• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Women voting, bad idea?

Women voting, bad idea?

  • women voting is a terrible idea

    Votes: 13 14.3%
  • women voting is fine with me

    Votes: 78 85.7%

  • Total voters
    91
And there's no fricken way tax paying, military serving, male gender-ed voters could EVER be irresponsible or uneducated voters. No F'n Way.:roll:
Quite right, even more people need to be banned from voting. Please feel free to add to our list.
 
"The things people say and think"..
This irresponsibility, this behavior are so much a matter of opinion, that its not funny.
And, IMO, no man is worthy of denying another's right to vote - NO ONE !.
That's nice.

I don't care.

Next....
 
Whatever the details may be, you clearly want a society in which all women are submissive, Tigger.

No. What I want is a society where both genders know, understand, accept, and embrace their place in the world.

I don't happen to think any such place has ever actually existed, or that today's woman is any more aggressive than women have ever been.

I would have to disagree with you on both points, Pinkie.

BTW, fine by me if you want a submissive woman. I hope you find her and live happily ever after -- be nice if you could wish for happiness for all us "aggressive" women in return, is all.

Happily Ever After doesn't exist. It's a fairytale. It isn't even the right goal to be shooting for. Living a Proper Life instead of a Fun Life should be the goal.
 
No. What I want is a society where both genders know, understand, accept, and embrace their place in the world.

And where, pray tell, would we get such a definitions of the places that men and women should hold in the world?
 
No. What I want is a society where both genders know, understand, accept, and embrace their place in the world.

You do know that is what all cultures do, including our current one, right?
 
You do know that is what all cultures do, including our current one, right?

What he means is that he wants gender to accept where he thinks their place is - in his version of what society should be.

But we advanced out of the Middle Ages for good reason
 
And where, pray tell, would we get such a definitions of the places that men and women should hold in the world?

The same traditional definitions that worked perfectly well for several thousand years before we abandoned them at the beginning of the 20th Century.

You do know that is what all cultures do, including our current one, right?

So there is a SINGLE, COMPREHENSIVE set of gender roles, accepted and embraced by every single Man, woman, and child in the United States? Since when?
 
No. What I want is a society where both genders know, understand, accept, and embrace their place in the world.
No, what you want is a society where both genders know, understand, accept, and embrace what you view as their place in the world.
 
What he means is that he wants gender to accept where he thinks their place is - in his version of what society should be.

But we advanced out of the Middle Ages for good reason

I'm allowing him to understand that gender roles are under constant negotiation within society, and frequently there are periods of blurring, which is more of a reactive look at what is actually transpiring.
 
So there is a SINGLE, COMPREHENSIVE set of gender roles, accepted and embraced by every single Man, woman, and child in the United States? Since when?

No one has ever unilaterally embraced gender roles. Your "traditionalist" views, as they were, were actually not as concrete as you had been led to believe.
 
The same traditional definitions that worked perfectly well for several thousand years before we abandoned them at the beginning of the 20th Century.

You mean those traditions that state that individuals can choose for themselves their own roles in society where they best fit to survive, based on their talents, skills, dedires, and opportunities because the state is an ineffective arbiter of such things?

Which is exactly the same tradition we have right now.
 
No one has ever unilaterally embraced gender roles. Your "traditionalist" views, as they were, were actually not as concrete as you had been led to believe.

Indeed.

He's caught up in the women's roles of the 50s.

While totally ignoring what women were like in the 20s...
 
Indeed.

He's caught up in the women's roles of the 50s.

While totally ignoring what women were like in the 20s...

Well, no matter what he's talking about, he's thinking the 1950s represented one system of gender roles, when they didn't. Same for any decade. There's a huge variance in the expectations of norms throughout the United States, during any decade. This is when historical mythology comes into play instead of historical reality. He's caught up with the former, while being blissfully unaware of the latter.
 
I'm allowing him to understand that gender roles are under constant negotiation within society, and frequently there are periods of blurring, which is more of a reactive look at what is actually transpiring.

Don't waste your time - he's not worth the effort.
 
Don't waste your time - he's not worth the effort.

I like doing it when I am waiting around for something else. Don't spoil my fun, gosh darnit.
 
I'm allowing him to understand that gender roles are under constant negotiation within society, and frequently there are periods of blurring, which is more of a reactive look at what is actually transpiring.

Only in such places as allow the constant changing of such. How blurred are gender roles in places like Saudi Arabia or Yemen?

No one has ever unilaterally embraced gender roles. Your "traditionalist" views, as they were, were actually not as concrete as you had been led to believe.

It was much more concrete than you tend to believe.

You mean those traditions that state that individuals can choose for themselves their own roles in society where they best fit to survive, based on their talents, skills, dedires, and opportunities because the state is an ineffective arbiter of such things?

Which is exactly the same tradition we have right now.

So you're telling me that a woman or Man in the 12th Century had the ability to choose their own role in society? That might be news to a lot of historians.

Indeed. He's caught up in the women's roles of the 50s. While totally ignoring what women were like in the 20s...

I'm more interested in 1250 than 1950.

Well, no matter what he's talking about, he's thinking the 1950s represented one system of gender roles, when they didn't. Same for any decade. There's a huge variance in the expectations of norms throughout the United States, during any decade. This is when historical mythology comes into play instead of historical reality. He's caught up with the former, while being blissfully unaware of the latter.

Who has suggested that the United States is the standard I would prefer to choose?
 
Only in such places as allow the constant changing of such. How blurred are gender roles in places like Saudi Arabia or Yemen?

So let's take farming families in the West during the 19th century. How did they measure up to standards of the affluent in the North East? How about your factory worker woman-how did she fare?



It was much more concrete than you tend to believe.

It would be better if you had more historical background.
 
So let's take farming families in the West during the 19th century. How did they measure up to standards of the affluent in the North East? How about your factory worker woman-how did she fare?

Exactly. This nation has not had the intestinal fortitude to ENFORCE a standard of morals, values, and gender roles since at least the American Civil War and probably before that. It's one of the reasons this nation is failing so miserably these days.
 
Only in such places as allow the constant changing of such. How blurred are gender roles in places like Saudi Arabia or Yemen?



It was much more concrete than you tend to believe.



So you're telling me that a woman or Man in the 12th Century had the ability to choose their own role in society? That might be news to a lot of historians.



I'm more interested in 1250 than 1950.



Who has suggested that the United States is the standard I would prefer to choose?

I said individuals were free to choose which roles they could follow based on their skills and talents to survive.

Because food is necessary for survival, the large majority of people were farmers who grew crops mostly for themselves to consume. And women did this farming too.

And those who did not farm had their occupation based on it in someway.

It's only with farming improvements that fewer farmers were need for the same output of crops. Thus freed more men and women to pursue and develop other skills.

And now with mechanization we need even fewer people go agriculture. 60 years ago, the majority of Americans were farmers. Now, only 3% are farmers. Which means they can become scientists and doctors or service providers instead.

So technology and surviability determine gender roles. And it's a natural process you can't control.

Get over it.
 
Exactly. This nation has not had the intestinal fortitude to ENFORCE a standard of morals, values, and gender roles since at least the American Civil War and probably before that. It's one of the reasons this nation is failing so miserably these days.

First you indict the 20th century, and hail those before it. Then I show you limitations in the 19th century, and then you start attacking that. You're just arguing a point to make a point that you have no basis to conclude ;)

You couldn't enforce morals. You haven't the resources to begin with. Second of all, what you call fortitude, Americans call tyranny. Should the moral codes have been greatly enforced, you would have seen action against that in the 1790s: I suspect primarily by farmers, including your hero, Andrew Jackson.
 
Exactly. This nation has not had the intestinal fortitude to ENFORCE a standard of morals, values, and gender roles since at least the American Civil War and probably before that. It's one of the reasons this nation is failing so miserably these days.

Actually, our nation IS, indeed, currently enforcing a standard of morals, values, and gender roles.

And that standard is that individuals, not the state, determine such things.

Which is why our nation is as great as it is, and can be much greater.
 
It's only with farming improvements that fewer farmers were need for the same output of crops. Thus freed more men and women to pursue and develop other skills.

And now with mechanization we need even fewer people go agriculture. 60 years ago, the majority of Americans were farmers. Now, only 3% are farmers. Which means they can become scientists and doctors or service providers instead.

So technology and surviability determine gender roles. And it's a natural process you can't control.

Life is not about what one CAN do or what one WANTS to do. It is and has always been about what one SHOULD do. Anything other than that is a slow road to Hel.
 
You couldn't enforce morals. You haven't the resources to begin with. Second of all, what you call fortitude, Americans call tyranny.

Call it whatever you want, and it IS enforecable, in the right system. It works pretty well in large parts of the Middle East to this very day.
 
Back
Top Bottom