"When will there be enough women on the Supreme Court? When there are nine."
I love this quote. It trashes the notion of equality that they pretend to care about and openly states the true desire for complete domination.
Barrett will always be a mistake. The answer to the RBG empty seat should have been someone who made my views of women look moderate. That would be the equivalent to what she was.
This research found that while both women and men have more favorable views of women, women's in-group biases were 4.5 times stronger than those of men. And only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem, revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic preference for their own gender.
I love this quote. It trashes the notion of equality that they pretend to care about and openly states the true desire for complete domination.
Does this mean that until 1981 when the first wahman was appointed to the SCOTUS, there was 'complete domination' by men? Not to mention all presidents and most legislators?
Physical sports are 'dominated' by men because men are stronger and quicker than women, not because men have an agenda of purposely excluding women.
The Supreme Court may have been all men because more men were better qualified for the job. For example excessive emotion and empathy is not a great trait in a branch devoted to logic and high reason, so if men have less empathy there would be more highly qualified male justices at the top.
In other words, for your view to hold you would first need to show that men and women are equally fit for the job. Just like firefighter and oil rig jobs have properties that skew the distribution, other jobs do as well - which is precisely why you can't reason from the result backwards and suppose discrimination was the cause.
"When will there be enough women on the Supreme Court? When there are nine."
I love this quote. It trashes the notion of equality that they pretend to care about and openly states the true desire for complete domination.
Barrett will always be a mistake. The answer to the RBG empty seat should have been someone who made my views of women look moderate. That would be the equivalent to what she was.
Forget that, their in-group bias disqualifies them without resorting to stereotypes that they will whine about.
To be fair, everyone has some degree of in-group bias.
But statistically, women have 4.5 times more in-group bias than men. In fact, men have almost no in-group bias:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect
Does this mean that until 1981 when the first wahman was appointed to the SCOTUS, there was 'complete domination' by men? Not to mention all presidents and most legislators?
You played yourself, man...
I thought it would be pretty obvious.
If an all-female court is 'complete domination' by women, then an all-male court (as was the case until 1981) would be 'complete domination' by men.
Basically SJW claptrap.
Physical sports are 'dominated' by men because men are stronger and quicker than women, not because men have an agenda of purposely excluding women.
The Supreme Court may have been all men because more men were better qualified for the job. For example excessive emotion and empathy is not a great trait in a branch devoted to logic and high reason, so if men have less empathy there would be more highly qualified male justices at the top.
In other words, for your view to hold you would first need to show that men and women are equally fit for the job. Just like firefighter and oil rig jobs have properties that skew the distribution, other jobs do as well - which is precisely why you can't reason from the result backwards and suppose discrimination was the cause.
It's not symmetric because men (by and large, TheImpossible1 notwithstanding) care about women and women don't care about men.
https://rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/13979590/rudmangoodwin2004jpsp.pdf
How many of those men served a pro-male agenda? Contrast that with how many women serve solely a pro-woman agenda.
44th President Obama said "women are indisputably better than men", he definitely wasn't our ally.
I can continue for ages with all the male traitors, but you find me a woman that went against the sisterhood.
So nine women is OK if they do not serve a "pro-female" agenda?
Cringe.
Please spare us that great privilege.
That's not what I said, and I'm pretty sure they aren't physically capable of such a thing.
You are aware that allies exist in contexts other than social justice cuckoldry, right?
Macron, Johnson, Justice Roberts...
I can definitely keep going, but I think the point makes itself. A woman in power can reliably be trusted to do what will benefit women.
No such luck for us.