Should the West repeal womens' suffrage ?

[Dachshund]

In the entire history of Western civilization from the "Golden Age" of Pericles in classical Athenian antiquity to 2018, never has there been a more foolhardy and self-destructive ideology embraced as that of feminism in its various different forms. Over the past 50 years, feminism has progressively undermined the institution of marriage - the life-long commitment to stable, monogamous, heterosexual relationships between men and women that were primarily focussed on the care and nurturing of strong traditional family units. The practice of strict monogamy in marriage, and its role in generating healthy "nuclear" families, had, for millenia, (and without exception) always served to provide the critical foundation upon which Western societies derived their greatest cultural energy especially in the flourishing of arts, sciences and technology. With the rise of so-called Womens' Liberation" and gender equality identity politics in the US in the 1960s, however, the sexual market place in the West began to become more feminized, promiscuous and decadent. The traditional cultural controls on sexuality that had existed were swiftly loosened, and this inevitably led to a proliferation in pre-marital, extra-marital and homsoexual relationships and cohabitation as an alternative to wedlock.. Marriage rates sharply fell , more and more couples divorced and with this came an increasing prevalence of broken families and juvenile delinquency (among many other serious social/economic/political problems). American society and the West generally were, in short, set on a rapid downward spiral of cultural /civilizational decline and we see the regrettable evidence of this all about us today.

The best and most effective way to stem any further weakening of society and cultural decline wrought by the feminist degeneration of the contemporary West would be , I believe, to strike radically at the source of problem, that is, to promptly repeal woman's suffrage.

Discuss.

[Littlemoon]

No. You are discussing extremist feminism. Not feminism. Anything that is extreme shouldnt even be the definition of a good cause. Feminism isn't about undermining marriages and all the things you stated.
What you are saying is borderline sexist and xenophobic .

[Sy Borg]

I agree with you, Littlemoon. The OP is full of absurdly childish correlations between feminism and society as though overpopulation (which is alleviated by feminism), resource depletion, climate change, globalisation, shifts in geopolitical power and the information revolution never happened. One could just as easily - and poorly - argue that men's suffrage needs removal since men are usually the main instigators of wars and deniers of climate change.

In summary, I am not thrilled with people who are less intelligent and informed than myself seeking to remove my rights based on childish superficialities.

[Jklint]

In the entire history of Western civilization from the "Golden Age" of Pericles in classical Athenian antiquity to 2018, never has there been a more foolhardy and self-destructive ideology embraced as that of feminism in its various different forms.

It would never have come about or had any reason to become part of such a late historical process if things had been more balanced in the first place. Why these differences occurred so early in history forces the conclusion of certain derangements in the human psyche including many of its best philosophers. In the animal world this societal sense of superiority of the male over the female doesn't exist and also didn't seem to in prehistorical societies. The idea that females are still considered somehow inferior really amounts to a self-mutilation of the species. Eventually those with so-called weaker bodies but equal minds are forced to respond...which doesn't preclude a lot of idiocy in feminism which even many feminists admit to.

[Hereandnow]

How about "repealing" men's suffrage? Which has made the most trouble for the world?

[LuckyR]

In the entire history of Western civilization from the "Golden Age" of Pericles in classical Athenian antiquity to 2018, never has there been a more foolhardy and self-destructive ideology embraced as that of feminism in its various different forms. Over the past 50 years, feminism has progressively undermined the institution of marriage - the life-long commitment to stable, monogamous, heterosexual relationships between men and women that were primarily focussed on the care and nurturing of strong traditional family units. The practice of strict monogamy in marriage, and its role in generating healthy "nuclear" families, had, for millenia, (and without exception) always served to provide the critical foundation upon which Western societies derived their greatest cultural energy especially in the flourishing of arts, sciences and technology. With the rise of so-called Womens' Liberation" and gender equality identity politics in the US in the 1960s, however, the sexual market place in the West began to become more feminized, promiscuous and decadent. The traditional cultural controls on sexuality that had existed were swiftly loosened, and this inevitably led to a proliferation in pre-marital, extra-marital and homsoexual relationships and cohabitation as an alternative to wedlock.. Marriage rates sharply fell , more and more couples divorced and with this came an increasing prevalence of broken families and juvenile delinquency (among many other serious social/economic/political problems). American society and the West generally were, in short, set on a rapid downward spiral of cultural /civilizational decline and we see the regrettable evidence of this all about us today.

The best and most effective way to stem any further weakening of society and cultural decline wrought by the feminist degeneration of the contemporary West would be , I believe, to strike radically at the source of problem, that is, to promptly repeal woman's suffrage.

Discuss.

Let's stipulate that everything in your error addled rant is absolutely correct.

Since pre Women's Liberation history, was notable for a lot of wars, suffering and death, how about we repeal men's right to vote, which will likely lead to a female dominated governance? Since women are known to be passive, cooperation will increase, conflict will decrease and the world will enter a Golden Age, much better than the "flourishing of arts, sciences and technology", you referred to.

Discuss that.

[Littlemoon]

I agree with you, Littlemoon. The OP is full of absurdly childish correlations between feminism and society as though overpopulation (which is alleviated by feminism), resource depletion, climate change, globalisation, shifts in geopolitical power and the information revolution never happened. One could just as easily - and poorly - argue that men's suffrage needs removal since men are usually the main instigators of wars and deniers of climate change.

In summary, I am not thrilled with people who are less intelligent and informed than myself seeking to remove my rights based on childish superficialities.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I was just thinking that. Women conquered that right with a lot of sacrifice. All rights we have today, they were conquered by our ancestors with a lot of sacrifice.

I don't think this "theme" if we can call it that, deserves any discussion.

[Dachshund]

In summary, I am not thrilled with people who are less intelligent and informed than myself seeking to remove my rights based on childish superficialities.

You are also referring I presume, Greta, to those undoubtedly "less intelligent than yourself" individuals like Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Pericles, Marcus Aurelius, Kant, Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche, for example; all of whom - had they been alive to witness it in 1920 - would have unanimously condemned the ratification of the 19th Amendment (granting womens' suffrage in the United States) as one of the most breathtakingly idiotic acts of human folly they could ever have imagined ?

[Maxcady10001]

Dachshund

Have you read Plato's Republic?

"Then as far as the guardianship of a state is concerned, there is no difference between the natures of the man and of the woman, but only various degrees of weakness and strength.....Then we shall have to select duly qualified women also, to share in the Life and labours of the duly qualified men; since we find that they are competent to the work, and of kindred nature with the men." ( Plato's Republic, pg.162)

It seems you chose philosophers from a hat. How could you even put Nietzsche on that list. To only say he would be against women's right is disengenuos. He didn't believe any two men were equal. He wanted rights taken away from everyone he deemed mediocre. Besides Nietzsche, I don't take Schopenhauer or Kant seriously. Schopenhauer hated life and I don't see any validity to Kant's metaphysics. The other philosophers I have not yet read.

[Steve3007]

...all of whom - had they been alive to witness it in 1920 - would have unanimously condemned the ratification of the 19th Amendment (granting womens' suffrage in the United States) as one of the most breathtakingly idiotic acts of human folly they could ever have imagined ?

If they had been alive in the 21st Century, would they have been in favour of slavery, incapable of using an iPhone and proponents of pederasty?

If they'd grown up in our modern world rather than being somehow transplanted here by some kind of time machine (Bill and Ted style) then I suspect the answers to those questions would be "no". The widespread acceptance of homosexuality among men (and between older men and younger boys) in ancient Greece is particularly interesting, It's interesting to observe that acceptance/condemnation of homosexuality is essentially a fashion, like hair styles.

[Steve3007]

I don't think this "theme" if we can call it that, deserves any discussion.

Over the last few years, for most of the time, there's usually been at least one person like this on the site. Enegue, Grunth etc. Don't you think it adds spice? The thesis in the OP may be self-evidently ridiculous, but it may stimulate moderately interesting side discussions, don't you think?

[Hereandnow]

All things lead to Rome, that is, philosophy, meaning if you try to get at basic questions about anything, you end up with a serious discussion. On the other hand, that doesn't mean fools should be given encouragement. I'll take my leave.

[Littlemoon]

I don't think this "theme" if we can call it that, deserves any discussion.

Over the last few years, for most of the time, there's usually been at least one person like this on the site. Enegue, Grunth etc. Don't you think it adds spice? The thesis in the OP may be self-evidently ridiculous, but it may stimulate moderately interesting side discussions, don't you think?

Depends on the subject and the people. For example, I don't think discussing xenophobia with a Nazi lover gives anything productive. However, discussing about rights in general I'm down for that. I just think the topic OP posted right now is just not worth it.

[Dachshund]

Let's stipulate that everything in your error addled rant is absolutely correct.

Since pre Women's Liberation history, was notable for a lot of wars, suffering and death, how about we repeal men's right to vote, which will likely lead to a female dominated governance? Since women are known to be passive, cooperation will increase, conflict will decrease and the world will enter a Golden Age, much better than the "flourishing of arts, sciences and technology", you referred to.

Discuss that.
[/quote]

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?

[Littlemoon]

You are downgrading women (and men if I might add) if you think any normal person would cooperate with hitler.