@Botond173's banner p

Botond173


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 06:37:06 UTC

				

User ID: 473

Botond173


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 06:37:06 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 473

This discussion chain specifically addressed women.

I think this depends on your definition of 'society'.

Who are "such women"?

Women with insecure attachment.

I argue against the notion that the members here are blind to this issue. I think most of us here are aware that many women are affected by (childhood) trauma.

I’d also add that much of what is considered to be racial prejudice is actually driven by sexism or sex-based angst and insecurity, and people generally would rather profess to be racists in private than to admit to any of this. It’s a common argument, and not just among SJWs, that white-on-black racism in the American South was mostly just a result of white men’s suspicion that many of their women are susceptible to getting seduced and boned by big black studs. To the extent that such fears really were there, I’m guessing they were overblown, because we know that white women are the social group least likely to engage in exogamy. I’ve also seen the claim that many white men felt conflicted about their attraction to young black women who, unlike white women, had an allure as sexually available and lascivious vixens. (Obesity was notably not much of an issue back then, I should add.)

There’s also the case of the widespread antipathy among black women, especially young single ones, towards white and Asian women that are so-called mudsharks or coal burners i.e. driven to mate with black men. The ‘yellow fever’ of many white men is also frowned upon by women in general, the same as how the willingness of Asian women to mate with white men is reviled among Asian men.

I'd add that, in fact, prejudice against black men is also less tolerated than prejudice against white women.

You also need women for society to function, more so, in fact, than you need men. And yet not only is men disliking women not considered socially meaningless, it’s widely considered to be as contemptible as jihadi terrorism or white supremacism. Even though there has also never been a kingdom of men enslaving all women. (Please don’t give me all the usual feminist BS.)

I'm assuming you're relatively young and/or you didn't follow the culture war back in the old days? I haven't heard her name in a long time but I remembered it after reading it here. She was a rather active rage-baiting feminist culture warrior and talking head back in the days when the US culture war was focused on the issue of sex as opposed to the issue of race, so roughly before 2014.

The big difference is that Iran will continue to have the capacity to block the Strait of Hormuz, barring total defeat on the ground and an US occupation. Serbia in 1999 or Iraq in 1991 or Libya in 2011 had no such comparable options to sabotage US interests at all.

A couple of months ago I argued here that the reevaluation and demythologization of Reagan's legacy is something the Republicans have not yet faced up to. Assuming this will ever be done at some point, I think the same assessment of Dubya will also need to happen.

Why do you think this is a matter of blindness? Do such women normally talk to anyone about their trauma?

Can you please explain more what you mean by this?