Iโ€™m hearing the idea that women in particular shouldnโ€™t be able to vote / hold political power a lot these days.

Many reasons are given, but I never seem to hear mine โ€” that no one at all, man or woman, should be able to vote / hold political power.

No, the reasons all center around some perceived problem with women, or some statistic that is assumed to be an innate problem with women and not a fixable problem with society.

Iโ€™m somewhat interested to know how many of these people are raising daughters and attempting to influence women they know to have the critical thinking skills and respect for individual rights that could actually change the world for the better, with or without the problem of political power first coming to an end.

Or are they just perpetuating the problem by saying โ€œgirls will be girlsโ€ or insisting on conformity to gender roles?

#politics #women #vote #genderroles #grownostr

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I agree with you. I'm done with voting. I'm going to have to have many annoying conversations with family who are still really stuck into "the system." I'm not. I'm actively building it my own system that doesn't require the state. At all.

Patriarchy is one helluva drug. In the church world I would labor it as a type of systemic sin.

I have been wondering if I should stop dancing around the matter and call it what it is.

With all due respect, the position you never seem to hear is the same one I articulated in the discussion you referred to. And I was not alone in that.

Gender differences are measurable, persistent, cross-cultural, and may often be correlated with neurological and endocrinological substrates.

There are particular forms of maladaptive thinking to which women, in general and on average, are disproportionately prone.

If the observations are consistent across place and time, then they should be recognised and acknowledged before developing policies to mitigate them.

This should not be any more controversial than male predominance in red-green colour blindness or autism-spectrum disorders.

I do also agree with LIV's points, and it can't be taken lightly that women's sufferage was absolutely a poison pill that was pushed to destroy families and enrich the ones running factories and heavy industry.

I've been poking around the writings of the anti-suffragettes, and my goodness is there some exceptionally powerful stuff there.

Chicken or egg? I can think of other cross-cultural things that arenโ€™t inherent human behavior.

I ask again, how many people are trying to actually fix the problem rather than use it as an excuse to built a world where they are more likely to hold more power?

Because you also admit (or so I thought) that there are women who do not think or behave this way.

Weโ€™re not men! We are who we are somehow.

I refuse to perpetuate collectivist thought, including sexism.

Taking sexism out of the discussion (maybe a bit of a thread-jack?)...

I do think we've gone WAY too far pushing DEI on medicine.

You're no longer allowed to ask someone's race--but if you've got black ancestry you're more prone to sickle cell...(for example)

You're no longer allowed to ask "man or woman" but there are indeed physical differences and ailments that affect each sex...(i.e. men cannot get pregnant, women cannot get testicular cancer)

It's crazy - we have differences that are genetically determined - but physiciians not being able to query for such characterics is insane, as is the unwillingness by some to even admit that they exist.

DEI is 100% lowering the standards of medicine, and resulting in a significant decrease in the quality of care, and an increase in morbidity and mortality.

It's crazy...and it needs to stop.

Yes, this is an extremely important issue. Iโ€™m really interested to hear the perspective of doctors and nurses on wokeism, just like many had uniquely valuable perspectives on the Covid response that were brushed off.

I'm accustomed to being "invisible" to people I disagree with, but this may be the first time I've discovered I was invisible for agreeing too much.

In that discussion mine was one of the earliest replies, in which I acknowledged the evidence of a problem but disagreed with the proposed solution; offering a different solution. One quite in line with yours. The thread grew quite long, and included various viewpoints. No general agreement was reached, but positions were defended, elaborated and clarified calmly.

This new discussion seems less than completely frank about the last one, and framed like a damsel waving down a White Knight.

Iโ€™m sorry you feel completely lumped in with what Iโ€™m addressing. I actually remarked in that discussion how impressed I was with the -general- trend of being careful to talk about trends as trends and not universalities. Including your input!

The discussion and its lower points did make me think again about this issue and the general low tone of other conversations on it I have personally been witness to.

Like I said, Iโ€™m hearing this thought a lot lately.

But yes, you did just now make some statements I have an issue with, and I addressed that. Including by calling attention to good things you said in the other conversation.

My note here: nostr:note1m3xnwmnf39v7ygq2vspev8lfm8c7dau3wgj27jvcfsysqujjuqmszcq3kd which OP replied to is no doubt a seed for this post

She stated that we fundamentally disagree on many points which is possibly true but neither of us elaborated.

So let me tackle this point:

>โ€Many reasons are given, but I never seem to hear mine โ€” that no one at all, man or woman, should be able to vote / hold political power.โ€

In utopia, I agree.

No-one should be voting on shit to do with other people. We should all be left alone to live however we want and that goes equally for those with whom I vehemently disagree (ie Commies - see my proposal for dealing with them here: nostr:note1cfch9rjpnzv6pt72dkrzn40ytm6k8etv547t6q9qsttm5r4rsthqcw2qtz)

We donโ€™t live in Utopia though. We never will.

There will always be some hierarchy in society no matter what. It could be informal in an Ancap society which would be preferable, but it would exist nonetheless.

Thatโ€™s the nature of humans. Particularly mid-curve normies who donโ€™t have the mental horsepower to conceptualise anything other than outsourcing certain functions to an overarching entity.

So itโ€™s not that I **want** certain people to hold power. Iโ€™d rather no-one did. But Iโ€™m somewhere between ancap and neo-reactionary where I donโ€™t ever see a world of a power vacuum playing out.

Before we ever get to Ancapistan the best we can hope for is a world of 100,000 Lichtensteins. Iโ€™d have no issue with Queens running their jurisdictions. There are many extremely impressive and capable women who can operate at a high-level in otherwise male-dominant arenas.

However I donโ€™t think you can be Queen and a great mother simultaneously. Like every other human being that woman has 24 hours in her day, she has X energy; she cannot possibly be as present with children and guide them into being good adult humans as Queen as a mother whose focus for their productive time is solely on their children.

This is no different than saying you canโ€™t become a Lionel Messi-footballer when you have a day job as a consultant for PWC - no-one will argue with that point because itโ€™s obvious, the only difference is weโ€™ve taken out the gendered nature of the discussion.

My point was never that women are on the whole incapable of governing. It was two-fold:

1. Liberal democracy with everyone having equal rights at the ballot box despite divergent skin in the game has been and will remain a disaster; in particular women who lean collectivist and will never be sent to fight for the societyโ€™s security whilst benefitting most from it

2. That for a properly functioning society we need women to be focussed, good mothers, raising the next generation of leaders; not for them trying to be equal in how society functions

Iโ€™m not bothered if that is controversial; I think Iโ€™m just ahead of the curve on this like I was with nuclear power and Bitcoin, and that others will come round to my point of view once we bottom out this supercycle and the disfunction of this system is laid bare for all to see with the women all on one side and the men on the other saying โ€œfuck that, you bitches caused all this and its overโ€.

Why do you disrespect fatherhood so much?

I donโ€™t disrespect fatherhood at all.

Fathers are not the major problem in modern society - women in the workforce who outsource the bulk of child rearing to the State are the major problem.

Fathers were never in history responsible for the bulk of child rearing. They were the ones who put food on the table and instilled discipline in the youngins and that should remain their role in the family.

Women were the ones who assumed responsibility for raising the children to become good adults and only in the last century have they outsourced this to the State.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge womenโ€™s role in fucking up society over the last century by deferring their responsibilities to the State so they could LARP that they are equal to their male counterparts?

Ah, the quiet part out loud! Weโ€™re just LARPing that weโ€™re equal, are we?

Itโ€™s really no use speaking with someone arguing in bad faith like you.

At least stop truncating the antecedent to the โ€˜50โ€™s. Men have absolutely been heavily involved in childrearing through history.

Yes you are LARPing! Women are not equal to men. This part is in fact not a controversial opinion, youโ€™re absolutely in a minority if you believe this. No-one with their head screwed on right thinks men and women are equal.

Iโ€™m 30cm taller than my missus and have nearly 20kg on her - do you think we should split everything 50/50?

That would be retarded. Anything that involves height or strength falls to me, thatโ€™s an obvious and natural separation of duty between man and woman.

I change the light bulbs, I shake the olive tree, I open the jars, I carry the heavy things etc etc.

She has skills and strengths I donโ€™t have. Sheโ€™s far more caring than me, far more patient, much more fun.

If a child could pick between me and her theyโ€™d pick her every time and I wouldnโ€™t blame them. Iโ€™d pick her too! My role in child rearing will be totally different to hers and weโ€™re both fully ok with that.

Why do you so desperately want to be equal to men when youโ€™re quite obviously not equal?

Itโ€™s interesting to say the least you dropped this conversation at the point you did.

Almost as if you have zero arguments against the points I made ๐Ÿคทโ€โ™‚๏ธ