Should the West repeal womens' suffrage ?
-
- Posts: 460
- Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm
Re: Should the West repeal womens' suffrage ?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Should the West repeal womens' suffrage ?
Yes, some Googling suggests that D's views are on the extreme end of that spectrum, but far from alone. D reminds me of Borat telling a feminist group that a women have been found to have brains about the size of a squirrel'sSteve3007 wrote: ↑January 4th, 2018, 12:40 amRegarding the "alt-right" movement, I think it would be unfair to them if we were to assume that Dachshund's (claimed) views on this particular topic are representative of them. I don't really know much about them, but I don't think the removal of voting rights for women is normally something that is associated with the alt-right, is it?
Meanwhile his "superior male brain" fails to even notice that the views on women of ancient philosophers born and bred in a patriarchy might have somewhat skewed views. One might as well quote Pontius Pilate about the ethical issues surrounding the use of crucifixion as a form of capital punishment. We have moved on. One might notice that the countries with the most equality tend to be the most powerful, peaceful and productive; it makes sense not to waste 50% of your human resources.
While the removal of women's suffrage seems insanely unlikely, under a racist and sexist POTUS the insanely unlikely seems ever more possible. The bar is being lowered all the time. Hence my angry rather than jocular response.
-
- Posts: 51
- Joined: December 13th, 2017, 2:05 pm
Re: Should the West repeal womens' suffrage ?
What amazes me still is how people elect a POTUS that shares this mentality.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Should the West repeal womens' suffrage ?
Dachshund wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2018, 3:22 pm Yes, I am fully aware of the fact that everything I wrote in my OP is absolutely correct, thank you. The main reason I published the post is that there are still many people in the West who do not understand this and need to be promptly warned of the very real threat feminism currently poses to the future of their civilization. And, of course, to be advised of the most direct and efficacious means to eliminate this threat ( i.e. the urgent repeal of women's suffrage in Western nations like the US, UK, Australia, Canada, France, Germany and so on).
Secondly, you are correct to observe that women are innately more passive, conciliatory and "cooperative" than males; also, I would note that women are intrinsically less aggressive by nature, and largely averse to the kind of brutal /lethal physical violence that men utilize in warfare.
Finally, with regard to your theory that in a hypothetical future world order where women and feminism dominated the corridors of global political power, humanity would find itself flourishing in a new "Golden Age" of cultural achievement and progress and universal peace , I have to say I have some very grave misgivings. Let me provide an illustration of why I am skeptical.
If we close our eyes and imagine, (just for argument's sake), that the history of the 20th century was different, different in the sense that the political and military leaders of the West in the first half of the 1940s were all, in actual fact, staunch feminist ideologues; that Churchill ,Eisenhower and their respective military Chiefs of Staff , for instance; were all left-wing/Liberal-progressive/intellectual ladies; committed pacifists who were all totally convinced that the best way to deal with Adolf Hitler would be to placate him, to cooperate with him, to adopt a benign, "sweet as pie" attitude towards him and so on. That the Allied leaders were all, in short, absolutely sure that Hitler - if handled gently ,with loving kindness, tolerance and respect - would soon come to see the error of his ways and abandon his "nasty" plans for world domination, then you (if you are not a Jew, in which case you would already be dead) and I, would now, I suggest, very likely be German-speaking, card- carrying members of the Nazi party living "for real" in the great, globalized, totalitarian 21 st century Third Reich that never was. And BTW, as a woman, your function in this Third Reich would be very basic. It would effectively be reduced to the "3-Ks" that Hitler believed neatly summarised the only fitting roles for females in human society: "Kinder, Kuche and Kirsch" ( i.e. Children, Kitchen and Church).
How would you like that?
How do I like a story you pulled out of where ever, after the fact, to support your unsupportable "proposal"? It is what it is, a rationalization. My point was women's suffrage has already happened, the ship has sailed, the horse is already out of the barn, choose your metaphor. There has never been a successful repeal of rights once given on any scale (and I would include ISIS's experience in that).
Long story short, your OP without mentioning a mechanism to accomplish it, is basically a teaser without merit
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Should the West repeal womens' suffrage ?
That is not for you to say but for others to assess. Universally, your arguments have been found to be a mess of flawed and confused correlations and prejudice. You, of course, will blame the audience for "not understanding".
That is because you ignore the fact that the worlds progress accelerated around the time that women started to gain some rights, and continues to accelerate. You also ignore the fact that all of the most prosperous and capable nations have more gender equality while all of the worst, most divided, torn, dysfunctional and corrupt nations are much more patriarchal.
-
- Posts: 513
- Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm
Re: Should the West repeal womens' suffrage ?
LuckyR wrote: ↑January 4th, 2018, 1:18 pmDachshund wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2018, 3:22 pm Yes, I am fully aware of the fact that everything I wrote in my OP is absolutely correct, thank you. The main reason I published the post is that there are still many people in the West who do not understand this and need to be promptly warned of the very real threat feminism currently poses to the future of their civilization. And, of course, to be advised of the most direct and efficacious means to eliminate this threat ( i.e. the urgent repeal of women's suffrage in Western nations like the US, UK, Australia, Canada, France, Germany and so on).
Secondly, you are correct to observe that women are innately more passive, conciliatory and "cooperative" than males; also, I would note that women are intrinsically less aggressive by nature, and largely averse to the kind of brutal /lethal physical violence that men utilize in warfare.
Finally, with regard to your theory that in a hypothetical future world order where women and feminism dominated the corridors of global political power, humanity would find itself flourishing in a new "Golden Age" of cultural achievement and progress and universal peace , I have to say I have some very grave misgivings. Let me provide an illustration of why I am skeptical.
If we close our eyes and imagine, (just for argument's sake), that the history of the 20th century was different, different in the sense that the political and military leaders of the West in the first half of the 1940s were all, in actual fact, staunch feminist ideologues; that Churchill ,Eisenhower and their respective military Chiefs of Staff , for instance; were all left-wing/Liberal-progressive/intellectual ladies; committed pacifists who were all totally convinced that the best way to deal with Adolf Hitler would be to placate him, to cooperate with him, to adopt a benign, "sweet as pie" attitude towards him and so on. That the Allied leaders were all, in short, absolutely sure that Hitler - if handled gently ,with loving kindness, tolerance and respect - would soon come to see the error of his ways and abandon his "nasty" plans for world domination, then you (if you are not a Jew, in which case you would already be dead) and I, would now, I suggest, very likely be German-speaking, card- carrying members of the Nazi party living "for real" in the great, globalized, totalitarian 21 st century Third Reich that never was. And BTW, as a woman, your function in this Third Reich would be very basic. It would effectively be reduced to the "3-Ks" that Hitler believed neatly summarised the only fitting roles for females in human society: "Kinder, Kuche and Kirsch" ( i.e. Children, Kitchen and Church).
How would you like that?
How do I like a story you pulled out of where ever, after the fact, to support your unsupportable "proposal"? It is what it is, a rationalization. My point was women's suffrage has already happened, the ship has sailed, the horse is already out of the barn, choose your metaphor. There has never been a successful repeal of rights once given on any scale (and I would include ISIS's experience in that).
Long story short, your OP without mentioning a mechanism to accomplish it, is basically a teaser without merit
You don't know what you are talking about.
It was an amendment (the 19th Amendment passed in 1920) to the US Constitution which granted women in the United States suffrage.
"Mechanically" speaking, repealing an Amendment to the American Constitution is actually quite a simple process, and it has happened before , namely, in the case of the 18th Amendment of 1919 which mandated a nationwide prohibition of the sale of alcohol in America. All it takes is for 2/3 of Congress and 2/3 of the House of Representatives to agree to pass a new amendment negating the provisions of a former one they wish to revoke. In the case of prohibition, this happened in 1933 with the ratification of the 21st Amendment which ended the nationwide ban on alcohol.Amendments to the US Constitution can also be repealed by another process wherein an application is made to the legislatures of 2/3 of the several US States.You can research the details of how this route to repeal works for yourself if you are interested.
Regards
Dachshund
-
- Posts: 513
- Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm
Re: Should the West repeal womens' suffrage ?
Greta wrote: ↑January 4th, 2018, 5:16 pmThat is not for you to say but for others to assess. Universally, your arguments have been found to be a mess of flawed and confused correlations and prejudice. You, of course, will blame the audience for "not understanding".
That is because you ignore the fact that the worlds progress accelerated around the time that women started to gain some rights, and continues to accelerate. You also ignore the fact that all of the most prosperous and capable nations have more gender equality while all of the worst, most divided, torn, dysfunctional and corrupt nations are much more patriarchal.
Bored, are we Greta ?
Thought a spot of "dachshund - baiting" would make for some fine sport and help relieve the leaden ennui of life in the intellectual wasteland that is Australian suburbia did we ?
Or perhaps, it is just the case you have a similar sense of humour to Nietzsche, and have mistaken me for one of the self-righteous "eight - day clocks", he so loved to wind up? As you do not read "dead, white, males", let me explain. In his famous work "Zarathustra", Nietzsche tells us how he finds some
pietitious people he encounters in his worldly travels to like eight - day clocks, in the sense that when they are wound up, they start to tick, - "tick-tock") and want others who hear them to call their ticking "virtue"; he confess that...
"Verily, in these I have my amusement: whenever I find such clocks I shall wind them up with my mockery, and they shall whirr for me".
My advise to you is that, personally speaking, I would liken myself more to a lump of "Semtex" than to one of Nietzsche's wind-up mechanical clocks. That is, you may - if you wish - prod me, poke me, pinch me and squeeze me with your ignorant, disrespectful fingers to your heart's content, however, I would warn you that there is a definite limit to the quantity of nonsense I am prepared hear and to the number of vulgar calumnies am prepared to tolerate. Should you happen to pushing your luck too far you will find - to your surprise - that I suddenly explode in your face.
So congratulations ! You have succeeded !
You have indeed finally "set me off" ! Well done.
How DARE you cast aspersions my capacity for rational /logicalthought by declaring that:
"Universally, your arguments have been found to be a mess of flawed and confused correlations and prejudice."
and how DARE you insult the collective intelligence of this forum with such an egregious and frankly, bizarre, claim that it is a:
"...fact that the world's progress accelerated around the time women started to gain some rights, and continues to accelerate ( for this reason)."
Why, you insolent, ignorant PUP ! I've a jolly good mind to materialise through your computer screen this instant and take another piece of Nietzsche's advice by giving you a damn good birching for the impudence and impertinence you have shown to a male elder and better !
Fortunately for you, I am being called right now to high tea. When I return - refreshed, and hopefully in a calmer and more congenial state of mind (!) - I will set about the time-consuming task of explaining in the most elementary terms and in painstaking detail why you must refrain from speaking the nonsense that you do about progress and women's rights, etc; in the future. I fully realise that this task may well be an exercise in futility ( in the same way that endeavouring to teach the calculus to a cockroach would be folly !), nonetheless, I will out of the goodness of my own heart try ,as I must confess that feel a certain moral obligation as a human being, that is, to enlighten a fellow creature ( i.e. YOU) whose raw ignorance about such important matters as the engine of human progress,etc; may well endanger her own well being in the future ( not to mention that of others). So, be thankful, and remember your are to pay careful attention to what I teach you when I return from my tea.
Regards
Dachshund (and that's MISTER Dachsund to you)
-
- Posts: 460
- Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm
Re: Should the West repeal womens' suffrage ?
Then why did you mention Plato, who pictured an ideal state with women participating in government?you must refrain from speaking the nonsense that you do about progress and women's rights
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Should the West repeal womens' suffrage ?
Dachshund wrote:Yes, I am fully aware of the fact that everything I wrote in my OP is absolutely correct, thank you.
Stick to the topic Dachs or I will start deleting. By all means be "set off" if you feel the need to be blindly mechanistic. Be careful how you word your attacks, though.That is not for you to say but for others to assess. Universally, your arguments have been found to be a mess of flawed and confused correlations and prejudice. You, of course, will blame the audience for "not understanding".
That is because you ignore the fact that progress accelerated around the time that women started to gain some rights, and continues to accelerate. You also ignore the fact that all of the most prosperous and capable nations have more gender equality while all of the worst, most divided, torn, dysfunctional and corrupt nations are much more patriarchal.
Look, you want to disenfranchise me. Are you surprised to find vigorous opposition? Did you expect me to lie back and just take it for Dachsie?
Why should you have the vote and I not? You are clearly less qualified to vote than I am - less informed (sprouting Breitbart propaganda), less intelligent (weak reasoning) and less moral (racist and sexist). I am not bragging because neither of us are so special; I'm just seemingly less limited than you in those areas. I expect that I much better understand the structure and function of the various levels of government than you do - yet you deem me unfit to vote.
I wonder what the real reason for your stance is because it surely isn't about logic.
-
- Posts: 513
- Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm
Re: Should the West repeal womens' suffrage ?
Maxcady10001 wrote: ↑January 5th, 2018, 3:54 pmThen why did you mention Plato, who pictured an ideal state with women participating in government?you must refrain from speaking the nonsense that you do about progress and women's rights
I believe that for all reasonable intents and purposes, we can say that had it been tested- i.e. had the theory in the "Republic", actually been implemented in the construction of a "real life", working, ideal Platonic State, that State would essentially have been ruled and run by a patriarchal government. While some women- a relatively small number wrt men) may have been allowed to participate in government, their overall power and influence on the real business - the critical practicalities - of governing the State would have been negligible.
If, for the sake of brevity, I might now "cut to the chase" in this whole matter we are discussing of Plato and his views on women in "Republic", I think that when it came, for example, to the question of who - men or women - would be allocated responsibility for supervising top-level government policy-making positions and addressing the major political, economic and social issues of the day, Plato would ( with perhaps the odd ,rare exception) primarily have expected that it would mainly be men who occupied these kind of roles.
I say this simply because he makes it perfectly clear in "Republic" that in his view:
"The relation of male to female is by nature a relation of superior to inferior and ruler to ruled."
What do you think ?
Regards
Dachshund
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Should the West repeal womens' suffrage ?
I guess it's not so difficult to tell.Whether the views expressed by the character called Dachshund correspond to the actual views of a real person, or whether there's a person on the other end simply playing a part in order to illicit a response for his/her entertainment (normally referred to as a "troll") is impossible to tell.
So now I think an interesting (vaguely philosophical?) question is: When somebody plays a part - strikes a pose - to provoke a response, is it still interesting to respond? If the imitation-duck consistently plays the part of the duck, does the Duck a l'Orange still taste as good?
Greta: If a real person, with actual influence in the world, was seriously proposing to disenfranchise you simply on the basis of your chromosome combinations, then naturally you have a certain moral duty to fight it. But if some words on a screen on an obscure website with (I presume) no influence does it, does that duty still exist? If an artificially constructed bigot falls over in an empty website, does it make a noise?
I suppose it's a bit like watching or reading fiction. Fictional "bad guys", if they're played well, can make us genuinely angry. But it takes a good script, and good acting, to do it well. Dachshund, in that sense, doesn't entirely do it for me.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Should the West repeal womens' suffrage ?
Look at how well the patriarchies in the Middle East and Africa are going - that's where Dachs would lead the west if he had the power.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Should the West repeal womens' suffrage ?
I suspect you have a very good point there. It's similar with other kinds of attacks on entire groups. If you're not a member of that group, you can intellectually appreciate the injustice but you can't feel it.Greta wrote:Steve, maybe you need to be the one whose right to vote is being questioned to see where I am coming from?
Yes, I take that point too. That's why I keep saying silly things about ducks. If the act is moderately believable, it doesn't matter whether or not it is an act. But it's often surprisingly difficult to express, succinctly and clearly, knock-down counter arguments because if you actually look through something like the OP of this thread, you find that there aren't really any arguments to counter. Just assertions and expressions of personal taste.Greta wrote:I think it's important to have strong counter arguments for impressionable and/or alt right prevaricating visitors.
Yes, I noted previously the irony of simultaneously railing against those patriarchies while claiming to want to emulate them, and claiming to want to defend western concepts of justice by attacking them at their core by proposing such things as collective punishment. Again, if this is all part of a clever-clever joke, maybe that doesn't matter. But I've noticed in the past that a surprisingly large number of people take jokes seriously. For example, I remember, back in the 80's, there was a comic creation on British TV called "Loads of Money" who was a piss-take of a particular kind of attitude. But I remember work colleagues at the time not seeing it as a piss-take so much as a role model.Greta wrote:Look at how well the patriarchies in the Middle East and Africa are going - that's where Dachs would lead the west if he had the power.
- Albert Tatlock
- Posts: 183
- Joined: October 15th, 2017, 3:23 pm
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Should the West repeal womens' suffrage ?
It seems so. Of course, what we feel isn't important in terms of philosophy (other than in terms of sociology or psychology); ideally we rise above emotionalism. Mea culpa :)Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 5th, 2018, 6:16 pmI suspect you have a very good point there. It's similar with other kinds of attacks on entire groups. If you're not a member of that group, you can intellectually appreciate the injustice but you can't feel it.Greta wrote:Steve, maybe you need to be the one whose right to vote is being questioned to see where I am coming from?
I normally wouldn't bother - the notion is so ludicrous and unrealistic. However, we live in a decade where the ludicrous and unrealistic are genuine possibilities.Steve3007 wrote:Yes, I take that point too. That's why I keep saying silly things about ducks. If the act is moderately believable, it doesn't matter whether or not it is an act. But it's often surprisingly difficult to express, succinctly and clearly, knock-down counter arguments because if you actually look through something like the OP of this thread, you find that there aren't really any arguments to counter. Just assertions and expressions of personal taste.Greta wrote:I think it's important to have strong counter arguments for impressionable and/or alt right prevaricating visitors.
Exactly, and as per my comment above, it's extraordinary the oddities that some people take seriously. For example, flat Earthers. Who could believe it even possible in this day and age?Steve3007 wrote:Yes, I noted previously the irony of simultaneously railing against those patriarchies while claiming to want to emulate them, and claiming to want to defend western concepts of justice by attacking them at their core by proposing such things as collective punishment. Again, if this is all part of a clever-clever joke, maybe that doesn't matter. But I've noticed in the past that a surprisingly large number of people take jokes seriously. For example, I remember, back in the 80's, there was a comic creation on British TV called "Loads of Money" who was a piss-take of a particular kind of attitude. But I remember work colleagues at the time not seeing it as a piss-take so much as a role model.Greta wrote:Look at how well the patriarchies in the Middle East and Africa are going - that's where Dachs would lead the west if he had the power.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023