RE: Women and The "Grass is Greener in the Streets Syndrome"

Nevies, you haven't silenced me 😂 You've simply repeated the same unsupported leap - which you seem to do over and over.

“Women historically depended economically on men” does not logically lead to “therefore 50%+ of women today think about making money from men via their bodies.”

That's the leap, right?

But they are two completely different claims - evidence connecting them isn't your FEELING that it “makes sense”.

And yes, saying 80% of a group behaves a certain way is quite literally a sweeping generalisation. Leaving out 20% doesn't somehow stop it being one no matter what you say.

As for my "jibes': mocking a weak argument doesn't make the argument stronger or suggest 'winning' - bizarre you are seeing it as a competition and feel the need to 'win', saying quote a bit about your ego.

“You made a joke, therefore I won” isn't the intellectual flex you seem to think it is.

Anyway, I can't be bothered talking in circles now. I was pointing out a few things you should think about - digging your heels in so inflexible on your generalisations and flawed understanding of feminism isn't a flex or a 'win' and it certainly wasn't mean to be a battle where one cries victory, it was meant to be a discussion.

I'm disengaging with your inanity now. I should have scrolled on by. My silence now is because I have other people to engage with. Ciao

“Women historically depended economically on men” does not logically lead to “therefore 50%+ of women today think about making money from men via their bodies.”

Nice you've made an attempt at thinking, even though it's botched attempt. It's better than resorting to jibes when you reach your end.

This is a very botched attempt because I never said women historical depending on men economically logically leads to therefore 50%+ of women today think about making money from men via their bodies. You had to twist what I said before you could manage a reply. I don't know if it is dishonesty or an inability to grasp the impact of the words I used. This is what I said:

If you look at what I said about how women had to depend on men for provision throughout history until recently due to better civil liberties, and how that is one of the reasons why it is still common for women to think about choosing the option of only letting a man provide rather than stressing over provision themselves you'd agree that is a strong point, if you're capable of any honesty.

I said the historical dependence is "one of the reasons" not the sole reason and the all and all like you've just said. The difference is being just one of the reasons rather than the entire reason means the entire argument is not based on it, but only in part. If you couldn't see this difference or was just dishonest about it then you're not even worth engaging with intellectually.

I also don't want to keep going in circles and engaging someone who was in a hurry to replace valid points with attacks.

Plus you're really trying to say that thousands of years of doing things a particular way left no aftereffect especially an aftereffect as intangible as a thought?

That it doesn't cross the mind of a majority of women to benefit from it sometimes even though the option is still available. And it is baseless for someone to even think that women do.

If you can't see how dumb that stance is it's a waste of time even engaging. Bye.