Mistake to let women vote?

[Moontanman]

[Phi for All]

What an unbelievably backward, ignorant individual. It's hard to believe even FOX could scrape a barrel's bottom to find such a correspondent.

 

Personally, I wish more women were in leadership positions. I think women, in general, are better big picture, long-range strategists. We have too many leaders focused on short-range goals.

[ajb]

I know, and the day women first went to Cambridge was a travesty.

[CaptainPanic]

The only mistake I see in this thread is that people take this idiot serious.

I see it as a joke, and I see no reasons to discuss anything about it. It's funny because it's outrageously ridiculous.

[ajb]

I see it as a joke, and I see no reasons to discuss anything about it. It's funny because it's outrageously ridiculous.

 

It is clear you love women, you are a sex traitor!

 

[imatfaal]

The only mistake I see in this thread is that people take this idiot serious.

I see it as a joke, and I see no reasons to discuss anything about it. It's funny because it's outrageously ridiculous.

 

If he was a mad voice in the wilderness then it would easily ignorable - and just as easily and rightly mocked. Trouble is that nutjobs like this are creating policy over much of the United States. There are have been a few threads (like this one)in politics dealing with these very issues of the right-wing religious-conservative state legislature passing laws that are highly prejudicial to women's rights of self-determination

[ewmon]

This is a "straw man" argument. The same could be done by putting a "valley girl" (do they still exist?) on YouTube talking all sorts of stupid about how women should have the right to vote.

 

The reality is, the beginning of the end for "[real] men" came when the Industrial Revolution struck (~1800), and factory work lured men off farms and away from their wives and families (and land ownership), leaving the women in charge. It took about 100 years for the crossover to occur (see below), and now America is decidedly urban/female oriented. Acquiring the right for women to vote corresponded to the time of this crossover, and men's last hurrah in America also occurred about the time of this crossover, and it involved Teddy Roosevelt and his voluntary regiment, the Plattsburg Movement (an organization of civilian boot camps!), and things like that.

 

 

Today, in the extreme, women have access to sperm banks so they can have fatherless children and can receive taxpayer money with which to raise their fatherless children. Even when their children are fathered by real men, women have no obligation to disclose the identity of the children's fathers and can write "Unknown" on their Birth Certificates, conscious-free. Their children can receive free breakfast, lunch and dinner at school during the school year, and other meals during summer vacation. And other government programs help raise these fatherless children. Generation after generation has grown up thinking more and more that men/fathers aren't necessary, and they're beginning to think that women/mothers aren't necessary either. The act of sex is now only distantly related to reproduction. (And technogeeks think that "artificial life" is generated in computers?!)

 

Men are all but obsolete, and women dedicated to keeping their original husbands are, likewise a vanishing breed, and rare gems indeed.

 

The women have voted men out, so is it no wonder that some men feel marginalized or disenfranchised?

[imatfaal]

Ewmon - this is no way near jousting at strawmen. Firstly this wasn't youtube - Rev. Jesse Misogynist Nutjob was saying that on FOX. Secondly, you need to understand what is happening at a state level in the religious-right areas of the USA - women's rights of self-determination of reproduction are being attacked on various fronts and are losing out in several states. To use the early stages of the race to be the republican candidate for the upcoming presidential election as a gauge of right of centre views; all but one candidate agreed with the need to revisit wade v roe - and several of the leading candidate claimed they would outlaw abortion even in cases of rape and incest. I gave three examples of state laws (in the thread I linked to above) that were massive erosions of liberty and encroachments onto personal privacy - all directed at women.

 

On your paragraph about sperm donation and the removal of the father from the process - could you advise the number of children born this way? I think it is relatively small and don't really believe that it has national cultural significance.

[Phi for All]

The reality is, the beginning of the end for "[real] men" came when the Industrial Revolution struck (~1800), and factory work lured men off farms and away from their wives and families (and land ownership), leaving the women in charge.

The reality is, you're trying to define what a "real" man is for the rest of us. Personally, I don't think being "in charge" is a gender matter at all.

[CaptainPanic]

This is a "straw man" argument. The same could be done by putting a "valley girl" (do they still exist?) on YouTube talking all sorts of stupid about how women should have the right to vote.

 

The reality is, the beginning of the end for "[real] men" came when the Industrial Revolution struck (~1800), and factory work lured men off farms and away from their wives and families (and land ownership), leaving the women in charge. It took about 100 years for the crossover to occur (see below), and now America is decidedly urban/female oriented. Acquiring the right for women to vote corresponded to the time of this crossover, and men's last hurrah in America also occurred about the time of this crossover, and it involved Teddy Roosevelt and his voluntary regiment, the Plattsburg Movement (an organization of civilian boot camps!), and things like that.

 

 

Today, in the extreme, women have access to sperm banks so they can have fatherless children and can receive taxpayer money with which to raise their fatherless children. Even when their children are fathered by real men, women have no obligation to disclose the identity of the children's fathers and can write "Unknown" on their Birth Certificates, conscious-free. Their children can receive free breakfast, lunch and dinner at school during the school year, and other meals during summer vacation. And other government programs help raise these fatherless children. Generation after generation has grown up thinking more and more that men/fathers aren't necessary, and they're beginning to think that women/mothers aren't necessary either. The act of sex is now only distantly related to reproduction. (And technogeeks think that "artificial life" is generated in computers?!)

 

Men are all but obsolete, and women dedicated to keeping their original husbands are, likewise a vanishing breed, and rare gems indeed.

 

The women have voted men out, so is it no wonder that some men feel marginalized or disenfranchised?

ewmon,

Excellent post. Highly amusing.

 

It's always a good idea to support a logical fallacy with an irrelevant graph! It fools most people.

Obviously, the graph only shows urbanization, and does not support any theories about (1) the influence of women's suffrage, or (2) how they would take charge of the country. Still, it's cluttered with little pictures, and the vertical axis isn't even properly labeled, so it's unlikely that people will find out it's meaningless. Therefore, I can only accept it as a valid input.

 

It's also always a good idea to totally exaggerate some sociological phenomena (all women are single mothers, men do all the work, and fill up the sperm banks).

Obviously, the actual numbers tell a very different story. Most families are 2-parent families. And a very large majority of kids are conceived the normal way. Still, you chose your words carefully, and as a whole, you're quite convincing actually. Argument accepted.

 

So, according to you, most men are here only to work, and to fill up the sperm banks. And it's all a big conspiracy by women. And it has actually succeeded! LOL!

I never realized just how oppressive women actually are! It was women who invented the concept of cities and urbanization, just to take control! Those bitches. And they did it right under our noses.

 

ewmon, I'm not entirely sure whether you were indeed joking. If you were serious, then maybe I should apologise for the tone of this post. It's an attempt to continue the humorous tone of your post!

[john5746]

Women are even more devious than we realize.

 

Take my wife for example. She earns more money than me, does more housework, keeps up with the kids more and manages to insure that I always have an orgasm before she does. I mean, it makes me feel so small... Yeah, she acts all nice, like she is on my side. She'll even throw me a bone now and then by asking me to move some big furniture or do some plumbing. But, that's just to keep me going a little longer to prolong the agony. AAAGHHH!!

[Xittenn]

My Ethics professor's first words to the class were, and I quote "I am a feminist, my household is feminist, I make more money than my husband and he 'accepts' that. My son is a 'bro-ny' and I don't see why some sexual preferences are met with opposition, after all some people are born right handed." She seems to dress 'goth' and was adamant about her past as a 'raver', which I readily identify with. She is only a few years older than myself. She stares at me, but they all do :/

 

I like how the one guy says "Well what are men now, men must be women, and that's the worst thing." The reality is most people still do ask themselves these questions, most people see what was, and are forced into a role play that makes them ask this question "Should women vote?" No one takes this guy seriously and for good reason, there is no reason it ought be that way--women not being allowed to vote. I can't fathom a reason why, or a rout to how things became so rigid in their structure in the first place, that such a simple minded way of thinking became the norm. I don't understand how people, even those who are firm in their post-modern mindset, still have trouble with moving forward. I'm not saying that there is doubt in the decision, but I often see women still doubting the reality of this move forward, like it could be taken away from them at any time.

 

I really do not understand people, if a man were to say to me "my power is so much greater than ______ that I can impose my will and my will is that _____" I would understand that. When people make up really weird stories to make up really unusual rules that neither benefit the individual or satisfy some want that the individual has, I have to ask myself what makes that person tick, and that scares me. If I can't answer what makes people tick that tells me people are running around rampant, are illogical, and are going to screw up everything! Illogical people are unpredictable people . . . .

[John Cuthber]

Even weirder: this really beggars belief.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1lJukkAzxY

[ewmon]

Hmm.... and I thought my post would be ignored.

 

Ewmon - this is no way near jousting at strawmen. Firstly this wasn't youtube - Rev. Jesse Misogynist Nutjob was saying that on FOX. Secondly, you need to understand what is happening at a state level in the religious-right areas of the USA - women's rights of self-determination of reproduction are being attacked on various fronts and are losing out in several states.

 

[Third,] On your paragraph about sperm donation and the removal of the father from the process - could you advise the number of children born this way?

First, then FOX can find a valley girl.

Second, I live in the most liberal state in the union, so you're probably right about my ignorance elsewhere. Has any state overturned Roe v Wade?

Third, please note that I said "in the extreme" (emphasis original).

 

The reality is, you're trying to define what a "real" man is for the rest of us.

Sorry, I wrote "[real] men". If I wrote real men (without quotes), then I think you'd have an argument.

 

Highly amusing ... irrelevant graph! It fools most people.

I actually tried to find a plain graph showing the rural/urban mix in America.

 

It's also always a good idea to totally exaggerate some sociological phenomena (all women are single mothers, men do all the work, and fill up the sperm banks).

Please note that I said "in the extreme" (emphasis original).

 

So, according to you, most men are here only to work, and to fill up the sperm banks. And it's all a big conspiracy by women. And it has actually succeeded! LOL!

I never mentioned a conspiracy and I never intended for one to be understood. I clearly stated that the [well-intentioned] Industrial Revolution caused the demise of "[real] men]".

 

I never realized just how oppressive women actually are! It was women who invented the concept of cities and urbanization, just to take control! Those bitches. And they did it right under our noses.

I think your rhetoric is what is called "hyperbole".

 

maybe I should apologise for the tone of this post.

No worries. No offense taken. I know what I sound like.

 

Women are even more devious than we realize.

More hyperbole.

 

Take my wife for example. She earns more money than me, does more housework, keeps up with the kids more and manages to insure that I always have an orgasm before she does. I mean, it makes me feel so small... Yeah, she acts all nice, like she is on my side. She'll even throw me a bone now and then by asking me to move some big furniture or do some plumbing. But, that's just to keep me going a little longer to prolong the agony. AAAGHHH!!

No, I'm not the type to take someone's wife (see, I have a sense of humor) and, well, as I said: "women dedicated to keeping their original husbands are, likewise a vanishing breed, and rare gems indeed." ... and, no doubt, you treasure her. (PS — Unless she's paying premiums to Lloyd's of London for your conjugal bliss, the word is "ensure" ... but, who knows, maybe she does. )

 

Anyone remember that I said:

Generation after generation has grown up thinking more and more ... that women/mothers aren't necessary either.

Who has custody of your children for much of their waking hours? Government-run schools.

 

Anyway, what I was saying was that the Industrial Revolution drew fathers away from their families, which brought about an increase in the importance/power of mothers/women in the home. Roughly 100 years ago, there were several female-oriented beginnings, suffrage being only one of them. Margaret Sanger invented the term "birth control", opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, and founded what would become Planned Parenthood. There was also women stepping out and making their concerns heard (or felt) in women's temperance movements because they were sick and tired of women being abused by drunken men. The phrase "The customer is always right" was popularized specifically to encourage/empower women shoppers/consumers. At the same time, "modern civilization" was taking fathers (and mothers too) away from their families. Life's leisurely pace continued to speed up. Ready-to-eat breakfast cereals. Commuting to work by streetcars, autos, rapid transit, etc and taking parents farther away from their children than ever before.

[CaptainPanic]

Hmm.... and I thought my post would be ignored.

Don't put a graph in your post if you want to be ignored. That's a magnet for attention!

 

Example:

 

Figure 1 is not related to the topic

 

Although the graph is not related to the topic, it still got your attention. You probably checked it out even before reading the first line.

 

Anyway, let's get back on topic.

 

Anyway, what I was saying was that the Industrial Revolution drew fathers away from their families, which brought about an increase in the importance/power of mothers/women in the home.

I don't believe you.

 

Men took their families to the city, so they stayed together. Women also got jobs in the factories of those days, and even children were employed. And that was exactly the same as the peasants in an agricultural society in the old days. They all worked long days.

 

 

Roughly 100 years ago, there were several female-oriented beginnings, suffrage being only one of them. Margaret Sanger invented the term "birth control", opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, and founded what would become Planned Parenthood. There was also women stepping out and making their concerns heard (or felt) in women's temperance movements because they were sick and tired of women being abused by drunken men. The phrase "The customer is always right" was popularized specifically to encourage/empower women shoppers/consumers. At the same time, "modern civilization" was taking fathers (and mothers too) away from their families. Life's leisurely pace continued to speed up. Ready-to-eat breakfast cereals. Commuting to work by streetcars, autos, rapid transit, etc and taking parents farther away from their children than ever before.

Yes. So, what you're saying is that Women's Rights were a result of how society developed. I do not think that we should list all developments of the 18th, 19th and 20th century here... but you're probably right.

 

I disagree with a number of details you write, but I am too lazy to address them.

[Ophiolite]

I think we should take note of the fact that ewmon is an anagram of women.

[John Cuthber]

I think we should take note of the fact that ewmon is an anagram of women.

Also an anagram of Me Now.

 

Women have been practising birth control since at least the time of the Romans. Obviously, their science and technology were not that good, so it wasn't brilliantly effective, but they did their best.

One factor that reduced the effectiveness of this was the fact that a misogynistic church sought to outlaw it.

It looks like some things never change.

[ewmon]

Thank you everyone for your graciousness toward, and comments on, my explanation of the background of women's rights to vote.

 

Thant said, I actually try to make sense of everything to see if we are "perceiving the same thing differently" (ie, the Blind Men and the Elephant parable). So, Nutjob and valley girl aside (or maybe not), I see a couple things ...

 

1. We know when women won suffrage. Let us not forget past prohibitions against (certain) men: poll tax (against poor men), grandfathering (against immigrant men), landowners (against unlanded/peasant men), race (against non-Caucasian men), etc. The result today in America is that all adults (≥18yo) have the right to vote. However, for example, the City of Cambridge MA recently had ballot questions on whether to extend suffrage to 17yo's (giving them ½ votes) and 16yo's (giving them ¼ votes) — it was rejected (and, I can honestly say, thank goodness). Even if Nutjob is correct, revoking women's right to vote would be like trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube — virtually impossible, if not absolutely impossible. Not the faintest rationale exists to deny suffrage to women. (Compare with the temporary lowering of the drinking age due to the Vietnam War.)

 

2. No doubt, history probably includes periods in which self-fulfilling prophecies of sorts tended to deny suffrage to certain demographic sectors, and I would say it was based on mental capacity/maturity/wisdom (which is why minors still cannot vote). If a society/culture does not require, or frowns upon, or outright prohibits a demographic sector from obtaining any formal education, then yeah, it could be reckless/foolhardy to extend suffrage to them. This demographic sector might be based on age (as it is now), gender (as it was with women), class (as it was with peasants), nationality (as it was with immigrants) etc. If Nutjob harkens back to a more idyllic time when women were only good for the 4-C's (cooking, cleaning, child-raising and copulation — not necessarily in that order), then yeah, letting them vote might prove a disaster. Keep in mind that, even today, women in the the somewhat modern country of Saudi Arabia must submit to some form of male guardianship, and they can't even drive a car, let alone vote.

 

3. In certain situations, a person views as an injustice that a certain demographic sector has a particular right because the person feels in competition with that sector. Perhaps Nutjob somehow feels in competition with women with the right to vote. Another more common example is that undereducated or otherwise economically disadvantaged citizens might feel in competition with more educated immigrants or even immigrants in general. They are the ones who complain that immigrants are taking their jobs away. Mot likely, people such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates (and probably most of us) don't give two hoots on America's current immigration policies. However, I for one, would like to see immigration quotas drop in hard economic times.

Edited May 11, 2012 by ewmon