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?
Right, and no man on the court lauded that as an achievement yet Ginsburg did and it did her no harm.
Of course that's dumb. But that was not the argument that was made. Nine persons of the same gender on the SCOTUS is not the same as 'complete domination'.
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.
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.
Of course that's dumb. But that was not the argument that was made. Nine persons of the same gender on the SCOTUS is not the same as 'complete domination'.
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.