Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ah yes if driving a wedge between the sexes means ending millinea of being subservient, inequality, and putting women on par with men education wise you are correct. What women are doing is removing the last 6000 years of human history in which we were pushed into the backburner. If you don't like it that's fine, but expecting it to change is about as realistic as expecting to win the power ball.
I love women. Truly, I do, especially their womanliness.
But if I never hear another female voice on radio or television for as long as I live, apart from singing something sweet, I will die a happy man. Sometime in the last ten years women began to take over the media, and now their voices are completely dominant. BBC is the worst offender. And please get the little lady out of my GPS.
Anyone who has spent time in a normal family with children, or even around normal families with children, knows that children respond to their father's voice much differently than they respond to the voice of their mother. This is true from the earliest weeks of life outside the womb. The father's voice carries authority and gravitas, inspires trust, demands respect.
Advertisers and the news media have long found this to be true as well. Until feminism turned media executives into social engineers, male voices were long dominant when authoritative persuasion was the goal. It is known that women, even more than men, respond more positively to the authority of a male voice - particularly a deep male voice.
"For nearly every attribute they were asked to rate, participants were significantly more likely to prefer the deeper voice. The only category in which higher voices won? Most Likely to Be Involved in a Government Scandal. (This was, notably, the only negative attribute for which the researchers tested.)In the preface to their study, the researchers noted that the scientific evidence has often favored basses to tenors. Previous studies have found that both men and women find men with deeper voices more attractive and more dominant. And in eight U.S. presidential elections between 1960 and 2000, the candidate with the deeper voice has won the popular vote.In the current study, participants were also asked which version of the voice they would vote for, both in peacetime and wartime. The baritones were the winners. Voters should take this bias into account when they’re in the booth, the authors suggest."
Things started going downhill in this country when male singers started deliberately sounding like women. From Neil Sedaka to the Beach Boys to Michael Jackson, there's definitely something diabolical going on. In "The Passion of the Christ", the devil was portrayed as wickedly androgynous - a profound insight.
As a feminist, don't you care? Wouldn't it bother you if women constituted only 13 percent of anchors, as they apparently did in 1982?
Gee, feminists used to care passionately. Executives and HR managers with their MBAs obviously cared enough to make this happen. This is a great victory for your team, don't you think?
So we'll add feminism to the list of things you don't know much about. I don't have a "team." I, unlike you, don't see half the human race as a problem or a weird offshoot or beneath me merely because they have a different gender than I do.
Now stop worrying your handsome little head over things that don't matter and fetch me a cold soda.
Never mind the fact that were a woman locked in that shop she'd have her purse with her and have something in it to pick the lock to let herself out. Paper clip. Bobby Pin. Swiss Army knife with the little philips head screw driver so she could take the handle assembly off the door.
Of course she'd probably take the chance to look around and see if there was anything interesting on the "clearance" shelf first.
Wow, that's quite a project you've taken on. And you call my hopes unrealistic?
You can't be all that surprised if a few of us reactionary knuckle-draggers resist the idea of having 6000 years of history removed.
Our hopes are realistic as in 100 years we have managed to do just that. Women make up 60 percent of college students, my generations outpaces males in income, we make up more than half mid level managers, and can now vote w00t! And believe me we aren't finished yet either so hold onto your seat . But seriously you can pout, and go kicking and screaming all you want, but that doesn't alter the fact that you soon will be an extinct creature. Once the baby boomers begin vanishing that "father knows best" old style 50's ideal of life won't have any supporters.
I love women. Truly, I do, especially their womanliness.
But if I never hear another female voice on radio or television for as long as I live, apart from singing something sweet, I will die a happy man. Sometime in the last ten years women began to take over the media, and now their voices are completely dominant. BBC is the worst offender. And please get the little lady out of my GPS.
Anyone who has spent time in a normal family with children, or even around normal families with children, knows that children respond to their father's voice much differently than they respond to the voice of their mother. This is true from the earliest weeks of life outside the womb. The father's voice carries authority and gravitas, inspires trust, demands respect.
Advertisers and the news media have long found this to be true as well. Until feminism turned media executives into social engineers, male voices were long dominant when authoritative persuasion was the goal. It is known that women, even more than men, respond more positively to the authority of a male voice - particularly a deep male voice.
"For nearly every attribute they were asked to rate, participants were significantly more likely to prefer the deeper voice. The only category in which higher voices won? Most Likely to Be Involved in a Government Scandal. (This was, notably, the only negative attribute for which the researchers tested.)In the preface to their study, the researchers noted that the scientific evidence has often favored basses to tenors. Previous studies have found that both men and women find men with deeper voices more attractive and more dominant. And in eight U.S. presidential elections between 1960 and 2000, the candidate with the deeper voice has won the popular vote.In the current study, participants were also asked which version of the voice they would vote for, both in peacetime and wartime. The baritones were the winners. Voters should take this bias into account when they’re in the booth, the authors suggest."
Things started going downhill in this country when male singers started deliberately sounding like women. From Neil Sedaka to the Beach Boys to Michael Jackson, there's definitely something diabolical going on. In "The Passion of the Christ", the devil was portrayed as wickedly androgynous - a profound insight.
There there dear, if you close your eyes and visualize the GPS lady barefoot, pregnant, and transmitting driving directions from her kitchen table, you won't find the woman's voice so upsetting.
Last edited by ElizaTeal; 08-31-2012 at 04:31 PM..
Our hopes are realistic as in 100 years we have managed to do just that. Women make up 60 percent of college students, my generations outpaces males in income, we make up more than half mid level managers, and can now vote w00t! And believe me we aren't finished yet either so hold onto your seat . But seriously you can pout, and go kicking and screaming all you want, but that doesn't alter the fact that you soon will be an extinct creature. Once the baby boomers begin vanishing that "father knows best" old style 50's ideal of life won't have any supporters.
See... the o.p. has issues with women... but the direction you (and others) are taking the conversation in... I am very ambivalent about the very points that you have illustrated... on the one hand, women are indeed making incredible strides towards parity with men in careers and income. But... is it to their benefit??? I mean, I have cousins. Six figure earners and not out of their 30's. They won't consider a guy unless he is similarly fitted out for disposable income. Thing is, long before they graduated with their MBA's their male counterparts dropped out of Community College and took jobs as cab drivers, baristas or window cleaners so they would at least have an income so they could get laid period. Forget trying to hustle some high maintenance striver they simply wanted an around the way girl to pay them some attention.
Things don't look to get better soon. The Fortune 500 is onto a good thing and they know it. Those female anchors, senior partners and CEO's work for less than men do. Still. Even though its getting better, at present, women still earn less than men for the same work products. That's huge when the bottom line is under consideration and when is that ever not the case. Typical. I don't think that it was fair to have a workforce in 1945 that was 85% male and I don't think it makes sense to have a workforce in 20?? to have a workforce that is 85% female. UNLESS women are prepared emotionally to do what men did in 1945... ... marry women because that's what you did.
The problem now, as I see it, is that women are not nearly as willing to share their new found financial largesse with the wider male community. They still want to be taken care of financially by their guy. That's one thing when you are a waitress and quite another when you are the senior partner of a law firm. And... I just had to put it out there... none of this is because men suddenly got a whole lot dumber and/or women suddenly got a whole lot smarter. The men that are being laid off by the millions mostly got "exceeds requirements" across the board on their last review. The women that are landing six figure starting salaries are doing it based on nothing tangible except expectation.
The fickle finger of fate could point away from you at any moment. "You didn't build that"... so to speak. Romney wants to be president and he is willing to say anything, anything at all, to make that happen. Don't be fooled. What's going on in today's job market is beyond any president's ability to influence, solve or control. The Free Market takes orders from a much higher power. What a president can do is make sure that when the Market leaves you for dead that you can at least get some underwear to cover your naked behind. We have thousands of years worth of men providing financially for women and if the small sampling of data of women as providers is any clue... women are not nearly as good at it as men. Similarly we have a large enough store of data on how the Democrat and Republican administrations handle disenfranchisement of their constituency.
I'm not worried about the lady in my GPS. I AM worried about the GOP wanting to get in my lady parts, though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. But seriously you can pout, and go kicking and screaming all you want, but that doesn't alter the fact that you soon will be an extinct creature. Once the baby boomers begin vanishing that "father knows best" old style 50's ideal of life won't have any supporters.
