Posted on 03/25/2016 9:52:25 AM PDT by Kaslin
Women think men are transparent and easy to figure out. Everybody knows that. But women are a puzzle to men -- ask any man. When Sigmund Freud posed his famous question, he confessed that even he had no answer.
"The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not been able to answer despite my 30 years of research into the feminine soul," he wrote to one of his precocious female students, "is, 'what does a woman want?'"
The man who popularized psychoanalysis couldn't come to a conclusion on this matter. It's clear to everybody, though, that what women want today is: what everybody wants. Women want everything. Some women have speculated that Freud was only being coy or playful, but his question lingers. This is the season where presidential candidates -- and every other office, large or small -- must ponder, as billions of dollars ride on the answer.
Hillary Clinton is betting everything on women's issues, and has based her campaign on pandering to the feminist vote. Donald Trump, ever the outlier, seems to be basing his campaign on insulting and aggravating women. It's not unlikely that some women will take revenge for the Donald's crudities aimed at the female persuasion. He has tapped into his well of anger; women can, too. People are full of surprises.
Clinton's polling gurus were surprised early on to find that many young women are not as enamored of the former first lady as expected. Some find her self-centered and see her as a flawed role model. The strength of Clinton's female vote is concentrated in what the French call "women of a certain age" These women are inclined to sympathize with feminism even if they don't buy all the particulars; they learned the hard way to overcome barriers erected in politics and business. But younger women who follow these pathfinders don't feel the constraints their mothers and grandmothers did. They've broken through glass ceilings in many different careers.
A recent study from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, however, finds disquieting implications for feminists who imagined that every woman would one day join them and march to the beat of the same drum. Researchers surveyed thousands of boys and girls; they found that resistance to female teenage leaders exists among teenage boys and teenage girls. There's even resistance among some mothers of daughters. "These biases," the researchers say, "could be powerful barriers to leadership for a generation of teen girls with historically high levels of education who are key to closing our nation's gender gap in leadership."
These findings suggest that "much can be done to prevent and reduce gender biases in children." Conservatives would argue that the researchers have only rediscovered something inherent to the female nature: The resentments of teenage girls are the natural jealousies that begin early in life.
The study's results reflected the answers of 20,000 boys and girls of diverse economic and ethnic backgrounds from 59 middle schools and high schools. Focus groups and individual interviews followed. One conclusion is that teenagers of both sexes hold biases against female leaders in powerful professions and occupations, such as politics.
"Our study points to insidious bias against girls as leaders that comes from many sources," says Richard Weissbourd, senior lecturer at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. "Bias can be a powerful -- and invisible -- barrier to teenage girls' leadership. Yet parents and teachers can do a great deal to stem these biases and help children manage them."
Researchers asked students whether they would give more power to student councils led by either white, black or Hispanic girls or boys. They were surprised to find that students were least likely to give more power to white female-led student councils, and more likely to give more power to councils led by white males. In fact, white girls themselves were least likely to favor white girls.
It's easy to make too much of a survey of teenagers, who usually have little interest in anything beyond their own concerns. Their opinions are often merely whims that are as fleeting as the weather. Most of the teenagers surveyed actually had no settled opinion about the place of girls in teenage leadership. But considering that women have recently been dropping out of the labor force in measurable numbers, the implications for the future are nevertheless profound. Clinton's ultimate performance may have a strong impact on how young women see themselves as prospective leaders.
Lindor Chocolate Truffles
Precisely.
Our big mistake, in my opinion, was incorporating women into the electorate willy-nilly.
There were no deliberations with an official body of patriotic women on how this change might threaten liberty under a Constitution that was not designed with them as fully functioning citizens. No other amendments were added to the Constitution to preserve us and our posterity from feminine forms of tyranny as opposed to the masculine forms it was originally designed to guard against.
Indeed, we just threw women into the political pool, without their wisest available council, satisfying nothing but their legitimate desire to be governed by consent. And now we wonder why the river our founders so diligently defended from the manifold species of predator is being choked to death by its flora.
Blow it out you butt, buddy. Not a lot of patience for the “your interests would be so much better served if you weren’t allowed to vote” types!
I’m sorry if that’s the impression you got from my post. I thought I was fairly clear if a bit verbose.
My intention was not that women should not be allowed to vote, but that our Constitution required further revision to account for women owning the franchise.
It looks to me like the power hungry skirt chasers were specifically selected for in the “king for a year” thing. I wonder if the practice of kings having the prerogative of standing in for the bridegroom on the wedding night of any newly married couple is a remnant of that? Thanks to you I don’t think I’ll ever look the same way at a Scott’s Weed and Feed commercial now :(
I think you are mistaken. The Constitution was duly amended, what did you want, a total rewrite?
I’m sorry I jumped down your throat, I’ve been subjected to way too many “Libertarian” bores (more than one!) who have held as an article of faith that women don’t fit the definition of “citizen” and quite possibly even “person”. Oddly enough, the first time I heard this it was apparently meant as a conversation starter in the service of flirtation! (shakes head)
What do women really want? They want to have their own way, and have some man shield them from the consequences of their decisions.
Jack Nicholson describes it in “As Good As It Gets”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g9_wfkYjfo
A society which has its most intelligent and capable women NOT getting married early in their prime reproductive years, and not having at least 2 children (preferably three or more), is a society which is doomed.
A culture survives if it has women who have a sufficient number of babies, and men who support, protect, and raise their children to be responsible and productive adults.
It's interesting that requiring women to have and raise children is considered "subjugation and repression", while requiring men to support their kids (and pay taxes to support other people's kids) is just "what grown up men are expected to do".
A matriarchy can only exist as long as there is no outside threat. A matriarchy's greatest weakness is it destroys the willingness of men to fight for it.
I once pissed off a feminist who was talking about a past matriarchal society where women decided who they slept with, and signaled their current man that he was no longer desired by turning he tent around. They also owned the property.
My reply was that, in such a society, the men would no longer feel attached to any particular woman. That when the barbarians came over the hill, the logical thing for that society's men to do is decide "you know, I bet there are some cute women a few hills over THAT way", and leave rather than fight.
You see this in Europe, with the Muslim rapists. In patriarchal times, the men would have gotten together and slaughtered the barbarians for daring to touch THEIR women. In the current society, the men no longer care.
Ladies, it doesn't matter how many rights you think you have won. When your men no longer care about you enough to be willing to fight for you, then you have LOST.
You just may not have found out yet.
I think this is related to where Trump can definitely make inroads with the female voters.
You’ve got your Wisconsin school and Bushies which basically comprise the GOPe, and what have you got with that? “If you aren’t for us, then you are against us” from the Bushies, so that’s a bit constricting. With the Wisconsin school you have more of the same mixed with a great big dollop of incompetence, just look at Scott Walker’s stint as County Executive.
That’s basically a guy who prefers to drive around forever and be late, rather than stopping and asking for directions taken to an extreme. That I think is part of the subtext.
Trump isn’t like that, he is a guy who certainly does act on what he sees and hears around him rather than just being locked up in his head.
I really am sorry to see him being locked in the outhouse with Cruz. It would be nice if we could instead focus on what the candidates are offering as possible solutions to the challenges we face as a society.
Hello, AB! Here’s an “oldie but goodie” for you:
Question: What is the difference between men and women?
Answer: Women don’t really know what they want; they just know they’re not happy with what they have. Men, however, know exactly what they want, but once they get it they lose interest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.