Are normal heterosexual women underrepresentated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter caesarjbsquitti
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

caesarjbsquitti

Guest
The move to have women more represented, has seen the drive to have 50% of jobs, etc being represented by ‘women’…however should we look closer and ask are heterosexual women being underrepresented in many places…?

Heterosexual women represent some 95-98% of women, the rest lesbians and bisexuals…so why do we only ask if they are women…should not 95% to 98% of women be heterosexual ?

In some cases the reverse is true, whereby lesbian or bisexual women are the majority in places of authority?

Is that fair and just ?
 
There’s an old saying: “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.” It’s true. Lesbians and gays are by nature whiners and complainers. As a result, everyone else, in an effort to be kind has given in to the whining and complaining and given them whatever they demand. Not only are normal women under repsented but normal men are too. It was a mistake to give in to these whiny brats in the first place and now we’re stuck with them.
 
Keep in mind that most of our population have been robbed of an education where critical thinking is taught. Most are like sheep who sit in front of the TV and soak up almost everything they’re told as if Jesus Christ, Himself, were telling them. And the media, for the most part, are incredibly atheistic, pro-gay, anti-Catholic, etc. They have an agenda and have all cylinders going full-blast to change society into one without God.
 
Desertsailor said:
There’s an old saying: “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.” It’s true. Lesbians and gays are by nature whiners and complainers. As a result, everyone else, in an effort to be kind has given in to the whining and complaining and given them whatever they demand. Not only are normal women under repsented but normal men are too. It was a mistake to give in to these whiny brats in the first place and now we’re stuck with them.
Click to expand...
While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, a more charitable response would go a lot further to build up God’s kingdom. I don’t think gays and lesbians whine any more than the rest of us. There are certainly some that are more outspoken, but be careful about painting with too broad a brush.
 
If homosexuality has any physical roots (hormones, brain chemistry/structure) then it would seem that masculinity (or traits mimicking such) is beneficial for leadership positions.🤷
 
CDNowak said:
If homosexuality has any physical roots (hormones, brain chemistry/structure) then it would seem that masculinity (or traits mimicking such) is beneficial for leadership positions.🤷
Click to expand...
That’s an interesting perspective. I’ll have to think about that a while…
 
kristie_m said:
While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, a more charitable response would go a lot further to build up God’s kingdom. I don’t think gays and lesbians whine any more than the rest of us. There are certainly some that are more outspoken, but be careful about painting with too broad a brush.
Click to expand...
The slip, the Freudian slip that is an error of omission that says alot…

When we look back at ‘the squeaky wheels’ be they women, they seldom if ever mention husbands, or an interest in their family…

Interesting, suggesting that these are not ‘normal women’ of ‘normal families’…

There is more to be said about bisexual women…

Looking only at the representation of women is only part of the real issue…how many Christian women…? etc.etc.etc.
 
There is an obsessive claim made by a small group that essentially states: unless women are 50% of everything, it is not just or fair.

Let’s examine that. What if most women want to stay home with their kids? What’s wrong with that? What if they work for a short time and are in a situation where their husband is the only worker later on? What’s wrong with that?

The goal of having a workplace or a government or a military where everything is 50% women and 50% men ignores individual choice. Some people simply don’t want to enter politics or join the military.

So, no, there is no underrepresentation.

God bless,
Ed
 
Scoobyshme said:
Keep in mind that most of our population have been robbed of an education where critical thinking is taught. Most are like sheep who sit in front of the TV and soak up almost everything they’re told as if Jesus Christ, Himself, were telling them. And the media, for the most part, are incredibly atheistic, pro-gay, anti-Catholic, etc. They have an agenda and have all cylinders going full-blast to change society into one without God.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, but let’s also look at parents who don’t want to parent. Good parents make sure the homework is done and/or help their kids with their homework. Just leaving them in front of the box is bad training for their later adult lives. Their kids need to be taught morality and the difference between right and wrong.

God bless,
Ed
 
caesarjbsquitti said:
The move to have women more represented, has seen the drive to have 50% of jobs, etc being represented by ‘women’…however should we look closer and ask are heterosexual women being underrepresented in many places…?

Heterosexual women represent some 95-98% of women, the rest lesbians and bisexuals…so why do we only ask if they are women…should not 95% to 98% of women be heterosexual ?

In some cases the reverse is true, whereby lesbian or bisexual women are the majority in places of authority?

Is that fair and just ?
Click to expand...
I have no idea what your agenda is or the basis for your rant, and you don’t give a lot of help except that you seem to have for reasons best known to you some resentment against women, who may or may not be lesbians or bisexual, in positions of authority over you personally. Since your personal experience is hardly good enough basis for any generalizations, and since you present no evidence to prove a general trend, or even any definition of what you mean by “places of authority” I don’t know what kind of response you are looking for. It is also unclear in your post why the sexual orientation of a person in authority is an issue, unless it is in a position where he or she has policy making responsibility in areas affected by the gender-orientation debate.

every responder here is talking about something else so why don’t you define your terms? representation where? in government? in the schools? in corporations? the media? in the Church? do you have anything even a shred of documentation of your assertion that first, lesbians, gays or bisexuals dominate any or all of those areas, and second, that it is a huge problem we should get bummed about on this forum?

Do you have some point of doctrine or philosophy relating to your issue upon which you want to initiate an apologetics or philosophical debate?
 
Womens’ issues and half-truths…

Women issues ? should not that contain concern for their children half of which may be male, how about interest in their elderly parents, half of which would be male, and what about interest in the fair treatment of ‘their spouses’…100% less a percent or two, would be male…

So by the fact that ‘women’s issues’ does not speak of the male half of society…what does that insinuate about those who promote ‘these issues’ …?

Seems they are not ‘normal’…? and or very selfish ?..or what…
 
now you have changed course entirely and seem to be having a problem with any woman in a position of authority or policy-making responsibility, because if she advances anything you define as a woman’s issue that by definition is against males. I will wait for your next change of direction with interest until we find out what your real underlying bias is.
 
puzzleannie said:
now you have changed course entirely and seem to be having a problem with any woman in a position of authority or policy-making responsibility, because if she advances anything you define as a woman’s issue that by definition is against males. I will wait for your next change of direction with interest until we find out what your real underlying bias is.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the opportunity of clarrifying myself…

Their are two questions.

One, are normal heterosexual women, over or under represented ?
Are radical feminists over or under represented ?

It would appear to me that normal men or normal women would consider issues affecting both sexes as ‘their’ issues…unless they are homosexual ?

A Freudian slip ?
 
puzzleannie said:
I have no idea what your agenda is or the basis for your rant, and you don’t give a lot of help except that you seem to have for reasons best known to you some resentment against women, who may or may not be lesbians or bisexual, in positions of authority over you personally. Since your personal experience is hardly good enough basis for any generalizations, and since you present no evidence to prove a general trend, or even any definition of what you mean by “places of authority” I don’t know what kind of response you are looking for. It is also unclear in your post why the sexual orientation of a person in authority is an issue, unless it is in a position where he or she has policy making responsibility in areas affected by the gender-orientation debate.

every responder here is talking about something else so why don’t you define your terms? representation where? in government? in the schools? in corporations? the media? in the Church? do you have anything even a shred of documentation of your assertion that first, lesbians, gays or bisexuals dominate any or all of those areas, and second, that it is a huge problem we should get bummed about on this forum?

Do you have some point of doctrine or philosophy relating to your issue upon which you want to initiate an apologetics or philosophical debate?
Click to expand...
The polarization of intersts and concerns can be shown by the following:

Any normal man, would benefit from the hiring a woman, especially if the woman happens to be his wife, his girlfriend, his mother, or his daughter…

This what benefits women only benefits women suggests a lesbian based philosophy,

The logic is not based on the reference of heteorsexuals…and most of feminism has developed that way.
 
caesarjbsquitti said:
The move to have women more represented, has seen the drive to have 50% of jobs, etc being represented by ‘women’…however should we look closer and ask are heterosexual women being underrepresented in many places…?

Heterosexual women represent some 95-98% of women, the rest lesbians and bisexuals…so why do we only ask if they are women…should not 95% to 98% of women be heterosexual ?

In some cases the reverse is true, whereby lesbian or bisexual women are the majority in places of authority?

Is that fair and just ?
Click to expand...
Your source please? :confused:
 
Well, why would the media be interested in anything the normal heterosexual majority want to say?

I think the homosexuals/lesbians get the spotlight because they are in the minority, there is a pro-homosexual mindset in the media, and it gets the backs up of a lot of Christians and other religious. Shock value.

Frankly, I don’t care who is over represented in jobs of power, as long as they can do the job. It does bother me when we know a person got the job because they threatened to sue over discrimination or something.
 
Zatzat said:
What if they were actually discriminated against? Would that still bother you?
Click to expand...
Discriminating against homosexuals doesn’t bother me one little bit. I think they ought to get back in their closets.
 
Desertsailor said:
Discriminating against homosexuals doesn’t bother me one little bit. I think they ought to get back in their closets.
Click to expand...
Why would you prefer that they hide their same sex attraction?

Would Jesus approve of homosexuals being denied a job, solely because of who they’re sexually attracted to?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top