When I met Fschmidt, he told me why he thinks women should not vote. He said that women are not as tribal as men are, so they will not care about defending their country or culture. Fschmidt, can you elaborate on that?
Why is it that women were not allowed to vote in the historical past? There must have been a good reason. Traditions in history are not there for no reason. They have a purpose and function. But are they outdated?
Is it because women's judgment tended to suck and they would vote for whatever was popular and trendy rather than what's right and good?
It does seem that women don't have strong convictions and principles like men do, nor do they care about what's good and right. They are more concerned with what's trendy, popular, and what other women think. So they are too easy to manipulate and thus are not as credible as men are.
Men and women are fundamentally different. So they cannot be treated as the same, like liberals advocate. Liberals are out of touch with reality and human nature. Women are nurturers by nature, and men are builders. That's why you don't see women building ships or buildings or houses. And why you don't see women generals commanding troops on the battlefield in history. And why you don't see men breastfeeding babies or teaching preschool or kindergarten. Thus men and women are different and have different roles and functions. Therefore, men and women CANNOT be treated as though they were the same. Why is that so hard for liberals to understand? They're so stupid.
What did the founding fathers of the US think about women's right to vote?
Are women allowed to vote in all countries today?
* Note: Poll added at the request of Jester. Cast your vote above!
Why Women Should NOT Be Allowed to Vote (Reasons Fschmidt?)
Why Women Should NOT Be Allowed to Vote (Reasons Fschmidt?)
Last edited by Winston on September 9th, 2014, 4:19 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and SE Asia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
Meet Loads of Foreign Women in Person! Join Our Happier Abroad ROMANCE TOURS to Many Overseas Countries!
Meet Foreign Women Now! Post your FREE profile on Happier Abroad Personals and start receiving messages from gorgeous Foreign Women today!
-
fschmidt
- Elite Upper Class Poster
- Posts: 3470
- Joined: May 18th, 2008, 1:16 am
- Location: El Paso, TX
- Contact:
Women are allowed to vote today in all countries where men vote, at least in politics. We still have a few sane religions that don't give women authority over men.
Here is my post on this subject:
http://www.coalpha.org/Against-Women-s- ... 75097.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Were our State a pure democracy, there would yet be excluded from their deliberations, women, who, to prevent depravation of morals and ambiguity of issue, could not mix promiscuously in the public meetings of men.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Jefferson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Timothy 2:12
Women's suffrage means that women vote in general elections together with men. I will argue here that this undermines democracy and is disastrous for society. I would go so far as to say that women's suffrage is probably the greatest disaster in all of human history since it destroyed the most successful culture in human history.
First I want to replace the phrase "right to vote" with "power to vote". A right is something that you are permitted to do, as in the right to speak or the right to practice religion. A right is not a government granted authority over others, that is a power. Technically, the right to vote just means being permitted to vote. But voting itself is meaningless unless that vote is counted by the government, and the result of the vote is implemented by force by the government. So what really matters isn't the right to vote, but rather the power to have your vote counted and to have the decisions of the majority of the voters implemented by the government.
The central idea of democracy is that the government is selected by the governed. So indirectly, the governed exercise power over themselves collectively. It was the violation of this concept that upset the American colonies and led to the American Revolution. The British House of Commons was democratically elected, but only by residents of Britain. The Americans were upset because they were governed by a government elected by others. Similarly, imagine a campaign to have Mexican and Canadian citizens win the "right" to vote in American elections. We recognize this as absurd because the American government doesn't govern these people, so these people have no business voting in American elections.
Now let's consider the question of whether children should vote. The first question is whether children are primarily governed by the government. I argue that no, in fact children are primarily governed by their parents, and therefore they have no business voting since they cannot really be counted among those governed by the government. One could argue back that children are in fact subject to government law and are punished for violating that law. I respond that the same applies to a Canadian citizen who visits America as a tourist, but this isn't enough to give the Canadian tourist the right to vote because the Canadian spends most of his life in Canada and is mostly governed by Canadian law. The same applies to children who are basically just tourists in the adult world, to the extent that they enter it. The primary government of children is their parents, so children have no business voting in government elections.
But there is another, more obvious issue with children which is whether they are qualified to vote. In the case of teenagers, it is hard to argue that they lack the needed intelligence. Rather, we recognize that teenagers think differently from adults and that their thinking patterns make them unqualified to make wise voting choices. So this is a second reason that children shouldn't vote.
Now I will argue that these same arguments for why children shouldn't vote also apply to women. First, let us consider how women are governed. One way that one can judge the extent of the government's impact on people is to look at who is punished for violating government law. In America, the incarceration rate for men is 15 times that of women. Why is this? Are women really 15 times as good as men are? I don't think so. I believe that there are several explanations, but the main one is that government law is primarily designed to govern men and to prohibit certain typical male behaviors. Typical bad female behavior is rarely if ever regulated by the government. So what governs women? My answer is primarily peer pressure and cultural norms. Women are more social than men are, and are more sensitive to social pressure. Social pressure is not enough to make men behave, men must face the threat of punishment to control their behavior. But for women, social shaming is enough to regulate most behavior. And in fact the idea of sending women to prison inherently feels odd to most people for this reason. If anyone disagrees with what I am saying here, I would like to hear their explanation for why the incarceration rate for women is so low. If I am correct and women are primarily governed by social norms, not by government law, then women have no business voting for the reasons I gave above for children.
Now let's consider the other issue, which is whether women are qualified to vote. As I pointed out regarding teens, the issue here isn't intelligence. The issue is whether the mental framework of a teen or a woman is well suited for making wise voting choices. If we look at how primitive people of the past organized themselves in tribes, or how chimpanzees organize themselves today, we see that the tribe is always governed by a group of men/males. And because men were in this position, men evolved to have the right instincts for governing. In particular, men have a strong sense of fairness, of loyalty to a group, and an instinct to protect everyone, including women and children, in the group. Women have none of these instincts. Women developed instincts suited to their role in primitive tribes, which was primarily focused on the family and on personal connections. Women excel in these areas, none of which have anything to do with good governance. The extreme difference between men and women is obvious to anyone who hasn't been brainwashed by feminism. Consider how a man reacts to a woman crying out in distress compared to how a woman would react to a man crying out in distress. Men instinctually protect women in their tribe, but women only instinctually protect children and people they are connected to. And because of these differences, men are qualified to vote but women are not.
What actually happens when women are given the vote? Since women do not have any sound tribal instincts, they instead vote based on their selfish desires and their instincts for personal connections. In particular, when a woman votes for a man, she is giving him her approval. And the basic instincts wired into women regarding giving men approval are sexual. So in effect, women will vote for men who they would date. Of course women will never admit this, but this is what is happening subconsciously. A man like Abraham Lincoln, who isn't the type who naturally appeals to women, could never have been elected after women's suffrage. Now, to be elected, a man has to be handsome and smooth talking. Women naturally seek men who can provide for them, and through this instinct, women vote for a government that can provide for them. So women vote for big government. To the extent that women support particular laws, these are always laws that benefit women at the expense of men. Women have never supported any law to address some injustice against men, child custody imbalance for example. And women have never supported any law primarily designed to regulate women's behavior. Giving women the vote simply allows women to govern men, and this is a violation of the concept of democracy. It is disastrous for society because women are unqualified to vote and will vote for big government and for anything that benefits women at men's expense. Women will never vote for something based on fairness or for something to regulate their own behavior.
So does this mean that I am against rights for women? Not at all. First of all, voting is a power, not a right. I have no problem with equal rights. And second, I don't even have a problem with women voting as long as women are not given political power over men. In a system of universal suffrage where men and women vote together, the result is inequality where women vote to oppress men. Some men, particular the most corrupt and immoral men, actively support women in this oppression. To have true equality, the sexes must be separated. Let men govern men and women govern women, so that neither can oppress the other. It is my view that women would soon become totally bored with governing themselves since women have no desire to regulate themselves, and they would just as well not be bothered with all this and just let men govern them. But this should be women's choice. Let women decide if they want to be governed by women or by men. Men should not impose their will on women, but if women choose to submit to the will of men, then there is nothing wrong with this.
What about the successful queens in history? These women became queens in royal courts full of intrigue. And as I said, women excel at personal relations, so women are well designed to succeed in a royal court. I am particularly thinking about the royal court of England during its rise. But these queens were no feminists. They rose to power with the support of men and their authority depended on these men. And they relied on men as advisers for making policy. This worked because women as a whole could not impose their will on men and because these queens could not remain in power without the support of men. To put this in perspective, it is worth quoting Queen Victoria's view of feminism:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of "Women's Rights," with all its attendent horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to "unsex" themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection. I love peace and quiet, I hate politics and turmoil. We women are not made for governing, and if we are good women, we must dislike these masculine occupations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Queen Victoria, 1870
Another point worth making is that political power is not the most important power. The single most important power for shaping the future of a society is the power to raise children. In fact I couldn't care less whether I personally have the vote or not, but I absolutely care about being able to influence my children. Unlike most men, I was able to work from home and homeschool my kids, and I believe this will have more impact on the future than anything I could have done in politics. Women who value politics over their children are just following bad modern social norms.
We can see the practical result of the issues here by looking at religions today. All of those religions that have successfully managed to remain moral and not conform to the immoral modern world are religions that have not given women authority over men. Examples include the Amish and Orthodox Judaism. There isn't a single religion with a low divorce rate that has given women authority over men.
My conclusion is simple, no society or religion can survive women's suffrage. Any society that has degenerated to the point that it has enacted women's suffrage is doomed. Don't waste your time trying to save such a society or religion.
Here is my post on this subject:
http://www.coalpha.org/Against-Women-s- ... 75097.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Were our State a pure democracy, there would yet be excluded from their deliberations, women, who, to prevent depravation of morals and ambiguity of issue, could not mix promiscuously in the public meetings of men.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Jefferson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Timothy 2:12
Women's suffrage means that women vote in general elections together with men. I will argue here that this undermines democracy and is disastrous for society. I would go so far as to say that women's suffrage is probably the greatest disaster in all of human history since it destroyed the most successful culture in human history.
First I want to replace the phrase "right to vote" with "power to vote". A right is something that you are permitted to do, as in the right to speak or the right to practice religion. A right is not a government granted authority over others, that is a power. Technically, the right to vote just means being permitted to vote. But voting itself is meaningless unless that vote is counted by the government, and the result of the vote is implemented by force by the government. So what really matters isn't the right to vote, but rather the power to have your vote counted and to have the decisions of the majority of the voters implemented by the government.
The central idea of democracy is that the government is selected by the governed. So indirectly, the governed exercise power over themselves collectively. It was the violation of this concept that upset the American colonies and led to the American Revolution. The British House of Commons was democratically elected, but only by residents of Britain. The Americans were upset because they were governed by a government elected by others. Similarly, imagine a campaign to have Mexican and Canadian citizens win the "right" to vote in American elections. We recognize this as absurd because the American government doesn't govern these people, so these people have no business voting in American elections.
Now let's consider the question of whether children should vote. The first question is whether children are primarily governed by the government. I argue that no, in fact children are primarily governed by their parents, and therefore they have no business voting since they cannot really be counted among those governed by the government. One could argue back that children are in fact subject to government law and are punished for violating that law. I respond that the same applies to a Canadian citizen who visits America as a tourist, but this isn't enough to give the Canadian tourist the right to vote because the Canadian spends most of his life in Canada and is mostly governed by Canadian law. The same applies to children who are basically just tourists in the adult world, to the extent that they enter it. The primary government of children is their parents, so children have no business voting in government elections.
But there is another, more obvious issue with children which is whether they are qualified to vote. In the case of teenagers, it is hard to argue that they lack the needed intelligence. Rather, we recognize that teenagers think differently from adults and that their thinking patterns make them unqualified to make wise voting choices. So this is a second reason that children shouldn't vote.
Now I will argue that these same arguments for why children shouldn't vote also apply to women. First, let us consider how women are governed. One way that one can judge the extent of the government's impact on people is to look at who is punished for violating government law. In America, the incarceration rate for men is 15 times that of women. Why is this? Are women really 15 times as good as men are? I don't think so. I believe that there are several explanations, but the main one is that government law is primarily designed to govern men and to prohibit certain typical male behaviors. Typical bad female behavior is rarely if ever regulated by the government. So what governs women? My answer is primarily peer pressure and cultural norms. Women are more social than men are, and are more sensitive to social pressure. Social pressure is not enough to make men behave, men must face the threat of punishment to control their behavior. But for women, social shaming is enough to regulate most behavior. And in fact the idea of sending women to prison inherently feels odd to most people for this reason. If anyone disagrees with what I am saying here, I would like to hear their explanation for why the incarceration rate for women is so low. If I am correct and women are primarily governed by social norms, not by government law, then women have no business voting for the reasons I gave above for children.
Now let's consider the other issue, which is whether women are qualified to vote. As I pointed out regarding teens, the issue here isn't intelligence. The issue is whether the mental framework of a teen or a woman is well suited for making wise voting choices. If we look at how primitive people of the past organized themselves in tribes, or how chimpanzees organize themselves today, we see that the tribe is always governed by a group of men/males. And because men were in this position, men evolved to have the right instincts for governing. In particular, men have a strong sense of fairness, of loyalty to a group, and an instinct to protect everyone, including women and children, in the group. Women have none of these instincts. Women developed instincts suited to their role in primitive tribes, which was primarily focused on the family and on personal connections. Women excel in these areas, none of which have anything to do with good governance. The extreme difference between men and women is obvious to anyone who hasn't been brainwashed by feminism. Consider how a man reacts to a woman crying out in distress compared to how a woman would react to a man crying out in distress. Men instinctually protect women in their tribe, but women only instinctually protect children and people they are connected to. And because of these differences, men are qualified to vote but women are not.
What actually happens when women are given the vote? Since women do not have any sound tribal instincts, they instead vote based on their selfish desires and their instincts for personal connections. In particular, when a woman votes for a man, she is giving him her approval. And the basic instincts wired into women regarding giving men approval are sexual. So in effect, women will vote for men who they would date. Of course women will never admit this, but this is what is happening subconsciously. A man like Abraham Lincoln, who isn't the type who naturally appeals to women, could never have been elected after women's suffrage. Now, to be elected, a man has to be handsome and smooth talking. Women naturally seek men who can provide for them, and through this instinct, women vote for a government that can provide for them. So women vote for big government. To the extent that women support particular laws, these are always laws that benefit women at the expense of men. Women have never supported any law to address some injustice against men, child custody imbalance for example. And women have never supported any law primarily designed to regulate women's behavior. Giving women the vote simply allows women to govern men, and this is a violation of the concept of democracy. It is disastrous for society because women are unqualified to vote and will vote for big government and for anything that benefits women at men's expense. Women will never vote for something based on fairness or for something to regulate their own behavior.
So does this mean that I am against rights for women? Not at all. First of all, voting is a power, not a right. I have no problem with equal rights. And second, I don't even have a problem with women voting as long as women are not given political power over men. In a system of universal suffrage where men and women vote together, the result is inequality where women vote to oppress men. Some men, particular the most corrupt and immoral men, actively support women in this oppression. To have true equality, the sexes must be separated. Let men govern men and women govern women, so that neither can oppress the other. It is my view that women would soon become totally bored with governing themselves since women have no desire to regulate themselves, and they would just as well not be bothered with all this and just let men govern them. But this should be women's choice. Let women decide if they want to be governed by women or by men. Men should not impose their will on women, but if women choose to submit to the will of men, then there is nothing wrong with this.
What about the successful queens in history? These women became queens in royal courts full of intrigue. And as I said, women excel at personal relations, so women are well designed to succeed in a royal court. I am particularly thinking about the royal court of England during its rise. But these queens were no feminists. They rose to power with the support of men and their authority depended on these men. And they relied on men as advisers for making policy. This worked because women as a whole could not impose their will on men and because these queens could not remain in power without the support of men. To put this in perspective, it is worth quoting Queen Victoria's view of feminism:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of "Women's Rights," with all its attendent horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to "unsex" themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection. I love peace and quiet, I hate politics and turmoil. We women are not made for governing, and if we are good women, we must dislike these masculine occupations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Queen Victoria, 1870
Another point worth making is that political power is not the most important power. The single most important power for shaping the future of a society is the power to raise children. In fact I couldn't care less whether I personally have the vote or not, but I absolutely care about being able to influence my children. Unlike most men, I was able to work from home and homeschool my kids, and I believe this will have more impact on the future than anything I could have done in politics. Women who value politics over their children are just following bad modern social norms.
We can see the practical result of the issues here by looking at religions today. All of those religions that have successfully managed to remain moral and not conform to the immoral modern world are religions that have not given women authority over men. Examples include the Amish and Orthodox Judaism. There isn't a single religion with a low divorce rate that has given women authority over men.
My conclusion is simple, no society or religion can survive women's suffrage. Any society that has degenerated to the point that it has enacted women's suffrage is doomed. Don't waste your time trying to save such a society or religion.
A woman is a biological robot designed to incubate and raise the next generation. They will do anything that follows heuristics that generally allow them to accomplish this, regardless of the long term interests of society. Hence they will always support the men in charge and do whatever they say, which is often problematic if those men don't have society’s interests at heart. Within this context, they will always support a strong central state funneling other people's resources to them to alleviate any insecurities they might have. For example, a common fear of women is being left destitute when their husbands leave them or die or whatever. Hence if anyone proposes generous welfare for women in these circumstances, essentially all women will always support the proposal. They don't think through the devastating long term consequences of rendering men expendable - they simply do not analyze things. Because of the sameness and predictability of female thinking they represent low hanging fruit for politicians and others intending to gain advantage by pandering to them, and over time this destroys society. This was illustrated millennia ago in the play Assembly Women by Aristophanes.
Those are excellent rational arguments Fschmidt. I never knew that there were rational arguments on why women shouldn't vote.
So in summary:
1. Women are not loyal to their country. They only care about their children and loved ones. So they would not vote in the country's best interests.
2. They are self-centered and selfish, not fair. So they do not make decisions based on fairness or ethics. They only vote for whatever benefits them.
3. Women tend to vote for men they'd date, such as handsome smooth talking liars (e.g. Bill Clinton, Obama). So that tends to get sociopaths into office. Moral character and qualifications don't matter to them.
4. Women tend to vote for big government because it provides for them. They don't care about the long-term destructive consequences of big government, and the corruption and tyranny it brings. Didn't the Roman Empire fall because of its big government too, which everyone hated? Men tend to hate big government because its tyranny and corruption usually go out of control. This is why the Founding Fathers of America emphasized a small government that is only there to defend basic liberties and rights. Is that right?
So the reason why the US government is so much bigger today than in the past, is because women voted for big government? Is that why? Isn't big government a result of population increase too?
Did the founding fathers believe that women should vote?
Were women allowed to vote in Ancient Greece or Ancient Rome?
Why weren't women allowed to vote in the past? What reasons did men give? The same ones you did?
You told me once that there was feminism and liberalism in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome too. Can you send me links about that?
Why do all countries follow suit when the US does something? The US was the first to abolish the monarchy. Now all countries have followed suit. Why? The US was the first country to allow women to vote right? Why did all countries follow suit? Why didn't they just say "f**k you" to America?
I have a question though. Don't some women make good office managers? I've seen some women do well as office managers, or even hospital managers or managers in daycare for children. Women managers though, are usually masculine and unattractive. What a coincidence huh? lol. So anyway, doesn't that mean that women can be suited for authority in some situations?
Also, what about Queen Elizabeth in the 1500's? I saw a movie about her. It said that the 40 years of her rule was called the "Golden Age" because England prospered during that time and rose to become a world superpower by the 1600's. Does that mean she was a great leader? Or did she just sit there as a puppet while male advisors made all the decisions for her? How do you explain that?
It was a miracle she wasn't assassinated though, because lots of powerful people wanted to get rid of her in the beginning of her reign. But somehow she survived.
So in summary:
1. Women are not loyal to their country. They only care about their children and loved ones. So they would not vote in the country's best interests.
2. They are self-centered and selfish, not fair. So they do not make decisions based on fairness or ethics. They only vote for whatever benefits them.
3. Women tend to vote for men they'd date, such as handsome smooth talking liars (e.g. Bill Clinton, Obama). So that tends to get sociopaths into office. Moral character and qualifications don't matter to them.
4. Women tend to vote for big government because it provides for them. They don't care about the long-term destructive consequences of big government, and the corruption and tyranny it brings. Didn't the Roman Empire fall because of its big government too, which everyone hated? Men tend to hate big government because its tyranny and corruption usually go out of control. This is why the Founding Fathers of America emphasized a small government that is only there to defend basic liberties and rights. Is that right?
So the reason why the US government is so much bigger today than in the past, is because women voted for big government? Is that why? Isn't big government a result of population increase too?
Did the founding fathers believe that women should vote?
Were women allowed to vote in Ancient Greece or Ancient Rome?
Why weren't women allowed to vote in the past? What reasons did men give? The same ones you did?
You told me once that there was feminism and liberalism in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome too. Can you send me links about that?
Why do all countries follow suit when the US does something? The US was the first to abolish the monarchy. Now all countries have followed suit. Why? The US was the first country to allow women to vote right? Why did all countries follow suit? Why didn't they just say "f**k you" to America?
I have a question though. Don't some women make good office managers? I've seen some women do well as office managers, or even hospital managers or managers in daycare for children. Women managers though, are usually masculine and unattractive. What a coincidence huh? lol. So anyway, doesn't that mean that women can be suited for authority in some situations?
Also, what about Queen Elizabeth in the 1500's? I saw a movie about her. It said that the 40 years of her rule was called the "Golden Age" because England prospered during that time and rose to become a world superpower by the 1600's. Does that mean she was a great leader? Or did she just sit there as a puppet while male advisors made all the decisions for her? How do you explain that?
It was a miracle she wasn't assassinated though, because lots of powerful people wanted to get rid of her in the beginning of her reign. But somehow she survived.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and SE Asia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
Also Fschmidt,
I agree with you that the notion that men and women are equal in power is ridiculous. They may deserve equal rights under the law. But they are not equal in power or ability. And they should be deemed as the same because they are fundamentally different. Anyone knows that you can't treat women and men like they are the same, so why do liberals say that they are equal? It makes no sense. Yet the myth of male/female equality is a religion in America that you are not allowed to question, which is stupid and baseless.
For example, if men and women are equal, then:
- Why aren't there teams of women building ships and buildings?
- Why aren't there armies of women winning great battles in war?
- Why has there never been a great, or even a good, female general in the army who won great battles?
- Why aren't there men nursing infants and breastfeeding them?
- Why aren't men teaching preschool and kindergarten?
- How come if I call a plumber or mechanic, it's always a guy that shows up?
- How come when I get an oil change for my car, it's always a guy that does it?
- How come if a man and woman are alone in a cabin in the woods, and a bear outside makes sounds, the woman does not say to the man, "Honey, you stay here. I'll go outside and take care of that bear."? LOL. Instead, she will ask the man to go out and deal with it. Where is the equality here? If they are equal, then how do liberals explain that? Oh I guess they can't. LOL
- Can I walk up to a mother and say that because men and women are equal, that I can breastfeed her baby just as well as she can? LOL. That would be silly and senseless wouldn't it?
- Can women walk up to construction workers and say "We can build that house just as well as you can, because men and women are equal"? LOL. That would be delusional and false.
- How come NFL football teams don't have male and female members on the teams, since they are both equal? LOL
- If men and women are equal, why doesn't the military put co-ed armies of both men and women to fight together on the front lines? LOL
- How come female virginity is considered sacred and valuable, but male virginity is not? Female virginity is so valuable, that some female virgins are even able to sell it for a high price.
- How come men go to brothels with women in them, but women do not go to brothels with men in them? LOL
- What if, during the American Revolution, the colonists sent out armies of women with muskets to fight the British red coats? LOL. Would they have won any battles? Even one? LOL. I doubt it. How would an army of women react to musket balls being fired at them, or cannon balls coming at them? LOLOLOLOLOL ROTF!!! So how the hell can women and men be equal? LOL. It makes no fricking sense!
- What if the Allies during World War II sent an army of "liberated" feminist women to storm the beaches of Normandy on D-Day? LOL. Do you think battalions of liberated women would have been able to take the beach front? LOLOLOLOLOL ROTFL!!!
- If men and women are equal, then why didn't the greatest generals in history -- such as Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, or Sun Tzu -- put female troops into their army? LOL. Aren't female troops just as capable as male troops? LOL. Shouldn't such great brilliant generals know better? LOL. Why would they miss out on the opportunity to double their army size by adding female troops? LOLOLOLOLOLOL ROTFL!!!
- How come the greatest war treatise ever written, Sun Tzu's "Ancient Art of War" (which is required reading in the US military) doesn't say something like this in it: "Remember this principle: Men and women are equal. So don't neglect using female soldiers in battle. They are just as good and capable as male soldiers. A wise victorious general will utilize both female and male troops. Adding female soldiers will double your army in size and power. To neglect using female soldiers would halve your troops and resources, which is unwise." LOLOLOLOLOLOL ROTFL!!! Now, don't you think that one of the greatest military strategists in human history, like Sun Tzu, had a good reason for not writing such stupid statements in his treatise? LOL
You see how totally ridiculous the concept of gender equality is? LOL. It makes no fricking sense at all! Yet this concept is canonized in America as Gospel Truth! You are not allowed to question it at all. It's set in stone in America's "Church of Liberalism". How insane and delusional! No wonder America is so f***ed up. In fact, in America you aren't even allowed to say that men are better than women in anything at all! Go figure.
Now I'm not saying that men are "superior" to women or anything like that. Just that men and women are fundamentally DIFFERENT. They have different roles and functions in society and in the family. And they have different inherent instincts as well. So why deny all that? Why not embrace what's natural? Why are stupid liberals trying to invert what's natural, as though what's natural were an oppressive enemy? That's so stupid and delusional. These liberals are insane and upside down, most likely due to wicked brainwashing and programming. Regardless, trying to invert what's natural, makes them in a sense "evil".
If men and women loved and respected each other, and only chose partners of good moral character, values and kindness, then there would be no need for any "battle of the sexes" or senseless debates about "equality", etc.
The problem is that people tend to twist the word "equality" into meaning "sameness" on every level and in every way. But only identical products on a factory shelf can be truly "equal". The word cannot apply to humans and therefore doesn't exist when applied to people. Not just with men and women, but people in general as well.
The notion of equality, even among men, makes no sense and has no basis in fact. Everyone is different. So why did the founding father say that "all men are created equal"? What did they mean by that? Consider the following:
- Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are not equal to scumbags selling drugs on the street, or to homeless beggars on the street. No way. They are way higher in status and quality, as well as more successful and intelligent.
- Some people are good and some are bad. Some people are intelligent and some are stupid. Some people are beautiful and some are ugly. Some people have power and some don't. Some people accomplish great things and some don't. Not everyone is the same. Nor is everyone equal. Duh.
- What if I walk up to Michael Jordan and say, "I can play on your basketball team because all men are equal"? LOL. That would be silly and laughable wouldn't it? Michael Jordan can kick my ass in basketball, and I can kick his ass in chess. We are not equal, just different.
- A soldier can't refuse to take orders from his general, claiming that all men are equal so he doesn't have to take orders. No way. What if during the American Revolution, one of General George Washington's soldiers told him, "General Washington, you wrote in the Constitution that all men are created equal, so I refuse to take your orders on the grounds that we are both equal." What would George Washington have said to that? LOL
- A lamb can't say to a lion "We are equal". LOL. No way. That would be sheer lunacy and delusional. A lion is far higher up in the food chain than a lamb. A lion could easily tear a lamb apart. In no way are they "equal" except in basic survival needs.
- Is Albert Einstein equal in value and intelligence to some stupid teenage punk working at McDonald's with tattoos all over his arm? LOL. No way.
- Can I say to Paris Hilton that "You and I are equal. I'm just as beautiful as you are. I can be in any magazine that you can."? LOL. Of course not. But she is not my match in intellect either. The fact of the matter is, we are different and are valued in different ways. Duh.
- Opinions are not all equal either. Some opinions are sensible, rational and well thought out. Others are just plain stupid and moronic. So no, not all opinions are equal. Some opinions are just plain wrong too. For example, if I say that 2+2=4 and another person argues that 2+2=5, is his opinion equally valid with mine? LOL The fundamental flaw in voting and democracy is that it assumes that everyone's opinion carries equal weight, which is not true. Some people are stupid and should not vote. Only people with IQ's above 100 should vote, for they are more likely to make wiser choices and are not as easily duped.
So you see, there is no such thing as "equality". It seems that the word "equal" is just a politically correct word and ideology designed to appease the masses. It has no basis in reality, logic or science. Notice that only the lowest class people like to use that word, as well as angry liberals looking for special rights. Successful people don't usually use that word. Nor do brilliant people or wealthy upper class people.
Frankly, the word "equal" sounds communist. Ants may be equal, but not humans. People cannot function like ants do. There's no such thing as equality as it applies to humans. So why is that stupid word so popular in America? Why is it canonized so religiously? America is so full of lies and bullshit.
Simply saying that "all men are created equal" doesn't make it so. America is a divided class society with the biggest gap between rich and poor in the world. Clearly, all people are NOT equal in America. It's time America became honest and stopped parroting myths like equality, which doesn't exist.
People's opinions are not all equal either. Some people are smart and wise, while others are stupid and foolish. Stupid people should not be allowed to vote. Only people with IQ's over 100 should be allowed to vote, for they are far likelier to make wiser choices and are not as easily duped. This may sound unfair, but it'd be far better for society if this were the case.
The fundamental flaw of voting and democracy is its assumption that all opinions carry equal weight, which is not true. For example, if I said that 2+2=4 and someone else said 2+2=5, his opinion does not carry equal weight because it is plain wrong.
Instead of teaching fictitious words like "equality", America should be preaching love, harmony, cooperation, social connection, true friendship, camaraderie, inclusiveness, kindness, virtues, good moral values, etc. People should be trying to build real communities where neighbors connect with each other and become close, rather than isolate themselves from each other.
What did the founding fathers mean that "all men are created equal" when all men are NOT equal?
Furthermore, if I think that some people are better than others, that's my right. I have a right to my opinion. It's not right to try to force me to say that all people are equal and the same. For me to say that would be lying. So why should I be forced to lie?
Liberals don't make sense. They want to force everyone to agree with them and pretend to be colorblind and say that everyone is the same and equal. If they had their way, we would all lie, because the truth is, we all like some people more than others. And we all think some people are better than others. So to enforce political correct terms like "equality" would be an infringement on free speech and an act of forcing everyone to lie. Why do liberals want us to lie? Why do they think they can force everyone to think something that they don't? It's very stupid and unrealistic.
Furthermore, we all like some people better than others, or some races better than others. So humans will always discriminate. You can't force someone not to discriminate. That's unrealistic and would be forcing them to lie. People always have opinions, and employers have a right to hire who they want. You can't force them to pretend to be colorblind or to say that all people are the same or not to discriminate. Why try to force them to think something that they don't really think? It's not even going to work. So this rule of "no discrimination allowed" is stupid, dishonest and a myth.
Don't you all agree? Why is America so fake? Why can't it be more real?
Also, what happened to free speech? Why isn't discrimination covered by free speech? How hypocritical.
I agree with you that the notion that men and women are equal in power is ridiculous. They may deserve equal rights under the law. But they are not equal in power or ability. And they should be deemed as the same because they are fundamentally different. Anyone knows that you can't treat women and men like they are the same, so why do liberals say that they are equal? It makes no sense. Yet the myth of male/female equality is a religion in America that you are not allowed to question, which is stupid and baseless.
For example, if men and women are equal, then:
- Why aren't there teams of women building ships and buildings?
- Why aren't there armies of women winning great battles in war?
- Why has there never been a great, or even a good, female general in the army who won great battles?
- Why aren't there men nursing infants and breastfeeding them?
- Why aren't men teaching preschool and kindergarten?
- How come if I call a plumber or mechanic, it's always a guy that shows up?
- How come when I get an oil change for my car, it's always a guy that does it?
- How come if a man and woman are alone in a cabin in the woods, and a bear outside makes sounds, the woman does not say to the man, "Honey, you stay here. I'll go outside and take care of that bear."? LOL. Instead, she will ask the man to go out and deal with it. Where is the equality here? If they are equal, then how do liberals explain that? Oh I guess they can't. LOL
- Can I walk up to a mother and say that because men and women are equal, that I can breastfeed her baby just as well as she can? LOL. That would be silly and senseless wouldn't it?
- Can women walk up to construction workers and say "We can build that house just as well as you can, because men and women are equal"? LOL. That would be delusional and false.
- How come NFL football teams don't have male and female members on the teams, since they are both equal? LOL
- If men and women are equal, why doesn't the military put co-ed armies of both men and women to fight together on the front lines? LOL
- How come female virginity is considered sacred and valuable, but male virginity is not? Female virginity is so valuable, that some female virgins are even able to sell it for a high price.
- How come men go to brothels with women in them, but women do not go to brothels with men in them? LOL
- What if, during the American Revolution, the colonists sent out armies of women with muskets to fight the British red coats? LOL. Would they have won any battles? Even one? LOL. I doubt it. How would an army of women react to musket balls being fired at them, or cannon balls coming at them? LOLOLOLOLOL ROTF!!! So how the hell can women and men be equal? LOL. It makes no fricking sense!
- What if the Allies during World War II sent an army of "liberated" feminist women to storm the beaches of Normandy on D-Day? LOL. Do you think battalions of liberated women would have been able to take the beach front? LOLOLOLOLOL ROTFL!!!
- If men and women are equal, then why didn't the greatest generals in history -- such as Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, or Sun Tzu -- put female troops into their army? LOL. Aren't female troops just as capable as male troops? LOL. Shouldn't such great brilliant generals know better? LOL. Why would they miss out on the opportunity to double their army size by adding female troops? LOLOLOLOLOLOL ROTFL!!!
- How come the greatest war treatise ever written, Sun Tzu's "Ancient Art of War" (which is required reading in the US military) doesn't say something like this in it: "Remember this principle: Men and women are equal. So don't neglect using female soldiers in battle. They are just as good and capable as male soldiers. A wise victorious general will utilize both female and male troops. Adding female soldiers will double your army in size and power. To neglect using female soldiers would halve your troops and resources, which is unwise." LOLOLOLOLOLOL ROTFL!!! Now, don't you think that one of the greatest military strategists in human history, like Sun Tzu, had a good reason for not writing such stupid statements in his treatise? LOL
You see how totally ridiculous the concept of gender equality is? LOL. It makes no fricking sense at all! Yet this concept is canonized in America as Gospel Truth! You are not allowed to question it at all. It's set in stone in America's "Church of Liberalism". How insane and delusional! No wonder America is so f***ed up. In fact, in America you aren't even allowed to say that men are better than women in anything at all! Go figure.
Now I'm not saying that men are "superior" to women or anything like that. Just that men and women are fundamentally DIFFERENT. They have different roles and functions in society and in the family. And they have different inherent instincts as well. So why deny all that? Why not embrace what's natural? Why are stupid liberals trying to invert what's natural, as though what's natural were an oppressive enemy? That's so stupid and delusional. These liberals are insane and upside down, most likely due to wicked brainwashing and programming. Regardless, trying to invert what's natural, makes them in a sense "evil".
If men and women loved and respected each other, and only chose partners of good moral character, values and kindness, then there would be no need for any "battle of the sexes" or senseless debates about "equality", etc.
The problem is that people tend to twist the word "equality" into meaning "sameness" on every level and in every way. But only identical products on a factory shelf can be truly "equal". The word cannot apply to humans and therefore doesn't exist when applied to people. Not just with men and women, but people in general as well.
The notion of equality, even among men, makes no sense and has no basis in fact. Everyone is different. So why did the founding father say that "all men are created equal"? What did they mean by that? Consider the following:
- Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are not equal to scumbags selling drugs on the street, or to homeless beggars on the street. No way. They are way higher in status and quality, as well as more successful and intelligent.
- Some people are good and some are bad. Some people are intelligent and some are stupid. Some people are beautiful and some are ugly. Some people have power and some don't. Some people accomplish great things and some don't. Not everyone is the same. Nor is everyone equal. Duh.
- What if I walk up to Michael Jordan and say, "I can play on your basketball team because all men are equal"? LOL. That would be silly and laughable wouldn't it? Michael Jordan can kick my ass in basketball, and I can kick his ass in chess. We are not equal, just different.
- A soldier can't refuse to take orders from his general, claiming that all men are equal so he doesn't have to take orders. No way. What if during the American Revolution, one of General George Washington's soldiers told him, "General Washington, you wrote in the Constitution that all men are created equal, so I refuse to take your orders on the grounds that we are both equal." What would George Washington have said to that? LOL
- A lamb can't say to a lion "We are equal". LOL. No way. That would be sheer lunacy and delusional. A lion is far higher up in the food chain than a lamb. A lion could easily tear a lamb apart. In no way are they "equal" except in basic survival needs.
- Is Albert Einstein equal in value and intelligence to some stupid teenage punk working at McDonald's with tattoos all over his arm? LOL. No way.
- Can I say to Paris Hilton that "You and I are equal. I'm just as beautiful as you are. I can be in any magazine that you can."? LOL. Of course not. But she is not my match in intellect either. The fact of the matter is, we are different and are valued in different ways. Duh.
- Opinions are not all equal either. Some opinions are sensible, rational and well thought out. Others are just plain stupid and moronic. So no, not all opinions are equal. Some opinions are just plain wrong too. For example, if I say that 2+2=4 and another person argues that 2+2=5, is his opinion equally valid with mine? LOL The fundamental flaw in voting and democracy is that it assumes that everyone's opinion carries equal weight, which is not true. Some people are stupid and should not vote. Only people with IQ's above 100 should vote, for they are more likely to make wiser choices and are not as easily duped.
So you see, there is no such thing as "equality". It seems that the word "equal" is just a politically correct word and ideology designed to appease the masses. It has no basis in reality, logic or science. Notice that only the lowest class people like to use that word, as well as angry liberals looking for special rights. Successful people don't usually use that word. Nor do brilliant people or wealthy upper class people.
Frankly, the word "equal" sounds communist. Ants may be equal, but not humans. People cannot function like ants do. There's no such thing as equality as it applies to humans. So why is that stupid word so popular in America? Why is it canonized so religiously? America is so full of lies and bullshit.
Simply saying that "all men are created equal" doesn't make it so. America is a divided class society with the biggest gap between rich and poor in the world. Clearly, all people are NOT equal in America. It's time America became honest and stopped parroting myths like equality, which doesn't exist.
People's opinions are not all equal either. Some people are smart and wise, while others are stupid and foolish. Stupid people should not be allowed to vote. Only people with IQ's over 100 should be allowed to vote, for they are far likelier to make wiser choices and are not as easily duped. This may sound unfair, but it'd be far better for society if this were the case.
The fundamental flaw of voting and democracy is its assumption that all opinions carry equal weight, which is not true. For example, if I said that 2+2=4 and someone else said 2+2=5, his opinion does not carry equal weight because it is plain wrong.
Instead of teaching fictitious words like "equality", America should be preaching love, harmony, cooperation, social connection, true friendship, camaraderie, inclusiveness, kindness, virtues, good moral values, etc. People should be trying to build real communities where neighbors connect with each other and become close, rather than isolate themselves from each other.
What did the founding fathers mean that "all men are created equal" when all men are NOT equal?
Furthermore, if I think that some people are better than others, that's my right. I have a right to my opinion. It's not right to try to force me to say that all people are equal and the same. For me to say that would be lying. So why should I be forced to lie?
Liberals don't make sense. They want to force everyone to agree with them and pretend to be colorblind and say that everyone is the same and equal. If they had their way, we would all lie, because the truth is, we all like some people more than others. And we all think some people are better than others. So to enforce political correct terms like "equality" would be an infringement on free speech and an act of forcing everyone to lie. Why do liberals want us to lie? Why do they think they can force everyone to think something that they don't? It's very stupid and unrealistic.
Furthermore, we all like some people better than others, or some races better than others. So humans will always discriminate. You can't force someone not to discriminate. That's unrealistic and would be forcing them to lie. People always have opinions, and employers have a right to hire who they want. You can't force them to pretend to be colorblind or to say that all people are the same or not to discriminate. Why try to force them to think something that they don't really think? It's not even going to work. So this rule of "no discrimination allowed" is stupid, dishonest and a myth.
Don't you all agree? Why is America so fake? Why can't it be more real?
Also, what happened to free speech? Why isn't discrimination covered by free speech? How hypocritical.
Last edited by Winston on September 26th, 2014, 11:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and SE Asia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
Everything above is absolutely correct regarding how women think and behave. They are selfish and only think about themselves they don't care about the country's best interest.Winston wrote:So in summary:
1. Women are not loyal to their country. They only care about their children and loved ones. So they would not vote in the country's best interests.
2. They are self-centered and selfish, not fair. So they do not make decisions based on fairness or ethics. They only vote for whatever benefits them.
3. Women tend to vote for men they'd date, such as handsome smooth talking liars (e.g. Bill Clinton, Obama). So that tends to get sociopaths into office. Moral character and qualifications don't matter to them.
4. Women tend to vote for big government because it provides for them. They don't care about the long-term destructive consequences of big government, and the corruption and tyranny it brings.
Studies show that women did vote for Obama and Clinton because they were good looking men. Can you believe someone voting for someone based on their looks and not based on anything else? Unbelievable!
Women love big government because it benefits them the most. Most of the welfare and food stamps go to women, so of course women will vote for politicians who promise to keep adding more and more government benefits.
"When I think about the idea of getting involved with an American woman, I don't know if I should laugh .............. or vomit!"
"Trying to meet women in America is like trying to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics."
"Trying to meet women in America is like trying to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics."
-
Jester
- Elite Upper Class Poster
- Posts: 7870
- Joined: January 20th, 2009, 1:10 am
- Location: Chiang Mai Thailand
Great thread. FSchmidt's article is classic. Cornfed's as well.
Winston I suggest you add a poll to this thread. Let's record a vote on the OP. The ensuing firestorm will help us spread "the (HA) love".
Winston I suggest you add a poll to this thread. Let's record a vote on the OP. The ensuing firestorm will help us spread "the (HA) love".
"Well actually, she's not REALLY my daughter. But she does like to call me Daddy... at certain moments..."
Ok done. I set up a poll at your request. Cast your vote above!Jester wrote:Great thread. FSchmidt's article is classic. Cornfed's as well.
Winston I suggest you add a poll to this thread. Let's record a vote on the OP. The ensuing firestorm will help us spread "the (HA) love".
Btw, don't our views in this thread make us sound like men from the 18th and 19th Centuries? lol. Don't we sound so backward and reactionary in modern America? lol
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and SE Asia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
Another thing:
I'm not sure that voting or democracy is a good thing either. The fundamental flaw in voting and democracy is that it assumes that all opinions carry equal weight. But opinions are not all equal. Some opinions are sensible, rational and well thought out. Others are just plain stupid and moronic. For example, if I say that 2+2=4 and another person argues that 2+2=5, is his opinion equally valid with mine? LOL
Some people are stupid and should not vote. Only people with IQ's above 100 should vote, for they are more likely to make wiser choices and are not as easily duped.
The greatest philosopher, Socrates, did not believe in democracy. He believed that society should be ruled by a wise ruling elite that have proved themselves to be men of great virtue, morals and honor, as well as intelligence. That's what he outlined in his treatise "The Republic".
I'm not sure that voting or democracy is a good thing either. The fundamental flaw in voting and democracy is that it assumes that all opinions carry equal weight. But opinions are not all equal. Some opinions are sensible, rational and well thought out. Others are just plain stupid and moronic. For example, if I say that 2+2=4 and another person argues that 2+2=5, is his opinion equally valid with mine? LOL
Some people are stupid and should not vote. Only people with IQ's above 100 should vote, for they are more likely to make wiser choices and are not as easily duped.
The greatest philosopher, Socrates, did not believe in democracy. He believed that society should be ruled by a wise ruling elite that have proved themselves to be men of great virtue, morals and honor, as well as intelligence. That's what he outlined in his treatise "The Republic".
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and SE Asia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrageWinston wrote: .....don't our views in this thread make us sound like men from the 18th and 19th Centuries? lol. Don't we sound so backward and reactionary in modern America?
Not really, for example voting right for women is rather new in Switzerland.
Tiny Liechtenstein between Switzerland and Austria located introduced voting right for women in 1984.
Most voting right regarding women were granted past WWI and often past WWII.
Voting right for women is not a 18th or 19th centuries right, but more or less a woman right since about the middle of the 20th century.
The Roman Catholic Vatican has no voting right for women up to now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_ ... witzerlandWomen's suffrage in Switzerland was introduced at the federal level for the first time after the February 7, 1971,
Feminism is often treating women as children, as children do not have the right to vote, why should women? Good question.
Female politicians were not very successful in the past in Asia, I remember female leaders in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Philippines. -
They came only to power because they were members of a rich family clan. Same also with the present president of South Korea. Same with the former prime minister of Thailand.
In no case I know, the female politician was ruling significantly better than any male politician before or after her holding a similar position as president or prime minister.
About voting right in general, it seems many people, men and women, don't care much and never show up to vote despite being eligible to do so. Many politicians are corrupt and arrogant and lost the contact with their voters.
Female politicians were not very successful in the past in Asia, I remember female leaders in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Philippines. -
They came only to power because they were members of a rich family clan. Same also with the present president of South Korea. Same with the former prime minister of Thailand.
In no case I know, the female politician was ruling significantly better than any male politician before or after her holding a similar position as president or prime minister.
About voting right in general, it seems many people, men and women, don't care much and never show up to vote despite being eligible to do so. Many politicians are corrupt and arrogant and lost the contact with their voters.
-
fschmidt
- Elite Upper Class Poster
- Posts: 3470
- Joined: May 18th, 2008, 1:16 am
- Location: El Paso, TX
- Contact:
yesWinston wrote:Didn't the Roman Empire fall because of its big government too, which everyone hated? Men tend to hate big government because its tyranny and corruption usually go out of control. This is why the Founding Fathers of America emphasized a small government that is only there to defend basic liberties and rights. Is that right?
Women supported big government, but women aren't the only reason. I don't think population was much of a factor. Society generally decayed for other reasons, and this also causes big government.So the reason why the US government is so much bigger today than in the past, is because women voted for big government? Is that why? Isn't big government a result of population increase too?
Obviously not, the founding fathers didn't give women the vote.Did the founding fathers believe that women should vote?
noWere women allowed to vote in Ancient Greece or Ancient Rome?
No, it was just common sense. People today lack common sense, so a long logical argument is needed.Why weren't women allowed to vote in the past? What reasons did men give? The same ones you did?
I'm too lazy. I don't care because I don't think feminism is a cause as much as it is a symptom of cultural decay. But you can find references in the book "Sex and Culture" by Unwin.You told me once that there was feminism and liberalism in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome too. Can you send me links about that?
Mass media and the internet has caused the globalization of culture.Why do all countries follow suit when the US does something? The US was the first to abolish the monarchy. Now all countries have followed suit. Why? The US was the first country to allow women to vote right? Why did all countries follow suit? Why didn't they just say "f**k you" to America?
Yes, I have heard that some women are good managers but I have never seen it personally. I am fine with women being managers as long as I am not forced to work for them.I have a question though. Don't some women make good office managers? I've seen some women do well as office managers, or even hospital managers or managers in daycare for children. Women managers though, are usually masculine and unattractive. What a coincidence huh? lol. So anyway, doesn't that mean that women can be suited for authority in some situations?
I did mention the royal court of England in my post and of course I was thinking of Queen Elizabeth. She seems to have taken a lot of advice from male advisers. She seems to have been okay, an unusual case.Also, what about Queen Elizabeth in the 1500's? I saw a movie about her. It said that the 40 years of her rule was called the "Golden Age" because England prospered during that time and rose to become a world superpower by the 1600's. Does that mean she was a great leader? Or did she just sit there as a puppet while male advisors made all the decisions for her? How do you explain that?
Here is the context:Winston wrote:The notion of equality, even among men, makes no sense and has no basis in fact. Everyone is different. So why did the founding father say that "all men are created equal"? What did they mean by that?
---------------------------------
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;
---------------------------------
So what they meant is that all men are created with equal rights under the law, not that they are created the same.
That was Plato, not Socrates. Plato's idea leads to communism unless the criteria is really objective. An IQ test can be manipulated. I had suggested that the top 1% of Go players be the electorate.Winston wrote:Some people are stupid and should not vote. Only people with IQ's above 100 should vote, for they are more likely to make wiser choices and are not as easily duped.
The greatest philosopher, Socrates, did not believe in democracy. He believed that society should be ruled by a wise ruling elite that have proved themselves to be men of great virtue, morals and honor, as well as intelligence. That's what he outlined in his treatise "The Republic".
Finally, I don't see feminism or politics as the key issues. The key issue is religion. A sound culture flows from a sound religion because religion determines the character of men. We don't have any sound religions today which is why the world is such a mess.
-
Jester
- Elite Upper Class Poster
- Posts: 7870
- Joined: January 20th, 2009, 1:10 am
- Location: Chiang Mai Thailand
Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. Mass media and the internet have only existed in the last few decades. Monarchies have been falling, and women's suffrage has been spreading, for much longer.fschmidt wrote:Mass media and the internet has caused the globalization of culture.Why do all countries follow suit when the US does something? The US was the first to abolish the monarchy. Now all countries have followed suit. Why? The US was the first country to allow women to vote right? Why did all countries follow suit? Why didn't they just say "f**k you" to America?
It may be that the Founding Fathers had her in mind. They allowed women to be President, but not to vote for President.fschmidt wrote:I did mention the royal court of England in my post and of course I was thinking of Queen Elizabeth. She seems to have taken a lot of advice from male advisers. She seems to have been okay, an unusual case.
Also, what about Queen Elizabeth in the 1500's? I saw a movie about her. It said that the 40 years of her rule was called the "Golden Age" because England prospered during that time and rose to become a world superpower by the 1600's. Does that mean she was a great leader? Or did she just sit there as a puppet while male advisors made all the decisions for her? How do you explain that?
Great explanation. Thanks.fschmidt wrote:Here is the context:Winston wrote:The notion of equality, even among men, makes no sense and has no basis in fact. Everyone is different. So why did the founding father say that "all men are created equal"? What did they mean by that?
---------------------------------
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;
---------------------------------
So what they meant is that all men are created with equal rights under the law, not that they are created the same.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 3 Replies
- 3110 Views
-
Last post by Tsar
-
- 6 Replies
- 508 Views
-
Last post by MrMan
-
- 7 Replies
- 5413 Views
-
Last post by boycottamericanwomen
-
- 1 Replies
- 3028 Views
-
Last post by Anatol
-
- 17 Replies
- 8899 Views
-
Last post by stressedtothebone