Gunthr: Would you go so far as to say that the Democrats are a bit feminine when compared to the masculine Republicans, based on thier tendancies to want to legislate almost everything??? 
From where I stand - libertarian position - there is so little difference between them as to be
almost immaterial to reflect on their masculinity. The republican legislation of morals is much less destructive of foundations of western civilisation than democrat legislation of economy. That's the basis of my choice - lesser evil, not greater good.
Curval: I don't disagree with everything you have pointed out, except to say "what is your alternative?" Teach the children so that those who survive the crash of western civilisation will know the reasons and have a chance to avoid repeating mistakes.
Anything other than equality puts you and I at the level of the Taliban and their "respect" for women's rights and we all take a giant leap backwards in developing our humanity. I would disagree that pre-1924 western society was disrespectfull of woman, but that is beyong the point.
This thread is called "Feminisation of politics" but it could be "nationalisation", "environmantalisation", etc. Politics is the problem and breeding ground for all kinds of despotism.
Have a free state where government is separate from religion and economy and only exists to protect freedom and property and no group will be able to hijack the power.
weazel: Imagination is more important than intelligence... This thread did not have anything to do with intelligence. Oh, and women surely do not have more imagination than man but much less. It is no surprise why women do not play games as much as man do - you need imagination to play the role.
Average intelligence of women is the same as men. The woman's distribution is narrower, which explains lack of women among the scientists, executives, etc., but it does not matter at all in politics.
Not having a woman on top will not prevent any "feminine" idea from being originated or picked up by men and submitted for evaluation to electorate. The ideas most women are voting for are often/mostly originated by man anyway - how many women candiates for president did we have?
But on the same issues presented by the same male politicians women voters often chose quite different than men voters - valuing
promised security rather than freedom and opportunity.
midnight Target: Interesting... Define freedom Define security What if increasing freedom increases security? What if a risk is necessary to secure yourself? You can secure one's person from unvelcome violation by another person without restricting freedom.
But trying to prevent problems by prosecuting hypothetical intent - thought crimes - goes way beyong that. A child pointing a finger and saying "poof" is not commining a gun crime - there is no posession of gun involved, just hysterics.
Even worse is denying people a chice to voluntarily enter into an honest transaction because some other person does not trust him/herself with a decision.
We all know that drugs better pass the FDA approval process. So a regular person should wait untill 15-year testing period concludes. But a person with 6 month to live may want to buy one right away - except it is illegal to sell a drug with large label "NOT YET FDA APPROVED" to a willing buyer. Just one example.
How about medicating 1/3 of US boys with powerfull psychotropic drugs of unknown side-effects for just behaving like regular boys - which is always risky - and making them behave like girls? Outlawing concept of competition, play, activity?
Your questions are too general and require theoretical discussion which I will do later. Anyway, those are generic freedom questions, not related to gender. The western civilisation was built by males. Whether it can survive female domination is anyone's guess. I say no.
Civilisations and societies undergo evolution and selection much like species. There were plenty of primitive matriarchal societies. That none survived and developed is not a coincidence.
funkedup: There are a lot of male safety nazis too. True. But apparently there were not enough of them to prevent active and motivated males from taking risks and pursuing progress and new - often dangerous - ways. Also, state in western civilisation was never so all-penetrating and powerfull as to significantly impede/reverse progress whoever held political sway. Now they have help of women and a state that can do enormous damage.
Airhead: All Liberals are sissys. Liberals want to prevent me from being "exploited" even when I enter into voluntary transaction. They prefer I starve rather than accept a low pay.
Many conservatives are willing to allow me that economic freedom but want to legislate my morality - protecting me from myself. I have to be made to pray. I must have my urge to buy pornography and drugs and commit suicide controlled - otherwise I can do harm to myself that I might regret - as they see it. Of course denying me my moral autonomy they deny morals altogether in an attempt to promote them... I guess they did not Kant.
GtoRA2: Let the stupid people learn or DIE!!! You confuse stupidity with ignorance. Stupid cannot learn and they do die or at least fail to reproduce unless their procreation is subcidised.
Anyway, women are not more stupid than men - they hust have very different bioligically-programmed priorities.
Erlkonig: However, I do know that the current Bush administration is quite willing to trade freedom for security. Women aren't running that show. Bush is pushing politics that many more women than men will approve and vote for. It's not the person in power that's really important but where the real power resides - in electorate. There will always be a selection of scoundrels and nuts covering all possible spectrum of political idiocy. Those will succeed who full the majority. So women are running the show, being more numerous and more uniform in their preferences.
Men are by nature seeking risks and opportunities in different directions. Their interetst being so disparate, they have more problems than women in forming political majorities.
Oh, yea - women are much more likely to be affected by a telegenic male politician with persuading tone of voice, regardless of validity of arguments, than male voters. It's biological thing.
It's known for women to have orgasm listening to a powerfull political speaker. It is also a scientific fact that it is not logic, however persuading, that causes people to have orgasm.
Quite possibly, male voters would irrationally vote for a cuter and younger female president too - if several very young hot women ever run for presidency at once - but that has never happened yet.
I do not think it ever will, with 35 years age limit, etc. By the time woman reaches a political stage, she is not likely to be perceived by men as a female.
miko
