True 'nuff. But that can change. It has on the racial front even though not all whites (or blacks) will ever get up their racism. We've got enough of them having done so (or learning to get along with others) that there's hope for men and women too.
Masculine has been the 'natural' standard for a long while; it will take a long while to change. I hope to show some men that they might be happier without all the patriarchal bullshit holding them back too. Other men have written extensively about this.
I skimmed this article enough to know that Government programs, policiers, and even Constitutional amendments have put more favor of women than men in the last 100 years and barely was touched on in this article besides Title IX.
If we ended all Governmental policies that cater just to gender or sex, ended all Federal Agencies under the Executive Branch, and ended all subsidies for any government-sponsored programs; one wonders how *successful* women would be if without the Governments help.
But I'm not arguing to get rid of them all; nor am I an expert on US government policies. Title IX *needs* to be sex-specific because women simply can't compete against men, and transwomen are and always will remain men (just like, we just learned this week, Khelif Imane is--mostly). What we need for sports is sex testing and categories for who can compete where, depending on how male or female that small percentage of intersex athletes are.
My article was on Harris's specific stands (or not, or who knows) on issues that harm women.
There may be some policies and amendments that should be revisited, who knows? Just like affirmative action is no longer the law of the land. It served its purpose but now it causes more harm than charm. But in clear-cut cases where women are and forever will be disadvantaged in a particular area by men, we need to keep those places sex-specific. That includes sex-segregated spaces where women are vulnerable. Contrary to what fuzzy-brained wokies realized, sexual predators *are* taking advantage of the new easy-access laws. Harris seems sublimely unaware of this. Which is why i didn't vote for her either.
Best I’ve read in a while.
Feminism is based on this idea-that the masculine is the gauge for freedom, empowerment, status and wealth.
All feminine gains are measured in approximation of men.
Men don’t want to compete in a woman-dominated arena; neither do women.
Everyone gains status by being better than a man more than being better than a woman.
True 'nuff. But that can change. It has on the racial front even though not all whites (or blacks) will ever get up their racism. We've got enough of them having done so (or learning to get along with others) that there's hope for men and women too.
Masculine has been the 'natural' standard for a long while; it will take a long while to change. I hope to show some men that they might be happier without all the patriarchal bullshit holding them back too. Other men have written extensively about this.
I skimmed this article enough to know that Government programs, policiers, and even Constitutional amendments have put more favor of women than men in the last 100 years and barely was touched on in this article besides Title IX.
If we ended all Governmental policies that cater just to gender or sex, ended all Federal Agencies under the Executive Branch, and ended all subsidies for any government-sponsored programs; one wonders how *successful* women would be if without the Governments help.
But I'm not arguing to get rid of them all; nor am I an expert on US government policies. Title IX *needs* to be sex-specific because women simply can't compete against men, and transwomen are and always will remain men (just like, we just learned this week, Khelif Imane is--mostly). What we need for sports is sex testing and categories for who can compete where, depending on how male or female that small percentage of intersex athletes are.
My article was on Harris's specific stands (or not, or who knows) on issues that harm women.
There may be some policies and amendments that should be revisited, who knows? Just like affirmative action is no longer the law of the land. It served its purpose but now it causes more harm than charm. But in clear-cut cases where women are and forever will be disadvantaged in a particular area by men, we need to keep those places sex-specific. That includes sex-segregated spaces where women are vulnerable. Contrary to what fuzzy-brained wokies realized, sexual predators *are* taking advantage of the new easy-access laws. Harris seems sublimely unaware of this. Which is why i didn't vote for her either.
Well-written on gender points. As usual.