Kanth: As for you, I think you should stay exactly as you are, like MG etc..because you folks are entertaining but not worth any more of my time than it took to write this. You are entitled to your opinion and I would certainly not stoop so low as to accuse you of intentionally lying in your posts - at least not without substantiation. You did barge in on my thread just to show how little you care about my opinion - fine. Inconsistent, but what the heck...
I saw a few of MG's posts. They are much closer in content to yours than mine. A short personally-directed statment without any logical and factual support. But that's for others to judge. If someone cares to pulls up all of my posts next to yours and MG's, I am not afraid of comparisons. My posts may be controversial but they are never shallow.
But I have to express my amasement at your incredible ignorance and arrogance in attrubuting this view to me. I really wish I came up with that myself - as well as other stuff that I posted here over time.
If you've ever read any other text besides the talk boards, you would certainly have recognised those claims and ideas in works of philosophers and other thinkers generally accepted as smart and serious people - starting with classical greeks and all the way to modern sociobiologists.
US people who did not allow women to vote before 1924 were not lying trolling slime trying to frivoluously entertain each other. They had quite a debate on that subject - for decades. Of course our feminised state-controlled brainwashing system that passes for education would never care to mention the other side of the debates or even analyse the arguments of victorious side (those who write the history).
But the people who stood on the other side of a debate - with "Anti-Federalist" papers (of which existence you probably have no idea) and "let those southern states seccede - we still have 8 slave states to their puny 7" and "no vote for women necessary" crowd were quite as distinguised in their intellectual and patriotic accomplishments as the (victorious) side responcible for bringing us to this sorry state. G. Washingtom or Hamilton or Jefferson or J. Stuart Mill did not consider the question of woman's sufferage important or ever expressed their surprise to woman's general lack of achievment in sciences, state or military matters. Not that they did not value advice of women either. B. Franklin spent more time in France discussing politics with a brilliant woman neighbour thn most men.
For very good reasons they believed a family was the foundation of society and could not conceive of a wife voting contrary to her husband, which made all-male voting as representative as all-female one or total franchise. Certainly woman's protective and security-oriented nature affected the vote of her more risk-prone husband in working out a balanced family policy represented in
his - but really family's - vote.
Of course they did not forsee the fact that a family institution will be intentionally destroyed by feminazi and welfare state and women persuaded that they form a separate class with oposing interest as men - and not needing them at all, once that cloning thingy gets developed any minute now.
Did I ever say that women's political opinion was irrelevant before they got a right to vote? Did you ever believe that? More the fool you are if you did. I failed to elaborate that not women's right to vote achieved in 1924 that led to deterioration of society 80 years later, but woman's right to vote in conjunction with failure of family institution and women fighting with men politically rather than achieving consensus within families that caused the trouble. Also women living significantly longer than men because they have fewer if any children contributed to disbalance of unattached women.
I am glad your pointless posts stimulated me to remember that important fact that some other readers will undoubtedly appreciate.
You sorry attempts to smear me because my posts are very brief and general rather than substantiated by hundreds of pages necessary to cover any serious topic do not succeed - at least for educated men.
I hide behind a row of intellectual giants and you would have to come up with some real arguments rather than personal slander to counter the point I have here. Whatever crap thown by you could possibly stick to me, it would certainly bounce off from Kant or Nietzshe or Thomas Jefferson or Toqueville or even Socrates. Remember that guy?
He drank poison instead of 10-year exile on trumped-up charges rather than negate his teaching that law should alwasy be obeyed. The one Plato and Aristhotel attributed their insights to?
He was accused in corrupting Athens' youth. Would you care to guess how many female students were among his pupils? Ever wonder why? Of course you wouldn't... He was not Politically Correct, right - or maybe dumb and trolling - that must be a good explanation for you.
koala: Your whole first post drips with the implication that you are now denying. No, no - perish the thought! I am certainly not denying all the awfull things I said here about women.
I just wanted to point out that I have other contributing factors besides women's natural gullibility and narow-mindedness. However terrible women are, I would attribute too much ability to them if I believed that they could single-handedly bring down the western civilisation...
I have plenty of slander in store against ethnic minorities, elderly, intellectually inferior (due to deficient genetics, no less!), intellectual elite, poor people, democracy as a concept in general - the works.
I am not really sure how major or minor factor women are - honestly. It certainly deserves some research. They may be minor one in politics. (That's a very personal concept - major or minor influance. If electing Clinton does not count as "major" for you, I do not know what will...
) Probably not that major. They are surely a major one in the women-dominated school system medicating our kids with phychoactive crap on a scale not dreemed about in the Soviet Union...
I have to plead guilty to nebulous term "strong force" too. I would have edited it out of a manuscript but this is type-as-you-think in a non-native language media. I certainly believe it's a signifiant factor. Most political analyst believe so too. Witness how much talk about targeting certain policies and appearaces for "female constituency". How often that term is used lately. How differently "female constituency" really votes - that's common knowlege. Clinton would not have been elected by man-only voters. Bush jr. would not have been elected by female-only ones. Check how men and women vote on gun control, war, etc. Huge difference.
I certainly wished to elicit responces - hopefully rational ones, but I was not "hyping" it. This thread is dedicated to one issue but it is certainly not the one bothering me most. You may believe it's outragious but it's actually pretty mild serving intended not to provike tempers. I specifically avoid talking about women's mental abilities compared to men which is a much more explosive issue.
Please be assured that I am very serious in my discussions and if you or anyone manage to persuade me that my logic is faulty and my fears are groundless - I will only be happy.
Lazs - I believe that your point gainst woman suffrage suffers by dealing with secondary causes. As I stated above, in a free state or a society with strong marriage insitution - and possibly life expectancy of women closer to one of men, making sure families are major elemants rather than individuals - woman's sufferage would not cause a slightest problem.
miko
