Harrison Butker | Commencement Address 2024

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-03-2024, 09:20 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'll get my Denny's discount this year! 

I wish I got a discount for living in your head but I'm already there for free apparently.  

Dude, you live in no one's head.  Your fantasy that your dad joke gif game, and limp retorts actually bother anyone is S tier level delusion.

[GMDino]

(06-03-2024, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dude, you live in no one's head.  Your fantasy that your dad joke gif game, and limp retorts actually bother anyone is S tier level delusion.

You guys are the ones who keep bringing my name up.  Bring it up at the next meeting of the he-men-dino-haters-club.  

(06-03-2024, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your fantasy that your dad joke gif game, and limp retorts actually bother anyone is S tier level delusion.

(06-03-2024, 12:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

(06-03-2024, 12:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's ok when we do it.

"Dino Style"!   
All seriousness aside just lighten up.  If someone mentions my name I'm gonna give them a little push for it.  It ain't life or death SSF. Back to the topic....

[Dill]

(06-03-2024, 12:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You never ask Dino that question when he responds with gifs.  Odd that.

Nor have I asked you. 

You and Dino have demonstrated adult competences and resources,
though you often choose not to. (E.g., your recent response on the Israel/Hamas thread.)

I respond differently to adolescents than to adults; hence the question.

[Dill]

(06-03-2024, 11:07 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: BTW, you are taking his speech out of context.

He clearly said:
"Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but i would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring in to this world."

What's more important? Family or your career? Should be a pretty simple answer for everyone.

As Dino said, "why not for both"?

You exclude his statement about the "diabolical lies" women are told about careers.

So why aren't you taking his speech out of context? 

[Dill]

(06-03-2024, 02:28 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Again, what was the point of bringing up women in Egypt when discussing Butker's speech? You were implying that it is the same or that he will push us back to the "dark ages" with his speech.  Both of which are false, i already posted statistics showing that the educated Millennial women are doing just that and we already know that it is good for the kids and the family. 

My point was that as societies modernize, and people adapt to new gender roles, traditionalists everywhere feel stressed by the change and are moved to uphold or return to traditional roles. Women are especially targeted for this. The implication is not that he wants to put us back into the dark ages, but certainly back to the late '40s and '50s, when, after WWII, there was a general society-wide push to get women back into the homes they had left to engage in war production. Notice that your second link also places the issue of women and education in an international context. Social sciences often do that in an effort to understand social behavior.

The point of bringing up women in Egypt is to show that this is not only a US phenomenon. As I said, I could have used examples from India and other developing countries where the stress on gender roles is even greater.  I also wanted to expand the context. You responded to Butker's speech as if he were just one guy offering an "opinion" disconnected from anything else. I see him as, to repeat, one more dark point among many, part of a world wide backlash against feminism.  He is part of a more general reaction to women's status, of which the rollback of RoevsWade is a part. 

Your post about some educated millennial women illustrates my point. The article is also framed by traditional gender ideology--women returning to their "natural" position in society. And it illustrates the stresses on families brought about by modernization and women's equality. The women interviewed for Daily Mail describe how difficult it is managing career and children. One "cause" of the return to the home, according to the article, was that women felt they could not do their jobs competently.

(06-03-2024, 02:28 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Why are you so against Gender-Roles that don't fit your criteria. Aren't Gender roles fluid? People adopt to the roles needed as time goes by.  Today they might be a college grad, tomorrow, might chose to be a stay at home mom (if that choice is an option), then the next week back to work. It's not uncommon at all. 

Easy answer here: I'm for women's equality.  That's my criterion.

So I am "against" gender roles based on the assumption men and women are not equal. 

E.g., that whether a woman is a college grad today or tomorrow a SAHM, the latter is still her true calling, 
even if she eventually goes back to work. 

[Dill]

(06-03-2024, 12:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: You guys are the ones who keep bringing my name up.  Bring it up at the next meeting of the he-men-dino-haters-club.  


"Dino Style"!   
All seriousness aside just lighten up.  If someone mentions my name I'm gonna give them a little push for it.  It ain't life or death SSF. Back to the topic....

And you refute him with his own words, just like that. Again.

So why does this forum's most undisciplined and inconsistent poster, 

who excepts himself not only from forum rules, but also those HE wants others to follow, 

make "It's ok when you do it" a go-to move, constructing these trivial, faux hypocrisies, undone as soon as stated? 

Giant memory hole?  Same tactic for years now. Nothing learned. Odd that.

New thread, Dino comments, SSF suddenly pops up to assert Dino's "predictable" hypocrisy. rinse and repeat.

That's living rent-free AND all utilities paid for. Even I don't get that level of attention, 

and I "support ISIS."  (My "entire posting history" proves it. lol )

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-04-2024, 08:26 AM)Dill Wrote: As Dino said, "why not for both"?

You exclude his statement about the "diabolical lies" women are told about careers.

So why aren't you taking his speech out of context? 

No idea what he says (usually he just posts as Meme and I'm not into his childishness, so I blocked him), and don't really care either. 

(06-04-2024, 09:05 AM)Dill Wrote: My point was that as societies modernize, and people adapt to new gender roles, traditionalists everywhere feel stressed by the change and are moved to uphold or return to traditional roles. Women are especially targeted for this. The implication is not that he wants to put us back into the dark ages, but certainly back to the late '40s and '50s, when, after WWII, there was a general society-wide push to get women back into the homes they had left to engage in war production. Notice that your second link also places the issue of women and education in an international context. Social sciences often do that in an effort to understand social behavior.

The point of bringing up women in Egypt is to show that this is not only a US phenomenon. As I said, I could have used examples from India and other developing countries where the stress on gender roles is even greater.  I also wanted to expand the context. You responded to Butker's speech as if he were just one guy offering an "opinion" disconnected from anything else. I see him as, to repeat, one more dark point among many, part of a world wide backlash against feminism.  He is part of a more general reaction to women's status, of which the rollback of RoevsWade is a part. 

Your post about some educated millennial women illustrates my point. The article is also framed by traditional gender ideology--women returning to their "natural" position in society. And it illustrates the stresses on families brought about by modernization and women's equality. The women interviewed for Daily Mail describe how difficult it is managing career and children. One "cause" of the return to the home, according to the article, was that women felt they could not do their jobs competently.


Easy answer here: I'm for women's equality.  That's my criterion.

So I am "against" gender roles based on the assumption men and women are not equal. 

E.g., that whether a woman is a college grad today or tomorrow a SAHM, the latter is still her true calling, 
even if she eventually goes back to work. 

So your rant against him is that he's trying to tell women how to think, feel and behave? 
No you aren't, you are just like Butkner, telling women how they should think and feel and behave. 

As i have repeatedly said, let people decide what's best for themselves. 

Do you see the difference between yours and Butkers angles vs mine? Mine is based on freedom of choice. While according to you, he's trying hem women into a certain criteria, ignoring the fact that you are doing the exact same thing. 

[Dill]

(06-03-2024, 02:28 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So what if he says that is their True calling (that's his opinion, not a law), you were smart enough to know that it might not be their true calling, are you saying that these educated kids that heard his message are to stupid to figure out what's best for them? 

I personally think that most women if given a choice would chose to be SAHM's and then go back into the work force at a later time. 

I'm saying that young people respond to messages from social authority around them, for sure. When the message they got from parents, teachers, ministers, friends and extended family was that their place was in the home, most young women figured the traditional role was "best" for them.

Feminists managed to roll that back inequality with counter-messaging--parents, teachers, etc. who told young women they were equal and could have successful careers too, contribute as much as men to the economy, to politics, and much else. 

Now there is a backlash to feminism and women's equality. Butker's speech is part of that backlash, part of a larger attempt to control the social authority and social environment in which young people make life choices.

(06-03-2024, 02:28 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You are talking out "opinions" again. I am talking about laws: the "opinions" of some forced on others who don't agree.   

What Laws? His 1A rights? I thought he exercised those just fine. Did he break some law I don't know about? No one was chained to their chairs. They had the freedom to get up and walk away if they so desired. So again what laws were being broken? 

Seems you missed my point.  Laws are based on value judgments, what you are calling "opinion." When enough people support an opinion, they can make it a law. E.g., if enough people think slavery is wrong, they can abolish it. If not enough, then it is not abolished. If enough people want women's roles in society curtailed, they can put their opinion into law.

So when the number of people using their platform to sway opinion increases, and that opinion goes counter to women's equality, then it is rational for people who support equality to be concerned about what that trend means, whether enough "opinions" will be changed to bring back older laws--as was recently attempted in Arizona. 

(06-03-2024, 02:28 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: There will always be resistance to any change. 

Butkers speech is only pissing you off, it doesn't piss me off, i know what he's trying to say and yes he could do a better job of it, but he specifically attacked something that you hold dear to your heart. If you gave a speech there, i bet there would be plenty of people that would not like what you had to say either. 

Him being Religious pretty much means it's going to not be an opinion that a Liberal life yourself will want to hear. So why torture yourself over it?

Do you agree, then, that Butker's speech signals resistance to change?

He attacked women's equality by advancing that notion that women, unlike men, have a "natural" role which supersedes everything else they might accomplish. That doesn't "piss [you] off" because you don't share the views on women's equality which I "hold dear to [my] heart."  

And I agree, plenty of people who do not agree with my views on women's equality would not like what I had to say either. They'd be the people who don't see women as fully equal to men.  And all religious people do not think like Butker does. Not even all Catholic women, and not even all women in Catholic orders, as Pally's link to the Benedictine Sisters objection shows. 

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-04-2024, 08:20 AM)Dill Wrote: Nor have I asked you. 

You and Dino have demonstrated adult competences and resources,
though you often choose not to. (E.g., your recent response on the Israel/Hamas thread.)

I respond differently to adolescents than to adults; hence the question.

More insults...

Get a sense of humor, have a chuckle, and move on.

If you get upset over a message board, you're doing it wrong.

[Dill]

(06-04-2024, 10:42 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: As Dino said, "why not for both"?
You exclude his statement about the "diabolical lies" women are told about careers.
So why aren't you taking his speech out of context? 

No idea what he says (usually he just posts as Meme and I'm not into his childishness, so I blocked him), and don't really care either. 

My error here. the pronoun was supposed to refer to Butker, not Dino. 

Have you also blocked the others meme posters?  

[Dill]

(06-04-2024, 11:13 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: More insults...
Get a sense of humor, have a chuckle, and move on.
If you get upset over a message board, you're doing it wrong.

Sounds like you're upset. 

And feel insulted. 

Because I asked your age.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-04-2024, 10:54 AM)Dill Wrote: I'm saying that young people respond to messages from social authority around them, for sure. When the message they got from parents, teachers, ministers, friends and extended family was that their place was in the home, most young women figured the traditional role was "best" for them.

Good Point about kids responding to messages from authority figures, except these aren't kids. 

(06-04-2024, 10:54 AM)Dill Wrote: Feminists managed to roll that back inequality with counter-messaging--parents, teachers, etc. who told young women they were equal and could have successful careers too, contribute as much as men to the economy, to politics, and much else. 

Again, he said SOME will have successful careers, which means they have a choice in how they live their lives.

(06-04-2024, 10:54 AM)Dill Wrote: Now there is a backlash to feminism and women's equality. Butker's speech is part of that backlash, part of a larger attempt to control the social authority and social environment in which young people make life choices.

There will always be backlash at something, No one or situation is ever perfect. How is it a backlash to being a mother? 
Being a Mother or Father is way more important than any accolade i could get from working. 

(06-04-2024, 10:54 AM)Dill Wrote: Seems you missed my point.  Laws are based on value judgments, what you are calling "opinion." When enough people support an opinion, they can make it a law. E.g., if enough people think slavery is wrong, they can abolish it. If not enough, then it is not abolished. If enough people want women's roles in society curtailed, they can put their opinion into law.

So when the number of people using their platform to sway opinion increases, and that opinion goes counter to women's equality, then it is rational for people who support equality to be concerned about what that trend means, whether enough "opinions" will be changed to bring back older laws--as was recently attempted in Arizona. 

Wait, are you trying to get enough support to make it a law so being a SAHM's will be against the law?  Good Luck with that one and thanks for the laugh.

(06-04-2024, 10:54 AM)Dill Wrote: Do you agree, then, that Butker's speech signals resistance to change?

Yes and No, it's a lifestyle that has always been there and always will be an option. 
I honestly wish more people would take parenting more seriously than they do. 

(06-04-2024, 10:54 AM)Dill Wrote: He attacked women's equality by advancing that notion that women, unlike men, have a "natural" role which supersedes everything else they might accomplish. That doesn't "piss [you] off" because you don't share the views on women's equality which I "hold dear to [my] heart."  

And I agree, plenty of people who do not agree with my views on women's equality would not like what I had to say either. They'd be the people who don't see women as fully equal to men.  And all religious people do not think like Butker does. Not even all Catholic women, and not even all women in Catholic orders, as Pally's link to the Benedictine Sisters objection shows. 

There was absolutely nothing degrading towards women in his speech, in fact he praised his wife for what she gave up to be home with their children, unfortunately both parents can't afford to be home. He's against abortion, but that's *gasps* because he's religious. 

Do you agree that being a parent is better than any job you could have in this world or not? 

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-05-2024, 06:36 PM)Dill Wrote: Sounds like you're upset. 

And feel insulted. 

Because I asked your age.

It was clearly a personal attack.

But you do you.

[Dill]

(06-06-2024, 07:39 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: It was clearly a personal attack.

But you do you.

What is "it"? 

You've been responding to arguments with memes, here and elsewhere, 
through them laughing at arguments/posters you show no sign of understanding. 

It that's what you do, then of course, you do you. 

But don't take umbrage if someone notices the "lite" character of your responses.

If serious argument is out of the question, then just have a chuckle and move on. 

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-06-2024, 01:20 PM)Dill Wrote: What is "it"? 

You've been responding to arguments with memes, here and elsewhere, 
through them laughing at arguments/posters you show no sign of understanding. 

It that's what you do, then of course, you do you. 

But don't take umbrage if someone notices the "lite" character of your responses.

If serious argument is out of the question, then just have a chuckle and move on. 

You questioned my age as an attack, then played coy like you were just asking someone's age. No different than questioning one's IQ as an attack, then playing it of as just wanting to know their IQ.

You are who you are.

[Dill]

(06-06-2024, 02:18 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: You questioned my age as an attack, then played coy like you were just asking someone's age. No different than questioning one's IQ as an attack, then playing it of as just wanting to know their IQ.

You are who you are.

Yes, someone who distinguishes between adults and adolescents, when possible.

I'm apparently not someone who posts childish memes in lieu of argument,
then cries when someone raises the maturity issue.

If you are an adult, then you're not getting a free pass to insult without consequence. 

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-06-2024, 03:21 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes, someone who distinguishes between adults and adolescents, when possible.

I'm apparently not someone who posts childish memes in lieu of argument,
then cries when someone raises the maturity issue.

If you are an adult, then you're not getting a free pass to insult without consequence. 

You are who you are.

Playing word games to insult people without the character to admit it.

[Dill]

(06-06-2024, 03:30 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: You are who you are.

Agreed--I'm someone who doesn't post childish memes in lieu of argument.

So far, you are not that someone. 

(06-06-2024, 03:30 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Playing word games to insult people without the character to admit it.

Stop crying.  Memesters aren't the measure of my character.

Respond to an argument with an argument sometime. 

Become more than you've shown so far. 

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-06-2024, 03:45 PM)Dill Wrote: Agreed--I'm someone who doesn't post childish memes in lieu of argument.

So far, you are not that someone. 


Stop crying.  Memesters aren't the measure of my character.

Respond to an argument with an argument sometime. 

Become more than you've shown so far. 

You are who you are.

More labels.

Predictable.

Be better.

[Dill]

(06-06-2024, 06:32 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: You are who you are.
More labels.
Predictable.
Be better.

LOL of course I'm "who i am." Who isn't? Aren't you who you are? 

"More labels"?  "Predictible" = repeating "you do you." 

It sounds like, suddenly, you have a problem with labels.

We may revisit that in future posts to "be better."