[quote]orion wrote:
I actually sit on the fence on this issue, but this here thread is the one to make the argument in:
Repeal the 19th amendment:
The orthodox wisdom of our day and age is the the right to vote was a big step toward a more egalitarian society and that empowering women ultimately benefits us all.
But was it?
It was hailed as a big discovery when science was able to strongly support the idea that women are more emotionally intelligent than men, which they indeed are. The are better able to put themselves into another persons shoes, they read body language better, they read faces better, the get more out of the inflections of a voice so women are indeed far superior in that area to men.
IN SMALL GROUPS.
However, in large semi anonymous or entirely anonymous settings those instincts fail them, they are largely useless, like night vision in daylight and yet they seem to rely on them anyway.
Men on the other hand when encountering such an anonymous group instinctively arrange themselves into hierarchies and they cooperate not by consensus, but by competing, mostly, peacefully.
It is interesting to note that child birth, an area that was a predominantly female domain, was infinitely improved when men took it over. Death of the mother or the child during giving birth was all but abolished when it had been quite common and there is little pain involved unless the mother asks for it.
This is an example of one area where male instincts and a distinctly male way of doing things were, and are, superior to that of women.
Arguably the whole idea of a public space where you can walk around safely, even as a child or a woman is an entirely male construct, with its abstract rules, its infrastructure and its hierarchical order.
It was Hajek who pointed out that socialism as well as democratic socialism aka liberalism was an attempt to use instincts that work well in a family or a small group to model whole societies for which they are not really well suited.
What he failed to point out was that those are predominantly female instincts, hence the tendency in most cultures for the women to govern the home and the men to work in the public space. That was neither oppression nor condescension, this was the implicit acknowledgment that women as well as men have their strengths and weaknesses and the attempt to assign roles where those abilities were used best.
If we accept these premises, it is no coincidence that the nanny state begun when women were granted the right to vote and that it gained momentum when women started to rebel against their traditional roles.
It is precisely that nanny states that ruins us now financially and lets busy bodies and do gooders lord over us, using our own money to tell us at gunpoint what to do.
While some changes were in order, mostly due to the fact that most jobs no longer are basically back breaking labor, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction.
When it comes to procreation and the family, aka the world people actually live in, we live in a matriarchy, created by women and men who pander to female voters.
If she wants the marriage to end, she automatically gets the kids, part of his salary to support them and half his stuff on top of it and, while she most likely is not better off financially, she can now spend all the money however she likes.
On the other hand, a man who wants a divorce risks utter financial, emotional and social ruin.
Is it any wonder that 70% of all divorces are filed by women?
Is it any wonder that a significant number of men do not wish to marry and to have this sword hanging over their heads?
If you look at the “grasseater” movement in Japan a sizeable junk of young Japanese men are simply going John Galt on their traditional male role. A large portion of 16 to 19 year olds are not even interested in sex!
Why would they be, its a trap.
Unfortunately, no society can survive when enough men simply go on a reproductive strike and Japan is leading when it comes to the overaging of societies.
Even in France and Sweden, Sweden having adopted feminism as a state religion, the numbers are not as they appear at first.
Yes, they are at, or close to, numbers that can sustain their population.
However 25% of all “Swedish” children are only “Swedish” in the sense that they were born their, meaning, Sweden has to import people who either are not indoctrinated by the Swedish value system or come from societies where it never occurred to them that they would shoot themselves into the foot if they ever signed the civil contract called marriage.
It will not take long, before Sweden will only stay Sweden in name only.
Yes, the fjords will still be there but the Swedes will be a minority in their own country, with all the largely unwanted consequences that will follow and are in part already here.
To summarize, feminism is a self defeating ideology, both financially and demographically and it has the very real potential to bring our cultures down with it when it croaks.
Arguably feminism is not even good for women, because the societies that will follow will hardly be free republics.
Finally, a quote attributed to Aristotle:
“Masculine republics degrade into feminine democracies, and from there slide into despotism.”
You all know where we are now, you all know what must follow.
Repeal the 19th ammendment.
[/quote]
That’s racist.