Women and government

[cpwill]

You wouldn't need poll tests, you would just need property qualifications, just as it was done beforehand.

nah, there are plenty of rich idiots and plenty of poor wise men. The point is to limit the most powerful thing on the planet to those who at least have a dim idea of what they intend to do with it. Though I would admit limiting the vote to those who are net tax payers might be intellectually viable - those with skin in the game get to decide how the money is spent.

 

[Fiddytree]

nah, there are plenty of rich idiots and plenty of poor wise men. The point is to limit the most powerful thing on the planet to those who at least have a dim idea of what they intend to do with it. Though I would admit limiting the vote to those who are net tax payers might be intellectually viable - those with skin in the game get to decide how the money is spent.

The point was to eliminate the masses, who were seen as the great contributor of unenlightened thought: fickle and easily lead by demagogues.

 

[Goshin]

I had an interesting conversation with a young woman of my acquaintance just the other day.


She is in her mid twenties, a mother of three, going to college part-time and studying some medical specialty (I can't recall exactly what just now... perhaps it was pharmacy).

She isn't religious that I have noticed, nor old-fashioned in any manner.


She told me most ardently that she does not believe most women have any business being managers, CEO's, politicians, or otherwise holding positions of authority over others.

Naturally I had to ask why.

She replied that most women had inadequate control of their emotions, tended to let emotion trump reason, and were inclined to be jealous and spiteful and vengeful.


I didn't argue with her.... but I found it intriguing that a young woman going to college held such views, yet at the same time seemed self-assured, cheerful and with a positive self-image.


Not something you run across every day. :shrug:

 

[cpwill]

The point was to eliminate the masses, who were seen as the great contributor of unenlightened thought: fickle and easily lead by demagogues.

I think two words here will be sufficient: American Idol.

 

[cpwill]

She replied that most women had inadequate control of their emotions, tended to let emotion trump reason, and were inclined to be jealous and spiteful and vengeful.

really? you think so?

You're furious about women's care, and you sort of half-heartedly say "oh, I feel that way about men's care and other types of subsidized care too" when people point out how hypocritical you're being, but your heart is obviously not in it and you probably couldn't care less. This post is really about your desire to inhibit and punish women who are such sluts that they need birth control, or abortions, or support reproductive health and abortion rights.

I find that hard to believe.....

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Josie's position towards women who have or support abortion rights is well-known. It is borderline hateful. The emptiness in her OP, which is really more of a cover for her feelings on that issue, has been well-established by the fact that she is unable to substantiate her original claim in any way, and once people have started pointing out that this is obviously about something else, she goes back to her abortion rhetoric, which is really actually much worse than what I said above.

Furthermore, CP, I think you are hardly in any position to be criticizing someone's emotional control, not only because there's nothing uncontrolled about the above but because you've displayed your own tendency to lose your handle on it fairly regularly. Either you have a vagina, or that old stereotype is handily disproved.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I had an interesting conversation with a young woman of my acquaintance just the other day.


She is in her mid twenties, a mother of three, going to college part-time and studying some medical specialty (I can't recall exactly what just now... perhaps it was pharmacy).

She isn't religious that I have noticed, nor old-fashioned in any manner.


She told me most ardently that she does not believe most women have any business being managers, CEO's, politicians, or otherwise holding positions of authority over others.

Naturally I had to ask why.

She replied that most women had inadequate control of their emotions, tended to let emotion trump reason, and were inclined to be jealous and spiteful and vengeful.


I didn't argue with her.... but I found it intriguing that a young woman going to college held such views, yet at the same time seemed self-assured, cheerful and with a positive self-image.


Not something you run across every day. :shrug:

And she's aiming for the medical field while calling herself emotional, vengeful, spiteful and jealous? And men aren't capable of those things? LOL

Obviously SHE has serious issues and for some reason assumes that every other woman has those same issues. She sounds like she's smoking something and it ain't the happy stuff.

 

[Goshin]

And she's aiming for the medical field while calling herself emotional, vengeful, spiteful and jealous? And men aren't capable of those things? LOL

Obviously SHE has serious issues and for some reason assumes that every other woman has those same issues. She sounds like she's smoking something and it ain't the happy stuff.

Actually it came up because we were discussing the behavior of a certain female third party.

I don't think she applies her views to herself. She has told me in previous conversations that she was always a tomboy and preferred the company of men, precisely because of these traits she says are common among women.


The person we were discussing is most assuredly a prime example of over-emotionality and spitefulness, but she was the one who generalized it.

Now don't shoot me.... I'm just telling ya what she said. :mrgreen:

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Actually it came up because we were discussing the behavior of a certain female third party.

I don't think she applies her views to herself. She has told me in previous conversations that she was always a tomboy and preferred the company of men, precisely because of these traits she says are common among women.

Now don't shoot me.... I'm just telling ya what she said. :mrgreen:

Yeah - I'm not attacking you. . . I'm a bit frustrated - you must bring her here for further questioning!

 

[Henrin]

If education were a private venture the costs for some would be unreachable and for the children of those families the chance at a decent education, I think, would diminish completely. The education system in place, in my view, leaves a lot to be desired but it serves a purpose. Some children would have no education at all. A society which does not provide for learning is doomed.

Just so you know public school costs per student around 9,000 and in the private sector it costs around 2,000 per student. If competition was higher you can probably guess that the rate would be far less than half of that for private schools.

I also want to mention that history doesn't back up your claims nor does present day America. It also should be considered that education is a family matter and should be dealt with by the family.

 

[Sparky]

I hear more liberal women always talking about how they don't want government in their bedrooms or their bodies, but more and more liberal women are supporting policies that do just that.

It's because ALL Liberals are hypocrites.

 

[Henrin]

It's because ALL Liberals are hypocrites.

I don't think that is it. I think they want things from others and at the same time they don't want what goes along with getting the government involved to make it happen. They basically want you to pay but to not have a say on what you pay for.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

I don't think that is it. I think they want things from others and at the same time they don't want what goes along with getting the government involved to make it happen. They basically want you to pay but to not have a say on what you pay for.

Not really. You have a say in what you pay for by voting and convincing other people to vote your way. I don't know any liberals who want to take that away.

 

[Henrin]

Not really. You have a say in what you pay for by voting and convincing other people to vote your way. I don't know any liberals who want to take that away.

The fact is that if you make something a public issue the public has a say on what it provides and how it is provided. Liberals regularly reject this part of the equation and tells people like myself to shut up about it and pay my taxes. You can't very tell me that is wrong either, because it has happened me on this very forum. They believe they can make things public and keep it private at the same exact time, but good luck with that.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

The fact is that if you make something a public issue the public has a say on what it provides and how it is provided. Liberals regularly reject this part of the equation and tells people like myself to shut up about it and pay my taxes. You can't very tell me that is wrong either, because it has happened me on this very forum. They believe they can make things public and keep it private at the same exact time, but good luck with that.

Oh, I'm sure people have told you to shut up and pay your taxes. I wouldn't be surprised if I said a less crass variation of that. I do, in fact, believe that people should pay taxes for certain things even if they don't want to including welfare and public education among others. However, I also believe that people should have a say in it by having the right to vote and the right to free speech which they can use to convince me and others to vote their way. I would bet most liberals feel the same way which is why your initial generalization is an inaccurate picture of reality.

 

[srexob715]

How would it be any different?

This doesn't address his statement where he pointed out that you were wrong. He clearly said that we wasn't talking about throwing more money at the same system. Instead of correcting yourself, you avoided it by asking another question.................and questions only show confusion; not disproval.

 

[srexob715]

Originally Posted by Josie
I hear more liberal women always talking about how they don't want government in their bedrooms or their bodies, but more and more liberal women are supporting policies that do just that.

It's because ALL Liberals are hypocrites.

Josie has it all backwards, which is typical of conservative logic. She says that she hears more liberal women always talking about how they don't want gov't in their bedrooms................except the NON gov't party is the republican party. You cannot get this kind of entertainment anywhere else. It is simply priceless. :2razz:

 

[Henrin]

Oh, I'm sure people have told you to shut up and pay your taxes. I wouldn't be
surprised if I said a less crass variation of that.

To me you haven't, but others on here do it all the time. I say something bad about conception and the mandates that exist on it and they tell everyone has a right to it and if I even hint at the fact that services can't be rights they tell it is, and that I better get used to it. I am however not convinced of this stance nor do I find being told to shut up convincing.

You also can't tell me to shut up and pay my taxes when I find the entire involuntary model being used as a violation of my property rights and find paying for services for people a misuse of government funds.

I do, in fact, believe that people should pay taxes for certain things even if they don't want to including welfare and public education among others.

I don't. I believe it is theft to force me to pay months out of my salary to provide people services. If they need the services they can gain access to them. Its really that simple for me.

However, I also believe that people should have a say in it by having the right to vote and the right to free speech which they can use to convince me and others to vote their way.

That isn't even my point. They think the government has some sort of limited say on what how public issues are dealt with and the people by extension even think of taking away things like public education they are violating their rights. That however is not the case. Education is not a right, but a service made public.

 

[johnny_rebson]

well I will admit, I am a fan of the notion of poll tests. Simple stuff like "before you vote, name the three branches of government" and / or "without looking at the page - who are you voting for?".

An IQ test when registering to vote would do the trick.

 

[srexob715]

To me you haven't, but others on here do it all the time. I say something bad about conception and the mandates that exist on it and they tell everyone has a right to it and if I even hint at the fact that services can't be rights they tell it is, and that I better get used to it. I am however not convinced of this stance nor do I find being told to shut up convincing.

You also can't tell me to shut up and pay my taxes when I find the entire involuntary model being used as a violation of my property rights and find paying for services for people a misuse of government funds.




I don't. I believe it is theft to force me to pay months out of my salary to provide people services. If they need the services they can gain access to them. Its really that simple for me.



That isn't even my point. They think the government has some sort of limited say on what how public issues are dealt with and the people by extension even think of taking away things like public education they are violating their rights. That however is not the case. Education is not a right, but a service made public.

The right to education is a universal entitlement to education, a right that is recognized as a human right. According to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights the right to education includes the right to free, compulsory primary education for all[1], an obligation to develop secondary education accessible to all, in particular by the progressive introduction of free secondary education[2], as well as an obligation to develop equitable access to higher education, ideally by the progressive introduction of free higher education.[3]

 

[cpwill]

Josie's position towards women who have or support abortion rights is well-known. It is borderline hateful. The emptiness in her OP, which is really more of a cover for her feelings on that issue, has been well-established by the fact that she is unable to substantiate her original claim in any way, and once people have started pointing out that this is obviously about something else, she goes back to her abortion rhetoric, which is really actually much worse than what I said above.

:lol: hateful my hairy a--. Substituting reason for accusing others of hatred, be in the endless idiotic abuse of the racism card or the endless idiotic abuse of the anti-woman card is to demonstrate intellectual vacuity. It is the passive-aggressive refuge of those who are angry, who are losing, and who don't know what to do about it.

Furthermore, CP, I think you are hardly in any position to be criticizing someone's emotional control, not only because there's nothing uncontrolled about the above but because you've displayed your own tendency to lose your handle on it fairly regularly. Either you have a vagina, or that old stereotype is handily disproved.

rof ah, but I require the stimulant of alcohol to act like a snarky spite-filled bitch. your ridiculous hysterics were, as I understand, rather au naturale.

 

[katiegrrl0]

Well, it wouldnt be the first moral issue people had trouble confronting. But you are right, if you believe that life begins at conception--which it obviously does, then abortion is ending a human life. It is not an easy issue, and I am not opposed to abortion in the earliest stages. I am just pointing out that it is not as simple as labeling it a 'womens rights' issue. There is a conflict of rights here between mother and child which makes it more complex than that.

A conflict of woman and fetus. Unless she has a child at home she is not a mother. Until the fetus is born it is not a child. IMO. It is about the woman's rights. The fetus does not have any say in this decision.

 

[Fiddytree]

An IQ test when registering to vote would do the trick.

You do know I was being sarcastic, right?

 

[katiegrrl0]

that is correct. they think they are being taken care of.

men want sex, and women want security. that's why the single greatest point of loss for the Democrat party is when a woman get's married - married women tend to see their husbands and families as their source of security, single women tend more to see government as a security safety net.




actually, conservatives tend to understand liberal positions better than liberals understand conservative ones.

You certainly make a lot of assumptions about what women want and how they think.

 

[Daktoria]

I've been thinking about this ever since the Julia slideshow yesterday.

Why would any woman want the government to control every aspect of their lives? I hear more liberal women always talking about how they don't want government in their bedrooms or their bodies, but more and more liberal women are supporting policies that do just that. Whatever happened to women who simply wanted the freedom to choose their own route in life without the government overseeing and giving permission for every move? Why would anyone think more government intervention is a good thing?

There is a reason for this.

I think the most obvious example comes from how women have been dominating education, health care, and social work professions for generations now. Women look at government as a protective institution that can socially engineer society with the threat of force on the side while not having to navigate the marketplace. The imposition of social programs behind a national interest is no different from wielding intuitive emotions. Women can get away with what they feel just because they say so, and government doesn't have to prove "why".

The necessity to use math to navigate the marketplace, versus language to navigate politics, might have to do with it as well:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/

Gendered cognitive styles. Some theorists believe that men and women have different cognitive styles (Belenky et al 1986; Gilligan 1982). Whether or not this is true, cognitive styles are gender symbolized (Rooney 1991). Deductive, analytic, atomistic, acontextual, and quantitative cognitive styles are labeled “masculine,” while intuitive, synthetic, holistic, contextual and qualitative cognitive styles are labeled “feminine.” Such associations are not wholly arbitrary, the way blue is gendered male and pink, female. For example, it is seen as masculine to make one's point by means of argument, feminine to make one's point by means of narrative. Argument is commonly cast as an adversarial mode of discourse, in which one side claims vindication by vanquishing the opposition. Such pursuit of dominance follows the competitive pattern of male gender roles in combat, athletics, and business. Narrative is a seductive mode of discourse, persuading by an enticing invitation to take up the perspective of the narrator, which excites one's imagination and feeling. Its operations are more like love than war, and thereby follows a mode of persuasion thought more suitable for women. These phenomena raise numerous epistemological questions: does the quest for “masculine” prestige by using “masculine” methods distort practices of knowledge acquisition (Addelson 1983; Moulton, 1983)? Are some kinds of sound research unfairly ignored because of their association with “feminine” cognitive styles (Keller 1983, 1985b)? Do “feminine” cognitive styles yield knowledge that is inaccessible or harder to achieve by “masculine” means (Duran 1991, Rose 1987, Smith 1974)?

It's a sort of covert patriarchy. Female government supporters enjoy the fact that alpha males are enforcing their policy through the police and military rather than having to deal with beta male merchants. There's also the fact that cops and soldiers aren't the brightest people around, so they're rather easy to manipulate.

That's not to say cops and soldiers aren't clever wise guys, but lots of women like that attitude anyway in a man.