Quote:Blaming hilary for bills choice of sexual escapade is pure and simpyl victim shaming disguised as a proxy slavery of hilarys own personal body to be auctioned off to the moral cause of how some think they should feel.
its soo messed up on soo many levels im not going to get any more into it.
suffice to say that women cheat just as much as men but are far better at hiding it, thus all those people judging them will be cheating or have best friends who are cheating.
hypocrisy and double standards of morality creates bigotry and groundwork for groomers and brainwashing cults.
Firstly, this.
Very few people "blamed" Hillary Clinton for Bill's dalliance.
Pointing out that if she really had a moral objection to his penchant for pussy-chasing, she probably would have done something about it a long time ago, is not laying blame; nor is it a reflection that anyone regarded Bill's indiscretions as normal, something "like "oh, that's just what men do" (although undoubtedly, many would have thought exactly that, although how they could come to such a conclusion without wondering who they'd do it with is problematical).
Coming to the conclusion that Hillary's reactions were engineered for public consumption is not shifting any blame. It is pointing out an elephant in the room.
Bill's dalliances weren't a new thing. The impression most would garner from the whole thing is that Hillary's tears were more of the crocodile variety, only becoming evident when suddenly the public eye was very much focused on the Clinton's private lives. It was, possibly, something which stayed in people's minds during the recent election because it was yet another nail in the coffin of a woman who, by all appearances, was prepared to take on any persona necessary to gain or retain power. Clinton had a history of changing her stance on issues throughout her political career (often), siding with whatever point of view was largely decided to be most likely to get her the job she was after... and in the face of several opinions that America's election result was largely a shift in public opinion away from "the establishment", and evidence that Americans were becoming tired of professional, engineered politics, the groundwork for a public perception of Clinton as a polished and scripted politician was probably laid very early on.
As far as "donalds words are declared as not actually fact" goes, his response was "Anyone who knows me knows those words don't reflect who I am. I said it. I am wrong. I apologise". So I'm not sure where you're getting your info from on that. If I take your meaning correctly; I'm not altogether sure sometimes.
My point of view is that he isn't wrong at all. All one need do is walk into any bar where sports stars, politicians or lawyers, whatever hang out, and check out the talent, to use a vernacular. Women are attracted to power, and they will put up with a lot in order to remain close to it. It is what it is, regardless of anyone's particular moral compass.
Tell you what, walk into said bar with a hidden recording device. Unless, of course, you feel it would be morally wrong to do so... which actually opens up another little thing that is being largely ignored in this sad little tale of
morals.
Using buzz phrases like "victim shaming/blaming" or "gender sterotyping" does nothing other than attempt to paint a simple picture of complex situations in the hopes that everyone will be
ashamed to point out grey areas.
BIG grey areas. Like that elephant.
However, although most people might be ashamed to publicly say so, the voting booth is still a reasonably private place. I actually predicted a Trump victory very early on in the piece - you could almost feel the wave building, and it was less about Trump and more about Clinton. When you say the left only have themselves to blame, there's far more to that than you seem to fully appreciate.
Being forced to apologise for speaking what is essentially fact is another crime, and yet one largely ignored. One has to wonder to what extent keeping reality a dirty little secret and pretending it doesn't exist is going to lead to any constructive conversation or resolution. Social engineering, another little hypocritical form of brainwashing.
And I might argue that the attempt to absolve women of any blame in these matters is pretty much painting them as hapless victims of circumstance and society - something I'm fairly certain is a little bit counter productive, if not blatantly hypocritical.
I mean, is there a gender based version of the whole "white man's burden" theme? One for you perhaps, CC.
Taping a private conversation and then opening it up to the public in order to further an agenda is another moral crime, yet I've heard barely a murmur. Of course, the same ones who are loudly and publicly decrying the use of Hillary's private emails as an election weapon are probably the same ones who are leaping onto the recorded conversation as a reason Trump shouldn't be president...without so much as a blush.
It's not gender stereotyping, RU. It's not victim shaming. Or whatever the current meme is.
Hang on, I might have a new one for you. One I just made up, as far as I know.
It's
agender politics.
Haha. It's got
levels of meaning, man. Yeah, I know. Don't give up my day job.
Oh, and
Quote:funny how democrat and liberal private lives are ok for public scrutiny and judgement but not the conservatives.
Really? Has that got any basis in fact at all, or are you just throwing it out there to see who'll bite?
I'm tempted to bring JFK into the discussion. By all accounts, he was very much like Trump, said and did whatever he liked and got away with it most of the time.
His actions or inactions might have even led to the death of Marilyn Monroe according to some theories, in the end, which is a sequence of events pointing to Kennedy as something completely different to his public persona might have led you to believe.
History has judged Kennedy more on his politics than his morals or private life, and were Kennedy alive today I have no doubt he would probably be sighing in relief there wasn't as much in the way of technology used in a dubious fashion in order to further an agenda.
Yet he's remembered as more a lovable rogue than a predatory male. Why?
Because everyone liked him. He was better looking, too.
Oh, and he was a Democrat. Just, you know, in case that's important.
And...
CC Wrote:Indeed.
Top 10 Things Everyone Should Know About Women Consumers
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bridgetbrenn...consumers/
Bridget Brennan: "Women are the world’s most powerful consumers, and their impact on the economy is growing every year. The global incomes of women are predicted to reach a staggering $18 trillion by 2018, according to global professional services firm EY. Since I run a firm that helps businesses develop marketing and sales strategies for women consumers, I am constantly asked about the “secret” to why women buy and why they don’t. While there are no secrets and no silver bullets, here are 10 things to keep in mind when marketing and selling to women..."
- - - - - - -
Well, no. Women don't have more spending
power, CC. They do, however, have different spending
habits.
Just spending in general, for starters.
(That was a joke.)
Which is why I found
Quote:Top 10 Things Everyone Should Know About Women Consumers
vaguely disconcerting.
I'm going to just leave that there for now.
Also, there seems to be a bit of double dipping in the entire thing. Either women are still viewed as the housekeepers, thereby spending most of a household 's income on keeping the family, or they're more empowered now and have more disposable income.
Or is it trying to infer women are some sort of super-creatures doing both, while hubby comes home to a beer and the footy after work?
If this particular company is marketing based upon any one of those, they're completely behind the times.
I mean, cars changed from being called "Valiant", "Charger", "Challenger", "Mustang" etc in the late 60's to "Prius" now. That was, primarily, because the market changed from a male dominated one to a more balanced one, if not more female-oriented in the form of smaller, more efficiently practical vehicles with generic styling.
I also find it interesting that "stylish" has almost become synonymous with "bland and inoffensive", with reference to cars, although perhaps I'm not giving enough credit to the general population in the assumption they wouldn't know the origin of the word "prius" in the first place - although I think I'm on reasonably safe ground there.
Still, though, even the suffix Prius is more of an ephemeral idea, than an image of a rampaging stallion.
Car names are just nonsense words now, in general. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.
tl;dr though, "stuff" has been marketed to women for a very long time now. Decades. It's not like anyone has to "wake up" at all.
I do live in a different country though, (I assume).
Perhaps things are different... over there.