Changes in society correlated with the rise of women's rights

[Steve3007]

I suppose using a portmanteau word consisting of "liberal" and "retard" indicates either a disdain for liberals or possibly a belief that being late is liberating.

[Hereandnow]

Maldon007: 'Libtard' breaks down into 'retarded liberal'. It has, as such, no value beyond an insult (in fact, liberals are the overwhelming majorities in universities, so the epithet "retard" simply makes no sense at all). 'Male chauvinist', on the other hand, CAN be taken pejoratively, but its denotative value serves here as descriptive. In this latter, the shoe does fit.

[Maldon007]

You don't have to search very hard to find extremely vocal/prominent liberals, espousing views that might indicate an iq below 70. Or at least a lack of willingness to examine their ideas with any level of scrutiny, one would expect from an iq above 70. I think the description has value, but it shouldn't be used to describe all liberals, imo.

[Hereandnow]

Granted, the playing field gets rough and surly. But here, that is not the case on my part. Calling Spectrum a male chauvinist is merely descriptive. For all I know, he agrees.

[Dachshund]

Extrinsic equality is where equality is demanded based on merely observations and gross emotional feelings. This is what the current feminists are demanding, the feminists want to the same as males in whatever possible terms they 'feel' they deserved.
Now females are demanding the same pay as male regardless of the inherent capabilities and merits, same toilets, etc.
This is where feminists are taking matters to the extreme most rather than the Middle-Way.

I disagree with the suggestion that there are homogeneous groups called "feminists" or "females" who are all demanding the same thing. Different people have different views about such issues as rights and obligations. I don't know of anybody who is demanding equal pay regardless of capabilities and merits. I have heard some people expressing the view that, as far as possible, pay should depend only on such things as capabilities, merits and the market value of the worker's skills, rather than depending on other things such as the worker's gender. That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

I don't know why you tacked the separate subject of toilets on the end there.

I can help you with the toilet issue.

Not that long ago a socialist-feminist organization in Sweden called the "Left Party", caused a stir by tabling a motion in a Swedish county council proposing to ban urinals in public/municipal rest rooms, suggesting that it should be made illegal for men to stand while taking a pee. Males , it was argued, should be forced to sit on "gendless" toilets while urinating. Sweden was subsequently criticized for introducing the policy of indoctrinating little boys in nursery schools to " Be a sweetie, take a seatie".

To cut a long story short, feminist groups in France, Holland and Germany followed Sweden's lead and have been campaigning the issue with slogans like: "Lower your trousers and SIT !" and " Not another filthy puddle on my bathroom floor !"

It serves as a good example of how femininsts have, throught the history of the movement, often succeeded in elevating ridiculously trivial issues to national political agendas in the West.

[Burning ghost]

Granted, the playing field gets rough and surly. But here, that is not the case on my part. Calling Spectrum a male chauvinist is merely descriptive. For all I know, he agrees.

Why "male" chauvinist. I would say that is a sexist comment if I were "liberal." I guess Spectrum wouldn't deny being male, but I cannot honestly say he expresses patriotic views; but he may well see the benefit of boarders and nationhood? It is neither here nor there in regards to the discussion though - of course I think this is a nonsense statement; it is an example of the kind of venomous attacks put out by so called "liberalism." Again, the real liberals are much less venomous and generally just want every to get along. The issue is when liberalism starts to get portrayed as the driving force for bringing about state anarchism, and destroying all social structures.

In regards to equal pay, there is no serious problem. The issue is more about the fact that men work longer hours and choose jobs that have higher pay. There is likely some influence of one industry being more male dominated than another having the effect of attracting more men than women, that is just the natural course of things.

The interesting point about Iceland is that they have been pushing for some idealized view of sexual equality for a long time. I think they've reached it. The continued push is most likely due to outside influences.

It is also worth considering that men from 20-30 years of age earn less than women. The thing is what tends to happen in biology plays a part. Women have body clocks and have a certain "nesting" pattern of behavior at a certain age - usually in their 30's. Once the children arrive on the scene many women wish to look after their children full time. In the competitive world you can imagine how difficult it can be to hold a high end job and raise children. Of course this is not to say it cannot, or has not been done. There are always those magnificent women who are wonderful mothers and extraordinary business women or scientists.

Historically I think it is a worthy line of investigation, and a worthy subject. Given that liberalism gave rise to the women's movement I am sure many smaller social groups found this as encouraging to branch out into the public sphere - and I do think this was a good thing. I also think most of this movements have taken on a completely different agenda at the extreme ends (and in places the "extreme" views and being pushed more toward the general views.)

I have heard plenty of rhetoric coming out from various groups that is shamefully full of double standards. In the west you are generally free to pursue any dream you want to pursue. What I think is that when some people find the going too tough, they immediately look for someone to blame, anyone other than themselves. In these cases you can certainly find lazy ignorant people flooding into political movements they have no real right to be in and end up destroying such movements by making them into a complete farce.

I have not done much research into organizations like "blacklifesmatter", but there I see the same bigotry and double standards. The title alone is offensive, but hey! I don't mind being offended - meaning I won't demand the right not to be offended, nor demand "enforced" respect (that is a contrary idea.)

The good from feminism has led to the establishment of more support organisations. The bad part of feminist is that it has led to more support groups and organisations. It is a double edged sword, and I don't think the movement was bad, nor do I think it was wholly good for society at large as it gave rise to a victim mentality. In todays world, especially in the west, there is so little prejudice compared to before.

It is a difficult thing to manage for sure because all social groups are susceptible to outside influences (especially if they happen to help push their cause.)

[Dachshund]

Recently, a topic was started here which made the controversial proposition that women's suffrage should be revoked. Unfortunately the tone of the conversation started to deviate from the spirit of the rules of the forum sufficiently that it was locked. But I'd like to try to restart an aspect of that discussion and see if it can be kept reasonably rational and civilized.


Thank you, Steve, for taking the initiative to re-open what was, I thought, potentially a very interesting and important discussion. I do confess that I may have become a little over-zealous/over-strident in my attempts to persuade posters to keep their remarks focussed directly on the substance of the OP and refrain from publishing either petty ad hominem insults against myself,( presumably for having the brazen temerity to DARE breach the current PC "gag-order" on publicly exposing the folly of the feminist movement and gender equality theory) or little two -sentence broadsides. By the later, I mean the volley of unsubstantiated and unjustifiable "pot shots" decrying the innate immorality, etc; of patriarchal government/society or announcing the "fact", for instance, that human progress in the West over the past century (and to date) is largely a direct consequence of our having granted of EQUAL political, economic and social rights to women. This is why but I decided to implement a concrete device ( i.e. the "PUT UP OR SHUT UP" notice) to prevent the debate - a debate about nothing less than what is, IMO, one of the primary factors currently driving the the decline of our entire Western civilization, being continually sabotaged by fools firing cheap "political" rounds from the peanut gallery.

So, in any case, let me begin here by briefly recapping the last point I made before my thread on banning women's suffrage was was itself declared Verboten (!) and locked by "Big Brother" (or should I say, "Big Sister" !) then set down the next major point I was intending make.

FREEDOM and HUMAN PROGRESS

I stated that it is a truth of the human condition that life is struggle, if this were not the case mankind would never have progressed the way it has over the past 6000 years of our history. By far, most of this struggle has been the hard-fought struggle against tyranny, i.e. against other human beings who seek to enslave us for their own enrichment or entertainment and by so doing deny us freedom. Human beings have made slow, but sure progress against the limitations placed upon their freedom by tyranny over the millenia, and in particular over the past 400 or so years, which was the period when freedom first began to prevail in Western civilization. The freedoms that we enjoy in Western societies today, like the freedom to say what we like ( well, most of the time, "AHEM"), the freedom to believe what we like and most important of all that freedom we have to be entitled to keep the proceeds of our time - that is, the entitlement we enjoy to retain the overwhelming majority of the fruits of our labour and thereby take our stand in the world as the self-governing masters of our own lives - the self-determining captains of our own destiny! I am talking about MONEY - the entitlement we fought for to keep for ourselves the vast majority of the money we earn through our labour. For while some moralist decry it as "the root of all evils" and Marxists condemn it as the instrument of capitalist oppression, it is MONEY that that is the means we use to support ourselves and keep ourselves alive as free, self-determining and self-governing agents in Western societies today. This freedom to keep the vast proportion of the MONEY that we earn for ourselves and our families is the greatest gift that mankind has ever bestowed upon itself and it represents the pinnacle of our achievement over 6000 years of struggle to progress.

It is important to bear in mind that this freedom was, not, as I say, handed politely to Western civilization on a silver platter. It was hard fought and won, step- by -step with the blood, sweat, toil, tears, sacrifice, suffering and misery of MEN. Not women, but MEN. It is men, not women, who stood firm before fear to fight and die in their countless millions on the battlefields of history; in short, to defy tyranny in the name of freedom. It was overwhelmingly men ,also ,who sacrificed entire lives on the battlefields of the mind in their determination to enlighten mankind and liberate human beings from the shackles of ignorance and superstition: Aristotle, Copernicus, Galileo, John Locke, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and untold thousands of other great men who gave their all in the questing for truth , and in many cases quite lierally paid with their lives.

Enter in women's suffrage.

Because the United States in the modern era is arguably the jewel in the crown of Western civilization - i.e. Western civilization's most refined and sophisticated product, I will use the American experience of women's suffrage and the catastrophic social damage it has brought to bear in America today to illustrate my point.

Women's suffrage became a reality in the US in 1920 when the 19th amendment to the American Constitution was ratified. Roughly 50 years later the feminist movement had begun, in earnest, to establish itself as a material entity on the national political scene Throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s feminists in the US fought hard, amongst things, for the right to be freed from that horrible hierarchical/patriarchal construct that is called marriage - which one prominent feminist of the time, Betty Friedman, described as "a comfortable concentration camp". In 1970 they finally got their way and the no-fault divorce was legislated in California. California then set the trend that all of the other US states would soon follow with the triggering of a rapid no-fault divorce domino wave across the nation.

With the arrival of the no-fault divorce, divorce rates sky-rocketed, with now almost 40% of marriages ending in divorce.With the threat of poverty, loss of medical insurance and housing, plus the image of despair from the single mother, barely making it, driving women to seek security, they found it in the next reasonable place they could - government. That is one reason why, since the early 1970s government spending in the US has veritably gone through the roof. Spending on welfare, public housing, child-care, healthcare prisons to house the products of broken homes and so, now consume a huge percentage of GDP in the United States. (And who pays for it BTW ? Men, through higher and higher taxation levied on the little guy- the Western "beta male" corporate wage slave).

But it is not just the issue of the no-fault divorce that pulled politics in America hard to the left and the creation of "Big Daddy" government. Gallop poll statistics clearly demonstrate that women innately prefer to vote for left -of -centre, socialist political parties and big government/State as opposed to freedom in the form of smaller government under Conservative administrations, and they have indeed done so - turning out in strengthto vote Democrat as opposed to Republican in the United States ever since the 1972 federal election.

This post is getting long, so let me "cut to the chase". In short, the point is this: that for whatever the exact reasons actually are that women choose to vote for the tyranny of big government over freedom THEY DO. And worse, increasingly so. They are voting more and more for big government - the "Big Daddy" State - at the expense of the individual. They are voting for dependence rather than independence. They are voting for a government cheque before a paycheque. And while we can sit here and debate about whether or not this is the price we have to pay for equality, or whether maybe men were wrong this entire time and it means that we should now try a different approach. They (women) ARE doing precisely what we feared. They are in the process of undoing what all of human history fought for these past and painful 6000 years. They are undermining freedom. They are destroying Western civilization .

The solution?

Revoke women's suffrage in the West.

[Maldon007]

Dachshund, I think you might have a better chance of getting women to move to the right, in their voting habits, than to vote away their own voting rights.

Also, I think you overstate women's leftist voting habits. You are also incorrect that they are moving more and more left, the gender gap in national elections has been about the same, 7 to 10 points, since 1980.

If you could magically take away the women's vote today, how exactly would any of our current social problems be corrected?

And even if you could magically do this, the next day the suffragettes would be in the streets.

[Burning ghost]

Sausage Dog -

Be more careful with your posts please. I doubt Steve would be too pleased if people use your words that you've quoted him as saying.

I find your rhetoric no better than the kind of rhetoric you appear to be complaining about.

Regardless, I find it hard to believe you are serious about campaigning to stop women voting. If you are I would be curious to hear how you think this could come about? I don't see this as viable unless you're for opening up the borders and allowing foreign idelogues to flood the streets and preach about the appeal of chaining women to the kitchen sink.

THe right and the left are capable of being ideological. I am not sure one is worse than the other, but I may be inclined to believe that extreme leftist views are more slow burning and explosive in some circumstances - that said it is very hard to say that any violent political movement is purely due to one political end of the spectyrum over the over! I am sure there is a lot of evidence to appeal to either point of view regarding the "greater evil."

[Steve3007]

Sausage Dog [Dachshund] - Be more careful with your posts please. I doubt Steve would be too pleased if people use your words that you've quoted him as saying.

It's simply a case of Dachshund forgetting to add the [/quote] tag at the end of my words. Not a big deal.

Thank you, Steve, for taking the initiative to re-open what was, I thought, potentially a very interesting and important discussion. I do confess that I may have become a little over-zealous/over-strident in my attempts to persuade posters to keep their remarks focussed directly on the substance of the OP and refrain from publishing either petty ad hominem insults against myself,...

You're welcome.

ad hominem = "directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining"

I think my own main fault was in making the assumption that the opinions you expressed are so unusual that you must be playing a part, and not be sincere. I think that counts as ad hominem. The question of whether that is true is irrelevant. I will refrain from doing it in future. As far as possible I will take your words at face value.

As we know, your main ad hominem attacks against me, for one, were frequent speculations about the absence of various bodily parts and hormones, and various speculations about my character, which started after I had expressed very few opinions to you. As I recall, when they first started, the only opinion I had expressed to you was to disagree with your proposal to punish citizens based only on their self-declared religious affiliations. You did not, as far as I can see, know my opinions about any other issue. Your other various ad hominem attacks against others I'll leave to them. So if we can both refrain from these things and concentrate on that which each other have actually said in this forum, rather than assumptions about what kind of person we might be, I think we'll get on fine.

...( presumably for having the brazen temerity to DARE breach the current PC "gag-order" on publicly exposing the folly of the feminist movement and gender equality theory)

If you had stuck to making your point, regardless of what that point is I would bet real money that your post would not have been blocked. In the past, topics have been introduced to this website that are more controversial than yours. So long as they were set out as reasonable cogent arguments about ideas without attacks against people they were not blocked. The founder of the website explicitly remarked on this point with reference to once particular topic, with a "I disagree with what you say but defend your right to say it" style of comment,

You may be justified in thinking that you were not the only poster who was breaking the forum rules, but I don't think you are justified in claiming that you have been censored because of the subject matter. Anyway, let's put that to the test in this topic.

or little two -sentence broadsides. By the later, I mean the volley of unsubstantiated and unjustifiable "pot shots" decrying the innate immorality, etc; of patriarchal government/society or announcing the "fact", for instance, that human progress in the West over the past century (and to date) is largely a direct consequence of our having granted of EQUAL political, economic and social rights to women.

You may disagree with the assertion that there is a correlation between progress in the West and equal voting rights, and that there is a causal relationship between the two. But at face value, until evidence has been produced, it is not any different from your assertions, in the OP of the other topic, that the opposite is the case. Your main point in the OP of the other topic was simply to state your opinion that western civilization is in decline and that this is caused by female suffrage. Since, in that OP, you presented no evidence to support that opinion, if you wish other people to provide substance/evidence for the opinions that they put forward, you should also be prepared to do the same for your own.

This is why but I decided to implement a concrete device ( i.e. the "PUT UP OR SHUT UP" notice) to prevent the debate - a debate about nothing less than what is, IMO, one of the primary factors currently driving the the decline of our entire Western civilization, being continually sabotaged by fools firing cheap "political" rounds from the peanut gallery.

So, if we can ALL put away our peanuts, ignore the peanuts of others and concentrate on any substance that we might be able to find in this discussion, perhaps we might just, with time, make some progress. Let's see.

I'll continue dealing with the rest of your comments later today.

[Burning ghost]

Sausage Dog -

I would also argue against the US as being the "jewel in the crown" of Western civilization, but I can certainly understand that as a fair point from one perspective and undeniable in certain categorical ways.

I think the US has suffered some historical problems that are quite different from Europe though. "Different" does not mean better or worse. The geographical isolation of the US is quite unique. European culture is a mish-mash of various ideologies that have been playing out for a long, long time. There is no overwhelming authority over Europe, yet there is a distinct "European" flavor handed down over centuries and refined and warped by various wars and political shifts.

I would say the crowning glory of Western civilization was in the exploratory period leading to the discovery of the Americas and the reaping/raping that ensued.

In the modern era the US is certainly the most powerful influence and reached it height due to the internal conflicts in Europe. In terms of economic domination and military might, yes, the US is be far the greatest there has been in the modern era. What is curious is by comparison the extent of the British Empire at its peak and the size of the native military.

If we're merely going to correlate one set of data with another we could just as easily say that the advent of women being able to vote has led to a more stable and equal world. Since women have been able to vote world poverty has plummeted and global stability has also increased with the ongoing spread of democracy. I don't think it is sensible to make such an assertion by cherry picking bits of data that only insinuate evidence for any serious argument.

I do believe that women may have had an impact. And if women believe women's votes have had an impact then they must also admit that there is a distinct sexual difference and that to enforce equality against the nature of sexual differences is going to do little more than cause incredible friction to the point where a fire will start. This is why I generally view people as pushing more extreme feminist agendas as being (often unwilling/unwitting) participants in an anarchical political movement - and I can sympathise with anarchism to some degree, but only see it as a means to be applied to a person's sense of self (as a way of doubting their own sense of authority over themselves, this is what I see as the hardest thing to face up to in life.)

[Steve3007]

Continung analysis of Dachshund's recent post:

I stated that it is a truth of the human condition that life is struggle, if this were not the case mankind would never have progressed the way it has over the past 6000 years of our history. By far, most of this struggle has been the hard-fought struggle against tyranny, i.e. against other human beings who seek to enslave us for their own enrichment or entertainment and by so doing deny us freedom.

Yes, it is a truth of the condition of life in general. Perhaps most famously, this has been noted with reference to the Theory of Evolution. But (as a side note) one mistake that has been made in the past is to treat that theory not as a description but as a prescription - telling us how we ought to behave. But that's a side-issue so I'll park it for now.

In the case of humans, I broadly agree that one of the major achievements in human development that has happened over the past few hundred years is the attempt, at least, to establish societies that are not based on absolute monarchy or other forms of tyranny or totalitarianism. A clearly notable example is the USA and the US Constitution. With all its flaws, putting Enlightenment values into practice with a new Nation explictly based on them, with a written Constitution to describe it, is a pretty fantastic achievement.

Dachshund, you've stated previously that modern Democracies are not worthy of the name and that the US more closely resembled an oligarchy. I think the extent to which that may or may not be true is a whole different debate. But I'm fairly sure you'd agree (from most of the other things you've said) that the American system of government, and modern Western Democracies in general, are not all bad. I agree that the modern concept of Democracy differs from the Athenian one, but I think it's still worth giving it that name, and, in its various modern forms and degrees, (e.g. Constitutional Monarchy in the UK and Republic in the US), it's still the least-bad way of generating legislation that anyone has so far come up with.

Human beings have made slow, but sure progress against the limitations placed upon their freedom by tyranny over the millenia, and in particular over the past 400 or so years, which was the period when freedom first began to prevail in Western civilization. The freedoms that we enjoy in Western societies today, like the freedom to say what we like ( well, most of the time, "AHEM"), the freedom to believe what we like...

I broadly agree. Freedom of speech and thought are central. Also, as we know, a central principle of the US Constitution is that it is godless, in the sense that it explicitly declares that there shall be no state religion. Obviously the historical reasons for this have their roots in different branches of Christianity, specifically. But it seems reasonable to generalise it to include all religions as well as the absence of religious belief. A bedrock principle of the US system of government is that there are no "thought crimes".

Perhaps we can have another branch-argument about how practicable this princple of freedom of speech and thought actually is and the extent to which it may or may not sometimes need to be set aside.

... and most important of all that freedom we have to be entitled to keep the proceeds of our time - that is, the entitlement we enjoy to retain the overwhelming majority of the fruits of our labour and thereby take our stand in the world as the self-governing masters of our own lives - the self-determining captains of our own destiny! I am talking about MONEY - the entitlement we fought for to keep for ourselves the vast majority of the money we earn through our labour...

Here, it seems reasonable to assume, you're talking about the role of taxation. I don't see this as central in the same way that freedom of speech is central. I think the debate about what things should be centrally funded via taxation and what things should be left to the free market is a different debate.

Going back to the example of the US Constitution: I think founding principles that are held to be self-evident and immutable don't include such things as whether education or healthcare should be funded by taxation or entirely left to the market. I think that's a higher level political decision with scope for disagreement between people who still both agree to the founding principles. If someone were to state, for example, that Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional I would disagree.

...For while some moralist decry it as "the root of all evils" and Marxists condemn it as the instrument of capitalist oppression, it is MONEY that that is the means we use to support ourselves and keep ourselves alive as free, self-determining and self-governing agents in Western societies today.

It is my view that money is morally neutral. It is simply a useful tool for doing a job. That job is the efficient exchange of the products of human labour. That is true regardless of one's views on such issues as the right level of taxation and the number of goods and services that should be publicly funded.

As with any other tool, the morality comes in when considering how it is used by people.

This freedom to keep the vast proportion of the MONEY that we earn for ourselves and our families is the greatest gift that mankind has ever bestowed upon itself and it represents the pinnacle of our achievement over 6000 years of struggle to progress.

I think the interpretation of the term "vast proportion" is where the debate lies.

It is important to bear in mind that this freedom was, not, as I say, handed politely to Western civilization on a silver platter. It was hard fought and won, step- by -step with the blood, sweat, toil, tears, sacrifice, suffering and misery of MEN. Not women, but MEN. It is men, not women, who stood firm before fear to fight and die in their countless millions on the battlefields of history; in short, to defy tyranny in the name of freedom.

This is factually incorrect for the same reason that it would be factually incorrect to state that the only useful part of a car is the tyres, or the only useful part of a human body is the hands.

Ever since human societies first evolved, a large part of their strength is the concept of specialisation. Different people, both male and female, perform different tasks. As you've already pointed out, the fantastic invention of the increasingly abstract concept of money has facilitated this. As I pointed out in a post to Burning Ghost, earlier, to say that men were the only category of people who had anything to do with the development of western civilisation would be like say that I, as a software engineer with no military or policing experience, perform no function. Given that I spend so much of my time doing things like this, I may not perform a useful function, but not as a result of the group of which I am a member.

Western civilisation was built by the interactions, cooperations and negotiations of all its members. Not just by the ones who, because of the nature of their particular role, are more visible to posterity.

The other error is to assume that if a particular section of society has not been represented in the history books so far, this must be because that section of society is not capable of making any positive contribution and therefore should not be represented in the future. Following this flawed logic, it is not just women who should be excluded from representation. It is any group who, for any reason, are not deemed to have contributed so far. So, using your reasoning, we should return to a system whereby the right of men to vote depends on their level of wealth. The alternative to this view is to see all of these hitherto unrepresented groups as untapped potential.

I'll leave it there again for now and continue later.

[Maldon007]

I would vote for the Starship Troopers criteria for citizenship, before the Must Be a Land Holder one

[Hereandnow]

Burning Ghost:
The interesting point about Iceland is that they have been pushing for some idealized view of sexual equality for a long time. I think they've reached it. The continued push is most likely due to outside influences.

The thing is what tends to happen in biology plays a part.

The good from feminism has led to the establishment of more support organisations. The bad part of feminist is that it has led to more support groups and organisations. It is a double edged sword, and I don't think the movement was bad, nor do I think it was wholly good for society at large as it gave rise to a victim mentality. In todays world, especially in the west, there is so little prejudice compared to before.

Iceland: remember, that youtube was made by men. Very like no women had anything to do with it.Go online and you will find a multitude of rationalizations to support left and right on the issue. Best to get facts from objective sources. Here the evidence is very clear: across teh board women are by a very wide margin underrepresented in the best jobs, a margin of 30 to 60 percent! (How women CEO's are there? Doctors? Lawyers? This is just tip of the iceberg). I don't care much about the reasons why spelled out in practical terms produced by things like biological differences. Not do I care about how the wages discrepancy can be explained away. These are incidental to me and mostly they are fueled by chauvinist men (that is, men who men should be privileged).

I am interested in women coming literally to power. I want this. It's not so much the biology as it is the mentality, and whether this latter is grounded in the former, and I suspect it is, but once men become more like women in their thoughts, feeling and behavior, this will not matter much. It is for the most part men who will have to adjust to fit in a calmer, compassionate, empathetic society and world. You could object reviewing in your mind how many of the men you know are decent and thoughtful, and this is true; but it is true because despite conservative testosterone, we are making progress, dragging conservatives kicking and screaming into a more sane future. It is true because so many of us have changed already. But so many have not. How do you think that degenerate ever got into the presidency of the US? Thoughtless,careless, foolish and ignorant, xenophobic, parochial all come to mind; but above all these what looms large is aggression. So many more than I ever imagined are still possessed by the mind of a beast. They walk in the hallways of the US Congress. They're called conservatives and they fight tooth and nail against moral thinking.

Women: it's their turn, their century.

I'm not one, by the way.

[Steve3007]

Hereandnow:

I suspect the general thrust of the argument against your position would be this:

If you want to remove aggressive warlike males from power then you're going to have to do it all over the world simultaneously and try to find some way of ensuring that they never return to power. Because quite often the best antidote to an aggressive male is another aggressive male. Cue references to World War 2.

Any thoughts?