women voting is a terrible idea
women voting is fine with me
This is no different than people who hold racist views about black people because they interpret a minority segment of the black population, who commit crimes, as representative of all black people.
This is no different than people who hold bigoted views on all Muslims because they view a minority segment of Muslims, who are terrorists and fanatics, as representative of all Muslims.
This is no different than people who make sexist statements about women because they view a minority segment of women, who use and manipulate men for money, as representative of all women.
The fact that there are scattered men out there who are scumbags doesn't make it right for you to paint me, my father, my friends, and other men with the same brush. It is simple, fundamental sexism to do so. Just cop to it and let's move on.
Dude. There was no IF involved in the OP. There was no "one or the other, men or women, ONE of them should not be allowed to vote" proposition presented in the OP. Again, you are the only one in this thread who made it an either/or question. You are the only one who used the OP as an excuse to go off on a separate, sexist tangent about men.7. women might have liked my post because they too had the same idea as I had, the somewhat sarcastic view that "if" anyone has the right to loose the right to vote, why not men? And as said before, I do not want to loose their voting rights but if there has to be made a choice then why not men?
5. my first statement was to a point sarcasm, when I said "if anyone has to loose their right to vote it is men because.....". But that does not mean that I want men to loose their right to vote or think they should loose that right. My issue with the first statement as to why women should not be allowed to vote (generalizing all women by this woman's twisted view on women in general) is that "if" anyone at all has to loose their right to vote it should not be women but that men might be much more "on the block" by past behavior to loose this right (again, I do not think they should).
The idiot in the OP made a bunch of simple, sexist statements about women based on stereotypes, and used those sexist views as a case (which was apparently also sarcastic) for why women shouldn't be allowed to vote. You condemn this, yes? But then you went on, out of nowhere, to do the exact same thing, only for men. To use your own words with the sexes reversed: "generalizing all men by this man's twisted view on men in general". THAT is what you did. Exactly what she did. And beyond that, you are STILL attempting to justify this twisted view on men, and you are STILL insisting that men are LESS deserving of the right to vote than women are because of your generalizations. Whether or not you actually want men to literally be banned from voting is besides the point. The OP lady wasn't serious either. The point is that she WAS serious about her stupid, bigoted reasoning for making that sarcastic suggestion, and so are you.
@ Smoke and Spiker,
I tried searching on the website for the local radio show I heard where they were discussing that study, but I couldn't find it, and I don't remember what their source on it was. I remember the conversation because they went on and on about it for at least a good half an hour, but I admit it is possible that maybe I'm remembering the actual finding of the study slightly wrong in some way, since I can't find it.
Anyway, there's really no way for me to argue anything you guys have said because to do so I would have to premise my arguments on something I can't back up by showing the study. Sorry I brought it up.
So yes, I must be so evil for even saying that there are stupid men out there who have attitudes to women that are more fit to the dark ages and before than in our time. I am also evil for saying that some men are drunken idiots who have a tendency to use violence as a means to push their point of view home on some other man or woman.
And I am sorry if this is going to hurt any more male fragile egos, but it is not bigoted if one tells the truth that a part of menkind (no, not a spelling error this time ) are exactly the way I described them. I would hope their numbers have reduced significantly in the past decades but these kinds of men still exist. In western democracies laws, education, womens liberalization and male growth have reduced the number of men like that to a small minority there, but in some countries they male asshole syndrome is still alive and kicking in a big way. You might find that bigoted but I do not care that you feel that way. You have your point of view I have mine.
Also, I did not say that every man is like that. You are trying to pull a general discussion into your personal realm and I am not going to play that game with you, sorry, not going to go there. This is the world wide web and if we were not allowed to say something for fear that someone gets offended because they take it personally when there was never anything that was said to them personally, well, then we might as well stop all discussion forums because then everyone would take offense at every opinion.
The tea party person who said this made all kinds of generalizations as to why woman should not be allowed to vote and I, equally generalizing, wrote sarcastically that if truth be told menkind have deserved loosing that right more than womenkind. You keep on complaining that I did this out of the blue, but guess what, this is a discussion forum and people post their opinions, and that is exactly what I did. You might find that out of nowhere but when the discussion is how people feel about excluding women from voting because they of who they are as women then it is IMHO perfectly natural to wonder what makes men so special that we should be allowed to vote and women are not. Men are not better than women, that was my point.Lane: Our country might have been better off if it was still just men voting. There is nothing worse than a bunch of mean, hateful women. They are diabolical in how than can skewer a person. I do not see that in men. The whole time I worked, I'd much rather have a male boss than a female boss. Double-minded, you never can trust them.
Because women have the right to vote, I am active, because I want to make sure there is some sanity for women in the political world.
Dutch Medal count Paralympics Rio 17 gold 19 silver 26 bronze
BLADE BABE STRIKES AGAIN!!!
Congratulations then. I'm sorry that you view yourself and people like you in such a negative, bigoted way. Have fun, though.You might find that bigoted but I do not care that you feel that way. You have your point of view I have mine.
You did, actually. If you don't think that you did in that original statement, then why are you all of a sudden using qualifying words like "SOME men", "MANY men", "CERTAIN men", etc? You're full of ****, friend.Also, I did not say that every man is like that.
And in a subsequent post another poster showed us the FULL quote, where it was revealed that she WAS in fact being sarcastic about believing that women should literally lose the right to vote. Nevertheless, she is STILL sexist because she obviously does believe the stereotypes she used as reasoning. As do you. There is no difference between what she said and what you said.I am sorry, but the OP was about a tea party stupid person who said (without sarcasm unfortunately):
No, the point you were clearly making, and plainly stated, even in THIS post, is that men are worse than women.The tea party person who said this made all kinds of generalizations as to why woman should not be allowed to vote and I, equally generalizing, wrote sarcastically that if truth be told menkind have deserved loosing that right more than womenkind. You keep on complaining that I did this out of the blue, but guess what, this is a discussion forum and people post their opinions, and that is exactly what I did. You might find that out of nowhere but when the discussion is how people feel about excluding women from voting because they of who they are as women then it is IMHO perfectly natural to wonder what makes men so special that we should be allowed to vote and women are not. Men are not better than women, that was my point.
Not reading the thread.
But I have long maintained that the cultural problems we have today would be eliminated if women could not vote.
Until women, as a majority, can vote based on intellect instead of emotion, we will have a dysfunctional government trying to implement a 'caring' society by legislative and executive and judicial fiat. It will never happen, because politicians are among the worst people to try and implement a 'perfect' society.
The only way we can approach perfection in society (and never get there) is to EVOLVE towards it by the combined commons sense of the nation at large.
Perfection can not be defined, but we will recognize it when we see it. And it will never be achieved by dramatic peals to emotional voters from mendacious politicians.
Just my opinion - my wife and daughter and granddaughters don't like me to say it - but I still believe it and patiently explain to them why I think it.
If you are not my wife or daughter or granddaughter, I feel no obligation to explain further.
The greatest fault of capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth. The greatest benefit of socialism is the equal distribution of misery. = Churchill
I have explained why I wrote what and because of why I wrote it that way, and if you are not willing or unable to understand that, then so be it. Live long and prosper, friend.
Dutch Medal count Paralympics Rio 17 gold 19 silver 26 bronze
BLADE BABE STRIKES AGAIN!!!
So - just like polls - take it with a grain of salt. When it comes to doing research I tend to read the initial report - any connections they suggest (other findings, etc) - and read up on the individuals involved and learn about their method - and so on . . . it's amazing what you find that's questionable.
I remember reading a same-sex parenting study that seemed promising but it turned out that only 1/2 of their subjects were in same-sex relationships with children and the others were not. That cut the subject pool down to maybe 20 . . . not enough to do a study with. Everyone else, I thought, needed to just be tossed out. And others had interesting - or questionable methodology. Some do personal-studies where the individual comes in and is interviewed. Others do phone interviews - and others have their surveys on websites and never meet their subjects nor can they even verify their subjects are even of said needed study-category (like single without kids, for example).
Lengthy papers abound - and a lot are full of ****.
A screaming comes across the sky.
It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow