Such high-risk mentalities are also responsible for major science discoveries, and hopping on boats to sail across the planet in search of new worlds. This mentality is responsible for the expansion of the different empires throughout history. It’s a gruesome venture filled with pros and cons.
You know what Julia Gillard’s book doesn’t include? Empires that expanded under female-rule. Women can show leadership once the world has become civilized. That’s a bit late in the game for women to be calling themselves brave.
Honestly, I suggest you put that book down. It’s not doing you any favors. I suggest a more masculine alternative.
I think I have sort of said my piece and do not want this thread to become the Pip & Dushi show or the Pip & Falstaff lounge … I have read your comments and you have been very gracious, as I have with you or anyone on this thread - at least I hope so - but I have my beliefs as others do, which as long as they are not directly harming someone then we can only argue over them as far as they make us think.
I always come away from conversations like these questioning myself, rethinking my angle on these topics, however I will not fundamentally stop believing in what I believe, which I have made no secret about in all my posts, here as elsewhere. To make it clear: I am not after a pat on the shoulder from anyone, although of course positive feedback is welcome, therefore I will continue expressing these beliefs wherever I feel it is timely for me to do so. I am sorry that this grates with others’ sensibilities, but it is what it is.
Perhaps the ‘we’ in that last sentence means all men?
When last did I peer in the mirror, shave, groom my hair - even smile back at the image - maybe we all like to be recognized for our appearance,
We judge very quickly by appearance or maybe it’s my prejudice - I see the black cloak but not the fear that caused it to be worn - a fear caused not by women.
I heard the click of the high heels come down the corridor, then saw the handbag - the Anaesthetist was just checking in to see was all okay.
Women always want a man that’s at least their equal, but preferably better. Men work harder than women. That’s why men earn more money. Men will work longer hours, take more risk, and suffer longer.
The best in anything in the world will always be a man. Men are competitive about anything. Even about stupid things. If you throw a rock, I want to throw it farther.
The highest earners are men. The best chefs in the world are men. The best engineers are men. The best programmers are men. The fastest runners are men. The highest jumpers are men. Men even compete with women in beauty contests! Men are trying to be better women, than women!
But here’s the rub…without women, men cannot procreate. When a man has a family, he has a purpose. He works and WANTS to give to his wife and family.
That’s why so many men become lost after a divorce. Not just because they lose their home and their money, but they lose their purpose as well.
This is why women are so important for men. It’s not just a physical thing. A woman’s love and nurturing spirit is like nothing else. It motivates a man to keep going when he feels like giving up. If man is the car, the woman is the gas. He needs her to keep him going.
Why?
Men wearing suits and women wearing tight clothing is completely different. Especially because it’s the women complaining about the men. Women complain that men are too inappropriate in the workplace. Women complain that men are too sexual. Well, why do you think that is?
It’s because they’re seeing sexual stuff!! If a man can see any part of your body, he’s thinking about sexual stuff. If your shoulders are showing, if your knees are showing…even if he can only see your eyes…he’s trying to draw conclusions about the rest of your body, based on that alone.
She’s covered up. But just based on her eyes, dudes are thinking ¨hmmm, would i go out with her or not?? I bet you the rest of her is really pretty…yeah, I’d definitely go out with her.¨
The TRUE answer is to cover up completely:
If you want NO sexual attention, then you should cover up the things that are drawing the sexual attention.
But I understand, it’s a new concept for women who are not used to it.
I’m not saying that men shouldn’t take responsibility for their actions, but I’m saying that their actions shouldn’t be provoked. If you wear provocative clothing, you should expect some aggressive men approaching you. It doesn’t matter if they are wrong or not, that’s just how the world is.
You can try to change the world, or you can accept it as it is, and do your part to protect yourself.
That is absolutely what you’re saying and also that men are weak and can’t control themselves. Either way, there is no point in me arguing about this as you seem dead set on this belief. I just feel bad for @PipMeHappy whose thread has now lost its purpose and also for Blayne Macauley that it got derailed like this.
The topic is featuring a woman trader and somehow we find ourselves talking about sexual attention. Cool cool.
The interview contains the idea that there should be more women in the trading space. Blayne also talked about the male atmosphere. This is all based around gender.
At the core of it all are gender roles and how men and women relate to each other.
It’s an important subject because gender roles have changed so much during the past few decades. And now people throw around the term ¨toxic masculinity¨as if it’s no big deal. Anyone who thinks masculinity is something to discourage should have more respect for men.
Why did it lose its purpose? The purpose is to have a conversation. That’s what we’re doing. I see it as a win for Pipmehappy because the thread certainly got more lively when people express their true feelings and go deeper on the subject, as opposed to just saying ¨nice interview¨ and not returning to the thread.
That’s boring.
Yes, and what’s wrong with that? It’s all related to women entering a male-dominated space. If women want to enter such a space, there’s going to be a reaction. And you can’t control what that reaction is going to be.
I still think it was a good interview, and I appreciate everyone’s opinion.
I agree that we should have a conversation, however I profoundly disagree with the points made about covering women’s bodies so as not to ‘trigger’ men. I profoundly disagree with biological-behavioural determinism a-la Peterson, so I am happy to have conversations about gender but this is the sticking point, so we should not keep at it hoping to change views. I think it is fine to have different views. But women do not go round abusing men or sexually harassing them like men do to women, so as the majority of violent crimes are carried out by men we do need to ask this: with all the harm that men do, are they/we really worth it? What I mean is: yes, men have built bridges, buildings, ships, roads, industry, factories, and so on, but given how much harm we do by waging war, committing gross acts of sexual and other violence, and so on, then what is the net worth of men as a whole? We could be such a great contribution to society if we did not use violence to the degree that we do: it undermines all the good that we do. So we DO have a problem with masculinity, and yes, it often is toxic, harmful, and lethal.
Men have built modern society. Not women. War happens in order to protect, or to expand what you have. You’re against war but I doubt you are against the comforts of your modern life. It’s a sum total result of violence. You can’t enjoy what you have, then complain about how people have provided it for you.
We ARE a great contribution to society. You say that as though the men who attack and hurt women and children are the same men who fight and work to protect women and children.
There are bad men out there, yes. That’s a small very small percentage. There is no way possible that the small group of bad men negate the good that men do. If that were the case, violence in society would be much much higher.
The same violence you complain about is that same violence that protects. Violence is just violence. It depends on how you use it. It all depends on the person.
What you mean to say is that the bad men undermine the good men. Sure. Bad men are bad for the world, and you need good men to protect you from it.
Correct. Women abuse men differently. Women financially abuse men. Women, leverage their credibility to entrap men. Meaning men are scared to hire women now, because men are scared to get hit with a harassment suit, when nothing happened.
Women have leveraged feminism as an attack on men; not a means to have equal rights.
This is part of why men are uncomfortable with women entering the workforce. If you give the wrong compliment to a women, she’ll get you fired. But at the same time, women wear such clothes to fish for compliments. So how does that make sense? It doesn’t.
And if you think masculinity is generally toxic, I’d love to see what feminism will do when an intruder breaks through the window at night, or even when your car gets a flat tire.
Women benefit from masculinity greatly. When was the last time you saw a woman changing a tire on the side of the road?
All of this ties together with Blayne’s interview and Kimberly Jane’s interview. More Jane’s than Blayne’s. Blayne only mentioned that we need more women in the trading space. Her problem is more related to dummies on the internet, than men as a whole.
Her problem is more with idiots on twitter.
Jane said women are not embraced as equals in the financial world in the way she would like. This all ties together to her point. Women are not equal. Women are not the same as men. Men and women are different. The way men and women carry conversations are different.
And that’s my point. We interact differently, and that’s why Jane said they have a smaller DM group, based around trading. The women can talk more freely in their group.
Men and women are different, and I think they should work separately. That’s quite unlikely. So, until then, I guess we’re gonna continue with this friction. Oh well.
But the most important thing is that she’s a profitable trader, who’s nice, and shares her experience with others–not that she’s a female.
Short answer: is this what we should tell a classroom full of children? That violence is here, get used to it, in fact, it is a good thing? What happened to aspiration? What happened to wanting a fairer world with no violence? What happened to peaceful cooperation between nations and individuals? Should these not be aspirations that we tirelessly work toward? Votes for working class ‘uneducated’ men and for women - universal suffrage - were hard won against a perception that ‘things have always worked this way’; the right to divorce and abortion have been hard won rights, that need vigilance and watchful protection; the right to fair treatment in the workplace also based on protected categories: ethnicity and sex (you are born with them) is something essential to a better society. The human rights declaration? Are all these not aspirational and also hard-fought rights? They do not necessarily require violence: peaceful protest, trade union strikes, legal wrangling: all of these are violence-free methods. I cannot see why to enjoy peaceful living and some comforts we should assume war and violence are at the foundation. No, I do not agree.
