Hegseth Boosts Video of Pastors Saying Women Shouldn't Vote, Advocating Repeal of 19th Amendment

Oompa Loompa said:

You are completely ignoring the point. But perhaps that is my fault. I can understand how using an analogy so extreme such a men fighting with women can be so unsettling that it completely overshadows the point that is trying to be made. So please allow me to use another, less dramatic example. In a New York subway, a blue haird, man hating feminist steps into the train and finds all the seats are full. She is 47 and carrying several bags of groceries. Yet, not a single man stands up and offers her their seat. Now this particular woman is a very vocal activist for women's equality. Held picket signs to protest the patriarchy and cried to her girlfriends about how oppressed she was as she was sipping her PSL (pumpkin spice latte) at Starbucks. She even traveled all the way to Washington D.C. to protest the SCOTUS repeal of Roe v. Wade.

My question is simple, should such a woman deserve to feel upset or offended if every man looked at her, then turn their eyes, leaving her to stand there for the next 25 minutes?

Click to expand...

Back when I rode the subway regularly, if I saw someone carrying several bags of groceries and there were no seats available, I'd have given up my seat. And I wouldn't have cared whether that person were a man or a woman, or a single thing about their political opinions or their coffee order, one way or the other.

But that's me.

-- A2SG, then again, I don't live in the 1950s, so maybe we're in two different worlds here....

A2SG said:

Back when I rode the subway regularly, if I saw someone carrying several bags of groceries and there were no seats available, I'd have given up my seat. And I wouldn't have cared whether that person were a man or a woman, or a single thing about their political opinions or their coffee order, one way or the other.

But that's me.

-- A2SG, then again, I don't live in the 1950s, so maybe we're in two different worlds here....

Click to expand...

Respectfully. I dont care about what you would do. I am asking about what she should expect if you had not. Frankly, I feel like everyone knows the obvious answer to the question but are trying to tiptoe around it because they refuse to concede to the obvious reality.

Oompa Loompa said:

I dont care about what you would do. I am asking about what she should expect if you had not.

Click to expand...

I would guess she'd hope more people might act as I would have, but whether or not she'd expect that, I can't say for sure.

Or, perhaps, she could simply put the grocery bags on the ground next to where she's standing. It's what I used to do when I brought groceries home on the subway.

Oompa Loompa said:

Frankly, I feel like everyone knows the obvious answer to the question but are trying to tiptoe around it because they refuse to concede to the obvious reality.

Click to expand...

So what's the obvious answer? That she'd be upset no man rose to give up her seat? Probably. And I can't say I'd blame her, as I would probably feel the same way back when I grocery shopped by T. I'd also suggest she'd be equally okay with a woman giving up her seat for her.

See, gender stereotypes of the 1950s aside, this isn't really a man/woman thing, but a civility thing.

-- A2SG, politeness isn't a gender trait....

Oompa Loompa said:

Being treated equally with men implies that men will confront you and fight you like a man.

Click to expand...

Is this what happens in Louisiana? I've drunk in quite a few bars there and can't recall guys and gals beating each other up. And you haven't told us about what you think about losing your right to vote.

A2SG said:

So what's the obvious answer?

Click to expand...

The obvious answer is no. No. She should not be surprised nor offended because she should understand that she is getting the equality that she so desperately desired. In fact, I would expect her to be offended if a man offered her a seat just like how so many modern male hating feminist activist would respond if a man opened a door for her. These are the same feminist who will choose the bear over a man. That is the obvious answer. Ironically, these are the same exact women who will be sitting on the side of the road begging for a man's help when they have a flat tire. These are the same women who will be begging for a man's help when their faucet is leaking. These are the same women who will mock, insult, and even physically threaten men and cry for men to help her when she finds herself on the wrong side of an uppercut. I keep asking the question, do modern feminist want equality? The obvious answer is heck no. They dont want to be treated equal to men. They want to be treated better than men, because they think they are better than men. That is modern feminism. Not how I emphasize "modern" feminism. Because modern feminism is a toxic and corrupt movement that almost has nothing to do with the first wave sufferigists who wanted equality with men and the right to vote. Nor does it have anything to do with the 2nd wave feminism that taught young women that they dont need men. Now, it is a movement that teaches women that they are better than men. Ironic because they cannot even define what a man is! And these same feminist are trashing traditional biblical gender roles as outlined in Ephesians 5 when those instructions have proven themselves to be true for hundreds of years. Then people sit around and wonder why divorce rates are so high, women are prostituting themselves on OnlyFans, boys who think they are men are impregnating young women and abandoning them to be raised and provided by the State welfare system. The obvious answer is because men allowed it. The family is the most basic building block of a civilization, and men sat back and made compromises with the world and watched apathetically as society begins to collapse for the sake of "equality."

Now dont hear me wrong. I AM NOT SAYING MEN ARE BETTER THAN WOMEN. I am saying men and women are not the same or equal other than in a ontological sense that both are created in the image of God. But I almost guarantee that the marriage between the husband and the spouse provided in the OP would yield much better fruit than any alternative in spite the fact that the husband had the audacity to say he is the head of his household, and that after careful discussion and a consensus with the entire family, his vote alone is sufficient to represent the voice of his home. Again, if a feminist activist doesnt like it, I dont care. They can change their own tire and stand on the subway train the entire day while I sit in my seat. But Christians above all shouldn't criticize the biblically based decisions of a husband who is trying to be faithful to the Word of God in the best way they know how. To them, I say the issue is between them and God, not me, Pete Hegseth, the Pastor, or the married couple.

Oompa Loompa said:

You are correct. I previously brought up a Marine Corps study when the took 200 of the top female officers available and let them try their Infanty officer's course. Only two graduated.

Click to expand...

Continuing this risible direction you seem determined to pursue, then if you can't hack it as a marine then you lose your vote? Nah, just joking. Your point has always been that if you don't register to fight then you lose your vote.

Just trying to keep your argument on point as it were, rather than heading off into the weeds to avoid what all of us can see.

Oompa Loompa said:

The obvious answer is no. No. She should not be surprised nor offended because she should understand that she is getting the equality that she so desperately desired. In fact, I would expect her to be offended if a man offered her a seat just like how so many modern male hating feminist activist would respond if a man opened a door for her. These are the same feminist who will choose the bear over a man. That is the obvious answer.

Click to expand...

Obvious to you, perhaps. For my part, I see politeness instead of gender stereotypes. I've opened doors for other people (men and women), and I've had doors opened for me (by men and women), I don't see how gender makes any difference.

Oompa Loompa said:

Ironically, these are the same exact women who will be sitting on the side of the road begging for a man's help when they have a flat tire.

Click to expand...

I know many women who can, and have, changed tires. Me, I'm hopeless at it. I call AAA.

Oompa Loompa said:

These are the same women who will be begging for a man's help when their faucet is leaking.

Click to expand...

They might be better off calling a plumber. I know one who's good, her name's Cheryl.

Oompa Loompa said:

These are the same women who will mock, insult, and even physically threaten men and cry for men to help her when she finds herself on the wrong side of an uppercut.

Click to expand...

You sure live in a violent world, my friend. Up here in Boston, I've managed to live to my 60s, and I've yet to face even a single uppercut.

Oompa Loompa said:

I keep asking the question, do modern feminist want equality? The obvious answer is heck no.

Click to expand...

Despite actual modern feminists saying otherwise. Have you even listened to them when they've spoken? One particular poster in this thread had been very vocal about her views on the matter.

Oompa Loompa said:

They dont want to be treated equal to men. They want to be treated better than men, because they think they are better than men. That is modern feminism. Not how I emphasize "modern" feminism. Because modern feminism is a toxic and corrupt movement that almost has nothing to do with the first wave sufferigists who wanted equality with men and the right to vote. Nor does it have anything to do with the 2nd wave feminism that taught young women that they dont need men. Now, it is a movement that teaches women that they are better than men. Ironic because they cannot even define what a man is! And these same feminist are trashing traditional biblical gender roles as outlined in Ephesians 5 when those instructions have proven themselves to be true for hundreds of years. Then people sit around and wonder why divorce rates are so high, women are prostituting themselves on OnlyFans, boys who think they are men are impregnating young women and abandoning them to be raised and provided by the State welfare system. The obvious answer is because men allowed it. The family is the most basic building block of a civilization, and men sat back and made compromises with the world and watched apathetically as society begins to collapse for the sake of "equality."

Now dont hear me wrong. I AM NOT SAYING MEN ARE BETTER THAN WOMEN. I am saying men and women are not the same or equal other than in a ontological sense that both are created in the image of God. But I almost guarantee that the marriage between the husband and the spouse provided in the OP would yield much better fruit than any alternative in spite the fact that the husband had the audacity to say he is the head of his household, and that after careful discussion and a consensus with the entire family, his vote alone is sufficient to represent the voice of his home. Again, if a feminist activist doesnt like it, I dont care. They can change their own tire and stand on the subway train the entire day while I sit in my seat. But Christians above all shouldn't criticize the biblically based decisions of a husband who is trying to be faithful to the Word of God in the best way they know how. To them, I say the issue is between them and God, not me, Pete Hegseth, the Pastor, or the married couple.

Click to expand...

Other than the prices, I can't say I find as much benefit from living in the 1950s as you do.

-- A2SG, boy, that new episode of I Love Lucy on last night was a hoot, wasn't it?

Oompa Loompa said:

But Christians above all shouldn't criticize the biblically based decisions of a husband who is trying to be faithful to the Word of God in the best way they know how.

Click to expand...

Of course we should, when those decisions are based on a distortion of the Scriptural text, promote harmful ideologies, and are highly correlated with controlling and abusive behaviour. Frankly, we'd be remiss if we didn't.

And yep, I can critique bad theology, and change my own tire, all at the same time. Amazing what an educated woman who's been treated equally to men can manage.

Oompa Loompa said:

Prove it. Show me one example in which an employer is paying a woman less simply for being a woman.

Click to expand...

Oompa Loompa said:

It doesnt make sense because it is yet another feminist lie that has already been debunked so much that it isn't even work discussing.

Click to expand...

Maybe it doesn’t make sense to you because you’re ill-informed on the topic or don’t understand economics, but your understanding something is not a requirement in truth.

Oompa Loompa said:

Many men do work in an office, classroom, and hospitals. But for some strange reason, feminists avoid manual labor in dangerous environments even if it pays better than those secretary jobs.

Click to expand...

Lots men avoid them too. Lots of Americans avoid them and defer those to minorities and immigrants. So?

Oompa Loompa said:

Going back to the OP topic, I think women should be able to vote. My issue is this modern wave of man hating feminism where they want all the male privileges but reject any of the male disadvantages.

Click to expand...

Has it dawned on you that perhaps feminists don’t hate men, they just don’t like you and how you behave, treat them, and find you to be problematic?

Oompa Loompa said:

You are completely ignoring the point. But perhaps that is my fault. I can understand how using an analogy so extreme such a men fighting with women can be so unsettling that it completely overshadows the point that is trying to be made. So please allow me to use another, less dramatic example. In a New York subway, a blue haird, man hating feminist steps into the train and finds all the seats are full. She is 47 and carrying several bags of groceries. Yet, not a single man stands up and offers her their seat. Now this particular woman is a very vocal activist for women's equality. Held picket signs to protest the patriarchy and cried to her girlfriends about how oppressed she was as she was sipping her PSL (pumpkin spice latte) at Starbucks. She even traveled all the way to Washington D.C. to protest the SCOTUS repeal of Roe v. Wade.

My question is simple, should such a woman deserve to feel upset or offended if every man looked at her, then turn their eyes, leaving her to stand there for the next 25 minutes?

Click to expand...

I love how all your fake scenarios involve blue haired women doing the most stereotypical things a supposedly liberal feminist could ever do but doesn’t represent the majority of what feminism, women, or even protesting is. It’s like you built this Sim character of the woman that irks you the most and decided this phantom creature gets all your inner rage directed at them, despite the fact that this person is entirely your own invention.

You know what happens when I get on a full bus? My husband gives me a seat before him. Maybe a guy will get up and offer me his seat. But usually nobody does. I don’t stand there frothing in rage for 25 minutes, thinking about the seat I wish I could take and all the men who didn’t offer me theirs. I talk with my husband, read a book, look out the window, look at my phone, and generally do my favorite thing to do in the whole, wide world… Mind my own business.

And, get this… Sometimes when I have a seat, I give it up to other people. Men. Women. Children. I saw a guy younger than me holding a toddler, I gave him my seat and he took it. I didn’t think about gender and decide based on that to yield my seat, I thought as a parent that holding a toddler on a moving bus is hard and dangerous, so I gave them my chair. That’s it. That’s what most people do. It’s not about gender equality… It’s about not being a jerk when you don’t have to be.

This weird idea that women don’t really want equality because there are scenarios where they need help or somebody sees they could use a hand and they take it is just absurd, especially given that it’s not like women don’t help men out too with the things they can’t do.

So whoopdy do, my husband mowed the lawn. Could I do that? Sure. Have I done it? Sure. But he prefers to do it because it’s 95 degrees and he doesn’t want me mowing in the heat and I’d rather not either. But you know what? If I said “hey, pay the electric bill for me today” or “book a doctors appointment for the kids” or even “book a doctors appointment for yourself,” he’d have no idea where to even start. If I asked him to reorder my prescriptions, transfer money from savings to checking, build the shelves that we bought last week, set up our new computer, and change out the power steering fluid in my car and change the oil in his, he’d be lost. He would need me to do each and every one of these things. I know husbands who, without their wives, couldn’t make dinner or run a load of laundry.

Everybody relies on somebody else for help with something at some point, it has nothing to do with gender. Its life. You’re making it to be this big thing when, for most of us, we aren’t keeping score like you are.

Oompa Loompa said:

Respectfully. I dont care about what you would do. I am asking about what she should expect if you had not. Frankly, I feel like everyone knows the obvious answer to the question but are trying to tiptoe around it because they refuse to concede to the obvious reality.

Click to expand...

So we are clear…

You don’t want to hear what actual people would do in those scenarios… You want to hear what we think the person you invented out of thin air is thinking when placed in a scenario concocted by you, then you are wanting us to hold this fake persons imaginary narrative up to be indicative of what real people would do in a similar situation?

Oompa Loompa said:

The obvious answer is no. No. She should not be surprised nor offended because she should understand that she is getting the equality that she so desperately desired. In fact, I would expect her to be offended if a man offered her a seat just like how so many modern male hating feminist activist would respond if a man opened a door for her.

Click to expand...

Feminists get mad when people hold open the doors for them? lol, what?

Oompa Loompa said:

These are the same feminist who will choose the bear over a man.

Click to expand...

My dude, I have never, ever felt more confident about choosing the bear in my entire life than I do right now, having read this thread. I’m on the brink of choosing a bear riding on a lion while leading a T. rex on a leash before choosing the man. No woman in the history of women would ever read this thread and rethink choosing the bear because despite the men who are not being problems, the ones who are carrying the reddest of red flags are more unsafe.

Oompa Loompa said:

That is the obvious answer. Ironically, these are the same exact women who will be sitting on the side of the road begging for a man's help when they have a flat tire. These are the same women who will be begging for a man's help when their faucet is leaking. These are the same women who will mock, insult, and even physically threaten men and cry for men to help her when she finds herself on the wrong side of an uppercut. I keep asking the question, do modern feminist want equality? The obvious answer is heck no. They dont want to be treated equal to men. They want to be treated better than men, because they think they are better than men. That is modern feminism. Not how I emphasize "modern" feminism. Because modern feminism is a toxic and corrupt movement that almost has nothing to do with the first wave sufferigists who wanted equality with men and the right to vote. Nor does it have anything to do with the 2nd wave feminism that taught young women that they dont need men. Now, it is a movement that teaches women that they are better than men. Ironic because they cannot even define what a man is! And these same feminist are trashing traditional biblical gender roles as outlined in Ephesians 5 when those instructions have proven themselves to be true for hundreds of years. Then people sit around and wonder why divorce rates are so high, women are prostituting themselves on OnlyFans, boys who think they are men are impregnating young women and abandoning them to be raised and provided by the State welfare system. The obvious answer is because men allowed it. The family is the most basic building block of a civilization, and men sat back and made compromises with the world and watched apathetically as society begins to collapse for the sake of "equality."

Click to expand...

That’s a lot of words when “I don’t like modern women” would have done just fine.

Oompa Loompa said:

Now dont hear me wrong. I AM NOT SAYING MEN ARE BETTER THAN WOMEN. I am saying men and women are not the same or equal other than in an ontological sense that both are created in the image of God. But I almost guarantee that the marriage between the husband and the spouse provided in the OP would yield much better fruit than any alternative in spite the fact that the husband had the audacity to say he is the head of his household, and that after careful discussion and a consensus with the entire family, his vote alone is sufficient to represent the voice of his home. Again, if a feminist activist doesnt like it, I dont care. They can change their own tire and stand on the subway train the entire day while I sit in my seat. But Christians above all shouldn't criticize the biblically based decisions of a husband who is trying to be faithful to the Word of God in the best way they know how. To them, I say the issue is between them and God, not me, Pete Hegseth, the Pastor, or the married couple.

Click to expand...

Again, so because women want equality and to vote, that means you are allowed punch them, not help them, and generally be a pill towards them? Because that’s what equality is to you? Indiscriminate violence and causing problems where you don’t need to?

My dude. Wow.

BCP1928 said:

That's all very well, but how does it address the proposition at hand? That women should have the vote, but the feminists (vaguely defined) among them should not have the vote unless they register for the draft?

Click to expand...

I've already pointed out that the draft issue is just a political football. Whenever it's brought up by either side, they're just moving a goalpost...as you did here.

BCP1928 said:

Or that a feminist (again, vaguely defined) who is disrepectful to a man should expect a violent physical response?

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "disrespectful" in this particular argument? I don't think any socially mature individual in modern society should respond to, say, a crass remark, with physical violence...male or female. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" is how I was taught to respond to basic "disrespect" on the street.

Or are you arguing that physical violence initiated by one party should never be responded to with physical violence?

A2SG said:

Obvious to you, perhaps. For my part, I see politeness instead of gender stereotypes. I've opened doors for other people (men and women), and I've had doors opened for me (by men and women), I don't see how gender makes any difference.


I know many women who can, and have, changed tires. Me, I'm hopeless at it. I call AAA.


They might be better off calling a plumber. I know one who's good, her name's Cheryl.


You sure live in a violent world, my friend. Up here in Boston, I've managed to live to my 60s, and I've yet to face even a single uppercut.


Despite actual modern feminists saying otherwise. Have you even listened to them when they've spoken? One particular poster in this thread had been very vocal about her views on the matter.


Other than the prices, I can't say I find as much benefit from living in the 1950s as you do.

-- A2SG, boy, that new episode of I Love Lucy on last night was a hoot, wasn't it?

Click to expand...

If you’ve grown up in Boston and not been punched in the face, that truly is saying something. Living in NH and visiting Boston frequently, the incidence of random face-punching between people there seems to be higher than anywhere else in the country.

Tropical Wilds said:

If you’ve grown up in Boston and not been punched in the face, that truly is saying something. Living in NH and visiting Boston frequently, the incidence of random face-punching between people there seems to be higher than anywhere else in the country.

Click to expand...

Heck, I even used to live in Southie!!

-- A2SG, just don't wear Yankees merch, and you'll have no problem...

RDKirk said:

I've already pointed out that the draft issue is just a political football. Whenever it's brought up by either side, they're just moving a goalpost...as you did here.



What do you mean by "disrespectful" in this particular argument? I don't think any socially mature individual in modern society should respond to, say, a crass remark, with physical violence...male or female. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" is how I was taught to respond to basic "disrespect" on the street.

Or are you arguing that physical violence initiated by one party should never be responded to with physical violence?

Click to expand...

The physical violence thing was brought up by that other guy… “Equal rights means equal lefts” was I believe his phrase. That invented scenario was “if women really want equal rights, does that mean they’re OK with/should expect being punched in the face by a man they’ve disrespected,” or the general belief that feminists don’t truly want equal rights because they expect to not be punched in the face if they’re disrespectful to the wrong man. That’s where the whole face punching thing started.

(Post 231)

A2SG said:

Heck, I even used to live in Southie!!

-- A2SG, just don't wear Yankees merch, and you'll have no problem...

Click to expand...

LoL! Speaking of women who could level most men in a physical fight… Southie women are next level. Even men don’t want to fight with them, lol!

Oompa Loompa said:

You are completely ignoring the point. But perhaps that is my fault. I can understand how using an analogy so extreme such a men fighting with women can be so unsettling that it completely overshadows the point that is trying to be made. So please allow me to use another, less dramatic example. In a New York subway, a blue haird, man hating feminist steps into the train and finds all the seats are full. She is 47 and carrying several bags of groceries. Yet, not a single man stands up and offers her their seat. Now this particular woman is a very vocal activist for women's equality. Held picket signs to protest the patriarchy and cried to her girlfriends about how oppressed she was as she was sipping her PSL (pumpkin spice latte) at Starbucks. She even traveled all the way to Washington D.C. to protest the SCOTUS repeal of Roe v. Wade.

My question is simple, should such a woman deserve to feel upset or offended if every man looked at her, then turn their eyes, leaving her to stand there for the next 25 minutes?

Click to expand...

You have an odd obsession with hypothetical blue haired feminists. Obviously you think she doesn’t deserve considerate behavior from others because of her political beliefs. I can’t read your fictional character’s mind, but she is allowed to be offended if that’s how she feels.

It’s hard to have a reasonable discussion with someone who insists that the male experience is a constant barrage of rudeness, disrespect, and violence from other men. Because this is what you insist women should expect, and without complaint, if they also want equality with men. Also, are there any other types of women in your world besides Christian Trad Wives and Blue Haired Feminists?