Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12

[Miquel Westano]

Frequency hopping spread spectrum (which enables wireless transmission technologies).  Co-invented by this ugly feminist -

width="236" height="298">



Inventions by women that changed the world -


http://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahjewell/inventions-by-women-that-changed-the-world?utm_term=.qwAZoBLaN#.eoGlR3wQL

Maybe not?  It appears Nikola Tesla may have been issued a patent in1903 for frequency hopping, and Jonathan Zenneck may have written a book in 1908 on wireless telegraphy which specifically addresses frequency hopping as discovered by Tesla. 

Heddy appears to have been involved in a patent application using this to control torpedoes  But even there, it is debatable if she were the inventor, collaborator or whether George Antheil was the inventor and Heddy was a bit more of a background player. 

Very few inventions seem to be totally new and not improvements.  Nikola Tesla seemed plagued by others who received much more fame and money off his work than he did, including Edison who was pretty much a ruthless patent thief.  No doubt assisted by the corrupt lawyers of the day. 

Maybe Heddy was the inventor, maybe not?  And Maybe she was a feminist, maybe not?  But she was good looking and smart enough to parlay that into a good life.  I sure wonder about her personality though that she couldn't seem to keep a man.  That part fits modern feminist to a T.

[Boethius]

You're taking a Hollywood star and expecting an example for marital stability?  LOL. 

There are plenty of feminists who have been married decades.

True that most inventions have a basis in other inventors' work.  But she and Mr. Antheil held the patent on the technology.  She also was the one who first thought of the idea, as her first husband (a fascist) held many dinner parties for leading scientists, and she listened intently as they described advances in military hardware.  Based on Richard Rhodes' biography, she was very much involved in the invention process.

[Slumba]

Rather than watch hours of Bill Burr episodes (though you might want to because he is a funny guy), you will find that the statement "Feminism is Cancer" covers most of it.

Even down to feminists claiming a Hollywood star with an unhappy personal life, who couldn't settle down with just 1 man, as a feminist idol.   The joke about feminism writes itself at that point...

[Boethius]

Whether a woman is unhappy or not is irrelevant to whether or not she was, or is, a feminist.


I am a feminist who settled down with one man.  Can you say the same about settling with one woman?  Nope.

[jone]

How many times she married is irrelevant to feminism.  What is relevant is whether she viewed herself as an equal to men, and Hedy Lamarr certainly believed that. 

I don't think she loved playing a temptress.  But her beauty relegated her to such roles.  It was her boredom with such roles that triggered her interest in inventions.


LOL on her film firsts.

Yes, she was a mixture of beauty and brains.  It is unfortunate she appeared to not find happiness in her personal life.


ETA - Did you read her ghostwritten autobiography?  I think she sued, or threatened to sue (can't remember which) for it, as so much was fabricated.  I read the book on her by Richard Rhodes.

Actually, almost every woman I've ever known has viewed herself equal to men.  Feminism is the stridency of such a belief to the point of failing to take into consideration the natural interaction between men and women.  As an example:  Here is a feminist statement:  "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."  That, to me, is feminism.

[Boethius]

Then I suggest you read more on feminism.


Feminism is really about equality.  That does not mean women are men, just that they should have equal opportunities. 

[jone]

Then I suggest you read more on feminism.


Feminism is really about equality.  That does not mean women are men, just that they should have equal opportunities.

I suggest you read what I wrote.  It is the stridency that offends.  Not the equality. 

[Slumba]

Then I suggest you read more on feminism.


Feminism is really about equality.  That does not mean women are men, just that they should have equal opportunities.

Feminism is about pretending that the entire chain of hormones and chemicals, all the way down to the cellular level and even DNA,  have no effect on men or women in terms of their function, temperament, or how those differences could affect societal organization ; and that the only difference between the 2 sexes is the unimportant details of which sex organs are attached.

Men - about 10X testosterone that of women ; heavier frame in terms of bones, different pelvic and other bones

Women - about 10X estrogen that of men ; lighter frame, pelvis wider, other bones differ

If men and women aren't different, how are archeologists looking at mummified remains, and forensic investigators, able to identify men and women?

Imagine a circle representing "Objective Reality" and another circle , "What Feminists Believe" -  laid on top of each other, they would not overlap at all. 

It takes the entire force of government regulation and societal pressure to make feminism work like a rickety old Ford Model T jalopy.

If the USD loses its reserve currency status, American feminism will evaporate like fog on a summer morning after the sun comes up.  We simply won't have the money to deliver all those millions of make-work jobs that go to women so they can feel empowered, independent and "stronk". 

If you don't believe me - go the DMV sometime, or if working for a corporation, look at the cat ladies in HR.

[Boethius]

Feminism is about pretending that the entire chain of hormones and chemicals, all the way down to the cellular level and even DNA,  have no effect on men or women in terms of their function, temperament, or how those differences could affect societal organization ; and that the only difference between the 2 sexes is the unimportant details of which sex organs are attached.

No, that is wrong.  Feminism is about one thing.  Equality.  No one I know denies the biological difference between men and women.

[Boethius]

I suggest you read what I wrote.  It is the stridency that offends.  Not the equality.

I don't know many women who are "strident".  Yes, feminism was strident in the 1960's and 1970's, because it had to be.  It is not, for the most part anymore, partly because of many of its successes, though there is still more work to be done, mostly for working class women.

[Gator]

I suggest you read what I wrote.  It is the stridency that offends.  Not the equality.

Good observation, even though Boethius seems to think you need to study the issue more.     

A confident, independent woman can thrive indeed without a man.  Yet she finds joy and satisfaction in a loving relationship, maybe more than other women because she isn't needy.   

I suggest if you and your woman are happy and fulfilled in your relationship, then what others may say matters not.   If they want something different in their lives, they should find it, if they can, and not judge others. 

[Boethius]

A confident, independent woman can thrive indeed without a man. 

That is largely because of feminism.  Yes, there were women in pre feminist times who thrived, but they were the outliers, the exception to the rule.

[Miquel Westano]

No, that is wrong.  Feminism is about one thing.  Equality.  No one I know denies the biological difference between men and women.

The problem with that is there is no equality among any two people in the world regardless of gender, race, age.  True equality is a myth and simply does not exist.  That is the root problem with feminism.  The modern militant feminist believes all women are "equal" to all men.  It isn't true, just like all men are not equal to each other. 

Early on, the feminist movement was about equal rights.  It was about granting a woman an equal chance to jobs they could perform, equal pay when they did equal work and equal respect in the workplace.  It was not about equality of men and women.  It was about equal rights for men and women.  I could totally support that and still do.

But now for whatever reason, the equal rights side of feminism has been pushed aside and replaced with a bitter competitive anti male agenda that says men are inferior.  Not equal, but inferior.  It also is a common theme now, that women no longer need men to exist.  And, that somehow women could thrive without men.  Oddly the modern feminist movement mirrors the old day chauvinist to a T, just in reverse. 

The modern radical feminist is much more of a political activist than anything else.  Mostly this is because equal rights have been accepted by modern society and the modern feminist would have no purpose without inventing new grievances to be angry over. 

I wholeheartedly support equal rights, and equal pay if the job can be performed equally.  But if I am on the top floor of a burning building I want a strong firefighter on that ladder pulling me out, not a woman who was given the job as a quota fulfillment.  Women are not physically the same as men.  The physical standards for jobs like firefighting, police and military should not be lowered to bring women in.  If they can truly meet the minimum standards, that were accepted before the political mandates forced lower standards, great.  If not they need to find another job.   That doesn't seem to matter to feminist who just want women in every job regardless of whether they can perform it or not. 

[mhr7]

No, that is wrong.  Feminism is about one thing.  Equality.  No one I know denies the biological difference between men and women.

No, modern third wave feminism is about women wanting more than equality. It's about being a victim to "the patriarchy", "white male privilege", "manspaining, manspreading, safe spaces, being triggered and other ridiculous ideas.

Have a look.

[Boethius]

The problem with that is there is no equality among any two people in the world regardless of gender, race, age.  True equality is a myth and simply does not exist.  That is the root problem with feminism.  The modern militant feminist believes all women are "equal" to all men.  It isn't true, just like all men are not equal to each other. 

Early on, the feminist movement was about equal rights.  It was about granting a woman an equal chance to jobs they could perform, equal pay when they did equal work and equal respect in the workplace.  It was not about equality of men and women.  It was about equal rights for men and women.  I could totally support that and still do.

But now for whatever reason, the equal rights side of feminism has been pushed aside and replaced with a bitter competitive anti male agenda that says men are inferior.  Not equal, but inferior.  It also is a common theme now, that women no longer need men to exist.  And, that somehow women could thrive without men.  Oddly the modern feminist movement mirrors the old day chauvinist to a T, just in reverse. 

The modern radical feminist is much more of a political activist than anything else.  Mostly this is because equal rights have been accepted by modern society and the modern feminist would have no purpose without inventing new grievances to be angry over. 

I wholeheartedly support equal rights, and equal pay if the job can be performed equally.  But if I am on the top floor of a burning building I want a strong firefighter on that ladder pulling me out, not a woman who was given the job as a quota fulfillment.  Women are not physically the same as men.  The physical standards for jobs like firefighting, police and military should not be lowered to bring women in.  If they can truly meet the minimum standards, that were accepted before the political mandates forced lower standards, great.  If not they need to find another job.   That doesn't seem to matter to feminist who just want women in every job regardless of whether they can perform it or not. 

I don't think it is about equality in the way you perceive it now. 

I don't know too many women who would argue women, in general, have the physical strength of men.

My mother tells me that when she was young, married women could not go to nursing school.  She wanted to be a nurse, but as she was married, that career choice was closed to her.  Pregnant women were fired.  Women who were raped were shamed for "not keeping their legs closed". 

Recently, I was listening to the interview of a retired female judge.  She attended law school in the 1970's, and was the gold medalist in her graduating class.  She was not the first woman to attend law school, but this was at a time when a few more women attended, and she fought for equal rights for women.  She said obtaining an article, or a position, was almost impossible, because law firms did not take women seriously.  They were told to their faces that the firm already had a female lawyer, or that a man needed the job.  Most women ended up opening their own law firms, and because the business world was still dominated by men, most practiced in estate law, or family law, occasionally, though rarely, in criminal law.  That experience was no different in the U.S.

That is what the so called "second wave" feminists faced when trying to change perceptions.  That someone your age now accepts equality of opportunity (though really, that doesn't exist, and it is more based on economic position than sex) means that they were successful.

[jone]

One of the reasons we look for FSU Women is for their feminine traits.  These traits are missing, many times, in the AW or WW we might come across.  I can say this much simpler.  I look for a woman who has kindness and wisdom.  To such a woman, I defer. 

I have lived long enough that I know that I will not be interested in a woman with a cause.  Such are the women that I see in the Feminist Movement - yesterday, today and tomorrow.

The only cause I wish my woman to have is our relationship and our family.  If she also wants to work and be exceptional at her profession, that does not offend. 

[Gator]

That is largely because of feminism.  Yes, there were women in pre feminist times who thrived, but they were the outliers, the exception to the rule.

You bring up the past.  You do realize I am from the past.   

My father came from a large family.  Eleven children through three marriages, no divorces.   Two of the children were old maids, spinsters, or what term is proper today.  Maybe these two aunts did not earn the salary they would have earned today.  I don't know, yet even assuming so please recognize they earned enough to live comfortably, with enough left over to get my father and some brothers off the farm and eventually out of Appalachia.  They took care of their parents, they traveled internationally, etc.   

One was as happy as can be, a real delight whom everyone welcomed.  The other not as much, yet seemingly contented.  Looking back I can not see how the two were repressed by American society.   So help me out please. 

[mhr7]

One of the reasons we look for FSU Women is for their feminine traits.  These traits are missing, many times, in the AW or WW we might come across.  I can say this much simpler.  I look for a woman who has kindness and wisdom.  To such a woman, I defer. 

“The most loving women are the women who will test you the most. She wants you to be your fullest, most magnificent self. She won’t settle for anything less. She knows it is true of you. She knows in your deepest heart you are free, you are Shiva. Anything less than that she will torment. And, as you know, she’s quite good at it.”
― David Deida, The Way of the Superior Man

[jone]

Now you know why I defer. 

[Gator]

“The most loving women are the women who will test you the most. She wants you to be your fullest, most magnificent self. She won’t settle for anything less. She knows it is true of you. She knows in your deepest heart you are free, you are Shiva. Anything less than that she will torment. And, as you know, she’s quite good at it.”
― David Deida, The Way of the Superior Man

Sounds like my high school football coach.     

[Boethius]

No, modern third wave feminism is about women wanting more than equality. It's about being a victim to "the patriarchy", "white male privilege", "manspaining, manspreading, safe spaces, being triggered and other ridiculous ideas.

Many of those concepts are not from feminism, but rather, just general social constructs/ideas.

Mainsplaining was coined by Rebecca Solnit.  She started a blog on how men were always trying to explain things to her, after a man at a party tried to explain a book she had written to her.

This is actually a fairly common phenomenon.  Most women have had similar experiences.  I have not in my professional life, though certainly I faced discrimination as a young lawyer, and I came after a whole generation of women paved their way for me.  So when I read about this, I laughed.  It is something to which most women can relate.

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/20/men_explain_things_to_me
_the_author_behind_mansplaining_on_the_origin_of_her_famous_coinage/

[Boethius]

You bring up the past.  You do realize I am from the past.   

My father came from a large family.  Eleven children through three marriages, no divorces.   Two of the children were old maids, spinsters, or what term is proper today.  Maybe these two aunts did not earn the salary they would have earned today.  I don't know, yet even assuming so please recognize they earned enough to live comfortably, with enough left over to get my father and some brothers off the farm and eventually out of Appalachia.  They took care of their parents, they traveled internationally, etc.   

One was as happy as can be, a real delight whom everyone welcomed.  The other not as much, yet seemingly contented.  Looking back I can not see how the two were repressed by American society.   So help me out please.

Your family members may have been happy in their roles.  But many were not, and just accepted that this is the "way it is".  Think of it in terms of African American rights at the turn of the century, or even in the days of MLK.  Yes, there were many African Americans, probably the majority, who lived happy and fulfilled lives.  But that was within what society told them they "should" or "must" be.

This is partly what third wave feminism is about.  It is about breaking those barriers.  A woman, if she wishes to be a homemaker, should have that role and be proud of it.  Similarly, a man who wishes to be a homemaker should be able to take that role and be proud of it.  [/size][size=78%] [/size]

[mhr7]

Then I suggest you read more on feminism.


Feminism is really about equality.  That does not mean women are men, just that they should have equal opportunities.

What is unequal for women in today's society?

Read "The War on Boys" by Christina Hoff Summers. I think you'll see that men are the ones who need help with equality.

http://www.amazon.com/WAR-AGAINST-BOYS-Misguided-Feminism/dp/0684849577

[Brasscasing]

Yes, she was a mixture of beauty and brains.  It is unfortunate she appeared to not find happiness in her personal life.


ETA - Did you read her ghostwritten autobiography?  I think she sued, or threatened to sue (can't remember which) for it, as so much was fabricated.  I read the book on her by Richard Rhodes.

Beautiful: The Life Of Hedy Lamarr ...Stephen Michael Shearer

Been a couple of years since I read it. I'll probably throw it on the washroom library stack and read it again now that it's a topic of discussion.

I would venture a lost soul. One could hypothesize a potentially wasted intellect due to the time frame and environment(s) she found herself living in. She may well have been aware of it.

Brass

[Slumba]

Why do feminists want to have women in the US military, including Special Forces units?

It is not about competence - our SF guys aren't getting trounced in the field by anyone.

It is not about numbers - they have their recruiting targets being met.

It is about removing or minimizing male honor.

That part of feminism which is all about being envious of men, is pushing for this.