Yep. It is super misogynist to suggest that most women are so intelligent they don't want positions that come with more responsibility and stress than power, and also have the strength of will to refuse to be pushed into things they don't want. Even worse was suggesting that many are competent but some aren't.
Yes, I must really hate women. What I was supposed to say was that ALL women are competent, down to the last. And I was also supposed to say that oodles of women want these stressful positions because they are equally greedy as men and want the bigger paycheck.
Ludicrous. In fact, what I said was speaking about my hate of third and fourth wave feminists, NOT women. But it may be hard for those who adore women to separate the majority of women from third and fourth wave feminists.
As a man raised almost exclusively by women, even I don't envy Japanese men their leadership positions and bigger paychecks because I can't see the benefits outweighing the stress and trouble. Somehow I think this "misogynist" thinks a whole lot like your average woman. Go figure.
Frankly, you are a terrible communicator if you think your words don't evince a disdain for women. I'm sure things you type must make sense to
you in the moment, but maybe take a minute to proofread your posts from the perspective of someone who can't read your mind and ask yourself if you're expressing your thoughts clearly. Even your clarification reads as condescending pap. You're projecting your own lack of ambition and fear of stress and responsibility onto a generalized group of individuals, and making the assertion that a policy that encourages or even demands greater representation of that group in positions of power will result in the installation of "incompetent women."You're literally imagining a woman who would take such a position and your first assumption is their incompetence. And you don't think that's insulting?
Representation is important. A power structure dominated by any one group is not going to represent the best interests of all parties involved, and it's obvious that those in power will work to keep the status quo, so sometimes equity requires some effort. There are competent men and women, and incompetent men and women. If you have any ideas for ensuring greater representation whilst safeguarding against your imaginary scenario, let's hear it. Otherwise...
As a general policy that's great. It especially works well with hard science, though not always. But the whole thing starts to unravel when its soft science or politics, and in this case, its both.
So you are welcome to place all your faith in "experts". My faith in my own observations remains strong but I do listen to people like Jordan Peterson and Christina Hoff Sommers regarding these matters. For you I suggest reading about the clockmaker John Harrison and the upstart in physics Albert Einstein (vs. Newton) and how the "experts" rejected their findings for years, even decades.
I'm not putting "faith" in anything, I'm saying I give more weight to someone who has spent considerable time studying, doing
actual research and scientific inquiry, or has actual lived experience under a given topic than
some frog with an uninformed opinion framed by their own well-shaped view of the world. If I'm putting faith in anything, it's that the scientific method provides a better understanding of how things work than your feelings on a particular subject. Science doesn't dictate the world, it helps describe and sometimes explain it.
I see you have once again brought this back to transgenderism and I have to wonder why. In no way am I speaking of a person's body, save maybe hormonal effects. I am talking about a person's mentality. There may be a spectrum of male and female, so much so that there is overlap, but this simple dichotomy is commonly accepted and has practical value.....which is a why a trans woman claims to be female in mind even if male in body.
As for my qualifying rationale its evolutionary psychology. Generally speaking it seems prettly clear that millions of years of animal evolution and at least tens of thousands of years of human evolution has led to a general dichotomy where men desire positions of power and wealth so they can be a better position to make babies while women have gravitated toward men in such positions so as to better ensure her children survive. That's my foundation. There are some twists and turns between that and the resulting societies we see today (vs. those of thousands of years ago for example), but I have traveled the route enough it seems pretty clear to me.
And yes I know that third and fourth wave feminists reject evolutionary psychology utterly but that is because they don't give a toss for the truth. Its all politics and social advantage for them and that's why their dogma is a confusing mess of contradiction....such as the claim that saying women are smart enough to avoid the negative returns of leadership positions in Japan must actually mean the speaker hates women.
Yeah, I can't tell you how much I hate women being smart enough to not want what is bad for them and being willful enough to ensure they don't ruin their lives by taking what is bad for them. Oh how I hate them for running their own lives and making their own decisions and choosing NOT to be the leaders! Why won't they stand up and lead me already!
Brother,
you're the one who posted Matt "What is a Woman?" Walsh content, and you're the one who crawled back out of whatever now-defunct subreddit you ducked into months ago to poke once again at this thread,
quote me, and proclaim that you "believe transgenderism exists," whatever that means. I was simply responding to you. Man I just can't shut up about this, can I? Must be because it's pride month I guess!
That's not even evolutionary psychology; you're describing social and cultural norms that have developed in male-dominated cultures such as your own, the dynamics of your own upbringing notwithstanding. It doesn't work that way in every culture, but since it's YOUR world view you're happy to ignore the spectrum of human experience, once again.
Sexual dimorphism is a generalization within evolutionary biology that gets smoothed over into a binary because it's easy for the common boob to grasp, but the chart I posted earlier shows the wide spectrum of genetic expression (psychological traits aren't even mentioned, just the spectrum of intersex genetic expression, as measured by actual experts). In other words,
this simple dichotomy is commonly accepted and has practical value
TO YOU, ding-dong.
Man, I can't imagine why all the hundreds of women you've talked to in Japan weren't interested in discussing issues of gender equality with you... except for those who did but don't count.