Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on January 13, 2003, 03:53:28 PM
-
Besides well-known intellectual deficiencies of women in certain areas (spacio-visual, etc.), especially at the high - and most important - end of the distribution, there is a significant gender-related difference in character traits.
Specifically, being faced with a choice or freedom vs. security, a women is much more likey to select security where a man would select freedom.
Also, women by nature are much more likely to uncritically depend on someone/something rather than take a risk and responcibility. That is quite natural and a product of evolution where female's and her child's life were more important for survival of the species, so such species tended to spread where males took risks and females took security measures, but the social implications of it are unsettling.
It's obvious that western civilisation prospered becasue of heigher degree of individual freedom and specifically through people taking risks. With more and more women taking part in politics - and comprising majority of the population, there is a natural trend towards more restrictive laws that impossibly try to protect everyone from everything - seat belts, product restrictions, FDA approvals, etc.
Once some level of comfort is reached, women become a stong force for slowing/reversing progress and restriction of freedom.
miko
-
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??? ;)
-
Lazs will be along momentarily to agree wholeheartedly.
I don't disagree with everything you have pointed out, except to say "what is your alternative?"
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.
According to lazs this opinion will brand me a popsicle. I'm cool with that.
:cool:
-
A BIG :rolleyes: to this one.
Imagination is more important than intelligence...
Some of the biggest dumb-asses I've known had MENSA class intelligence.
But their ignorance out-weighed their IQ.
-
Interesting...
Define freedom
Define security
What if increasing freedom increases security?
What if a risk is necessary to secure yourself?
-
Miko it's sad but true. I don't know if it's just women. There are a lot of male safety nazis too. Ralph Nader got the ball rolling.
-
All Liberals are sissys.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
All Liberals are sissys.
No. But all sissies are liberals.
-
I saw on TV there is a gay wing of the GOP. I think it might have been a hoax though.
-
I guess that probably tells us more about US politics than sissies. Today's "conservative republicans" would have been considered radical liberal socialists in the olden days.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Miko it's sad but true. I don't know if it's just women. There are a lot of male safety nazis too. Ralph Nader got the ball rolling.
Ralph Nader is also behind the decline of the average IQ in America. It's not cartoons, TV or the WWF, it's Nader.
If you're dumb enough to use your hairdryer while in the shower....with then you deserve what's getting ready to happen to you. But, instead of removing the algae from the sides of the gene pool, we have Nader trying to wrap the entire freaking planet in bubble wrap so we're all safe.
Screw that. Let natural selection run it's course. We don't need Nader bringing the rest of us down because he feels the need to keep the slower among us from getting the Big Surprise.
-
RIght on!
Let the stupid people learn or DIE!!!
-
Some of the biggest dumb-asses I've known had MENSA class intelligence.
But their ignorance out-weighed their IQ.
Yeah, Clinton sucks.
-
ralph nader, the "expert on auto safety" , never had a drivers license.
-
Originally posted by ra
Yeah, Clinton sucks.
:D
-
""jeopardize their little no-compulsory-military-service""
i thought you liberals were against the draft? oh , wait , that was the last war. "hell no , we won't go" "hey hey LBJ, how many kids have you killed today"
-
This might be an example of what Miko is asserting:
"The aim is to open up a dialogue and give people a place to have a dialogue -- a safe place."
(http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Site=SH&Date=20030109&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=301090506&Ref=AR&Profile=1060) :rolleyes:
-
Or better yet point out any posts I've made supporting liberals.
Until you can come up with any proof I'm a liberal shut your pie-hole.
Originally posted by john9001
""jeopardize their little no-compulsory-military-service""
i thought you liberals were against the draft? oh , wait , that was the last war. "hell no , we won't go" "hey hey LBJ, how many kids have you killed today"
-
I don't know if any of what miko2d is actually true. However, I do know that the current Bush administration is quite willing to trade freedom for security. Women aren't running that show.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Besides well-known intellectual deficiencies of women in certain areas (spacio-visual, etc.), especially at the high - and most important - end of the distribution, there is a significant gender-related difference in character traits.
Specifically, being faced with a choice or freedom vs. security, a women is much more likey to select security where a man would select freedom.
Also, women by nature are much more likely to uncritically depend on someone/something rather than take a risk and responcibility. That is quite natural and a product of evolution where female's and her child's life were more important for survival of the species, so such species tended to spread where males took risks and females took security measures, but the social implications of it are unsettling.
It's obvious that western civilisation prospered becasue of heigher degree of individual freedom and specifically through people taking risks. With more and more women taking part in politics - and comprising majority of the population, there is a natural trend towards more restrictive laws that impossibly try to protect everyone from everything - seat belts, product restrictions, FDA approvals, etc.
Once some level of comfort is reached, women become a stong force for slowing/reversing progress and restriction of freedom.
miko
ROFL!!! :rolleyes:
-
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
-
ending womens sufferage is imperative if we wish to survive as free men. Once womens sufferage is ended we can bully the womenly men into voting like men. Perhaps a test for estrogen levels in men should be done to prevent som of the democrats from voting also.
When men are young they believe that if they pretent to agree with women, especialy loudly and often and in public, they will get laid... They do not realize that not only are they earning the scorn of their fellow men but.... women think they are popsicles too.
Women prefer the company of other women... they don't want to talk to you. They emphathize better than men and are nurturers so they pretend to accept you.
Curval... taliban? no... I hold doors open for women. I have the utmost respect for the job they do/used to do raising children. How are things better for women today? I have talked to many women who are not the least bit happy with their "liberation". The freedom to be treated badly and rudely....
Look at the TV shows and rap music... The tv shows and movies latest theme is .... women are tougher than men... women kick mens bellybutton all the time... not a huge leap to.... It's ok to kick womens ass's because they are "equal" I am 53 years old and there is not a woman in the world that I couldn't beat the crap outta. I have never had a woman act aggressivly to me other than sexually. I have had to fight plenty of men.
There was a very good show on the sexes Sunday on the discovery channel.... basicly it said that.... every myth about the difference between the sexes was true... big surprise.
lazs
-
If this were in a forum where there were a lot of women you would see the suck ups come out of the woodwork.
in an all male environment the best we will get is some half hearted, guilt ridden, knee jerk defense.
we need a few women to post here to give these "men" courage.
lazs
-
Beetle could fill the role couldnt She?
-
lazs2: ending womens sufferage is imperative if we wish to survive as free men.
Wrong approach - if we were free men, woman sufferage or any other wackiness would not pose the slightest threat to us, not having any coersive power. Free men cannot be forced by definition. Only when we are not free and the state can arbitrarily dispose of our bodies and property, does it apparently become an issue who controls the state.
But only apparently - it's a necessary process that scondrels and amoral people get to the top. If there were no insecure and gullible women to be exploited by them, there are plenty of strategies that work on men. Some other kind of scoundrels would succeed - maybe overly militaristic rather than overly pacifistic.
Our boys would march with little rifles singing "Horst Vessel".. er.. "America The Beautiful" rather than being pumped full of Ritalin. (BTW - my boy will march with a little rifle, if not with patriotic song - becasue I wish so. But I would not force my choice on anyone).
And yes, Bush is overly pacifistic in my view. He and his womanly supporters are going into Iraq in a futile and self-deceiving attempt to bring order into the outside world and insure our security rather than have bravery to live in freedom even though surrounded by chaos and danger.
miko
-
(http://www.trollingbobber.com/IMAGES/BOBBER-HEAVYNEW.JPG)
-
Kanth,
You can argue that I am misguided, or ignorant of something or even not smart enough to understand some point - but stating that a view opposite to yours can only by voiced by a person who is lying for some nefarious personal reason, while secretly sharing your beliefs - that just shows your incredible narow-mindedness only matched by your self-righteousnes arrogance.
You may be a woman or a feminised man who cannot comprehend how real men feel and how they differ from women - I mean that not in any derogatory sense, but in a full appreciation of gender diferrenses that contribute to our success as species - that does not give you any basis to imply that someone is a liar. Even if you just do that by womanly show of emotion rather than open statement, preferably substantiated by logic, like a real man would do.
I would even dare suggest that yours is a typical womanly reaction - trying to ignore an offending phenomenon out of existence by wishfull thinking rather than trying to overcome reality (by finding a flaw in my logic) or learning to live and deal with it, however unpalatable.
Oh, yea - I will even claim that you are pretty stupid and blind to the obvious - posting an accusation of trolling in a thread in which about fifteen people have already seriously (besides Airhead's deserved jab at liberals :)) participated.
Well, at least you've made a very good illustration for my point about a typical feminine reaction of ignoring the obvious in favor of feel-good gesture. Go powder your nose now.
miko
-
you need a tissue?
-
By volume, men's brains are bigger than women's.
By volume, women's buttocks are bigger than men's.
By volume, women speak more than men.
By volume, men crap more often than women.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
-
gofaster: By volume, men's brains are bigger than women's.
Only by about 10% - but women have about 10% higher neuron density, so neurologically it's a draw.
By volume, women speak more than men.
Volume of what? Air? Information?
By volume, men crap more often than women.
The word you are looking for is frequency :)
Kanth: you need a tissue?
Not really. But I thought you'd have one handy... :)
Come on, trying to hurt my feelings? I am a man, remember?
Whatever puny putdowns you throw at me cannot compare with what my drill instructor dished out. Or my professors for being sloppy with the logic. Whatever. I know you wouldn't accuse me of lying face-to-face.
You are not the first cry-baby to turn matters personal and accuse me of lying rather than address the unpalatable facts I present. That is a reason I rarely argue politics with women.
Actually, I am a man secure enough to admit that baseless accusation of lying even by anonymous nobodies hiding behind a bulletin board do affect me - a little. By a couple of heartbits per minute. Not nearly as much as bullet shot in my direction but probably measurable. However irrational it is, it's a purely physiological reaction. Enjoy it. Congratulations. I can even play along and cry for you - whaaa... whaaa... Happy?
If you really want to get through to me and really make me feel bad about something I've said, ask some of you male-ish friends to find a flaw in my logic or data.
miko
-
If you really want to get through to me and really make me feel bad about something I've said, ask some of you male-ish friends to find a flaw in my logic or data.
Okay, I'll play.
With more and more women taking part in politics - and comprising majority of the population, there is a natural trend towards more restrictive laws that impossibly try to protect everyone from everything - seat belts, product restrictions, FDA approvals, etc.
Where's your evidence that this "natural" trend is due to women? More likely it is due to the fact that as we haven't had a major war or other nationwide deprivation for some 30 years, combined with the fact that modern technology has insulated us more and more from the "reality" of life, that it is human nature to focus more and more on "safety" niceties rather than on more basic survival issues.
Did Rome fall because of women? I'm guessing not. Did it fall because the average citizen got all soft after living a much easier life as a Roman citizen? Probably so. We're in the same boat.
-
I don't feel the need to get thru to you or MG, Petie, Dread, Tarzan, Laz, I could go on.
Now if someone like Kieren, Frodo, Easymo decided to say something like this (which they wouldn't because they base their arguments on facts and numbers or experience) I would work with it because I'd then care.
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.
Originally posted by miko2d
If you really want to get through to me and really make me feel bad about something I've said, ask some of you male-ish friends to find a flaw in my logic or data.
miko
-
Good point, Koala. Thank you.
But I have to plead guilty only to unclear writing rather than want of logic.
I certainly did not intend to imply that feminisation of politics is the only or even the major contributing factor to the decline in freedom. Not even the only demographic factor. Sorry for that.
My words "trend towards..." was supposed to convey allegation of a less forcefull relationship than "necessarily causes..." expression but I should have made it more clear.
Incidentally, Rome did not fall because the level of comfort of it's citizens reached "critical" level. If that were true, modern states would not be able to exist at all. Also, plenty of states with risk-averse citisens - or rulers who did not think it prudent to arm/train their subjects - successfully existed with purely mercenary armies made largely of foreigners. Or slave soldiers. In massive numbers with a great success. Mamelukes? Jannissaries? British Hessian mercenaries certainly kicked gen. Washington's bellybutton all over the countryside untill yankees hired/duped french to fight on their side... ;)
Rome fell for the same reasons that ancient greek democracies fell, as well as Novgorod Republic and numerous others. Once free commercial/trading societies grew prosperous enough, the power of state started to increase and was applied beyong propection of life and property necessary for commerce and support of livelihood but for "social purposes". Command methods of economic control replaced free market and commercial ways of obtaining resources and markets were superceeded by military ones. The fall of civilisation necessarily followed.
Dumb historians view strong states as a paramount of civilisations' development, rather what they really were - causes of downfall. Of course they have good reasons to - lack of brains and ordinary life experience and the fact that it was state officials rather than free traders who were concerned with leaving written evidence for posterity. Some would even go as far as to claim that the rulers gave laws to people rather than just inscribed the prevailing morals and customs.
miko
-
miko... I dissagree.... If we wish to remain free men in a society where votes, or the culling/pandering of votes makes the law... we have to end womens sufferage.
It is a fact that women have better language skills... in tests they have larger vocabularies... as was said... how much language skills do you need to kill game? they stayed in groups and raised the children... they needed more skills.
womens brains are also less comparmentalized. They have a 10% larger conector to the two halves and better neural connections... they can empathize and are more emotional. Men have better sight and can track a moving object better and have better grasp of spatial relationships plus better sense of direction and mechanical ability.
kanth... I am glad you joined... it matters not that you contribute only that the wussies know you are listening so that they can pander to you.
lazs
-
I certainly did not intend to imply that feminisation of politics is the only or even the major contributing factor to the decline in freedom. Not even the only demographic factor. Sorry for that.
Your whole first post drips with the implication that you are now denying. Every paragraph enforces that implication. So what's your thesis? That women are a major factor or not? If not, are they a moderate factor? If not, are they a minor factor? If so, why did you not come even close to conveying that?
Once some level of comfort is reached, women become a stong force for slowing/reversing progress and restriction of freedom.
A "strong force"? I assume you have evidence for that as well. Or are you saying you didn't really imply the word "strong"? Maybe a "contributing" force? Or "one of many" forces?
Or maybe you wanted to hype it up a bit so we'd respond, in which case the troll image is appropriate.
-
Lazs, you aren't even close to Miko's League. :)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
miko... I dissagree.... If we wish to remain free men in a society where votes, or the culling/pandering of votes makes the law... we have to end womens sufferage.
It is a fact that women have better language skills... in tests they have larger vocabularies... as was said... how much language skills do you need to kill game? they stayed in groups and raised the children... they needed more skills.
womens brains are also less comparmentalized. They have a 10% larger conector to the two halves and better neural connections... they can empathize and are more emotional. Men have better sight and can track a moving object better and have better grasp of spatial relationships plus better sense of direction and mechanical ability.
kanth... I am glad you joined... it matters not that you contribute only that the wussies know you are listening so that they can pander to you.
lazs
For a definition of "pander" see above.
:)
-
kanth...although we (miko and I)are in different leagues... they sometimes overlap slightly. I kinda doubt that you and I would find much common ground at this point in your life tho.
"pan•der (pan‚dƒr) n., v. -dered, -der•ing — n.Also, pan‚der•er.1. a person who furnishes clients for a prostitute or supplies persons for illicit sexual intercourse; procurer; pimp. 2. a person who caters to or profits from the weaknesses or vices of others. 3. a go-between in amorous intrigues. — v.i.4. to act as a pander; cater basely: to pander to vulgar tastes. "
I believe that politicians fit this definition by catering to the weakness of women
lazs
-
Lazs while you still have that silly womens sufferage joke hanging off the bottom of your shoe (as it has been for I dunno how long now), it's hard for me to take your seriously. :)
-
kanth... do you really think I'm joking?
lazs
-
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. LOL
-
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
-
I still say that the Republicans, who strongly object to ponderous, overlarge and feminized government are the true masculine form of politics.
The Dems, who wish to provide womb to tomb care to its citizens, redistributing wealth, whether its deserved or not, represent what could be termed the softer, weakened version of of the political organization, which results in feminized neo-natal decisions on the behalf of its citizens. This could be termed "Femocratic she-politics". :D
I agree that the economic tinkering that these political weak sisters perpetrate - and attempt to perpetrate - is the most damaging effect of this political division on our country.
Having said that, I admit that I was surprized to learn that the Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the USA.
I'm investigating the Libertarian Party as an alternative to the above major divisions, but at first glance some of the tenants of the Libertarians seem to be a bit over the top - like legalization of Schedule I, II and III class drugs, for example. This would be a catastrophe...
-
I read it,
Miko,
This isn't all about family or you would be talking about single people of both genders and not specifically women.
As for being pandered to, there is plenty of stupidity in both genders. As (I believe) was said before as well.
You have admitted as much to Lazs, now by 'free men' in that post, to him, I believe you meant lawless men and that 'might makes right'.
Then you go on to say that you 'forgot' to explain yourself but I'm a fool for your thinking that I misunderstood something that I hadn't even commented on?
These are the reasons why I believe you are talking out of your butt, not because you aren't verbose enough.
-
I believe we are becoming a much more Socialistic society. I think that's pretty apparent to even the casual observer. Whether it's the tax structure, entitlement programs, lawsuits at the drop of a pin, "fairness" in our education system, or the demonization of corporations, the end result is a society that is becoming ever-more burdened from the basic fact that the average American no longer takes adequate control / responsibility of his / her life.
What's the reasons for this? I believe it's because we've had it too good for too long now. I believe in fractals. Whether you're dealing with a child or a country, spoiling it with goodies that aren't earned simply makes it soft and whiney. Hence the ever-increasing screech from our friends on the Left who will perceive every slight and "unfairness" as some sinister plot by some evil force that absolves them of all responsibility for their plight. Let them fight for their freedoms, or their supper, and let them see what the world is really like out there, and they won't waste their time coming up with ways to make the government even more intrusive in our lives.
-
As long as there are have nots, willing to sacrifice freedom (thru their own will or stupidity) which they do not value for money that someone else has, that can vote, we will move towards socialism.
-
Kanth: This isn't all about family or you would be talking about single people of both genders and not specifically women.
I am specifically talking about women because despite singificantl, if underappreciated role of women in history, they were less influential than men because of their limitations.
Men - specifically white christian men contributed more to the development of western civilisation that women and wielded more influence. Women had probably the same influence on democratic politics in voting that men did by influencing the family's vote, but the key positions were held and key decisions were made by men, let alone research.
That is what is changing now. Due to increased role of governemnt and thus electorate. Due to other policies.
It woud be a valid concern just seing someone tinkering with a mechanism that seemed to work fine - but I actually see negative implications and probable mechanism of the "feminisation's" ill-effects.
You have admitted as much to Lazs, now by 'free men' in that post, to him, I believe you meant lawless men and that 'might makes right'.
That's plain nuts. For a guy who is not interested in what I am saying, you surely put an interesting twist on things I never said. I do not know what else lazs said elsewhere on the subject that you may think I agreed to, but I have not really been following that particular poster and have no idea what he professed outside this thread. I have only that as an explanation of your strange remark.
Well. At least you are talking on subject now (which one, though?) rather than offering snide offenses.
The concept of of liberty I subscribe to is the one developed by Mises and Hayek and J. S. Mill - the personal body, livberty and property being sacred and only purpose of the state being securing said body, liberty and property from violence or fraud. The current state is severely deficient in fulfilling that responcibility while it pursues many others on socialist agenda.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." J.S. Mill.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course the same applies to private property since the very concept of freedom is meaningless without it.
A person - as long as he/she is not violating body/property of others should be able to dispose of his property whichever way he wishes, be able to enter into voluntary contracts with anyone, including offering or accepting employment on eny conditions mutually agreed upon, be able to discriminate in any way he/she sees fit, etc.
No forcing anyone to part with his property to subcidise anyone else he/she is not willing to subcidise voluntarily.
Than it would not matter what anyone votes for or who votes since the only subject open for vote would be declaring war on other countries or deciding whether to defend from aggression. I am perfectly fine letting women handle that.
That pretty much cover my abhorence of 'might' - if that means violence or threat of it, of course. Surely, the one with more property will have more freedom and options.
In my reply to Lazs I was trying to temper his quite radical and inconsistent position. What made you think I was a proponent of violence, I have no clue.
Then you go on to say that you 'forgot' to explain yourself but I'm a fool for your thinking that I misunderstood something that I hadn't even commented on?
If I really 'forgot', when why would I suddenly 'remember'? Why it al has to be about lying to you? You do not know me, why would I ever care to lie to you here? You remind me the communists of my native country. Every disagreement was explained as a product of lying "class enemies", not an honest difference in opinions.
It's not a prepared speech but a typing without much editing. I am bound to miss many non-essential and evem some important points. That's why we have a dialog. You want a clarification - just ask. i will be happy to oblige with elaborarion of any point. besides, I am a techie, not a liberal-arts person. Public speaking was never my strongest point.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Here is another point I forgot to mention - to forestall any accusations of arrogance or dognmatism. I certainly did not cite the worthy geniuses sharing my view as a proof of it's correctness, just that people who were patenty smart, educated and dedicated to the good of humanity shared them.
I would certainly never refer to those people names (vs. some of their still serviceable logic) as substantiation on any idea's correctness since, however intelligent, they were so obviously wrong in many, if not most things they said - Washington, The "Federalist Trio", J.S. Mill, even the old Socrates. That does not mean I do not respect them.
miko
-
Anyone who talks about feminization of ANYTHING is a studmuffin.
-
Miko,
I'm going to say this in the most tactful way possible.
Perhaps something is being lost here with your english because this makes no sense to me altho I believe it is your point in all that you wrote.
I have fully restrained my strong need to poke fun at this because I don't want to wade thru another weeks worth of verbage searching for the key.
Instead I'll just ask you to please explain this in 100 words or less (they can be big words) without any quotes from dead people please.
nah screw it lets just disagree, I don't have the patience for this, like I said at the beginning.
Originally posted by miko2d
I actually see negative implications and probable mechanism of the "feminisation's" ill-effects.
miko
-
Women are irrational, that's all there is to that
Their heads are full of cotton, hay and rags
They're nothing but exasperating, irritating, vacillating
Calculating, agitating, maddening, and infuriating hags
Why can't a woman be more like man
Men are so honest, so thoroughly square
Eternally noble, historically fair
Who when you win will always give your back a pat
Why can't a woman be like that
Why does every one do what the others do
Can't a woman learn to use her head
Why do they do everything their mothers do
Why don't they grow up like their father instead
Why can't a woman take after a man
Men are so pleasant, so easy to please
Whenever you're with them you're always at ease
Would you be slighted if I didn't speak for hours?
Of course not
Would you be livid if I had a drink or two?
Nonsense
Would you be wounded if I never sent you flowers?
Never!
Why can't a woman be like you
One man in a million may shout a bit
Now and then there's one with slight defects
One perhaps whose truthfulness you doubt a bit
But by in large we are a marvellous sex
Why can't a woman behave like a man
Men are so friendly, good natured and kind
A better companion you never will find
If I were hours late for dinner would you bellow?
Of course not
If I forgot your silly birthday would you fuss?
Nonsense
Would you complain if I took out another fellow?
Never!
Why can't a woman be like us
Why can't a woman be more like a man
Men are so decent, such regular chaps
Ready to help you through any mishaps
Ready to buck you up whenever you are glum
Why can't a woman be a chum
Why is thinking something women never do
Why is logic never even tried
Straightening up their hair is all they ever do
Why don't they straighten up the mess that's inside
Why can't a woman be more like a man
If I were a woman who'd been to a ball
Been hailed as a princess by one and by all
Would I start weeping like a bathtub overflowing
Carry on as if my home were in a tree
Would I run off and never tell me where I'm going
Why can't a woman be like me?
-
mielta, did you write that? WOW!! That is great. <<<
>>>.
-
I wish I did :)
It's a song from "My Fair Lady" sung (brilliantly) by Rex Harrison. I love this guy.
-
"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
__________________
miko... I believe that your theory about why my theory suffers is flawed by you not dealing with what is happening and dealing too much with what could be. We simply look at things differently so far as what can be done. I don't think that we are going to reverse the fact that we don't have a "free state" nor or we going to suddenly gain a strong marriage institution nor or we going to bring life expectancies closer together. You are wandering.
The simple way to correct all of the above problems is to end womens sufferage... dance around the point all you want... Next, you will suggest that we elect a commitee to study the subject for a few decades... no... we need to end womens sufferage now and reverse the trends in all the problems you see (with the possible exception of life expectancy)
In short... you have no solution just a bunch of complaints. I prefer to tackle the root cause. Perhaps I have missed your point or... perhaps I have missed your solution? I see no solution offered by you.
certainly we both want a 'free state" and we both want strong families. These are at best.. nebulous... they are not in any way tanginble solutions.
kanth... "might makes right"? How do you figure? It would seem that by advocating personal freedom that I am advocating the oppossite of might makes right. It would seem that you, by advocating the reduction of personal freedom (womens security over freedom) that you are the one impossing the might=right. I am for the individual not being plowed under by the might of the masses.
lazs
-
So I guess you are saying that... if we all thought logicaly and respected each others personal freedoms and lived in a moral way that womens sufferage would be a non issue... I agree... that is probly correct. I am however dealing with what is really the case.
lazs
-
Show me where I advocate the reduction of personal freedom.
The person I see talking about taking away personal freedoms is you.
Originally posted by lazs2
It would seem that you, by advocating the reduction of personal freedom (womens security over freedom) that you are the one impossing the might=right.
lazs
-
Lazs, it's not guilt or other ulterior motives that makes me as a man want equal opportunity for women. Like you and everyone else I have/had a mother. I also have a wife, 2 daughters, and 2 granddaughters all of which I love dearly. I want for them to have the freedom to do whatever they choose in life to find happiness. Isn't that guaranteed by our Constitution?
News Flash: Women are different from men. :rolleyes: Generally speaking, women are more protective than men. So what? While I don't want to be mothered by our government, I'm confident we'll find a balance.
-
iron.. I have 2 ex wives a mother, a daughter and a grandaughter plus a collection of current and ex girlfriends ... some of the above I love dearly. That has nothing to do with it. I don't believe that treating them as "equals" neccessarily helps them. Unless of course... you want to pick and choose which things they can be "equal" in and which things they need special treatment. In order to have equality you need to have equal treatment.
For instance... the current trend is to excuse rap music and lack of respect for women in general while at the same time giving them the dubious bonus of working themselves to death. I, on the other hand, hold open doors and..... while I have been struck by women (yes, I know that is hard to believe)... I have never felt that they were "equal" enough for me to strike them back. I would not ever harm a woman except to prevent harm.
It isa not me that doesn't realize that men and women are different. I have allways known this. I am the one who has to remind people of the fact in most instances. I am, saying that it is these differences that make it impossible for the majority of women to vote in any way that would not decrease personal freedom. I do not believe that they add balance except in a family situation. I think that the nannying of America is proof. I do not believe that empathy is a good way to make a decision. I would point to the direction that we are going as proof of this.
I am mereley saying that women are different and they need to be treated differently... the question is .... In what ways? I believe ending womens sufferage goes a long way toward being a good solution. If we are going to protect them then we can't have them voting to remove the tools needed to do the job. I don't interfere with their raising of children. Men really shouldn't be allowed to raise children except in the most dire of circumstances... but that is another subject... even tho it applies here.
lazs
-
Lazs, imo because an opportunity exists for a woman it does not force her into a role in which she might be unhappy.
I'll agree that while there may be too much pressure on women today to cast off the chains of domesticty by the PC community, it's even more wrong to deny a unique individual an opportunity to find a satisfying role in life that for a long time was allowed only to men.
consider, you might be a woman in your next life. ;)
-
or consider that in this life, your rights maybe taken away for something you have no control over, because someone else has decided that is what is best for you.
Because that is exactly what you are talking about, doing that very thing, as a solution, that you are trying to cure.
Remember in your case, the government would only be 'protecting' you from yourself. Isn't that appealing? wouldn't you like to be safe and have no worries?
-
well iron... I am not sure that letting child care agencies raise your children is "opportunity" nor being able to take anti depressants be considered "opportunity" women are embrasing both of these.
kanth... I still would advocate equal treatment under the law. wages for the same work should be the same for instance. I simply feel that we should end womens suffearage.. women tend to release the animals that victimize them because they are nuturerers for instance.... Men understand what these animals are and do the right thing. Other than voting I would not advocate that women lose any rights that men have... In fact... I would advocate that women be treated respectfully do to their important position in society. Not treating women respectfully would be illegal..
lazs
-
Well lazs,
I believe you understand what I am saying but can never see it happening to you because we are talking about taking the right to vote away based only on gender.
As soon as someone made the move to take away your right to vote, I believe you would see the light.
Until then, my vote cancels out your vote. :)
-
kanth.. we understand each other. I would take away your right to vote based on gender.. I am sure there are exceptions but we couldn't go too far wrong by simply ending womens sufferage. I think you made my point for me by saying that your vote canceled out mine. Problem is... I am voting about issues that involve men, such as crime and punishment and you don't know anything about men.
lazs