"Diversity is not our strength": Cincy's own Ramaswamy 2024!

[Dill]

(09-12-2023, 10:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Typically nonsensical. Thank you for giving me a quick out.  Sincerely.

The easy way out. Those questions pretty much hit the mark.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-12-2023, 12:11 PM)Dill Wrote: The easy way out. Those questions pretty much hit the mark.

No, they didn't, they were nonsensical and typically obtuse.  But you reminded me quickly that's how it often goes with you.  Quit trying to claim internet victory, it comes off as desperate.

[Dill]

(09-12-2023, 01:35 AM)pally Wrote: The whole “male authority” thing reminds me of a famous description of good coaches…they are “leader of men” like it takes a special skill or is some great special accomplishment to lead men as opposed to simply being a leader.  It’s a stupid line and so is separating male and female authority.  

Children are taught how to respond to authority in general. Teachers, police officers, parents, etc. if they fail to respond appropriately to men it generally means the adult in their life is teaching them that by words or actions.

Looks like SSF and LSUfan align on the "male authority" theme. LOL 

I'm with you on the distinction between gendered and ungendered authority.

Children are, or should, be taught to respect teachers because of the authority of their office, not because of gender. 
A male teacher exercising that authority is then not exercising "male authority," nor should be seen as such 
if we want a society based on gender equality. Women are not more prevalent teaching lower grades because, as LSUfan says,
children "trust" them more, but because these have traditionally been women's jobs, like nursing, aligned with traditional gender norms
which define women as "nurturing." As gender equality advances, we see more men in those positions, as they feel less stigma
attached to what was formerly "women's work." 

I guess for some, though, there is no such thing as non-gendered "authority in general." It's all inflected by gender to some degree. That is
a very traditional view of gender relations, which sees them as defined more by "nature" than by culture.  

Most people in our society agree that it is good for a child to have both parents. But I don't recall anyone lamenting that a child who lacks a
mother may need female "authority" to balance development.  

The notion of "females IN authority" as a social problem does arise in other discussions though. E.g., in developing countries like India, the increase of women in police forces and other positions of power and authority does bring negative reactions from a male populace used to thinking of authority in starkly gender-based terms. They don't want women telling them what to do. It would be interesting to compare masculinist attitudes across cultures. We're supposedly more "progressive" than traditional societies, but it seems to me that strong reactions to gender equality and feminism inform our politics still. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-12-2023, 01:09 PM)Dill Wrote: I guess for some, though, there is no such thing as non-gendered "authority in general." It's all inflected by gender to some degree. That is
a very traditional view of gender relations, which sees them as defined more by "nature" than by culture.  

No one made that argument, typically disingenuous statement.  What was argued is that there is a difference between male authority figures and female, especially in the area of child development.   If that were not the case then why do children do significantly better in father led single parent households than female led single parent households?  The link has been provided, but predictably none of you responded to it because it hurts your position.

[Dill]

(09-12-2023, 12:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The easy way out. Those questions pretty much hit the mark.

No, they didn't, they were nonsensical and typically obtuse.  But you reminded me quickly that's how it often goes with you.  Quit trying to claim internet victory, it comes off as desperate.

Of course they did. My questions were just the juxtaposition of your own statements.

I "typically" don't "make an argument in either direction"? Yet I "convinced" you of something? 

The "modern far left"--whatever that is--is for keeping "the murderer or rapist at home"?  

The "obtuse nonsense" has to be in the source. You went off again, angrily projecting wild
and indefensible generalizations onto someone else, on the basis of nothing you can show from my post.

So yes, good time to declare "nonsense" and run, before any of that gets unpacked. As you say--"desperate." 
(Not even the first time on THIS thread, let alone others.) 

[Dill]

(09-12-2023, 01:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote:[/url]I guess for some, though, there is no such thing as non-gendered "authority in general." It's all inflected by gender to some degree. That is
a very traditional view of gender relations, which sees them as defined more by "nature" than by culture. 

No one made that argument, typically disingenuous statement.  What was argued is that there is a difference between male authority figures and female, especially in the area of child development.   If that were not the case then why do children do significantly better in father led single parent households than female led single parent households?  The link has been provided, but predictably none of you responded to it because it hurts your position.

If an argument is not attributed to anyone then there is no need to say "no one made that argument"--and add a personal attack. 
I don't doubt you "see" disingenuousness everywhere in my posts; but that's what tends to skew your responses. E.g., that's why you so often
respond to claims which are not made. "Keep the murderer or rapist at home to raise their kids."

Your link is a journalist discussing a book and three studies which, he concludes, suggests that fathers who get custody of children may be "exceptionally motivated" to be good parents. Nothing there about "male authority."  How does that hurt "our" position? Or what do you think that "position" is? 

But while we are on the subject of arguments "no one made," you might explain why you need to frame differences in parental gender as differences in "authority" rather than just differences in gender roles or sex, as does John Spivey, the author you linked to?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-12-2023, 01:49 PM)Dill Wrote: If an argument is not attributed to anyone then there is no need to say "no one made that argument"--and add a personal attack. 

Saying you're being disingenuous when you're being disingenuous is not a personal attack. I'll now leave you to your circuitous logic.

[Mickeypoo]

(09-11-2023, 05:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Interestingly, children from single parent households in which the father is the parent fair much better.

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2001/07/09/study-children-fare-better-with-divorced-dads-factors-besides-income-were-of-benefit-to-fathers/62139586007/

Historically, there is only one reason such a claim might be made - a father's higher income. No doubt it's true, single fathers with custody tend to make more money than single mothers. In fact, they tend to make more money than the average father.



But Farrell discovered that even when the father and mother had equal income, the children who were with their father full time - boys and girls - did better than those with their moms full time.



Overall, children living with dads were less likely to have discipline problems. Does this mean that dads were more likely to resort to physical punishment? No. Moms were. And they used physical discipline more frequently. Nevertheless, children living with their moms were more likely to exhibit frequent temper tantrums.


This is from a study by Dr. Warren Farrell, from his book Father and Child Reunion.  I guess the dismissal of the importance of fathers has had some unintended consequences.

My parents were divorced when I was 8.  My mom told me that when she explained that my dad would be leaving I said "Now I can do what I want".  My mom was bad with discipline, my dad, not so much.  lol.

I lived with my mom until I was 12 at which time I decided to go live with my dad.  I had a much more structured and disciplined environment.  The reason I chose to go with my dad were dumb kid reasons.  He had a house, so much more space then the small cramped apartment, more things to do that interested me, my 2 half sisters were there (not a dumb reason.  lol).

Anyway, my point is that I can look back and see first hand how having a father in the house makes a big difference.  At least for me, but I would imagine this is more of a normal human family structure thing.

[Dill]

(09-12-2023, 02:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Saying you're being disingenuous when you're being disingenuous is not a personal attack. I'll now leave you to your circuitous logic.

You've attributed some pretty wild claims to "the modern far left" for which you can provide no basis. 

You offer a link which supposedly establishes your "male authority" thesis to answer some "dismissal of fathers" claim.

Turns out it has nothing to do with male authority and no one "dismissed fathers."  You've been firing blanks all along. 

What you are now calling my "circuitous logic" is actually the opposite--supporting assertions with evidence. 

Exactly what you've been unable to do. So like the "disingenuous" accusation, it's just deflection from a deficient argument.  

Once again, you join a potentially interesting discussion involving many people,

and blow it up with wholly unnecessary, victim-blaming personal attacks when it doesn't go your way.

Not a good basis for claiming that circuitous logic and disingenuousness are what others "typically" do. 

[Dill]

(09-12-2023, 04:47 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: My parents were divorced when I was 8.  My mom told me that when she explained that my dad would be leaving I said "Now I can do what I want".  My mom was bad with discipline, my dad, not so much.  lol.

I lived with my mom until I was 12 at which time I decided to go live with my dad.  I had a much more structured and disciplined environment.  The reason I chose to go with my dad were dumb kid reasons.  He had a house, so much more space then the small cramped apartment, more things to do that interested me, my 2 half sisters were there (not a dumb reason.  lol).

Anyway, my point is that I can look back and see first hand how having a father in the house makes a big difference.  At least for me, but I would imagine this is more of a normal human family structure thing.

Was your father "exceptionally motivated" to be a good parent, as the reporter in the link suggests fathers who want custody often are?

[GMDino]

(09-12-2023, 04:47 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: My parents were divorced when I was 8.  My mom told me that when she explained that my dad would be leaving I said "Now I can do what I want".  My mom was bad with discipline, my dad, not so much.  lol.

I lived with my mom until I was 12 at which time I decided to go live with my dad.  I had a much more structured and disciplined environment.  The reason I chose to go with my dad were dumb kid reasons.  He had a house, so much more space then the small cramped apartment, more things to do that interested me, my 2 half sisters were there (not a dumb reason.  lol).

Anyway, my point is that I can look back and see first hand how having a father in the house makes a big difference.  At least for me, but I would imagine this is more of a normal human family structure thing.

This probably a delicate question but when your mom said she could "do want she wants" was a reflection of her wanting to do things that were wild and crazy or a reflection on not having your father telling her what she could and couldn't do?

Maybe you needed that discipline and maybe others do too and they get it from their mother and not their father?  That's not to dismiss your experience just to note that it is YOURS...not everyone's.  

Many times I have seen women get out of relationships and "go wild" because they swung too far out from a controlling person.  And that goes for chidden leaving home for the first time and people separating or divorcing.

Personally, I come from a home with two parents.  We had the normal life growing up and when I got to college I didn't go wild because of religious fear but I went wilder than I was because I didn't have someone telling me what to do.  All I'm saying is that happens.

[Dill]

(09-13-2023, 08:48 AM)GMDino Wrote: This probably a delicate question but when your mom said she could "do want she wants" was a reflection of her wanting to do things that were wild and crazy or a reflection on not having your father telling her what she could and couldn't do?

Thought that's what Mick said, not his mom. 

[Mickeypoo]

(09-13-2023, 08:48 AM)GMDino Wrote: This probably a delicate question but when your mom said she could "do want she wants" was a reflection of her wanting to do things that were wild and crazy or a reflection on not having your father telling her what she could and couldn't do?

Maybe you needed that discipline and maybe others do too and they get it from their mother and not their father?  That's not to dismiss your experience just to note that it is YOURS...not everyone's.  

Many times I have seen women get out of relationships and "go wild" because they swung too far out from a controlling person.  And that goes for chidden leaving home for the first time and people separating or divorcing.

Personally, I come from a home with two parents.  We had the normal life growing up and when I got to college I didn't go wild because of religious fear but I went wilder than I was because I didn't have someone telling me what to do.  All I'm saying is that happens.

I don't understand the first part.  None of that is what I said.  My mom didn't say she could do what she wants.  Did you read what I wrote?

I specifically said it was my experience, meaning others may vary.

I gave this personal experience because it is a first hand, lived example of what is being discussed.  Fathers in the house and male authority figures vs female.

I honestly don't understand most of what you said because you are not responding to the words I actually typed.  

Can you please re-read my post?

My mom was a loving, caring, wonderful person.  She just couldn't discipline; she needed my dad for that.  She has been gone for close to 11 years now.  Cancer.

[Mickeypoo]

(09-13-2023, 07:10 AM)Dill Wrote: Was your father "exceptionally motivated" to be a good parent, as the reporter in the link suggests fathers who want custody often are?

I would say he is a good parent to myself and my sisters.  He always provided.  Nice house, good school, good area, no abuse.  Not many extras, but we had the important things.

[GMDino]

(09-13-2023, 10:03 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I don't understand the first part.  None of that is what I said.  My mom didn't say she could do what she wants.  Did you read what I wrote?

I specifically said it was my experience, meaning others may vary.

I gave this personal experience because it is a first hand, lived example of what is being discussed.  Fathers in the house and male authority figures vs female.

I honestly don't understand most of what you said because you are not responding to the words I actually typed.  

Can you please re-read my post?

My mom was a loving, caring, wonderful person.  She just couldn't discipline; she needed my dad for that.  She has been gone for close to 11 years now.  Cancer.

Sorry!  Yeah, I misread that quote as HER saying it and then you saying she wasn't as much on discipline as your father was.  My mistake and I apologize.

But I'll let the rest stand as how some people are better off getting out of a marriage/relationship and being a single mother or father.

[Mickeypoo]

(09-13-2023, 11:18 AM)GMDino Wrote: Sorry!  Yeah, I misread that quote as HER saying it and then you saying she wasn't as much on discipline as your father was.  My mistake and I apologize.

But I'll let the rest stand as how some people are better off getting out of a marriage/relationship and being a single mother or father.

No worries and I don’t disagree that depending on how the relationship is it may be better to part ways. That wasn’t the focus of my post though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[*pally*]

guess who was doing business with the same group of Chinese business people as Hunter Biden? and guess who is also the weakest candidate on protecting Taiwan?

[GMDino]

Hannity, after dumping Vivek Ramaswamy following a VERY heated exchange: "I think people who never held public office, like you, maybe they’re not qualified to be president!"

Yes, Hannity actually said that. pic.twitter.com/Eh0pgTmOWp

— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) October 13, 2023

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Dill]

Looks like he's rising in the polls--double digits now--10%
https://coopwb.in/info/vivek-ramaswamy-polls/

Wonder why Hannity doesn't like him?  He's not the only one on the outs with Hannity. He has called Christie the "Media darling of the Hard Left."
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4101583-hannity-rips-christie-as-media-darling-of-the-hard-left/

Anyway, Conservative news has an interesting take on the exchange between H and R. Some echoes of their previous exchange here as well.
https://www.conservativenewsdaily.net/breaking-news/ramaswamy-spars-with-hannity-over-israel-and-nikki-haley/

“For‍ years,⁤ @seanhannity ‌has railed against‍ ‘fake news.’ I guess‍ he’s become it. My comments about lobbyists were about ⁢Azerbaijan, not Israel. This interview was sponsored by @NikkiHaley,” Ramaswamy posted on⁤ X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.

How does the clash ⁢between Ramaswamy and Hannity reflect the‌ broader⁤ struggle within the Republican Party to balance unwavering ‌support for Israel⁣ with the recognition of the broader‍ consequences and complexities of the Israel-Hamas ⁢conflict? How might ⁢this polarization impact American politics and society

Ion centered around the ongoing Israel-Hamas⁣ conflict and its‍ implications for the United States. ‌Ramaswamy offered a‌ nuanced ‍perspective on ‌the issue, while Hannity maintained⁤ a staunchly pro-Israel stance, resulting in a‍ clash of opinions and ideologies.

The interview began with Hannity questioning Ramaswamy about his position on the Israel-Hamas conflict. The candidate ‍responded by acknowledging‍ the complexity of the situation, recognizing the deep-rooted historical and geopolitical issues at play. He emphasized the need⁢ to ensure the safety‌ and well-being of innocent‍ civilians on both sides, urging for a diplomatic resolution rather than perpetuating a cycle of violence.

However, Hannity aggressively pressed Ramaswamy, ‌challenging his ⁣position and stating that there is no room‌ for neutrality ‌when it comes to supporting Israel. He argued that Hamas, recognized as a terrorist organization by several countries, including the United States, poses an imminent threat to Israel’s existence and that any attempt to paint a balanced picture is misguided.

Ramaswamy stood his ground, asserting⁤ that neutrality does not‌ equate to support for ‍terrorism but ⁣rather an attempt to‍ understand the complexities of the situation.‌ He expressed concern about the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza, who have been subjected to severe⁣ economic hardships and ⁣a deteriorating humanitarian crisis. Offering a broader perspective, ‌he‌ highlighted the importance ⁢of addressing these underlying issues to achieve lasting peace⁢ in the region.

Hannity responded by emphasizing Israel’s right to ‌defend itself against Hamas, stating that the terrorist group has been launching thousands of‌ rockets into Israeli territory, putting Israeli citizens in constant danger. He criticized Ramaswamy for not prioritizing the ⁢safety and ‍security of ‍Israel and its people.

The‌ exchange ‍escalated further when ⁢the Fox News host accused Ramaswamy of being ⁣anti-Israel and questioned his commitment‌ to the United‌ States’ long-standing alliance ⁤with Israel. Ramaswamy vehemently⁢ denied this accusation, ⁣reaffirming his⁤ belief in the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship but also emphasizing the need ‍for the United States to engage in a more multi-dimensional approach to diplomacy in the Middle⁢ East.

[Housh]

The reason America never delves into a situation like Israel is because we stick together when needed

All that racial violence you see everyday on social media is not a real representation of what happens in America. The majority of Americans are peaceful and just wanna go to work and feed their family.





I fully agree that the media pushes this shit to divide us.