John Edwards Demeans Women

“Henry Higgins…”Why can’t a woman be more like a man?”

Testosterone. (sigh)”

If it was just testosterone then all you would have to do is get a shot as some women have done and freaked out. But, typically, any female response is that it is only one single item or drug that makes a man.

Women are still delusional.

I don’t usually comment on this stuff..but, even though Marc won the debate, I wondered why he didn’t mention the obvious reason (it seems to me) that Edwards is using this free welfare for women, “I will take care of you stuff”— is because it’s all about the socialism nanny state that Hillary AND Edwards want to bring in. Edwards is also playing to a MUCH lower woman economical class…the rich dems will be voting for Hillary or Obama.

Edwards makes WAY too many trips to the Hague.

In other words the ploy is political and pandering to lower class votes. The young single parent waitresses who barely have the time to sleep…let alone vote.

She seems to be having trouble because she is upper level women college graduate…her worst point was the “poverty” one.

Women just have a lot of trouble with cut throat competition in the business world. They don’t think it’s fair…and they are right…unless they get a mentor (or a dad) to teach them the man’s world…they just get more emotional about it. Men, on the other hand…love the competition.

Henry Higgins…”Why can’t a woman be more like a man?”

Testosterone. (sigh)

“Is Lis Wiehl Legally Blond? A complete airhead.”

I disagree. She is doing as good a job possible when there are no facts to support her position. She is very smart to use misdirection and prejudice to support that position. She is not dumb, just dishonest.

That was a fantastic result – Marc’s next book should be about how to debate women/feminism. I know how hard it is to go against everything society teaches us about chivalry, so deeply engrained, that even a men’s rights activist can become nervous in these situations (in my case, on campus), knowing how people tend to side with the female. A fear of mob chivalry exists, waiting for the ad hominum comment, the catty illogic, and the male chairperson’s capitulation to the female side. I am sure marc could break down these categories better than anyone, and teach us all how to prepare to deal with them.

True enough.
I’ve done a limited study in the high tech industry and women make as much or more than men if they make the same sacrifices (education, overtime, travel, special projects, being reliable, etc).

There are no shortcuts to higher pay. If women want to make the same sacrifices as men have done for generations, then they will make as much as men (or more when employment quotas dictate highering a woman that may be hard to find in the employment pool).

Marc-

Lis Wiehl is not the brightest person in the room. She used up much of the airtime in this exchange and her comments relied on the same old positions that feminists have been espousing for decades. Her main point (and only point) in trying to discredit your positions was in using the term “sexism”. Logic is always powerful but can be lost when the opponent retorts with thinking that is based on “emotional intelligence” and not the uncompromising logic you had used. Sexism “feels right” as an answer to her problem. This probably appeals to many women and unfortunately to some men as well. (It probably also appeals to Wiehl’s advocacy- biased mode of thinking as a lawyer). Your points can be lost also when she uses up so much time. Her points needs endless talking because they have no substance and need to be defended endlessly. Has this woman even read another popular book on this subject: Warren Farrell’s “Why Men Earn More”? This woman has not lived in the private sector very much to earn a living. If she actually believes that men who run businesses will hire men at a higher rate than a woman, and thereby lose profits, just because they are sexist than this woman needs serious medical attention. Sexism is the “Unified Field Theory” to feminists without a functioning brain.

Marc-I went to the Fox News website and read some of the emails Wiehl had received and her replies. You do come under attack. Wiehl’s replies are just plain silly. I don’t care about her Harvard Law background-this woman is not real bright.

You are one of the top movers and shakers in the MRM and I think you are doing fantastic work.

She conceded your main point before you got there.

The Oursourcing line was great! She says the EEOC laws protect men and keep them employed. What a HOOT!

Thus women being paid less is true and Men are the financial drag on the Economy! LOL gafaw

Truly a diseased mind that cannot see what is in front of her in the history of EEOC complaint filing stats.

Why did she just not come right out and say that this is sexist pandering making Sexist Entitlements, violating equality under the law, and that if not addressed the Feminists would hold him to this ridiculous pandering?

How much more nakes can this get?

Take all the yardage you can Marc.

Next Edwards will pledge curfews for men so they can be home in time to do the dishes and not our raping wymyn.