- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 12th Grade Girls Are Far Less Likely Than Boys To Say They Want To Get Married Someday
Posted on 1/16/26 at 9:13 pm to 4cubbies
Posted on 1/16/26 at 9:13 pm to 4cubbies
quote:Don't you though?
I don’t use ... whatever critical theory you keep referencing as fundament for my own political holdings.
quote:I don't actually. See the CT premise above.
Many husbands take their wives for granted. You may find that phrasing less offensive.
A questioning of your oppressor premise (I know that's anathema to CT) would include a related inquiry as to how, why, and how often wives take their husband's for granted.
Both propositions raise the additional question as to why the unappreciated party would not simply express the concern to his/her partner. After relaying such concerns, any future "taken for granted" element would need be an error of commission, rather than one of passive omission.
1
Posted on 1/16/26 at 9:27 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Don't you though?
No.
quote:
A questioning of your oppressor premise
What oppressor premise? You have the oppressor premise, not me.
quote:
why the unappreciated party would not simply express the concern to his/her partner.
Why would you assume this concern wouldn’t be expressed?
quote:
After relaying such concerns, any future "taken for granted" element would need be an error of commission, rather than one of passive omission.
That’s when the dissatisfaction really gets amplified.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 11:43 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
But, in all seriousness...
I tried being serious about 8 times before I started mocking.
The problem is that that isn't the only problem with cub's narrative here. By a long shot.
Her claim is that abandoning marriage by young women is a sensible thing for them to do because "it takes too much work for women to be married."
But by her own numbers—the ones she typed out and gave—we're talking about less than a 5% difference between men and women. Pretty much a rounding error. Easily addressed. Throwing out marriage because of it would be like abandoning your car on the side of the road because a bird air-bombed the windshield. Totally irrational.
Then you have the people who pointed out that the difference is even smaller than that because (surprise) the data seems to be selectively collated for the purpose of skewing it against men.
Then you have the data that says that women are happier, healthier, live longer, and are wealthier than unmarried women. She says there is conflicting data on that but won't post any, which leads me to believe it either doesn't actually exists or it's more books that have been cooked to support feminist dogma.
It is extremely clear that one of two things is going on. Cubs is indoctrinated (just like I've been saying) and starts with the conclusion that marriage is too labor intensive for women and then refuses to let go of that even when it's been shown to be nonsense, because it's feminist doctrine and she is a true believer, or she really is SFP and he's trolling the entire board with this thread.
She acts incredulous when I affirm that I hold that as a possibility, but when she does stuff like this it becomes entirely plausible to me. I only see two possibilities and frankly, that one seems more likely at this point.
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 11:46 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 11:44 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
What oppressor premise? You have the oppressor premise, not me.
Nope.
You basically quoted Force Doctrine. That's a feminist doctrine.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 11:48 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Why would you assume this concern wouldn’t be expressed?
Maybe because it's such a minor difference it's not logical that it would persist in spite of addressing it.
quote:
That’s when the dissatisfaction really gets amplified.
In that case, it's not really about work at all. It's about resentment for not being listened to.
Posted on 1/17/26 at 1:18 am to 4cubbies
quote:
That’s when the dissatisfaction really gets amplified.
A side effect of feminism. You are the story here!
Posted on 1/17/26 at 5:18 am to 4cubbies
quote:Link?
You have the oppressor premise
quote:Cubs, virtually every interrelational argument you've made has to do with deployment of a power structure against an oppressed class.
What oppressor premise?
Further, you've laid those arguments out in archetypal generalities (e.g., "Men don't value women"), as if they are not just stereotypes, but universal truths. That is classic critical theory. You claim such thoughts are entirely your own. You say they are not derived from reading, or sourced to feminist pedagogy.
I've called that claim to question.
Why?
Because those misandric archetypes, as universal truths, don't even fully apply to your personal experiences. When the personal inconsistencies eventually register ("Men don't value women" vs "Love = Value"), you soften the pretext as both overstated, and less than universal --- "Many husbands take their wives for granted." "Many" is less than universal. "Taking for granted" does not equate to generally not valued.
To illustrate the latter, the fact Renee Good took life for granted, does not mean she didn't value life. When she moved her foot to the accelerator 10days ago, she took for granted she'd not be dead 5 secs later. Taking life for granted is contradistinct with not valuing it.
In your case, the postulate inconsistencies -- personal experience vs asserted universal truths -- indicate you're either source influenced, or you knew when assembling your thesis, it was not even fully applicable to your own situation, yet, you went with it anyway. "Went with it anyway" would indicate dishonesty. Perhaps I'm being naive, but you don't come across to me as dishonest...
... which leaves derivation, based on influential CT sourcing, as the conclusion.
Page 22 of 22
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News