Happy Birthday, U.S. Women's Suffarage, today Aug 18th!

1. 86

   tsmogposted 8 weeks ago

   [Forgive the misspelling of Women's Suffrage in the OP title. Oops!]
   
   One hundred and four years ago the 19th amendment was ratified changing the political power dynamics in the U.S. One can poke about the web to learn the history and the remaining contention some have with it.
   
   What is your view? Overall it is . . .
   
   Good?
   Bad?
   
   How do today's women voters 'feel' about the upcoming election? The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) says . . .
   
   
   
   Curious about what women voters feel about the 2024 election? The following article/study by KFF shares about that.
   
   KFF Survey of Women Voters Dashboard by KFF (Updated July 23, 2024) Note we know the changes that have occurred, so consider that when assessing the graphics of data/information on Presidential candidates. The issues we could presume remain the same. Abortion is thoroughly covered with a deep dive.
   https://www.kff.org/2024-survey-of-wome … e-election
   
   A lengthy report with plenty of graphics some are interactive.
   
   How much of an impact will the women's vote have this Nov 5th?
   
   Thoughts, criticisms, accolades, or commentary?
   
   One of the many interesting graphics.
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Sharlee01posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      I realize my view might clash with most women's opinions, and the chart seems to back up my thoughts. I noticed a significant percentage of women feeling anxious and frustrated about the upcoming election, which, to me, suggests a challenge in sorting through the details and making a clear decision on a candidate. On a positive note, I was glad to see that a portion of women remain "hopeful," which is reassuring in today's political climate.
      
      The statistics on women's concerns over a candidate's character versus their stance on issues were surprising—quite an eye-opener, actually. I'll keep my deeper thoughts on that to myself. However, I was genuinely pleased to see that younger voters, particularly those aged 18-29, prioritize issues over character. This gives me hope for the future, as it shows a shift towards valuing issues that directly impact lives over emotional considerations when choosing a president.
      
      As for my age group, well, it seems I don't align with them. They prioritize character at 59% over specific issues.
      
      Reflecting on this thread has really solidified my thoughts on where women stand right now and where they might be headed. These stats give me some faith that what goes around comes around—it just takes a couple of decades.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         tsmogposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

         Thanks for sharing. An interesting take, Sharlee. I thought the look into character vs. issue seemed interesting as that has been discussed in these forums before. I placed the graphic about how they 'feel' because of the other OP.
         
         Did you venture into the study. They did a deep dive into Michigan women voters with plenty of commentary and graphics. You may find that interesting. Of course, it is comparing Trump to Biden, so you will have to project with Harris. They discuss Prop 3 and delve into abortion and black voters.
         
         If you go to the report on the left is table of contents with a selection for Michigan. Use the drop down menu for Michigan and select Michigan: A Battleground State and it will take you right to the beginning.

         replyreport
2. 70

   abwilliamsposted 8 weeks ago

   The Suffrajettes are rolling over in their graves over the decisions today's women are making:
   
   1. Putting do-nothing-Dems in charge with their votes.
   2. Pretending that babies aren't babies, but are all for killing them in the womb --- just in case!
   3. Putting their sons in girl's clothing and vise versa IF that's what they really, really want!
   4. Putting out a litter box for their daughter who think she's a cat. Insisting  that her school do the same!
   5. Not speaking out against confused men hijacking their locker rooms, bathrooms, and Sports......
   6. Not standing up for their daughters, and their granddaughters in the same predicament, in BLUE STATES!
   7. Overlooking an intentional wide open Border, and playing a game of Make-Believe that criminals, drug dealers, child molesters, rapists, child traffickers and murderers NEVER cross over and into America.
   8. Continuing the game of make-believe, that they themselves will NEVER come into contact with these illegal criminals.
   9. Wearing blinders to the possibility that the contact will come at the expense of their daughters!
   10. For being mask nazis and jab freaks, but not lifting a finger to call out the freedom-grabbing which took place on a massive scale!
   11. For not recognizing Communism whenever they see the names, Harris-Walz!
   
   This is ALL on the left, this is what the Democratic Party embraces, and (women especially) are eating it up.
   
   Sorry Suffrajettes, it ain't  me!

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Sharlee01posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      Nor me!  Amen

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Ken Burgessposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

         The problem... all the battles were won.
         
         Women couldn't own property, have a bank account, vote, etc. etc.
         
         Now they can do all those things, there is no difference in the rights.
         
         Save abortion... if not for that issue, society today bends over backwards to give women the opportunity to do jobs they are unfit for (physically) sliding scales of testing so that where a man is disqualified as being unfit for the job, women are allowed... because they are women.
         
         Same as for race issues today, as far as federal laws and societal norms go, there is no discrimination allowed.
         
         The problem is... we arrived at the destination of "equal opportunity" for all based on being graded/selected/promoted on equal standards.
         
         That wasn't good enough... it wasn't getting the results the extremists (Feminists, Socialists, etc.) wanted, women tended to be better at and more interested in Nursing, men were better at and more interested in being engineers and engine builders.
         
         Not good enough... some people aren't happy with equal opportunity and now the goal is equal outcome... based on quotas and percentages, not capability and merit.
         
         The slogan should no longer be "We have a long way to go..."  the slogan should be a question "Have we gone to far?"

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Ken,
            
            "Have we gone too far?"
            
            Thank you for your thoughtful response; it really gives me something to reflect on and broadens the discussion in unexpected ways. In my previous comment, I was mainly sharing my perspective on the statistics as a whole, and I must admit I’m surprised by what issues are at the forefront for women today. You've raised an important point about the progress women have made, particularly in terms of legal rights, and how the conversation has evolved. While I agree that many battles for equal rights have been won, the shift toward ensuring equal outcomes is indeed a complex and controversial topic. It's clear that this shift brings up questions about fairness, merit, and the standards by which we measure success. Your comment certainly challenges us to consider whether we've moved beyond equality of opportunity and whether the pursuit of equal outcomes is taking us too far in the wrong direction.
            
            So, I have now come full circle "Have we gone too far"
            
            I find myself wondering—have women come so far that we've lost something valuable along the way? Have we, in striving for equality, sacrificed some of the innate and wonderful qualities that make us uniquely female? Have we, perhaps influenced by the masculine, adopted new gender roles at the expense of our inherent femininity?  In my personal view, I say yes we have come too far, have we morphed into what could be called a "manwomen"? (for the lack of another word?)

            replyreport
            1. 70

               Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

               We were taking the steps to go too far decades ago.
               
               I saw this in the military when 'special observers' from outside the military were evaluating things like Ranger School, so that the way the school was run, the standards for testing could be changed... until they were eased enough that they could get women through it.
               
               Same tales can be told in fire and police departments throughout America, heck we could see that at work with the Secret Service as they looked completely incompetent just a few weekends back.
               
               But it seems they have realized that no matter how watered-down standards become, they just cannot get the numbers they want... so now they attack testing standards all together... physical or mental, experience and competence a distant second reason to consider someone for a position.  Equity is far more important.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Ken,    "But it seems they have realized that no matter how watered-down standards become, they just cannot get the numbers they want... so now they attack testing standards altogether... physical or mental, experience and competence a distant second reason to consider someone for a position.  Equity is far more important."
                  
                  I understand your concern about the perceived shift from merit-based evaluations to a stronger emphasis on equity. It’s important to recognize that the intent behind revising standards and testing is to create a more inclusive environment where diverse candidates have a fair chance.
                  
                  it should not completely overshadow the value of competence and experience. Ideally, adjustments should strive to balance fairness with rigorous assessment, ensuring that all candidates, regardless of background or gender are evaluated based on their qualifications and ability to perform the job effectively. I could support a goal that seeks to build a system that upholds both equity and excellence.
                  
                  In my opinion, a job should never be altered to fit the applicant; rather, the role should remain as originally defined.

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                     "It’s important to recognize that the intent behind revising standards and testing is to create a more inclusive environment where diverse candidates have a fair chance."
                     
                     When that intent takes priority over ability we have a problem.  Which we do, whether it is buried in equality slogans or not.

                     replyreport
                  2. 70

                     Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                     I recognize what it is for.
                     
                     And I recognize the deconstructive and harmful societal impact it has, when forced into occupations like Firefighters and First Line military units.
                     
                     There is no place for inclusion and diversity in fields where life and death, where the success or failure of a mission that may decide the fate of many, many lives is at stake.
                     
                     In those fields, competence and capability is ALL that matters.
                     
                     But not when you put insanity and ideology ahead of facts, reason, and rationality.
                     
                     And then there is the whole cohesion and feeling like you belong to something unique, superior, even honorable... that is lost when you are giving it to someone based on sex, knowing full well that person could not be trusted to get the job done under the harshest conditions you may face.
                     
                     The best of the best will not bother to try for 'special' forces if they don't believe there is anything 'special' about being selected for them.

                     replyreport
                     1. 86

                        Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                        I agree, when considering the critical nature of certain occupations, such as firefighters and frontline military units, it’s understandable why one might argue that the primary focus should be on competence, skill, and physical capability, rather than on diversity or inclusion initiatives. In roles where life and death decisions are made, the stakes are undeniably high, and any factor that could compromise the effectiveness of these units could have devastating consequences.
                        
                        "And then there is the whole cohesion and feeling like you belong to something unique, superior, even honorable... that is lost when you are giving it to someone based on sex, knowing full well that person could not be trusted to get the job done under the harshest conditions you may face."
                        
                        I agree that a sense of cohesion and belonging to something greater can be deeply tied to trust and the ability to rely on others, especially in challenging situations. When these bonds are compromised, particularly in environments where teamwork and reliability are crucial, it can undermine the sense of shared purpose and integrity. Trust is essential in ensuring that every member of a group is not just present, but capable of contributing effectively when it matters most.

                        replyreport
                        1. 70

                           Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                           Completely rational, right?
                           
                           I'm not saying anything other than what is common sense.
                           
                           But when dealing with people of devout faith... who put ideology above all else... who put feelings ahead of facts. They cannot see it... all that matters to them is that they get the results they are looking for, and to hell with the ability of those firefighters or that combat unit to get the job done.

                           replyreport
                           1. 86

                              Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                              "But when dealing with people of devout faith... who put ideology above all else... who put feelings ahead of facts. They cannot see it... all that matters to them is that they get the results they are looking for, and to hell with the ability of those firefighters or that combat unit to get the job done."
                              
                              I agree with you, Ken. People who hold rigid beliefs and prioritize ideology over everything else, often letting emotions override facts, tend to miss the bigger picture. For them, the only thing that matters is achieving their desired outcome, even if it compromises the effectiveness of firefighters, combat units, or others in carrying out their duties.
                              
                              Do you think this mindset will ever change? Our society has evolved rapidly, so is it possible that this way of thinking could shift as common sense prevails? I believe that, over time, some of these extreme ideologies will be recognized as mistakes due to the failures they inevitably lead to.
                              
                              Consider when the left was advocating for defunding the police and integrating social workers into law enforcement. It now seems that many on the left have distanced themselves from what was once seen as a brilliant idea.

                              replyreport
            2. 96

               wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

               I will be slapped for writing this, but it seems pertinent.
               
               Yes, we have gone too far in women adopting masculinity.  We have also gone too far in men adopting femininity. 
               
               We are trying to make them "equal" (meaning identical) but women are NOT men and men are NOT women.  There are differences far beyond strength and child bearing ability, and we are trying (and to some degree succeeding) in destroying those differences.  The species will suffer for it.

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  abwilliamsposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  No one should be slapped for speaking truth.

                  replyreport
               2. 86

                  Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  You won't get slapped by me -- Although I might glean the rath of some women that post here...
                  
                  It's true that in our pursuit of equality, we sometimes blur the distinctions between men and women to the point where we risk overlooking the unique qualities that each gender brings. While striving for equal opportunities and rights is crucial, it's also important to recognize that men and women are not identical. Each has strengths and characteristics that are valuable in their own right. By trying to erase these differences, we could inadvertently undermine the diversity that enriches our species.
                  
                  "Yes, we have gone too far in women adopting masculinity.  We have also gone too far in men adopting femininity. ="
                  
                  I totally Agree
                  .

                  replyreport
   2. 86

      tsmogposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      Thanks AB for commenting. A lot of points made that may be top of the mind of women voters more than men? Thus, the vote they now have has a dynamic to change the current trends?

      replyreport
   3. 70

      abwilliamsposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      * Suffragettes

      replyreport
3. 75

   Kathleen Cochranposted 7 weeks ago

   "Have we gone too far?"
   
   Only a man would ask that.
   
   Soldiers always brag about how hard things "used to be." If you check, you will see that men washed out of the course at the same time those women passed with "lower standards."
   
   It is still the hardest physical course the military offers. Ask any Ranger.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      abwilliamsposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      I am not a man and, yes, I too believe we have gone too far in the wrong direction.
      Women on the left no longer seemed concerned with the plight of women, but rather the best interest of 'The Party'. If they were, they would not be on board with the radicalism of 'The Party', which  does womanhood [in itself] zero favors!

      replyreport
   2. 70

      Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      I do, the Rangers and SF I know all agree, it is a vastly inferior training regimen being put forth today.
      
      A reflection of a weaker, more feminized, less masculine society in general.

      replyreport
4. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks ago

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPC0tXrj1qU
   
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_xA6sH9kkQ

   replyreport
5. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks ago

   Betty Friedan
   
   "... Friedan also began the research for what would become The Feminine Mystique in the late 1950s. After conducting a survey of her Smith classmates at a 15-year reunion, Friedan found that most were, as she was, dissatisfied with the limited world of suburban housewives. She spent five years conducting interviews with women across the country, charting white, middle-class women’s metamorphosis from the independent, career-minded New Woman of the 1920s and 1930s to the housewives of the postwar era who were expected to find total fulfillment as wives and mothers.
   
   Published in 1963, The Feminine Mystique hit a nerve, becoming an instant best-seller that continues to be regarded as one of the most influential nonfiction books of the 20th century. Women everywhere voiced a similar “malaise” from what Friedan dubbed, “the problem that has no name.” The book helped transform public awareness ... "
   
   https://www.womenshistory.org/education … ty-friedan

   replyreport
6. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks ago

   https://vimeo.com/499018826

   replyreport