It's time for a revolution. At the polls, and in the bedroom. And in our understanding of who women are, sexually and otherwise. Given the tight interweaving of economic and political power with sexual entitlement, female sexual autonomy has never been more urgent, and women's sexual pleasure has never been more political. Let's consider what it might mean to go on a sex strike of sorts -- to get what we want, rather than give what we think we owe others.
Sex and status are linked. Where men have the tightest grip on resources and power, our society (including the women in their lives) will prioritize their pleasure -- and create false narratives about what women deserve, sexually and otherwise. To wit: in 2018, the number of female CEOs of US Fortune 500 companies dropped 25%, to 24 women total among hundreds of men leading industry, tech, manufacturing, and other sectors. On a more workaday level, according to World Bank data cited by TheGlobalEconomy.com the US ranks an unimpressive 76th out of 180 countries worldwide for female labor force participation.
American women, particularly women of color, continue to earn a fraction of the dollar that white men do -- 63 cents for black women; 55 for Native women; 54 for Latinas. Even worse, we are 104th out of 193 countries ranked for female political participation (beaten out by Namibia, Burundi, and Belarus, among others). These numbers are astonishingly low when we consider that the US is the world's largest economy. Those who can't lead or even earn on par must serve. And in America, in restaurants, in businesses, and in bed, it is women who serve men.
Doubting Thomas, I see no indication CNN or Democrats hate heterosexual men like me. I am unsure I can speak for you. What sort of special hated subgroup do you belong to?
huckelberry wrote:Doubting Thomas, I see no indication CNN or Democrats hate heterosexual men like me. I am unsure I can speak for you. What sort of special hated subgroup do you belong to?
that's trying to, uh, confuse the issue of masculinity and probably heterosexuality.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Doc, I read the article. I do not share the articles concern about fashion. I think folks who do have a long standing fascination with the great ferment of change they hope to ride to success. It may not be completely stereotype that they tend to be less heterosexual.
Beyond that I am not aware of a great issue of masculine identity. Perhaps we can learn better behavior on some matters.
canpakes wrote:Seriously. Who wakes up in the morning questioning their masculinity because of a fashion article?
Who does that? I simply posted that DT is probably noticing articles like those that attempt to redefine or diminuize masculinity. ?
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
huckelberry wrote:Doubting Thomas, I see no indication CNN or Democrats hate heterosexual men like me. I am unsure I can speak for you. What sort of special hated subgroup do you belong to?
Look at the bad and misleading statistics that CNN is using.
On a more workaday level, according to World Bank data cited by TheGlobalEconomy.com the US ranks an unimpressive 76th out of 180 countries worldwide for female labor force participation.
