re: 12th Grade Girls Are Far Less Likely Than Boys To Say They Want To Get Married Someday

quote:

---

But, in all seriousness...

---

I tried being serious about 8 times before I started mocking.

The problem is that that isn't the only problem with cub's narrative here. By a long shot.

Her claim is that abandoning marriage by young women is a sensible thing for them to do because "it takes too much work for women to be married."

But by her own numbers—the ones she typed out and gave—we're talking about less than a 5% difference between men and women. Pretty much a rounding error. Easily addressed. Throwing out marriage because of it would be like abandoning your car on the side of the road because a bird air-bombed the windshield. Totally irrational.

Then you have the people who pointed out that the difference is even smaller than that because (surprise) the data seems to be selectively collated for the purpose of skewing it against men.

Then you have the data that says that women are happier, healthier, live longer, and are wealthier than unmarried women. She says there is conflicting data on that but won't post any, which leads me to believe it either doesn't actually exists or it's more books that have been cooked to support feminist dogma.

It is extremely clear that one of two things is going on. Cubs is indoctrinated (just like I've been saying) and starts with the conclusion that marriage is too labor intensive for women and then refuses to let go of that even when it's been shown to be nonsense, because it's feminist doctrine and she is a true believer, or she really is SFP and he's trolling the entire board with this thread.

She acts incredulous when I affirm that I hold that as a possibility, but when she does stuff like this it becomes entirely plausible to me. I only see two possibilities and frankly, that one seems more likely at this point.

quote:

---

Why would you assume this concern wouldn’t be expressed?

---

Maybe because it's such a minor difference it's not logical that it would persist in spite of addressing it.

quote:

---

That’s when the dissatisfaction really gets amplified.

---

In that case, it's not really about work at all. It's about resentment for not being listened to.

quote:

---

You have the oppressor premise

---

Link?

quote:

---

What oppressor premise?

---

Cubs, virtually every interrelational argument you've made has to do with deployment of a power structure against an oppressed class.

Further, you've laid those arguments out in archetypal generalities (e.g., "Men don't value women"), as if they are not just stereotypes, but universal truths. That is classic critical theory. You claim such thoughts are entirely your own. You say they are not derived from reading, or sourced to feminist pedagogy.

I've called that claim to question.

Why?

Because those misandric archetypes, as universal truths, don't even fully apply to your personal experiences. When the personal inconsistencies eventually register ("Men don't value women" vs "Love = Value"), you soften the pretext as both overstated, and less than universal --- "Many husbands take their wives for granted." "Many" is less than universal. "Taking for granted" does not equate to generally not valued.

To illustrate the latter, the fact Renee Good took life for granted, does not mean she didn't value life. When she moved her foot to the accelerator 10days ago, she took for granted she'd not be dead 5 secs later. Taking life for granted is contradistinct with not valuing it.

In your case, the postulate inconsistencies -- personal experience vs asserted universal truths -- indicate you're either source influenced, or you knew when assembling your thesis, it was not even fully applicable to your own situation, yet, you went with it anyway. "Went with it anyway" would indicate dishonesty. Perhaps I'm being naive, but you don't come across to me as dishonest...

... which leaves derivation, based on influential CT sourcing, as the conclusion.

quote:

---

Cubs, virtually every interrelational argument you've made has to do with deployment of a power structure against an oppressed class.
---
In this thread?

---

Correct. In this thread.
Is that controversial, in your assessment?

quote:

---

Why is it impossible for you to consider that my experience of actually being a woman has shown me that I am generally not valued by society?

---

It isn't impossible at all for me to consider your perception is that you're generally not valued by society, based on your individual experiences as a woman. It would be disappointing. It would be sombering. But it is not impossible to believe and/or consider.

However, an extrapolation of such anecdotes to all, most, or even many women, in the absence of supportive research, population studies and analysis is a different matter. It would obviously be problematic in terms of your argument.

In this case though, the contention is odd, as you've sought out and quoted such studies. We've covered their flawed methodology.

quote:

---

Generally speaking, society values women for what it can extract from women

---

You realize this is the case for men as well, right? Women value men for what they can extract from him.

quote:

---

Who has the time or bandwidth for table runners?

---

I pulled down the box of Mardi Gras decorations. Lo and behold, I have a MG table runner

My sister gave it to me years ago.

quote:

---

You realize this is the case for men as well, right?

---

Maybe we’re all just commodities.

quote:

---

Your choice of words is noteworthy. You chose to phrase it as “extract from”, rather than contribute. Women can and have contributed those things to society.

---

"Contribute" implies mutuality, symmetry and agency. Extraction describes a system where certain inputs are expected, normalized, and rarely reciprocated at equal cost.

When something is framed as a woman’s moral duty, natural role, or baseline expectation rather than a voluntary offering with real compensation and recognition, we are no longer talking about contribution in any meaningful sense.

Men absolutely contribute to society. Many contributions overlap. But biological differences do not explain why women’s contributions are treated as invisible, mandatory, or morally enforced while men’s are treated as optional, laudable, or status-enhancing.

quote:

---

It’s the psychological characteristics of a person that determines whether they believe society is extracting it from them or if they are contributing it to society.

---

When women describe extraction, they are not revealing a mindset problem. They are accurately naming a pattern they observe across marriages, workplaces, and families. This is cultural characteristic, not a psychological one.

quote:

---

4cubbies

---

I don't see how you can be Catholic given your love of feminism

Like if you are Catholic, then you are of the Father James Martin variety or grew up with nothing but Jesuits