use the animal kingdom to "prove" their point. The root of the problem is ego.

It seems to me the issue is the man's pride is in the way when his wife makes more money. The woman's ego is in the way when she believes the "he" who makes the most leads. I believe there is a natural tendency for men to lead and women to follow, but obviously not always. I certainly do not fit that category.

We were warned in Sociology about marrying "down" as women. Statistically, women with higher educations who marry a man without one do not have successful marriages while men can have a college degree and their wife not and do much better. Why is this? It's ego.

Men in general don't like to be viewed as lesser than their wives, and women do not like men who are lesser in the long run. It might be sexist and stupid, but that is the way people tend to be, and that my friends is just the way it is.

I know for myself, I prefer alpha males and can't stand weak "limp wristed" (not referring to gay) but the kind who couldn't give a firm handshake or carry a bag of groceries over 10 pounds. It's an odd thing really. It also is pushed in our society that he who earns the most gets to lead. We respect rich people in general and listen to them no matter how stupid they are while a bum on the street who could have and IQ of 200 and the best ideas is not given the time of day.

Good thread for poking fun at conservatives. I'm sure we can find equally stupid things some liberals say.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

I know for myself, I prefer alpha males and can't stand weak "limp wristed" (not referring to gay) but the kind who couldn't give a firm handshake or carry a bag of groceries over 10 pounds.

you may be interested to know that statistically women are attracted to more muscular men the closer they are to their period, but once it's over they become more attracted to intellectuals.

Chauvinism is the belief that one gender is superior than another.

Sexism is the belief that genders are different and recognize the differences.

(These are my own definitions, you fine folks will probably Wiki me to death on the correct terms)

Our household is traditional in the sense that I work and my wife stays home. She is an RN but we both thought that if we worked our budget so that we could live/save off of one income, so much the better. She can always find work if she chooses, but at this point, we have no need.

Progressives would have both of us work, both paying taxes, both relying on government services to care for our child.

We (each and everyone of us) assume a certain responsibility as we grow older. Males have traditionally always worked. Women have traditionally always stayed at home.

It hasn't been until recently that the traditional roles have been challenged.

Have they been challenged because of the enlightened way we look at gender roles and responsibilities?

Or have they been challenged due to financial concerns where one income was not enough to maintain a certain quality of life.

Are we more enlightened or are we spoiled?

reply to post by beezzer

Progressives would have both of us work, both paying taxes, both relying on government services to care for our child.

We (each and everyone of us) assume a certain responsibility as we grow older. Males have traditionally always worked. Women have traditionally always stayed at home.

It hasn't been until recently that the traditional roles have been challenged.

You're really on a Progressive hate trip lately :/

There's good and bad in ALL ideologies, though I'm personally not a progressive... I understand them, and have far less oppositional views with them than I do Conservatives and right-wing Libertarians and thus your post compelled me to respond to it.

Progressives would have that both of you could work if you so chose, and that if your wife chose to work... she would be paid equally for her job as a man would.

Both relying on government services to care for your child? You do know that there is a multitude of private child care, right? You should also know that subsidized child care comes with requirements, in order to qualify your income must be at or below the poverty line and the parents/parent must be working or enrolled in credited courses, the hope being that poverty won't always be an issue for said parents. Personally I think there is a much better way to go about things than government subsidies but that's what puts me further left than Progressive.

Traditional isn't always correct nor is it always incorrect, that's where liberty factors into the equation, why do we think in terms of roles if we're supposed to be a society that worships liberty? If I as a woman want to work, my gender and whether or not I'm a mother or a wife, should not factor into it nor into my pay/other compensation... it is my life, no one lives it but me... and it is my job/career and I should be paid and promoted based on how well I perform it.

Originally posted by beezzer
Progressives would have both of us work, both paying taxes, both relying on government services to care for our child.

No, I'm pretty sure "progressives" would want you to do whatever suits your needs and wants. I think it's great that you've found a way to make things work on a single income. Some people can't do that. There's no rules here - whatever works best for you.

We (each and everyone of us) assume a certain responsibility as we grow older. Males have traditionally always worked. Women have traditionally always stayed at home.

It hasn't been until recently that the traditional roles have been challenged.

Have they been challenged because of the enlightened way we look at gender roles and responsibilities?

Or have they been challenged due to financial concerns where one income was not enough to maintain a certain quality of life.

Are we more enlightened or are we spoiled?

They've been challenged because a large number of women have chosen to challenge them. I think it's more about the individual than the gender. It just so happens that there are a large number of individual females in today's society that want more and are striving to make change to see it happen.

Well it seems Fox News is going the way of MTV. Once upon a time, MTV had music videos. Once upon a time, Fox News had news.

This is pseudo scientific heckling, not news. For the record, there are college degrees for political science, so it must be a science, even if it is a soft science.

From an outsider's perspective, I just don't buy into these stereotypes. I'm trying to put this into a flowchart.

Is it a liberal? (Y)/N
Does it believe that men should dominate women? Y/(N)
Therefore, anti-science.

So now in this pseudo-logic it's y plus n equals anti science.

If Fox News stands as a science center, maybe anti-science isn't a bad thing.

reply to post by redtic


reply to post by Kali74


When I coin the term, "progressive" I'm not targeting republican or democrat, liberal or conservative.

I see progressives as a distinct element that has invaded all political ideologies. There are progressive republicans, progressive democrats.

Progressives, as I see them, are a group of individuals looking to encourage and enforce a reliance on government. Progressives use social engineering to as a way to influence reliance on government.

Women and men have been working and living side-by-side for ever. Checks and balances have been hammered out millennia ago. As we have become more "developed" those traditional roles have solidified and as such, can be manipulated.

We live such a tiny time on this big ball that we seldom see ourselves as anything but masters of our own destinies. As long as men and women can find harmony and live a happy enjoyable life, does it really matter (in the great scope of things) what our roles are?

Originally posted by beezzer

[...]

It hasn't been until recently that the traditional roles have been challenged.

[...]

Actually during the industrialization lots of men didn't get a job, so the women and kids had to work. This was, because traditionally men were viewed as the breadwinners and as such needed a higher income, which of course the employers didn't want to pay.
Sure, this doesn't mean the traditional roles have been actually challenged, but they changed nonetheless, from the man to be the one putting the food on the table, to the women and kids having to do it to survive.

reply to post by beezzer

When I coin the term, "progressive" I'm not targeting republican or democrat, liberal or conservative. I see progressives as a distinct element that has invaded all political ideologies. There are progressive republicans, progressive democrats.

Progressives, as I see them, are a group of individuals looking to encourage and enforce a reliance on government. Progressives use social engineering to as a way to influence reliance on government.

Then you are reinventing the definition of the word as it applies to an ideology or political party. Progressivism is a belief in a strong social safety net, they believe that government can do better by it's citizenry. Which in all honesty, if we're going to have a Capitalist economy then we have to have a social safety net. I don't believe in either personally, I just think your demonization (encouraging and enforcing reliance on government) is extreme and serves to divide.

I think the ideology is naive, if well intentioned... but I also think the same of Conservatism, it's naive in it's belief that we can have Capitalism without poverty.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by redtic

 

reply to post by Kali74

 

When I coin the term, "progressive" I'm not targeting republican or democrat, liberal or conservative.

I see progressives as a distinct element that has invaded all political ideologies. There are progressive republicans, progressive democrats.

Progressives, as I see them, are a group of individuals looking to encourage and enforce a reliance on government. Progressives use social engineering to as a way to influence reliance on government.

Women and men have been working and living side-by-side for ever. Checks and balances have been hammered out millennia ago. As we have become more "developed" those traditional roles have solidified and as such, can be manipulated.

We live such a tiny time on this big ball that we seldom see ourselves as anything but masters of our own destinies. As long as men and women can find harmony and live a happy enjoyable life, does it really matter (in the great scope of things) what our roles are?

Progressives have used social engineering to eliminate Jim Crow, give women the right to vote, make a society where it is not longing taboo to see mixed race. It was the social conservatism that opposed the transformation of racial and social roles, so I am glad I am a progressive, proud of it.

reply to post by Kali74


I think its naive to think any "ism" will free the American public from slavery.

As for the whole "anti-science thing" ?

You can catch that act on a Jerry Springer episode.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by beezzer

 

When I coin the term, "progressive" I'm not targeting republican or democrat, liberal or conservative. I see progressives as a distinct element that has invaded all political ideologies. There are progressive republicans, progressive democrats.

Progressives, as I see them, are a group of individuals looking to encourage and enforce a reliance on government. Progressives use social engineering to as a way to influence reliance on government.

Then you are reinventing the definition of the word as it applies to an ideology or political party. Progressivism is a belief in a strong social safety net, they believe that government can do better by it's citizenry. Which in all honesty, if we're going to have a Capitalist economy then we have to have a social safety net. I don't believe in either personally, I just think your demonization (encouraging and enforcing reliance on government) is extreme and serves to divide.

I think the ideology is naive, if well intentioned... but I also think the same of Conservatism, it's naive in it's belief that we can have Capitalism without poverty.

I agree, the government can be used in a million different ways, I expect it to be used in a way that helps people.
I don't understand why people complain about government, and then elect geniuses who intend to make government even crappier??? That is the conservative credo, "I hate government, LET'S MAKE IT EVEN WORSE!!!"

reply to post by sonnny1

I think its naive to think any "ism" will free the American public from slavery.

Maybe so Sonny. Probably so.

Je-rry! Je-rry!