Female Suffrage

[Loki]

Here's something different -- to get our minds off economics, Albanians, loan sharks, the IRA and Latvian prostitution, let's take a look at this topic. :)

It is mainly inspired by a lively thread on Skadi (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=105917), which caused quite an uproar at the time. :D

EDIT: Here is another relevant thread (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=100846) by Æmeric.

We at Apricity are not afraid of debate, so ... your views please! :coffee:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Rose-Sanderson-Votes-for-Women.jpeg/799px-Rose-Sanderson-Votes-for-Women.jpeg

U.S. women suffragists demonstrating for the right to vote, February 1913

[Karaten]

I would prefer not to have elections, but if you do have them, yes, women should be able to.

[Sigurd]

It is mainly inspired by a lively thread on Skadi (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=105917), which caused quite an uproar at the time. :D

Yet the funny thing is, the local "Germanic Saami", Asthor/Thore Hund posted that to get back at Blutwölfin for throwing him out of Nordfolk Staff for erratic behaviour within three days of NoFo opening, so he posted that topic on Skadi and BuB. :wink

[Æmeric]

Here's something different -- to get our minds off economics, Albanians, loan sharks, the IRA and Latvian prostitution, let's take a look at this topic. :)
You're the one who started the discussions on Albanians. And kept posting articles on loansharks in a vain attempt to garner sympathy for the idiots who avail themselves of those kinds of financial services.:rolleyes: I missed the stuff on Latvia prostitution, sounds like an adult male member was picking on the teenage Inese again.:coffee:

It is mainly inspired by a lively thread on Skadi (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=105917), which caused quite an uproar at the time. :D I've already given my opinion. Actually, I think this thread (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=100846&highlight=women+%26amp%3B+politics) is better, can't believe I forgot to create a poll to go with it.

I'm opposed to universal suffrage, which is the philosophical basis for granting women the vote. And so I am opposed to female suffrage but I am also opposed to automatical suffrage for all White (Nordish, Celto-Germanic etc..) males.

I do believe women should have the right to bear arms. And the right to drive. They are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia.


We at Apricity are not afraid of debate, so ... your views please! :coffee: And yet I notice threads being locked or disappearing. Or maybe reappearing.:wink

[Sigurd]

Actually, I've read through the thread now - and yes, I'm not sure now whether he actually opening it at Skadi, too. I assume so, but this is definitely the BuB version, with Zyklop's classic post. I know that because Sifsvina and brian were not active on Skadi, but very active on BuB at the time. :p

[Rainraven]

Now what we need is someone to come out of the woodwork saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote so we can blast them with our PC gun ;)

If women are going to be out in the work force, providing for their family, owning property, paying taxes etc. etc. then yes, they should be allowed to vote :)

[Loki]

You're the one who started the discussions on Albanians.


Yes, and? :) Nothing wrong with that, we just need something different. It was getting boring.



And kept posting articles on loansharks in a vain attempt to garner sympathy for the idiots who avail themselves of those kinds of financial services.:rolleyes:


I actually posted it out of genuine interest. But nevermind.



I missed the stuff on Latvia prostitution, sounds like an adult male member was picking on the teenage Inese again.:coffee:


You didn't miss much.

Thanks for that link, I've added it to the OP.

[Sigurd]

If women are going to be out in the work force, providing for their family, owning property, paying taxes etc. etc. then yes, they should be allowed to vote :)

And since women shouldn't be out in the work force, but kindly rearing their children, and cook for the family behind the hearth, wait for their lovely husbands to return from being the bread-winner to clean his shoes the moment he enters the door with a devout smile only a faithful wife is capable of --- women shouldn't vote either. :wink

Actually to make sure that they do not follow the example of an ancient Greek woman who coached her son to be an Olympic champion, in defiance of the maxime that women shouldn't leave the house - we should chain them to a heavy weight, with a chain just long enough to get from the kitchen to the bedroom, where she should hold herself ready to please her stressed husband at all times. :D;):p

NOTE: A grain of salt is useful for the reading of this post. ;)

[Rainraven]

And since women shouldn't be out in the work force, but kindly rearing their children, and cook for the family behind the hearth, wait for their lovely husbands to return from being the bread-winner to clean his shoes the moment he enters the door with a devout smile only a faithful wife is capable of --- women shouldn't vote either. :wink

Actually to make sure that they do not follow the example of an ancient Greek woman who coached her son to be an Olympic champion, in defiance of the maxime that women shouldn't leave the house - we should chain them to a heavy weight, with a chain just long enough to get from the kitchen to the bedroom, where she should hold herself ready to please her stressed husband at all times. :D;):p

NOTE: A grain of salt is useful for the reading of this post. ;)

What is this bedroom you speak of? A women should be willing to present herself for her husbands pleasure whenever he desires it ;) :D

If I had a husband who could provide for me and a family of at least four children then I would happily give up the right to vote :)

[Lady L]

Thanks for the links there - I got to see an old name and friend - Mrs. Lyfing :D

Of course I'm going to say women should be allowed to vote. Some against it always want to say this or that - a women's place is bla bla bla but really IMO a women's place is where ever the hell she wants it to be. Unfortunately the old days are long gone, many families can not survive off one income. Therefore women are forced to work too. Nothing wrong with that. But, wait its kinda off topic but really goes hand in hand.

I'd really like to understand the thinking of a man who feels women should not vote...why...? If women can't vote does that mean any stupid Joe can't either ..? Are there going to be regulations on what males can vote...? Or are they all welcome just for simply being male...? Will women not voting change so much for America ...? For the better...?

:rolleyes2:

But back to the off topic thing- its frustrating when men expect women just to sit home and Only do the family thing, its almost impossible. Women have changed along with men- I mean its hard to even find men who respect women these days. With all the talk of " slamming " us - or " getting a piece " there is total disrespect for women by many many men. With that being said we are expected to devote our lives to you - give all our rights away- stay home and stay barefoot ....? ( Luckily I have a wonderful husband )

[Ulf]

They don't have voting booths in the kitchen or bedroom, so no.

[WinterMoon]

I voted not sure, but not because I am unsure. A straight yes or no just doesn't fit my views. My response would honestly be that it doesn't matter to me. I do realize what women have gone through in gaining their right to vote, and that even the negroes were allowed to vote before we were. Honestly, though, I have no problems as a female in putting the power of voting into the hands of men. I have faith and trust in the decisons they make, and I would hope that most men would vote for the good of the whole. It is not that I think women shouldn't be voting, by all means let them. It is just not an area where I feel a necessary push for women to gain power. I am rather quite neutral on the whole issue.

[Rainraven]

They don't have voting booths in the kitchen or bedroom, so no.

How about if it's on our way to the supermarket or dropping the kids off at school? ;)

[Vulpix]

If males do, yes.

[Aemma]

Hmm I'd rather be able to think for myself (which I am more than fully capable of doing btw) and have some say as to how my life will be affected, thanks very much. Gender shouldn't even be an issue with respect to voting in a democracy and I really fail to see how it does in all honesty. Would somebody care (or maybe the more correct term would be "dare" :p) to educate me in the finer points of male superiority in the polling booth???
That a person with voting privileges/rights/insert word of choice please does a better job in the democratic process if this person has a penis is quite frankly an antiquated but moreso ludicrous notion. :rolleyes:

[Ulf]

Would somebody care (or maybe the more correct term would be "dare" :p) to educate me in the finer points of male superiority in the polling booth???


We can push the vote button with our penises! YEAH!!!

[Phlegethon]

NOTE: A grain of salt is useful for the reading of this post. ;)


Really? Why?

[Phlegethon]

If I had a husband who could provide for me and a family of at least four children then I would happily give up the right to vote :)

Nah, it works the other way around. If you all gave up the right to to vote we might actually have a situation where a male would be able to support a family with one income.

[Lahtari]

Now what we need is someone to come out of the woodwork saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote so we can blast them with our PC gun ;)

Seems like I don't have to be the chauvinist pig since the Phleggy-piggy just arrived, but anyway.. ;)

In a representative democracy, a group who cannot be represented will be put into a disadvantageous position. So in one point of view, every group of people should be represented.

But, what makes me question the benefits of female voting rights is the female survival instinct. Traditionally, defending the human group has been of the sole responsibility of males. A female in a group that gets conquered has to simply adapt to the invaders and live with it. This is exactly what is happening in Europe: the female survival instinct is kicking in, because it seems the European man doesn't want to defend the group any longer. Though in reality, it is not only the man that makes the decisions about handling outside pressures any more.

Then there is the eternal need of safety and unwillingness to take risks. The nanny-state is largely a project of female bureaucrats, and it is being largely built on female vote. It has the effect of further reducing European males into pussies, afraid of any risks and unwilling to take a stand. Not to speak of it's effects of people's capability of taking even personal responsibility, when responsibility of everything has been officially moved to be the burden of the state.

I'm not blaming all women about this phenomenon, I know that there's a lot of thinking and more far-sighted women out there. As well as urban, liberal, watered-down excuses of men with "soft values". But it's just about averages: if the great majority of women pity the poor, starving jungle-bunny out there and want to take him to our country to be pampered, and only a minority of men feel that way, one must admit that it does make a difference. One could ask, would Europe - and it's women - be that worse off without women's suffrage? I mean, is having voting rights for a century really worth it if what awaits after that is a burkha and a discipline room?

[Phlegethon]

Females voted Hitler into office. ;)

[Lahtari]

Females voted Hitler into office. ;)

And after the next collapse they will probably be voting for sheikh Abdul Mohammed Al-Qaida from the Taliban party. Especially if he'll have such a cool moustache. ;) :cool:

[Aemma]

Nah, it works the other way around. If you all gave up the right to to vote we might actually have a situation where a male would be able to support a family with one income.


Oh that's bullcrap and you know it Phleg. :rolleyes: If such were a damn concern in the male world why haven't the Big Boys of Industry put their foot down and acknowledged how pathetic modern Western life is what with the veritable NEED of two incomes these days and shoving one's kids in a bloody daycare? Why isn't anything done? I'll tell you why: cheap labour. Women STILL don't get remunerated fairly in most cases. And this suits the captains of industry just fine, men I'll have you know.

No no Mister, you're not blaming this one on women alone. Yes I'll acknowledge that we women need to shoulder part of the blame. But if men are that high-minded and so caring about family life and family values I'm sure what with all the clout that men do have, they'd have done something about it by now. But you've not, which is even more distressing! Wasn't it you who said that silence is complicity?

Let me ask you: why aren't men taking to the streets and demanding for better wages so they can support a family and have their mate stay at home to raise their young? Why aren't men being more hard-nosed and taking charge more in the politics affecting family life and more traditional family values? Why is this always seen as the purview of women's political issues and not men's? It has as much of an impact on the life of a man as it does on a woman's or child's.

[Brännvin]

Females voted Hitler into office. ;)

What? First, Hitler was never elected. :P

He ran in two national elections in 1932. In the first, he got 30 percent of the vote, and no one got a majority. In the resulting runoff election, he increased his votes to 37 percent, while his opponent, World War I hero Field Marshall Hindenburg, got a majority. And since the Nazi party won 230 seats out of 608 in the Reichstag, it did not have the majority to make Hitler Chancellor.

So how did this happen? By backroom backstabbing, double-crossing, threats, and promises, including among former Chancellor Franz von Papen, present Chancellor Lieutenant General Kurt von Schleicher, and the elected President Hindenburg. Their maneuvering, a rumor of a threatened military coup, and the urging von Papen, who had entered into a secret alliance with Hitler to get supporters into Cabinet positions, finally persuaded Hindenburg to reluctantly appoint that “little corporeal” Hitler chancellor. Many involved in this intrigue, including von Papen, thought that this would bring Hitler under their control.

Fault of women? ;)

[Æmeric]

Gender shouldn't even be an issue with respect to voting in a democracy


"In a democracy". Is a democracy really the best system of governance? I don't believe in democracy. I think the best system would be a system operating under rule of law - a republic or constitutional monarchy. Where not everyone has a say in the legislative process & those that do would not have an equal say. Liberal Democracy, with the universal franchise, is a relatively recent developement in the course of human civilization & those nations with the most advance democracies - Western Europe, the US & the White dominions of the British Commonwealth - are the ones where society is deteriorating most rapidly. In a democracy the various voting blocks are promised privileges &/or entitlements to (re)elect the politicians who will deliver those special privileges. You may have noticed that White heterosexual males are the only group that no party (anywhere) feels obligated to offer special entitlements to. Women on the other hand are one of the biggest groups that politicians will pander to.

Voting should be approached as a responsibility to help ensure the best governance for society. Instead most voters will vote for the person who wants to do something special for their group - be it women, racial minorities or gays & lesbians. Without regards for the longterm negative consequences.

[Frigga]

I feel that in order to vote, whether male or female, you should take a compentence test that proves without a doubt that you have the common sense needed to be a good voter, regardless of your education, sex, race, or religious creed. Also, a desirous love for your country is a big plus as well.

[Aemma]

"In a democracy". Is a democracy really the best system of governance? I don't believe in democracy. I think the best system would be a system operating under rule of law - a republic or constitutional monarchy. Where not everyone has a say in the legislative process & those that do would not have an equal say. Liberal Democracy, with the universal franchise, is a relatively recent developement in the course of human civilization & those nations with the most advance democracies - Western Europe, the US & the White dominions of the British Commonwealth - are the ones where society is deteriorating most rapidly. In a democracy the various voting blocks are promised privileges &/or entitlements to (re)elect the politicians who will deliver those special privileges. You may have noticed that White heterosexual males are the only group that no party (anywhere) feels obligated to offer special entitlements to. Women on the other hand are one of the biggest groups that politicians will pander to.

Voting should be approached as a responsibility to help ensure the best governance for society. Instead most voters will vote for the person who wants to do something special for their group - be it women, racial minorities or gays & lesbians. Without regards for the longterm negative consequences.

I don't necessarily disagree with some, if not most, of what you said here Æmeric, believe it or not. And this is the reason why I deliberately and specifically put in the phrase "in a democracy" in my sentence. The usual notion of democracy is pretty much one person, one vote. Inasmuch as women are persons as well, of course women should have the vote.

But I do agree that voting should be approached as a responsibility, most absolutely. And you're absolutely right that special interest groups exert a certain pressure on the democratic process but in reality no different a one than that exerted by lobby groups representing anything from the pharmaceutical industry to fast-food to the automotive industry to the financial industry. Everybody wants a piece of the pie Æmeric and to just point the finger at the usual "leftist" suspects ie., women, gays, lesbians, and minorities, doesn't even begin to paint the fuller picture of the sham that democracy really is. Lobby groups do more to undermine the democratic process than anything else but we shouldn't forget that lobby groups don't only refer to the pressure groups founded by the once-disenfranchised in the political process but also (or rather more so I would contend) to the pressure groups founded by the capitalist machinery. To point a finger at one and not the other is not revealing the larger truer picture imo.

As for white men getting the raw end of the deal, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I wouldn't have prior to having had a male child, I confess. Having had a boy made me see the world in an entirely different light. But I see the world for what it is right now, with greater awareness of what is NOT right with it for ALL of our people, not just women but men too. This is why I'm on such a forum afterall. I don't believe in such things as Equal Opportunity schemes either.

Believe it or not Æmeric, on some issues we're not as far apart as you would think. :)

And as for the question: "Is democracy the best form of governance?" To be quite honest with you, most days I'm not so sure that I would answer yes to that. BUT, it doesn't mean that to answer no to this qustion means that I myself don't have the capability of making my own decisions as to what is right for me, my family and my community. I just don't believe that it is only men that can think on these more global scales. Women can as well. :)

Cheers Æmeric!

[Cato]

What an odd question; women in pre-Christian Germanic society had many rights. I don't know if they could attend the Thing in the same capacity as the menfolk, but the women were highly-respected then and there. even being viewed as living goddesses in some cases. For women to have no capacity to vote is, to me, utterly alien. Are we Arabs to shut our women away? I think not.

[anonymaus]

In our current system? Yes, I think the circumstances require universal suffrage. I do, however, have some sympathy for the meritocratic model of suffrage, which I allow for solely because it considers suffrage as a matter between the individual and the state: were the criteria based on collectives--e.g. women, homosexuals--it would be immoral.

I believe this could be made possible in a republic which is also a properly free society.

[Cato]

One assumes that the voting body is made up of qualified voters. In the present order, I don't think that most of the voters are qualified to vote.

In this way, I'd be against female voters. But, I'd also be against male voters as well, so I'm not really being a hypocrite. :P

[Teggle]

Whether women should vote or not is dubious. Certainly having absolutely everyone vote cheapens the importance of what the electorate says-as not everyone is informed or equal in intelligence. On the other hand I think recent success of “far-right” parties is the result of working-class whites voting-if the elite bureaucrats had their way things would be far worse.

Beyond voting, women as a whole contribute little to our political culture. Almost all of the books on economics, science, or philosophy are written by men. Most of the top pundits are men. So in a way, smart men still control what is being said and then relay their thoughts to the masses of ignorant women and men for approval.

[Rainraven]

Whether women should vote or not is dubious. Certainly having absolutely everyone vote cheapens the importance of what the electorate says-as not everyone is informed or equal in intelligence. On the other hand I think recent success of “far-right” parties is the result of working-class whites voting-if the elite bureaucrats had their way things would be far worse.

Beyond voting, women as a whole contribute little to our political culture. Almost all of the books on economics, science, or philosophy are written by men. Most of the top pundits are men. So in a way, smart men still control what is being said and then relay their thoughts to the masses of ignorant women and men for approval.

Try living in New Zealand, we've had a female Prime Minister for 11 of the past 15 years :thumb001:

[Lulletje Rozewater]

No suffrage


Bhutan (http://knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Bhutan/) -- One vote per familiy in village-level elections
Kuwait (http://knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Kuwait/) -- No female suffrage.
Lebanon (http://knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Lebanon/) -- Proof of education required for women, not required for men. Voting compulsory (http://knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Compulsory_voting/) for men, optional for women.
Vatican City (http://knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Vatican_City/) -- Voting restricted to all-male College of Cardinals (http://knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/College_of_Cardinals/).
Oman (http://knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Oman/) -- limited to 175,000 people chosen by the government, mostly male

Female suffrage
"Sooner or later we all discover that the important moments in life are not the advertised ones, not the birthdays, the graduations, the weddings, not the great goals achieved. The real milestones are less prepossessing. They come to the door of memory unannounced, stray wenches that amble in, sniff around a bit and simply never leave. Our lives are measured by these."

[Äike]

They don't have voting booths in the kitchen or bedroom, so no.

They do in Estonia (http://www.valitsus.ee/?id=5450);)

[Phlegethon]

What? First, Hitler was never elected. :P

By this logic nobody ever got elected, as the chancellor is elected by the parliament, not by the voter. Angela Merkel did not get a majority either.

But the fact remains that a higher percentage of females than males voted for Hitler.

[Phlegethon]

And after the next collapse they will probably be voting for sheikh Abdul Mohammed Al-Qaida from the Taliban party. Especially if he'll have such a cool moustache. ;) :cool:

Yeah, because he looked like Omar Sharif in "Dr. Shiwago". ;)

[Ariets]

no women, nor men should be allowed to vote, fuck democracy

[Brännvin]

I always imagined that the bulk of Hitler's votes had come from urban middle-class men, women would have been divided between a traditional conservative politician as Hindenburg and the social democrats.

_______________


I not commented yesterday about it (but after reading all Skadi.net's comments on :D :D) I am totally to favor of universal suffrage for both sexes, we're already in the XXI century where this is unquestionably.

[Loki]

no women, nor men should be allowed to vote, fuck democracy

Who makes the decisions then? :) Bureaucrats?

[Ariets]

Who makes the decisions then? :) Bureaucrats?
Monarchy or anyone for himself (anarchy)

[Phlegethon]

Who'd be monarch in Poland then? Another Saxon? Or someone new?

[ikki]

Who makes the decisions then? :) Bureaucrats?

They do so already, entirely unchecked.


What would be needed is a whole new citizenship cathegory. This is one with the right to vote, carry arms and licence to kill. Those would enter government buildings and kill any they percieve as breaking the code.
Without any punishment, save internal review.
Or better perhaps call them the vaguard of moral or some such..

Governance would be handled by bureocrats, and tempered by a code of laws. One that should be writable on some 3 pages tops. A further check on the bureocrats would be this vanguard. Who while could do away wth any bureorat, would still have to work with the system, thus forcing a counterpoint.

One could never be a member of both, and infact ownership of property (or family etc.. in many ways like monks) would be banned from the vanguard who would have something of a unlimited credit. Once more subject to internal review and codes far harsher than those affecting the general population.
Drunkedness leading to execution etc.

[Loki]

What would be needed is a whole new citizenship cathegory. This is one with the right to vote, carry arms and licence to kill.


:eek:



Drunkedness leading to execution etc.

:eek:

I don't want to live under such a tyrannical government, thanks. :coffee:

[Vulpix]

Drunkedness leading to execution etc.

Are you kidding :eek:!....

[Tony]

If males do, yes.
A rather weak argument in my view , men also die in wars , work their ass in the sewers , are killed in car accidents , by abusing drugs , when divorce lose their sons/daughters to wives in most cases , die before women , have less family ties , have less support by associations and welfare , tend to die much more in extreme sports too , etc etc
do you really want all this for you too?


Nah, it works the other way around. If you all gave up the right to to vote we might actually have a situation where a male would be able to support a family with one income.
I'm neutral on it , if we really would want to take them back in the house and make more children we should forbid them from having a job outside home , it's been the financial autonomy who freed the women from the men's authority , not the vote imho.

[Vulpix]

men also die in wars ,

women soldiers can die too


work their ass in the sewers ,

heh?


are killed in car accidents ,

again women aren't immune


by abusing drugs ,

their own fault


when divorce lose their sons/daughters to wives in most cases ,

someone's got to care for them


die before women ,

they don't take care enough care


have less family ties ,

huh?


have less support by associations and welfare ,

evidence?


tend to die much more in extreme sports too ,

their fault

etc etc

[Útrám]

Edit: lame joke removed.

IMO voting rights should only conform to some standard of intellect.

[Brännvin]

women soldiers can die too


Geez :eek: this has no comparation, but women die in wars but otherwise, as victims.

Have you been in army, Fjällräv?

[Vulpix]

Geez :eek: this has no comparation, but women die in wars but otherwise, as victims.

Have you been in army, Fjällräv?

Not my thing no :p

[Æmeric]

Interesting that in the drive for equality, women have tended to be overlooked in the draft. When the US Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, it included gender equality, yet women were not subject to the draft as men were. Even now, American males must register with Selective Service within 30-days of their 18th birthday, but not females. Penalties for not doing so include ineligibilty for Federally backed students loans, US Civil Service jobs (though the White males are at the bottom of the list anyway). I know there are nations that still have the draft but exclude females. I think Germany & Sweden are 2 of them. It seems some women want the advantages of gender equality (the vote) but none of the disadvantages such as the draft. :wink

Maybe the vote should be restricted to those who have done military service & have been honorably discharged.

Israel is the only nation I can think of that drafts women. But I think it is for a shorter term then the men.

[Phlegethon]

women soldiers can die too

Yeah, from boredom, filing papers. ;)

[Phlegethon]

IMO voting rights should only conform to some standard of intellect.


That would leave out lots of men and almost every single female. ;)

[Vulpix]

Maybe the vote should be restricted to those who have done military service & have been honorably discharged.

So if you have the bad luck to have say bad eyesight or a bad back you're out?

[Brännvin]

I know there are nations that still have the draft but exclude females. I think Germany & Sweden are 2 of them.

How so?

[Tony]

heh?
isn't it an idiomatic say meaning working very hard?:mmmm:


their own fault

theirs?
it must become yours too , "if males do yes" also you have to do ;) according to your reasoning.


someone's got to care for them

Sometimes he would like to take care of them but the judge doesn't wanna hear and give them to the mom regardless what the dad want....


huh?

family ties , they remain in touch with siblings and parents much more than men.


evidence?

I've only in Italian , think it works the same abroad too.


etc etc
etc etc , I'm trying to say that the "everything males do we must can do it too" is not a good argument.


Geez :eek: this has no comparation, but women die in wars but otherwise, as victims.
As civil victims , but by joining the army they would die purposely , it's a nonsense to me.

[Æmeric]

How so?

In that women are not subject to the draft & men are.

[Phlegethon]

How so?

In Germany there is a draft for males (due to lack of funding pretty weak enforcement, though) while it is an optional job career for females. And just because of that there is no such thing as equality. And females are still exempt from combat misssion, so when it comes to getting killed it is still a males-only thingie.

[Brännvin]

In that women are not subject to the draft & men are.

Sweden's military is built on conscription, women may also be part but not compulsory as men.

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/00Uq4tDcNc8if/610x.jpg

[Æmeric]

Sweden's military is built on conscription, women may also be part but not compulsory as men.

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/00Uq4tDcNc8if/610x.jpg

That's the point, gender equality is ignore when there is a disadvantage to the male.

[Tony]

Sweden's military is built on conscription, women may also be part but not compulsory as men.

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/00Uq4tDcNc8if/610x.jpg
Let me complain a bit , what a waste of white female beauty , risking their life in the army when even their country isn't under menace , is it really that necessary???:crazy:
down with femistupidinism.

[Vulpix]

You misinterpreted my statement.

What was meant by it was, if males do (have the right to vote), then should females.


isn't it an idiomatic say meaning working very hard?:mmmm:

theirs?
it must become yours too , "if males do yes" also you have to do ;) according to your reasoning.

[Loki]

Let me complain a bit , what a waste of white female beauty , risking their life in the army when even their country isn't under menace , is it really that necessary???:crazy:
down with femistupidinism.

You're absolutely right, it's a disgrace.

[Phlegethon]

If men don't get to pick the raisins out of the cake women should not either.

[Tony]

You misinterpreted my statement.
Ok


What was meant by it was, if males do (have the right to vote), then should females.

And I agree , I'm neutral on this , I don't think it would change that much if only males were allowed to vote (or only famales :p) , but generally speaking I don't believe in the "if a male can do that then a female can do that too" rule (and viceversa) I wanted to stress that , it's a false way of thinking propagandised by the extreme feminists.

[Allenson]

I don't have a problem with women voting--I like the precedent mentioned by Pallamedes, that being that in ancient Germanic (and likely other IE) societies, woman bore a substantial burden in tribal decision making.

I would however like to see voting eligibilty restricted more than it currently is here in America. I would hazard that only those people who have at least a high school diploma (and perhaps even a Bachelor's degree) and who have at the least, a part-time job and proof of paying federal income tax. Just some rough thoughts.....

[ikki]

Are you kidding :eek:!....

amongst the guardians. just like they wouldnt be allowed to own any property. Or be allowed any privacy at all.


The regular drones, without power or much influence... save watching the guardians and reporting on them... in turn couldt enjoy life otherwise quite freely :p

[ikki]

They do in Estonia (http://www.valitsus.ee/?id=5450);)

any kind of unique code given to each voter... and the ability to later check what that code voted?
because otherwise such electronic systems are all too open to fraud. Especially when the coding is some companys business secret...

[Aemma]

They do so already, entirely unchecked.


What would be needed is a whole new citizenship cathegory. This is one with the right to vote, carry arms and licence to kill. Those would enter government buildings and kill any they percieve as breaking the code.
Without any punishment, save internal review.
Or better perhaps call them the vaguard of moral or some such..

Governance would be handled by bureocrats, and tempered by a code of laws. One that should be writable on some 3 pages tops. A further check on the bureocrats would be this vanguard. Who while could do away wth any bureorat, would still have to work with the system, thus forcing a counterpoint.

One could never be a member of both, and infact ownership of property (or family etc.. in many ways like monks) would be banned from the vanguard who would have something of a unlimited credit. Once more subject to internal review and codes far harsher than those affecting the general population.
Drunkedness leading to execution etc.

This sounds no better to me than what has happened in some Central American countries for gods' sake. :(

[Aemma]

I'm neutral on it , if we really would want to take them back in the house and make more children we should forbid them from having a job outside home , it's been the financial autonomy who freed the women from the men's authority , not the vote imho.

Oh good grief...you realise that we're living in the 21st century eh Tony? :D Men's authority?!! Oh my, and who or what bestowed upon you this supposed "authority" I would like to ask?

[Aemma]

Interesting that in the drive for equality, women have tended to be overlooked in the draft. When the US Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, it included gender equality, yet women were not subject to the draft as men were. Even now, American males must register with Selective Service within 30-days of their 18th birthday, but not females. Penalties for not doing so include ineligibilty for Federally backed students loans, US Civil Service jobs (though the White males are at the bottom of the list anyway). I know there are nations that still have the draft but exclude females. I think Germany & Sweden are 2 of them. It seems some women want the advantages of gender equality (the vote) but none of the disadvantages such as the draft. :wink

Maybe the vote should be restricted to those who have done military service & have been honorably discharged.

Israel is the only nation I can think of that drafts women. But I think it is for a shorter term then the men.

Not an entirely true statement Æmeric, if I remember a similar discussion elsewhere here. I seem to recall Psy having mentioned that most men find women soldiers a bit of a liability in fact and that in combat situations they would rather NOT have women there. (Apologies Psy if I have somehow not fully captured your initial thought about this.)

[Aemma]

In that women are not subject to the draft & men are.


There is no draft in Canada btw, so that part of the argument doesn't hold a lot of water for some of us.

[Æmeric]

The point is military service was required of men - unless they could get a deferment like Bill Clinton or Dick Cheney. For women it was voluntary. And males are still required to register. Women are not. That is not equal. But women do not mind be treated differently when the issue is conscription.;)

Psychonaut is right about women in the military. Which shows that men & women shouldn't be treated the same. Including when it comes to who has the vote.


I don't have a problem with women voting--I like the precedent mentioned by Pallamedes, that being that in ancient Germanic (and likely other IE) societies, woman bore a substantial burden in tribal decision making.

I would however like to see voting eligibilty restricted more than it currently is here in America. I would hazard that only those people who have at least a high school diploma (and perhaps even a Bachelor's degree) and who have at the least, a part-time job and proof of paying federal income tax. Just some rough thoughts.....

You mean people who have attended college & have been indoctrinated by the marxists who run the colleges in America? I think college graduates are further to the left then those with just a high school diploma.

[Aemma]

That's the point, gender equality is ignore when there is a disadvantage to the male.

Oh jeepers Æmeric :rolleyes: I don't think that our world is so stupid (yet) as to want women to HAVE TO go to combat just to prove a point. There are women out there that can be good police officers, firefighters and military combat personnel too...some. Not all. Why bar access to a person that can do the job?

And why are we encumbering the issue of a woman's right to be active in the political process (ie. vote) with extraneous issues about women's ability to participate in combat situations? One has nothing to do with the other in reality.

[Aemma]

Let me complain a bit , what a waste of white female beauty, risking their life in the army when even their country isn't under menace , is it really that necessary???:crazy:
down with femistupidinism.


And what about letting another human being make his or HER own decision as to what he or SHE wants to do in life regardless of their supposed beauty? :rolleyes:

[Æmeric]

Oh jeepers Æmeric :rolleyes: I don't think that our world is so stupid (yet) as to want women to HAVE TO go to combat just to prove a point. There are women out there that can be good police officers, firefighters and military combat personnel too...some. Not all. Why bar access to a person that can do the job?

And why are we encumbering the issue of a woman's right to be active in the political process (ie. vote) with extraneous issues about women's ability to participate in combat situations? One has nothing to do with the other in reality. Gender Equality is the Point!

You are being very selective in picking what should be equal (in regards to gender) & what should not. If men can be subjected to a draft & forced into combat, why not women. It's not equal when one gender is exempt.

[Aemma]

The point is military service was required of men - unless they could get a deferment like Bill Clinton or Dick Cheney. For women it was voluntary. And males are still required to register. Women are not. That is not equal. But women do not mind be treated differently when the issue is conscription.;)

Psychonaut is right about women in the military. Which shows that men & women shouldn't be treated the same. Including when it comes to who has the vote.

It still becomes a bogus argument and faulty logic tying one aspect to the other. These are 2 separate issues: 1. voting and access to the political process and 2. conscription.



You mean people who have attended college & have been indoctrinated by the marxists who run the colleges in America? I think college graduates are further to the left then those with just a high school diploma.

And the same can be said of high school graduates though Æmeric. I've seen it all too often before especially in the insurance industry field. Big corporations like to hire young high school graduates because their minds and wills can be bent at that age. They are much more easily indoctrinated into the corporate culture which has hired them. Did you know that most claims adjudicators in the health insurance field are some young 20-somethings that are taught to look at "meat" charts and policies and dissuaded from actually thinking for themselves, or better, listen to their conscience?

At least a university grad is continually challenged in his higher education training to read and think critically.

Ok I'll stop picking on you for now Æmeric. :D I have to go make some cupcakes (for real :D) and go pretty myself up to visit my friend who just flew in from Switzerland. We'll be having coffee and cakes and talking girly stuff! We might throw in a few discussions about politics just for fun though too! :P :D

[Aemma]

Gender Equality is the Point!

You are being very selective in picking what should be equal (in regards to gender) & what should not. If men can be subjected to a draft & forced into combat, why not women. It's not equal when one gender is exempt.


Yes I'm being selective since the thread has to do with the issue of access to the political process. I'm just keeping my focus in the discussion Æmeric! :D

[Tony]

Oh good grief...you realise that we're living in the 21st century eh Tony? :D
Aemma I didn't say wether I'd consider it right or wrong , I was replying to Phledgeton that in my view women had gained freedom from men mostly thanks to their jobs/financial autonomy than the right to vote.
France gave the right to vote to women in 1945 , Turkey in 1926!
do you really could think that just because turkish women were allowed to vote 20 years before the French they were more emancipated than French?
once and now too...

Men's authority?!! Oh my, and who or what bestowed upon you this supposed "authority" I would like to ask?
Religion , habits , social norms , laws and non-written laws , etc
Believe it or not but til a century ago we were your masters , to make it short , this from a social and legal point of view , of course private relationships between husband and wife , father and daughter , brothers and sisters , could have been very diverse , varying from the most liberal to the most conservative examples , along the characters of the single persons.


And what about letting another human being make his or HER own decision as to what he or SHE wants to do in life regardless of their supposed beauty? :rolleyes:
Yeah , as a child I wanted to be an astronaut but it eventually ended up otherwise :wink
I mean I'm for the real freedom , most women today are brainwashed by the egalitarian ideology and think they can do everything men do , most women I knew ask to enter the Army because of this propaganda , because it's cool , but they don't fit for that , like we ain't fit to make babies :D , there are innate gender-based predispositions in my opinion.

[Æmeric]

It still becomes a bogus argument and faulty logic tying one aspect to the other. These are 2 separate issues: 1. voting and access to the political process and 2. conscription.


The issues are related! The basis for giving women the vote is gender equality. Gender equality is the issue. You are only in favor of gender equality on some issues.

[Heimmacht]

Yet the funny thing is, the local "Germanic Saami", Asthor/Thore Hund posted that to get back at Blutwölfin for throwing him out of Nordfolk Staff for erratic behaviour within three days of NoFo opening, so he posted that topic on Skadi and BuB. :wink

Who would grieve about thát? :coffee:

[Vulpix]

The issues are related! The basis for giving women the vote is gender equality. Gender equality is the issue. You are only in favor of gender equality on some issues.

Well, if I had to serve in the army to keep my vote, I'd do it ;). I doubt they'd want me though :D!

[Æmeric]

But most women wouldn't. And the politicians know it. If they tried to give women that much equality it would be women who would be demanding to turn the clocks back to pre-1964.

[Vulpix]

But most women wouldn't.

What do you base this claim on ;)?

[Æmeric]

It's the one thing that women haven't demanded. Yes, many women want the option of going into the military but not the obligation. Conscription isn't a right but an obligation. So whereas women want equality when it comes to rights (privileges) they do not want it when it comes to obligations.

In the volunteer military, men outnumber woman by a factor of 5 or 6 to 1. That just shows that overall it is not that attractive to females & the wouldn't want the duty of serving.

[Atlas]

I endorse it. I see no reasons to ban women from elections. They're not dumber than men. Instead...

[Vargtand]

Ouch... so many possibilities to offend. I'm getting an overload of ideas. :P

[Vulpix]

It's the one thing that women haven't demanded. Yes, many women want the option of going into the military but not the obligation. Conscription isn't a right but an obligation. So whereas women want equality when it comes to rights (privileges) they do not want it when it comes to obligations.

In the volunteer military, men outnumber woman by a factor of 5 or 6 to 1. That just shows that overall it is not that attractive to females & the wouldn't want the duty of serving.

To sum things up, you are using the fact that women haven't demanded the obligation (conscription) to serve in the army to conclude that if faced with the choice, most women would rather lose their vote than join the army.

A bit of a pindaric flight, isn't it?

[Æmeric]

To sum things up, you are using the fact that women haven't demanded the obligation (conscription) to serve in the army to conclude that if faced with the choice, most women would rather lose their vote than join the army. Correct.:coffee:


A bit of a pindaric flight, isn't it?No. I think actions (or inaction in this case) speaks louder then words. Everyone wants entitlements or rights if they are free, but of there is a cost attached well.....

[Inese]

Yes we should have a right to vote!! You know we bear all the children and all men on the world are born by women! :rolleyes: We should have a right to decide what is good for us and for the children and it is a political question also ---- yes and all super cool and chauvinist men of the forum are children of a mother and the mother cared about you and when she can care about you she has a right to vote too because women are no birth machines , we have a opinion and we have a mind!! Surprise Surprise hmm?? :eek: :coffee: O.o Political decisions do create the enviroment and women have a say how the enviroment should look like , you cant take it away from us!! If you want only voting men go to Saudi Arabia please and have fun in mosques with allah allah blah blah okay??

Hello we are in 21th century in Europe and i read that women should not vote pfff i think my middle finger jerks....

[Skandi]

I think that as many women as men would join the army if they had to to keep the vote. I would, actually I applied for the navy, I even past my AIB but didn't get the A level grades and I am now too old to do so with my degree.

I favour votes on a system similar to that laid out in starship troupers. That is a system of merit for voting, but not limited by sex.

Just because somebody is forced to do something (draft) they should not get extra privileges. those should only go to people who do it voluntarily.

[ikki]

This sounds no better to me than what has happened in some Central American countries for gods' sake. :(

Think the inner organisation within the order from turner diaries. That unfortunately was secret to the masses.
http://www.skrewdriver.net/turnerintro.html

Its the leadership that will in essence loose all socalled civil rights, not the population.

It should somewhat resemble the idea of philosopherkings. Denied everything in the ways of privacy and material, and thus turned into the one area they can function in, being a philosopherking.

[Æmeric]

I think that as many women as men would join the army if they had to to keep the vote. I would, actually I applied for the navy, I even past my AIB but didn't get the A level grades and I am now too old to do so with my degree.

I favour votes on a system similar to that laid out in starship troupers. That is a system of merit for voting, but not limited by sex. I don't think Starship Troopers is a good example as it was a scripted Hollywood fantasy set in a multiracial (was it also multi-species?) & gender neutral future. Can we all agree that Hollywood puts out a lot of crap?:grouphug:


Just because somebody is forced to do something (draft) they should not get extra privileges. those should only go to people who do it voluntarily.

Why should people get privileges for not doing something? Shouldn't people (men) subject to conscription get something in return for it?

[Skandi]

I don't think Starship Troopers is a good example as it was a scripted Hollywood fantasy set in a multiracial (was it also multi-species?) & gender neutral future. Can we all agree that Hollywood puts out a lot of crap?:grouphug:



Why should people get privileges for not doing something? Shouldn't people (men) subject to conscription get something in return for it?

Um no the film is a very bad adaptation of the original book, by Robert A. Heinlein in 1959 it is not gender neutral and is good and very political.

peiople who have to do something should not get anything no. But your draft argument does not work here either as we do not have such a thing.

Equally if a woman has to stay at home and look after the children effectively giving up her life, should she not get something in return?

[Æmeric]

Equally if a woman has to stay at home and look after the children effectively giving up her life, should she not get something in return?

Women have to stay home & look after children! And having children means giving up one's life!:eek:

I dont think women have been forced ("has to") to have children, unless you count outlawing abortion-on-demand as forcing women to have children.

[Vargtand]

No I don't think women should have voting rights, I think only a man should have voting rights, and I think that man should be I. in fact I think we can scrap the entire voting system and have direct control over to the voting man. this would lead to world peace and economic growth as I promise to liquidate anything that threatens my peace and my economic growth.
Vote for Vargtand!

[Lahtari]

Just because somebody is forced to do something (draft) they should not get extra privileges. those should only go to people who do it voluntarily.

You support forced labour, based on a person's sex? And demand gender equality?

And what you are now saying is that men shouldn't be compensated for draft, but women (and in non-draft countries also men) who opt for service should. That's plain hypocrisy.

[Grumpy Cat]

I can't believe there are people on this forum who in one breath will be against the onslaught of Muslim immigrants but then in another be against female suffrage. That mentality belongs in backwards Muslim societies. The onslaught of Muslim immigrants is a threat to just that, so really you have more in common with Muslims than Europeans.

I heard Saudi Arabia is nice this time of year.

[Phlegethon]

Well, we have thousands of years of high culture, all achieved without female suffrage. And so does the Islamic world. Not really a convincing argument for the female right to vote. Actually the whole downfall of Europe and civilization chronologically coincided with the introduction of the female right to vote.

[Æmeric]

I can't believe there are people on this forum who in one breath will be against the onslaught of Muslim immigrants but then in another be against female suffrage. That mentality belongs in backwards Muslim societies. The onslaught of Muslim immigrants is a threat to just that, so really you have more in common with Muslims than Europeans.

I heard Saudi Arabia is nice this time of year.

Thats not a fair comparison. Women had plenty of freedoms in the West before the had the vote. And in some countries where women have the vote - India for example - women are treated very badly. And many Muslim countries allow women to vote. Iran for example.

Making comparisons to Islam or calling opposition to female suffrage 'bogus', 'pindaric' or 'chauvinistic' is tantamount to mudslinging. It's the kind of tactic that would be employed by Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton. If they can't validly dispute their opponent's viewpoint they try to equate it with a negativity.

[Skandi]

You support forced labour, based on a person's sex? And demand gender equality?

And what you are now saying is that men shouldn't be compensated for draft, but women (and in non-draft countries also men) who opt for service should. That's plain hypocrisy.

no I don't support forced labour I am not an advocate of the draft. are they not paid? that is the compensation.

[Æmeric]

no I don't support forced labour I am not an advocate of the draft. are they not paid? that is the compensation.

Yeah, but the governemnt gets to decide the amount of compensation & the conditions the draftee labors under. And the hours. And where he lives.

[Phlegethon]

The state paid me a whopping 345 Deutschmarks per month back then in the early 90s (175 Euro, approximately) which amounts to a wage of pennies per hour, even lower than the compensation for prisoners who have to work. For that we spent days and nights in the mud, on the road, in forests, mountains and on the sea, doing extremely strenuous physical work.

[Brännvin]

Actually the whole downfall of Europe and civilization chronologically coincided with the introduction of the female right to vote.


I do not see any correlation there! :mmmm:

When Germany imported million of Turkish cheap labor in the 70's, it had nothing to do with women but with the greed of big German business (generally dominated by fat middle age men).

[Phlegethon]

This all happened under governments elected by women.

[Aemma]

I can't believe there are people on this forum who in one breath will be against the onslaught of Muslim immigrants but then in another be against female suffrage. That mentality belongs in backwards Muslim societies. The onslaught of Muslim immigrants is a threat to just that, so really you have more in common with Muslims than Europeans.

I heard Saudi Arabia is nice this time of year.

Yay and hallelujah another woman has spoken up! :thumb001:

I thought I was the only one who saw something horribly wrong with all of this! Thank you Dragon Rouge. Rep points coming your way, young woman!

[Mrs Ulf]

They don't have voting booths in the kitchen or bedroom, so no.

Wait....really?!.

Could have fooled me. Guess I didn't vote in the last election. Now I'm wondering what button's I was pushing. :confused:

I voted yes! Of course women should be able to vote. Of all the things to come out of our fight, the right to vote was a very important one.

Super Feminists on the other hand will always annoy me. There need's to be a balance. The women before us did not fight this hard, just so we could push men away. We wanted to be equal in standing. We've done that and more.

[Ulf]

Wait....really?!.

Could have fooled me. Guess I didn't vote in the last election. Now I'm wondering what button's I was pushing. :confused:

Apparently you voted for bacon on the microwave. A vote I could definitely get behind. :thumb001:

[Inese]

Yay and hallelujah another woman has spoken up! :thumb001:

I thought I was the only one who saw something horribly wrong with all of this! Thank you Dragon Rouge. Rep points coming your way, young woman!
Hm the only one?? And where are my reputation points or do you boycott me?? :cool: I said the same you know!! :embarrassed

[Lady L]

Hm the only one?? And where are my reputation points or do you boycott me?? :cool: I said the same you know!! :embarrassed

Hey!! Me too Me too! ;)

[chap]

If women are paying taxes then why shouldn't they have a say. Women can't be denied the vote on the basis that they will allegedly make poor decisions.

As an aside, women voters in Britain are more likely to vote conservatively than males. Britain would be far more socialist today without the female voters in the later half of the 20th Century.

[Æmeric]

If women are paying taxes then why shouldn't they have a say.

If non-citizen immigrants or other resident aliens are paying taxes why shouldn't they have a say? I don't mean just income tax (which I think should be abolished & many immigrants don't pay) but excise taxes, sales taxes, VAT, the various withholding taxes that support the welfare state, e.g. FICA. What about non-citizens who own real estate & pay property taxes?

[Loki]

If non-citizen immigrants or other resident aliens are paying taxes why shouldn't they have a say?

Can you really compare women of your own flesh and blood with the above? Quite frankly, that's insulting to them. They're essentially the same as you, but just have a vagina instead of a penis. Big deal. :rolleyes:

[Æmeric]

Not all immigrants are swarthy Muslims or Mexicans. What about Americans living & working in the City of London? Or British expatriots living in France?


They're essentially the same as you, but just have a vagina instead of a penis. Big deal. :rolleyes: Well actually it is a big deal.:coffee: Unless you're a eunuch.

[Loki]

Not all immigrants are swarthy Muslims or Mexicans. What about Americans living & working in the City of London? Or British expatriots living in France?

I didn't mean about swarthiness. ;) But women cannot be compared with aliens. Ok I know and confess that sometimes they strike me as coming from an entirely different planet! :D

[Æmeric]

Bu the point made by Chap is that women pay taxes so they should be able to vote. He didn't differentiate by citizenship status or race.

[Psychonaut]

I believe that voting should be a right given to all tax-paying citizens who are intelligent enough to pass a poll test that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the fundamentals of the American government.

[Aemma]

I didn't mean about swarthiness. ;) But women cannot be compared with aliens. Ok I know and confess that sometimes they strike me as coming from an entirely different planet! :D

Nanoo, nanoo! :fcrazy:

[Æmeric]

Most men only have sex on the brain when there are women around. When they are absent, we can actually concentrate on matters that are important. :) You mean like in Congress or Parliament?:lightbul:

Anyway I think sex on the brain is why most males voted in favor of female suffrage, some of them hope to be rewarded with sex for standing up to the Neanderthals who opposed female suffrage.:wink

[Loki]

You mean like in Congress or Parliament?:lightbul:

Well fortunately, most who are in there are hideous and do not manage to get a rise out of any male. Just think of Anne Widdecombe in the UK. :eek:

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/images/574.jpg



Anyway I think sex on the brain is why most males voted in favor of female suffrage, some of them hope to be rewarded with sex for standing up to the Neanderthals who opposed female suffrage.:wink

Bah, I'm past that stage. Treat 'em mean is the only way to go, and the only language that is respected and understood. :thumb001:

[Inese]

Well fortunately, most who are in there are hideous and do not manage to get a rise out of any male. Just think of Anne Widdecombe in the UK. :eek:

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/images/574.jpg


Hm you want to see a official election poster of Germany governing party cdu?? :rolleyes: ?
http://www.welt.de/multimedia/archive/1249914280000/00871/cn_lengsfeld_DW_Pol_871994g.jpg
It is chancler Merkel and a other member of parliament ---- text: "We can offer more." No fun it is a official poster and dekollete is real , the posteri is very stupid and both are in the midde of the 50ies!! :033102st:

[Jarl]

"We can offer more."

Looks like ze Germans do have some sense of humour after all ;)

[Frigga]

:eek:

Are they advertising matronly attibutes with that poster?

[Loki]

:eek:

Are they advertising matronly attibutes with that poster?

She does have a nice pair (for her age), you've go to admit. ;)

[Jarl]

She does have a nice pair (for her age), you've go to admit. ;)

:D I was about to remark on that too! Didn't know ze Kanzlerin has such massive boobs.

[Inese]

Are they advertising matronly attibutes with that poster?
I dont know it is only stupid for me!! Media discussion is rolling and here a English article about http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE57953920090810

[Jarl]

:eek:

Are they advertising matronly attibutes with that poster?

A poster well-aimed at the Turkish electorate ;)

[Brännvin]

She does have a nice pair (for her age), you've go to admit. ;)

And agreeing with its slogan too :D

[Absinthe]

I can't believe you people, drooling over the boobs of an old woman! :eek: :p

[Vulpix]

Didn't know ze Kanzlerin has such massive boobs.

Photoshop anyone :p?

[Inese]

Hm okay when i read the answers of some men here i think the poster could have sucess because the sexual brain parts of them make ring ring ring....:rolleyes: Why are men sometimes so simple??? :lightbul: You know , the poster is very stupid to me and give people who want to take us away our right to vote a argument!!

[Jarl]

Photoshop anyone :p?

Looks real:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/archive/236/tag/Merkel+boobs.html

Though somewhat flattened here:

http://operachic.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/16/merkel_danke.jpg



the sexual brain parts of them make ring ring ring....:rolleyes:

If they didn't, one ought to be disturbed... but Kanzlerin is not my type overall. Id be scared shed choke me haha :D

[Vulpix]

http://operachic.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/16/merkel_danke.jpg
:lol00002:

[Inese]

Looks real:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/archive/236/tag/Merkel+boobs.html


Original photo was that of opera in Olso last year :embarrassed
http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/na/archive/00566/ANGELA_merkel_utrin_566490p.jpg

[Loki]

Original photo was that of opera in Olso last year :embarrassed
http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/na/archive/00566/ANGELA_merkel_utrin_566490p.jpg

No wonder this guy is smiling so broad. I know what he's thinking about ... :love_4:

[Brännvin]

Original photo was that of opera in Olso last year :embarrassed
http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/na/archive/00566/ANGELA_merkel_utrin_566490p.jpg


What the Norwegian first minister was thinking about it? :D :eek:

[Jarl]

Damn... This is a bold outfit. Particularly for a woman her age and a head of EU largest state. Elderly women should set the example, not show off their breasts in opera... maybe she's a mythical valkyrie ;)

[Phlegethon]

The commie women in parliament still have the better boobies. And they're nicer to look at as well.

[Jarl]

The commie women in parliament still have the better boobies. And they're nicer to look at as well.

Then post some in the Euro Beauties thread :P

[Phlegethon]

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,878435,00.jpg

Julia Bonk (huh-huh, he said "bonk", huh-huh), insane anti-nazi chick in the Saxony state parliament

http://p3.focus.de/img/gen/U/H/HBUHAMPaO8I_Pxgen_r_311xA.jpg

Dr. Dagmar Enkelmann, former Mrs. Bundestag, senior commie and member of the national parliament

http://webarchiv.bundestag.de/archive/2006/0606/mdb/mdbjpg/k/kippika0.jpg

Katja Kipping, another fake redhead commie member of national parliament


http://www.wdr.de/themen/politik/1/hart_aber_fair/faktencheck_081126/_img/wagenknecht_400h.jpg

Sahra Wagenknecht, half-Iranian Stalinist frontwoman

[Lulletje Rozewater]

By this logic nobody ever got elected, as the chancellor is elected by the parliament, not by the voter. Angela Merkel did not get a majority either.

But the fact remains that a higher percentage of females than males voted for Hitler.

http://books.google.co.za/books?id=FiyHJ8MiR1gC&pg=RA1-PA23&lpg=RA1-PA23&dq=Percentage+of+women+and+men+voters+for+Hitler&source=bl&ots=GUn2V3JO7b&sig=dkoX926gmdG_T9aRmleS4dTR6Gw&hl=en&ei=s9yDSr6wFMyHsAbNsOiJCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[Phlegethon]

Sorry, but I stick to my statement. All the hits you get from Google point to obsolete findings or unscientifically interpolated microstatistics.

[anonymaus]

Sorry, but I stick to my statement. All the hits you get from Google point to obsolete findings or unscientifically interpolated microstatistics.

I'm surprised there is even debate about it, as the NSDAP's mobilization of female voters is well documented.

[Paleo]

women should be treated equally, within reason and circumstance.

[Vulpix]

women should be treated equally, within reason and circumstance.

Meaning?

[Psychonaut]

Meaning?

Meaning...women still need to be leashed, but that we can give y'all a longish leash. :D

[Vulpix]

Meaning...women still need to be leashed, but that we can give y'all a longish leash. :D

Fuck you :p!

[Loki]

Fuck you :p!

I bet Mrs Psychonaut wouldn't be too happy about that ;)

[Vulpix]

I bet Mrs Psychonaut wouldn't be too happy about that ;)

She needn't worry, Psy is too :frog: for me ;):D

[Jarl]

women should be treated equally, within reason and circumstance.

...but not too equally or else they get out of hand, and an equalizer would have to be implemented... :whip:

[Vulpix]

...but not too equally or else they get out of hand, and an equalizer would have to be implemented... :whip:

Out of hand? Aw, diddums :D!

[Loki]

Out of hand? Aw, diddums :D!

ihDSh4ViQKY

:tongue

[Paleo]

Meaning?

sometimes it simply a smarter guideline too favor one sex over another in terms of physical work.

Reason: if my house was on fire, and i was trapped under rubble or something, with men being normally stronger, it would safer and cheaper to have 1 or 2 firemen save me, than 3 or more fire-women to do it.

Circumstance: But their is also exceptions to that guideline. if the woman was one of those gross female bodybuilders or an extreme fitness nut for example.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Sorry, but I stick to my statement. All the hits you get from Google point to obsolete findings or unscientifically interpolated microstatistics.

Read the last paragraph in "Women" which confirms what you said.

[Sigurd]

Right, I cannot believe that that CDU poster actually got a discussion going! If it was going to work on people regardless, nudist beaches would be the poor man's strip club. :tongue

Other than that, I fail to see the fuss about the decollete. That the slogan is understood as that and gets a discussion about Merkel's cleavage going is kind of telling of the problems of an over-sexed society. On every summer village beer festival in Bavaria, women of all ages in their Dirndl show more cleavage than the Chancellor in that ball-dress, and no one sees it as sexual. *shrug*

-------------------------------


http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,878435,00.jpg

Julia Bonk (huh-huh, he said "bonk", huh-huh), insane anti-nazi chick in the Saxony state parliament

Actually, she is qite pretty. Which of course doesn't mean she is an apt politician. More like an old adage: "Some pretty women choose bad men, other pretty women choose bad politics". :wink

[Beorn]

I think women and men have differing perceptions over matters, but to distinguish between the sexes by their political decisions is absurd in my eyes.

[Sigurd]

Now as to actually offer a more serious opinion on the topic: it is remarkably the same as it was some 3 1/2 years ago when the original thread popped up on BuB, just well more expanded:

In a proper democratic society, married women should not vote. Nor should married men. Nor should that early-20th century notice of every vote counting just as much as the other be retained --- that is unrealistic and egalitarian utopia. You cannot have the stupid, the demoralised and the otherwise un-deserved have the same say over what should happen with the country.

Voting beyond the basic should be a reward, not a basic human right. Basic human rights are those extending to privacy, life, fairness in justice and the right to practice your faith and worldview. But voting's not exactly one.

Unmarried men and woman of age should receive a vote counting precisely one vote. Of age, meaning being aged at least 21 years of age. I personally consider the lion's share of people aged 16-21 not mature enough to make a good judgment about politics and policy. That some perhaps can, in which I would perhaps include myself, is a bonus, but should not be used as an excuse to extend the ballot to teenagers.

In a proper democratic society as I have mused about it, married women should not vote. Nor should married men. They should get a family vote instead. And by "family" I mean actually having children, not that neo-liberal party-drug called "childless family, happily stating on their deathbed they had wished to spend more time in the office".

The family ballot value should be increased to more than what they would receive as loners - they would receive three votes. Perhaps extra votes could be gained by having extra children, like a sort of Deutscher Mutterorden, you know. ;)

Further votes are gained by merit, so you could receive an extra vote by exemplary wartime service, writing socially useful books, representing your country as a sportsman, major scientific discoveries, furthering the interests of the nation abroad, etc. ... Showing that whilst some may receive extra votes by founding a family and thus contributing to the biological preservation of the folk, others may still do so by contributing towards the more mundane preservation of the folk, its values and its image.

Of course, one does not include the other --- so someone could marry and have children (+1 vote for family-founding), have eight of them (+1 vote for having a lot of children), become an Army veteran (+1 vote for normal service, +2 votes if decorated), discover some new chemical procedure that helps people's health (+1 votes), write a book on household medicine ensuing from that (+1 votes), reinvent the wheel in sporting training by that and became a leading international sports coach (+1 vote), and then finally be asked to negotiate a peace treaty with that warring other country (+1 vote).

So if you were such a deserved person, you (that is, you and your wife together, of course) would be able to give 9 votes to be spread arbitrarily or if you wish all on the same party and candidate. The chav could get his extra point for having many children on unemployment benefits --- but he'd always only have the family vote and naught else.

The upside? It would encourage for example also to have the clever to have children - and would perhaps encourage the not-so-clever to attempt to reach the best they can whatever: If they care enough to wish to have a say, they will do something towards it. If they don't - well, they have less of a say, because they put nothing towards it.

I don't know - but it could be something that might actually work. :thumb001: And if it still doesn't work --- well, perhaps democracy really doesn't work, and we can go from meritocratic democracy back to the old hierarchial, feudal principle. :wink

[Beorn]

I've missed you and your Biblical postings. :fdgd:

[Sigurd]

I've missed you and your Biblical postings. :fdgd:

Thanks you for the flowers. This one really couldn't be said any shorter. At least not with expanding upon the general concept. :thumb001:

[jerney]

Yes, of course. And I voted for Obama :)

[anonymaus]

Yes, of course. And I voted for Obama :)

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8189/1231684575334kt0.jpg

[Finsterer Streiter]

Without women our world is worth nothing. They create, care, invigorate and preserve. They´re the reason why men fight, love, campaign, cry, laugh and feel worthy to live. Women are the ones who warm our hearts even in the center of the darkness.

Women deserve and have the same rights in any aspect.

[Tabiti]

There should be a test, including questions about simple knowledge in politics and state issues, as well as something like an IQ one. Who passes that with certain score, no matter male or female, would have the right to vote.

[Loki]

There should be a test, including questions about simple knowledge in politics and state issues, as well as something like an IQ one. Who passes that with certain score, no matter male or female, would have the right to vote.

A good idea, but I have my reservations about such elitism as well. What will happen, is that these intelligent people who rule the country will continually make laws and regulations that are favourable to their section of society -- and put the less intelligent ones at even a greater disadvantage. Excellent way of constructing another class-based society, which will ultimately create great resentment and community strife. IMO dumb people should have the right to vote as well.

[Tabiti]

The election system always suffers from mistakes and there is no perfect one, since the humanity is not perfect itself. There should be victims;) Things like "double standart" and "more equal than others" would exists forever, no matter how hard we are trying to create the perfect social, government and world system.
On the other hand, I don't like absolute monarchy, dictatorship and heredity in power.

[SwordoftheVistula]

This article explains why a pro-freedom and pro-family advocates, such as myself, oppose this civilization-destroying concept of allowing women to vote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,358179,00.html

Are women really discriminated against in politics? Sen. Hillary Clinton surely thinks so.

Indeed, she believes this year's presidential campaign has shown that sexism limits women's influence in politics. She claimed last week that "every poll I've seen shows more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman [than] to vote for an African American."

It's possible that Democrats are particularly sexist, but with women making up the majority of voters, one would think that politicians were ignoring women at their own peril.

In 2004, women made up 54 percent of voters. At least through early February of this year, women made up a much greater share of Democrat primary voters — accounting for between 57 and 61 percent of the vote in primaries and caucuses.

But whatever difficulties Clinton might be having, it seems that the policies adopted are much more important than who puts them into action, and the evidence indicates that women have long gotten their way.

Academics have for some time pondered why the government started growing precisely when it did. The federal government, aside from periods of wartime, consumed about 2 to 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) up until World War I. That was the first war in which government spending didn't go all the way back down to its pre-war levels. Then in the 1920s, non-military federal spending began steadily climbing.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal — often viewed as the genesis of big government — really just continued an earlier trend. What changed before Roosevelt came to power that explains the growth of government? The answer is women's suffrage.

For decades, polls have shown that women as a group vote differently than men. Without the women's vote, Republicans would have swept every presidential race but one between 1968 and 2004.

The gender gap exists on various issues. The major one is the issue of smaller government and lower taxes, which is a much higher priority for men than for women. This is seen in divergent attitudes held by men and women on many separate issues.

Women were much more opposed to the 1996 federal welfare reforms, which mandated time limits for receiving welfare and imposed some work requirements on welfare recipients. Women are also more supportive of Medicare, Social Security and educational expenditures.

Studies show that women are generally more risk-averse than men. This could be why they are more supportive of government programs to ensure against certain risks in life.

Women's average incomes are also slightly lower and less likely to vary over time, which gives single women an incentive to prefer more progressive income taxes. Once women get married, however, they bear a greater share of taxes through their husbands' relatively higher incomes — so their support for high taxes understandably declines.

Marriage also provides an economic explanation for why men and women prefer different policies.

Because women generally shoulder most of the child-rearing responsibilities, married men are more likely to acquire marketable skills that help them earn money outside the household. If a man gets divorced, he still retains these skills. But if a woman gets divorced, she is unable to recoup her investment in running the household.

Hence, single women who believe they may marry in the future, as well as married women who most fear divorce, look to the government as a form of protection against this risk from a possible divorce: a more progressive tax system and other government transfers of wealth from rich to poor. The more certain a woman is that she doesn't risk divorce, the more likely she is to oppose government transfers.

Has it always been this way? Can women's suffrage in the late 19th and early 20th centuries help explain the growth of government?

While the timing of the two events is suggestive, other changes during this time could have played a role. For example, some argue that Americans became more supportive of bigger government due to the success of widespread economic regulations imposed during World War I.

A good way to analyze the direct effect of women's suffrage on the growth of government is to study how each of the 48 state governments expanded after women obtained the right to vote.

Women's suffrage was first granted in western states with relatively few women — Wyoming (1869), Utah (1870), Colorado (1893) and Idaho (1896). Women could vote in 29 states before women's suffrage was achieved nationwide in 1920 with the adoption of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.

If women's right to vote increased government, our analysis should show a few definite indicators. First, suffrage would have a bigger impact on government spending and taxes in states with a greater percentage of women. And secondly, the size of government in western states should steadily expand as women comprise an increasing share of their population.

Even after accounting for a range of other factors — such as industrialization, urbanization, education and income — the impact of granting of women's suffrage on per capita state government expenditures and revenue was startling.

Per capita state government spending after accounting for inflation had been flat or falling during the 10 years before women began voting. But state governments started expanding the first year after women voted and continued growing until within 11 years real per capita spending had more than doubled. The increase in government spending and revenue started immediately after women started voting.

Yet, as suggestive as these facts are, we must still consider whether suffrage itself caused the growth in government, or did the government expand due to some political or social change that accompanied women's right to vote?

Fortunately, there was a unique aspect of suffrage that allows us to answer this question: Of the 19 states that had not passed women's suffrage before the approval of the 19th Amendment, nine approved the amendment, while the other 12 had suffrage imposed on them.

If some unknown factor caused both a desire for larger government and women's suffrage, then government should have only grown in states that voluntarily adopted suffrage. This, however, is not the case: After approving women's suffrage, a similar growth in government was seen in both groups of states.

Women's suffrage also explains much of the federal government's growth from the 1920s to the 1960s. In the 45 years after the adoption of suffrage, as women's voting rates gradually increased until finally reaching the same level as men's, the size of state and federal governments expanded as women became an increasingly important part of the electorate.

But the battle between the sexes does not end there. During the early 1970s, just as women's share of the voting population was leveling off, something else was changing: The American family began to break down, with rising divorce rates and increasing numbers of out-of-wedlock births.

Over the course of women's lives, their political views on average vary more than those of men. Young single women start out being much more liberal than their male counterparts and are about 50 percent more likely to vote Democratic. As previously noted, these women also support a higher, more progressive income tax as well as more educational and welfare spending.

But for married women this gap is only one-third as large. And married women with children become more conservative still. Women with children who are divorced, however, are suddenly about 75 percent more likely to vote for Democrats than single men. So as divorce rates have increased, due in large part to changing divorce laws, voters have become more liberal.

Women's suffrage ushered in a sea change in American politics that affected policies aside from taxes and the size of government. For example, states that granted suffrage were much more likely to pass Prohibition, for the temperance movement was largely dominated by middle-class women. Although the "gender gap" is commonly thought to have arisen only in the 1960s, female voting dramatically changed American politics from the very beginning.

John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.

[Cello]

This was one of the big subjects I always have conflict about with other women.

I don't support female suffrage, and I think it was a mistake to introduce it. I'd like to say I'm not a self hating woman, but I don't believe in male and female equality. I think it;s one of the biggest mockeries in European history...

Don't get me wrong please, I don't say women are inferior to men, but we have different sytems. I'll say another example, I think stay at home fathers with working wives is a bad idea too.

Yes, I have a political opinion, but I don't think active involvement is for the women. Feminism is a bad disease of the current world. You see, feminists want to both have the cake and eat it. They want women the same rights as men, but they don't want the same sacrifices. They want to be allowed to fight in military, but they don't want to be drafted like the men. My opinion is they just want some things in theory (the feminists), to feel more worthy to themselves, but not necessary to use them, you know what I mean?

[RoyBatty]

Feminists are another "special interests" group (like gays, ethnic minorities, certain religions etc) who feel themselves MORE EQUAL, worthy and deserving than the remainder of society. They are parasites and hate-filled frauds and should be treated accordingly.

[Frigga]

I feel that in order to vote, whether male or female, you should take a compentence test that proves without a doubt that you have the common sense needed to be a good voter, regardless of your education, sex, race, or religious creed. Also, a desirous love for your country is a big plus as well.


There should be a test, including questions about simple knowledge in politics and state issues, as well as something like an IQ one. Who passes that with certain score, no matter male or female, would have the right to vote.

Great minds think alike! ;)

[Cello]

There should be a test, including questions about simple knowledge in politics and state issues, as well as something like an IQ one. Who passes that with certain score, no matter male or female, would have the right to vote.
Many of our politicians have high IQs. Lack of intelligence isn't the biggest problem in my opinion. The politicians don't do what they do because they are stupid, and neither the voters. They choose what's best for the personal self.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Many of our politicians have high IQs. Lack of intelligence isn't the biggest problem in my opinion. The politicians don't do what they do because they are stupid, and neither the voters. They choose what's best for the personal self.

True, but stupid people are easier for the politicians to fool (this I think is a main reason for the mass importation of low-IQ people into western countries).

As pertains to this issue, your point is valid, as many women, especially single educated high-IQ women tend to vote for far-left candidates based on their own insecurities and various other emotions.

The 'voting test' idea sound great in theory, but the problem is 'who designs the test'. This could be too open to political manipulation by the party in charge. Much better I think to have objective criteria, such as age, gender, income or land ownership.

[portusaus]

Explain below.

[KnightlyHonor]

I voted undecided. But I lean towards Yes. Though it could be because I hang out with intelligent women who aren't feminists.

[Aviator]

No one should be voting on anything.

So my answer is ,"No," but not for the reason that they are women.

[portusaus]

No one should be voting on anything.

So my answer is ,"No," but not for the reason that they are women.

I agree that democracy is a failed system, but for the purposes of this question this is "if there must be democracy...".

[KnightlyHonor]

Wait... Refresh my memory.. Suffrage is the 'right to vote', correct?

edit: Nevermind you beat me to it :P

[portusaus]

Merged, huh?

Didn't know this thread existed.

[robar]

No because no-one should vote, the best form of governance is a kingdom.

[TheBlondeSalad]

Someone forgot to move this thread to Troll Carnival :rolleyes:

[Prisoner Of Ice]

No. They are too gullible and emotional. My mom and sister have crazy high IQs but they get used constantly by every idiot under the sun. They are just not wired for that kind of logic.

[FeederOfRavens]

No

[CommonSense]

Bump for fresh opinions :)

Anyway, I believe both genders should be allowed to vote. However, old people, 65 + should have their rights revoked since they are far too easily manipulated.