Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker bashes Pride Month, tells women to stay in the kitchen

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

ROFLMAO - yeah they did. They heard him say that being a mom and a wife is great, and he thinks many of them will choose that.  How terrible   LOLOL

Don't you think that is for women to decide or are you one of those guys who feel they are entitled to define them?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Don't you think that is for women to decide or are you one of those guys who feel they are entitled to define them?

I think he SAID it's for women to decide - and what he also said is he BELIVES that lots of women will decide that's a great idea. At no point does he even suggest women shouldn't decide or even that they shouldn't have great careers in business if they want - but he guesses that the majority will decide in the end that being a mom and wife is a great idea. 

Or are you one of those guys who believe that lying about what someone said is valid as long as it supports your echo chamber?

[Rebound]

On 5/15/2024 at 11:11 AM, User said:

Or, folks like you need to listen to what he said if you will comment on it or be more honest. 

I wonder if you can even define what a woman is in any meaningful way. LOL

 

 

You’re the one who’s being dishonest here.  The person who wrote the article said “kitchen.” Kitchen/Home… same intent.  
 

This is what he actually said:

“I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolic lies told to you. Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.”

So… what is he actually saying? I’m a man, and I’ve had a career, and my children are way more exciting than my job.  But it sure as heck seems that he’s saying that women shouldn’t have careers at all, and that they should be religious stay at home moms.  

[User]

16 minutes ago, Rebound said:

You’re the one who’s being dishonest here.  The person who wrote the article said “kitchen.” Kitchen/Home… same intent.  

No, no its not the same intent at all. The phrase get back into the kitchen is a common insulting and demeaning one. If what he said was so awful, then actually quote what he said. Inventing something he didn't say to make it sound worse is just that. The reason why you folks won't actually quote Butker and explain exactly why what he said is bad is because you can't.

Even now, you do the same thing:

17 minutes ago, Rebound said:

But it sure as heck seems that he’s saying

You have to talk about what it "seems" he is saying, because he didn't actually say that. 

[Rebound]

3 minutes ago, User said:

No, no its not the same intent at all. The phrase get back into the kitchen is a common insulting and demeaning one. If what he said was so awful, then actually quote what he said. Inventing something he didn't say to make it sound worse is just that. The reason why you folks won't actually quote Butker and explain exactly why what he said is bad is because you can't.

Even now, you do the same thing:

You have to talk about what it "seems" he is saying, because he didn't actually say that. 

I see.  So only you are able to understand what he said. Why don’t you enlighten us? 

[User]

11 hours ago, Hodad said:

Oh, Fark off. You've been dishonest in many threads in your short tenure here, but this one takes the "gay cake."

Butker is a piece of crap, but at least he has the courage to plainly say the shitty things he thinks, instead of pretending his message is anything other than it is. 

If I have been dishonest, point out that dishonesty in those threads. Don't pathetically accuse me of it here with no evidence here.

Even then, you bring up the "gay cake" as an example... a thread you mostly ran away from because I was tearing your arguments apart. So, what was the dishonesty on my part there? 

You speak of courage. Let me know when you start showing some. Instead of showing up here to accuse me of dishonesty with no specific examples, go back and face the bad arguments you were making and running away from. 

 

[User]

43 minutes ago, Rebound said:

I see.  So only you are able to understand what he said. Why don’t you enlighten us? 

No, I am just pointing out your bad arguments for not using the words he said. 

Even Maria Shriver is making a strawman argument. He never told all women to be homemakers. And being a Homemaker is not a luxury that only rich people can afford. It is something many families make sacrifices for because they want to invest more into their home and children. To his target audience, a Catholic Private school... that is a huge part of the Catholic culture as well. 

Remember, he was not giving some public speech to every woman in the world either, it was a private commencement speech to a Catholic audience. 

[User]

12 hours ago, Hodad said:

Yes, exactly. It's NOT a coded message. There is nothing to decipher. Every woman sitting in the audience heard him loud and clear.

OMG, the hypocritical irony. 

You guys are pushing your phony outrage here over accusing him of telling women what to do things he didn't say... and here YOU ARE doing similar.

How is it you presume to speak for "every woman" in that audience? LOL

 

[Nationalist]

21 minutes ago, Rebound said:

I see.  So only you are able to understand what he said. Why don’t you enlighten us? 

Yes this raises an interesting question.

Do most women actually want to have careers and forsake motherhood and homemaking?

Quote

GOOGLE SAYS:

Just over one-fifth (21 per cent) of childless women aged 18-34 recently polled by Pew Research Centre said they don't ever want to be parents, compared to 15 per cent of men. Conversely, 57 per cent of men said they want to have children some day, versus 45 per cent of women. Feb 22, 2024

OK...so the instinct to reproduce is still valid. It seems reasonable that about a fifth of women don't want kids.

The next question would be, why do only 45% of women want to have children someday?

Quote

GOOGLE SAYS:

Of millennials who are opting out, many are doing so because raising children is simply too expensive. A new NerdWallet survey finds that just a quarter of parents of minor children (25%) plan to have more children and only 27% of non-parents under age 60 plan to have any children at all. Feb 29, 2024

Hmmm...who fcked up so badly that the economy makes it hard to afford having children? Well...

OK this is also reasonable. It appears that war made it necessary for women to enter the workplace. Quite coincidentally...

Quote

GOOGLE SAYS:

The top income tax rate reached above 90% from 1944 through 1963, peaking in 1944, when top taxpayers paid an income tax rate of 94% on their taxable income. Starting in 1964, a period of income tax rate decline began, ending in 1987.

Ahhh...OK so the wars required funding so taxes shot up.

CONCLUSION: Evidently our tax impositions made it necessary for women to go to work and contribute. Thus Maria Shriver is making uneducated assumptions based on her own "feelings" on the subject and nothing more.

Quelle Suprise.

[Rebound]

13 minutes ago, User said:

No, I am just pointing out your bad arguments for not using the words he said. 

Even Maria Shriver is making a strawman argument. He never told all women to be homemakers. And being a Homemaker is not a luxury that only rich people can afford. It is something many families make sacrifices for because they want to invest more into their home and children. To his target audience, a Catholic Private school... that is a huge part of the Catholic culture as well. 

Remember, he was not giving some public speech to every woman in the world either, it was a private commencement speech to a Catholic audience. 

You’re just playing word games to avoid addressing the point. 
 

The Republicans have spent the last four years complaining that the economy is terrible, and that people cannot make ends meet, so not surprising that many families need two sources of income, right?  And, yeah, the super-genius football kicker figured out that it’s more fun and rewarding to stay at home and raise your kids. But not all families can get by on a single income.

[Rebound]

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Yes this raises an interesting question.

Do most women actually want to have careers and forsake motherhood and homemaking?

OK...so the instinct to reproduce is still valid. It seems reasonable that about a fifth of women don't want kids.

The next question would be, why do only 45% of women want to have children someday?

Hmmm...who fcked up so badly that the economy makes it hard to afford having children? Well...

OK this is also reasonable. It appears that war made it necessary for women to enter the workplace. Quite coincidentally...

Ahhh...OK so the wars required funding so taxes shot up.

CONCLUSION: Evidently our tax impositions made it necessary for women to go to work and contribute. Thus Maria Shriver is making uneducated assumptions based on her own "feelings" on the subject and nothing more.

Quelle Suprise.

Your argument: As tax rates decreased, female workforce participation increased. So you’re arguing that if we raise taxes, fewer women will work?

To be honest, I don’t understand your point at all. People have kids. Kids can be raised best when there’s a parent at home to care for them, whether that person is a mom or dad.  But, most families these days cannot afford to have a single working parent, and with our nation’s near-50% divorce rate, it’s clear that half of families wind up needing two working parents.  
 

In any event, no matter how you slice it, his speech is clearly sexist.  If a woman has a remarkable career, why shouldn’t Dad stay at home? 

Edited May 17, 2024 by Rebound

[Nationalist]

14 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Your argument: As tax rates decreased, female workforce participation increased. So you’re arguing that if we raise taxes, fewer women will work?

Must you always be so stoopid? I mean...couldn't your brain actually fire properly once in a while?

The acceptance rate went from ~20% to ~82% by 1998. By the '80's the rate dipped a bit...temporarily and then resumed its climb. By then the "working women" was a social norm.

It really is staggering how simple your arguments are. I guess that could be a reason why Liberal ideals are so expensive and cause all sorts of social upheaval. Try to think past the end of your own nose. You'll produce much better results.

Edited May 17, 2024 by Nationalist

[Nationalist]

19 minutes ago, Rebound said:

To be honest, I don’t understand your point at all. People have kids. Kids can be raised best when there’s a parent at home to care for them, whether that person is a mom or dad.  But, most families these days cannot afford to have a single working parent, and with our nation’s near-50% divorce rate, it’s clear that half of families wind up needing two working parents.  
 

In any event, no matter how you slice it, his speech is clearly sexist.  If a woman has a remarkable career, why shouldn’t Dad stay at home? 

I'm not surprised...meh...y'are what y'are...

If we examine history, we find that women are historically charged with homemaking. Even their bodies are designed for homemaking. Nature...evolution...Gawd...whatever...arranged for this male/female relationship out of necessity. Our Liberal minds have altered that. The results are less than optimal. Again...Quelle Suprise.

[impartialobserver]

13 hours ago, Hodad said:

Yes, exactly. It's NOT a coded message. There is nothing to decipher. Every woman sitting in the audience heard him loud and clear.

Lets be clear. He is allowed to have and express those views. A certain someone on here playing stupid and claiming that Butker was not espousing a view that a woman's place is in the home is simply disingenuous. His message is pretty clear.

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, User said:

If I have been dishonest, point out that dishonesty in those threads. Don't pathetically accuse me of it here with no evidence here.

Even then, you bring up the "gay cake" as an example... a thread you mostly ran away from because I was tearing your arguments apart. So, what was the dishonesty on my part there? 

You speak of courage. Let me know when you start showing some. Instead of showing up here to accuse me of dishonesty with no specific examples, go back and face the bad arguments you were making and running away from. 

 

You are being patently dishonest in THIS THREAD. There is no need to look for evidence. Any person fluent in English knows exactly what Butker plainly said and what he plainly meant. You should be embarrassed to pretend that you don't understand it. Anything for "the team" I guess.

And your laughably misplaced sense of "winning" is a Dunning Kruger case study waiting to happen. 

[gatomontes99]

Did anyone else see the whole thing? He got a standing ovation. They absolutely loved it. So what is the problem here?

[Hodad]

7 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Lets be clear. He is allowed to have and express those views. A certain someone on here playing stupid and claiming that Butker was not espousing a view that a woman's place is in the home is simply disingenuous. His message is pretty clear.

Yep. Butker is allowed to have and express those views. I'm allowed to acknowledge that he's a jackass--and cruel to boot, given what he's saying to those young women on a day that they are celebrating 4+ years of hard work and the opportunities it opens up.

The bizarre part is pretending his meaning is unclear. 

[User]

5 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You are being patently dishonest in THIS THREAD. There is no need to look for evidence. Any person fluent in English knows exactly what Butker plainly said and what he plainly meant. You should be embarrassed to pretend that you don't understand it. Anything for "the team" I guess.

Where is my dishonesty here?

Be specific. 

I am the one who has repeatedly demanded others to focus on what he actually said, not what they think he meant. 

7 minutes ago, Hodad said:

And your laughably misplaced sense of "winning" is a Dunning Kruger case study waiting to happen. 

Of course, I won. You ran away, and here you are accusing me of dishonesty with no specific examples based on those discussions you ran away from. You have to resort to these childish petty tactics like this after the fact instead of being courageous enough to deal with your inability to respond to me then. 

 

[Hodad]

20 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I'm not surprised...meh...y'are what y'are...

If we examine history, we find that women are historically charged with homemaking. Even their bodies are designed for homemaking. Nature...evolution...Gawd...whatever...arranged for this male/female relationship out of necessity. Our Liberal minds have altered that. The results are less than optimal. Again...Quelle Suprise.

That's crap. Women's bodies are not "designed" at all, let alone "designed for homemaking." There is no body type to sweep the floors, do the dishes and cook the meals. 

We're not hunter gatherers anymore. There is no correlation between strength and speed and the ability to put food on the table. Today, our livelihoods are earned between the ears. and women are more than ready to compete intellectually. That's what pisses off Neanderthals like Butker, and why they want those "uppity women" to get back in their place. You people are always afraid of the erosion of your privilege and terrified at the thought of competing on a level playing field. 

[impartialobserver]

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Yep. Butker is allowed to have and express those views. I'm allowed to acknowledge that he's a jackass--and cruel to boot, given what he's saying to those young women on a day that they are celebrating 4+ years of hard work and the opportunities it opens up.

The bizarre part is pretending his meaning is unclear. 

Words are subjective though. A certain someone on here is so bent on defending Butker that he can't read it objectively and see it for what it is. 

[Hodad]

1 minute ago, User said:

Where is my dishonesty here?

Be specific. 

I am the one who has repeatedly demanded others to focus on what he actually said, not what they think he meant. 

Of course, I won. You ran away, and here you are accusing me of dishonesty with no specific examples based on those discussions you ran away from. You have to resort to these childish petty tactics like this after the fact instead of being courageous enough to deal with your inability to respond to me then. 

 

His words are plain and his meaning is plain. That you pretend it is not is dishonest. You're not fooling anyone and I'm not going to indulge your shameful exercise. 

Conversations run their course. When you refuse to be honest, the conversation has run its course. It's not "running away" to leave that conversation. It's simply making a choice to not throw more time down the drain. 

[User]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

You’re just playing word games to avoid addressing the point. 
 

The Republicans have spent the last four years complaining that the economy is terrible, and that people cannot make ends meet, so not surprising that many families need two sources of income, right?  And, yeah, the super-genius football kicker figured out that it’s more fun and rewarding to stay at home and raise your kids. But not all families can get by on a single income.

No, you are the ones playing the word games instead of focusing on what Butker actually said. 

Butker did not say having two sources of income was bad or wrong. It is more rewarding to be at home to invest more time with your family. Do you have a family? Do you enjoy your kids being in daycare all day instead of with one of you? Instead of being out in the world with their mom, being with strangers? Nevermind, daycare is terribly expensive, and many folks that do work 2 jobs still end up pay a large chunk of whatever $$$ they make extra to daycare anyway. 

Again, Butker did not make any absolute comments that all women should stay home and nor was he bad mouthing those that did not. 

No more than I am presuming you are here badmouthing all stay-at-home moms. Are you? Are you demonizing them?

[User]

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

His words are plain and his meaning is plain. That you pretend it is not is dishonest. You're not fooling anyone and I'm not going to indulge your shameful exercise. 

That I don't agree with you doesn't make me dishonest. Go ahead and quote him them, make your case. 

3 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Conversations run their course. When you refuse to be honest, the conversation has run its course. It's not "running away" to leave that conversation. It's simply making a choice to not throw more time down the drain. 

Clearly they do not run their course, here you are brining up the "gay cake" again. You brought it up only in as much as you could accuse me of being dishonest. Now you claim conversations run their course. 

If you think I am dishonest, prove it. Don't play these pathetic childish games after the fact. 

And my not agreeing with yours and others absurd attempts to "interpret" what Butker meant here or to put words in his mouth he didn't actually say to make your points doesn't make me dishonest. 

[Hodad]

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Words are subjective though. A certain someone on here is so bent on defending Butker that he can't read it objectively and see it for what it is. 

Words are subjective to a limited degree. Plain language is, in any case, highly directional and usually not difficult to understand--unless one is working hard to misunderstand. Poetry, a verse from Shakespeare, or a sophisticated piece of rhetoric may require significant interpretation by the receiver, but this is not the case here. It's plain language.

 

[Hodad]

8 minutes ago, User said:

That I don't agree with you doesn't make me dishonest. Go ahead and quote him them, make your case. 

Clearly they do not run their course, here you are brining up the "gay cake" again. You brought it up only in as much as you could accuse me of being dishonest. Now you claim conversations run their course. 

If you think I am dishonest, prove it. Don't play these pathetic childish games after the fact. 

And my not agreeing with yours and others absurd attempts to "interpret" what Butker meant here or to put words in his mouth he didn't actually say to make your points doesn't make me dishonest. 

🤪I can't prove that you're being dishonest. You may, in fact, be just too abysmally stupid to understand plain language. I don't think that's the case, but it's the only other option to dishonest here. You can choose.