Tiaexz does a girly job and why Kadagar prefers to be grappled by burly fireMEN

[Kadagar_AV]

Alternative Title: Women, Franchise and burly fireMEN

At the outset of our Republic, voters were restricted to those owning property of some sort: x value of land, x book value of business, # of employees, etc. Oh, and they had to have a penis -- or at least no one who questioned whether or not they possessed said male appendage.

Things have gone rather downhill since we started to let women vote.

I don't know about other countries, but here there are clear differences in how men and women vote. Women tend to fall for emotional arguments, whereas men go by logic to a further degree.

Basically, a politician just have to once in a while toss in "But Think Of The Children", regardless of relevance, and they automatically triple their female voting base.

[Papewaio]

In general the nations that are doing better per capita have the broadest voter participation.

Contrast say New Zealand with North Korea.

[Kadagar_AV]

In general the nations that are doing better per capita have the broadest voter participation.

Contrast say New Zealand with North Korea.

That is the example your bring up to prove your point? You won the debate? Want me to hand you the internet?

[Husar]

Things have gone rather downhill since we started to let women vote.

I don't know about other countries, but here there are clear differences in how men and women vote. Women tend to fall for emotional arguments, whereas men go by logic to a further degree.

Basically, a politician just have to once in a while toss in "But Think Of The Children", regardless of relevance, and they automatically triple their female voting base.

Indeed, a world where only men have a say is a cold, bleak, scary place and noone really wants that except men who can then rule over other men. But how many of the irrational men of the lower classes would support such a world anyway even though it would put them in a worse place? Exactly, quite a few. They should thank their women for making the world a better place.

[HoreTore]

Things have gone rather downhill since we started to let women vote.

I don't know about other countries, but here there are clear differences in how men and women vote. Women tend to fall for emotional arguments, whereas men go by logic to a further degree.

Basically, a politician just have to once in a while toss in "But Think Of The Children", regardless of relevance, and they automatically triple their female voting base.

What absolute rubbish.

With the introduction of feminism, western countries have seen the largest growth in human history. As Papewaio notes, the larger the franchise, the better the country does. Not just in purely economic terms, but also when it comes to human rights, lack of unrest etc.

The reason might be that the votes from people like you doesn't count as much. That's a definite benefit to a country.

[Papewaio]

That is the example your bring up to prove your point? You won the debate? Want me to hand you the internet?

You mentioned women voting, so I use the first nation to allow women to vote as a lead example. New Zealand doesn't have much in the way of oil, gas or minerals yet is a much better country to live in then the majority of nations.

On the negative side of the women's rights list are the likes of Saudi Arabia and if you take away their oil they don't have much of anything to say.

Simply look around the world and you will see that the nations that are nicer to live in have much more equality of freedom across sex, religion (or lack thereof) and race.

They don't need to be democracies to show the benefits of having women better educated or looked after. China has twice the GDP growth of India and they are almost parity for population. India is a democracy but China still out performs it. Why? Because one of the fundamentals is women's rights. And China's is far more advanced there.

[Greyblades]

Things have gone rather downhill since we started to let women vote.

I don't know about other countries, but here there are clear differences in how men and women vote. Women tend to fall for emotional arguments, whereas men go by logic to a further degree.

Basically, a politician just have to once in a while toss in "But Think Of The Children", regardless of relevance, and they automatically triple their female voting base.

I question how a product of the swedish education system could ever be this stupid.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Things have gone rather downhill since we started to let women vote.

I don't know about other countries, but here there are clear differences in how men and women vote. Women tend to fall for emotional arguments, whereas men go by logic to a further degree.

Basically, a politician just have to once in a while toss in "But Think Of The Children", regardless of relevance, and they automatically triple their female voting base.

To be fair to Kadagar, there is quite a bit of academic research that supports his premise that women are more likely to vote based on an "emotive" rather than a ratio-logical argument.

Research suggests that newly suffragized women in Western Democracies strongly paralleled the votes of their spouses. This persisted into the early 1970s.

With women increasingly employed in the workforce and taking an independent political voice, politicians did exploit their somewhat greater tendency (than men) to vote for the more attractive male candidate (note I said greater, this trend influences men as well since the advent of the television era) and the more "emotive" political issues that crop up. Security and social welfare programs have been shown to hold more appeal for women on average then for men.

What Kadagar did not note is that, over the last 20 years, this trend is decreasing -- not increasing. It is still fair to characterize women voters on average as the more "emotionally" motivated voter, but that becomes less and less true with each subsequent major election.

Another factor Kadagar did not mention is that males are more likely to be influenced by "emotive" issues than they were 25 and 30 years ago.


I'd point to traditional cultural values towards women and various cultural responses thereunto, and the media trend toward infortainment as much as I would focus on any sex issue per se.

[Montmorency]

Security and social welfare programs have been shown to hold more appeal for women on average then for men.

Of course, to emphasize this point would imply that social liberals by definition are "more emotional" than social conservatives, who prefer to rely on pure reason (whatever that might mean).

I reject that imputation.

And I wonder as to the relation to the larger trends you speak of, if single women are growing in proportion to partnered women and single women are also more liberal than partnered women.

[rory_20_uk]

What absolute rubbish.

With the introduction of feminism, western countries have seen the largest growth in human history. As Papewaio notes, the larger the franchise, the better the country does. Not just in purely economic terms, but also when it comes to human rights, lack of unrest etc.

The reason might be that the votes from people like you doesn't count as much. That's a definite benefit to a country.

Why is this not true of Eastern countries? China has done extremely well with little if any freedoms.

Likely this is becasuse thise things are collrelates not causitive.

[HoreTore]

Why is this not true of Eastern countries? China has done extremely well with little if any freedoms.

Likely this is becasuse thise things are collrelates not causitive.

As noted in a previous post, this holds true for China as well.

Women's rights in China are far more developed than they are in comparable countries.

[Montmorency]

Apparently, China is 35th on the UN's Gender Inequality Index, compared to India's 129th (of 146).

That's a big gap.

[Husar]

So basically Women's rights are far more developed in India than in China and HoreTore is really, really wrong here....

[HoreTore]

So basically Women's rights are far more developed in India than in China and HoreTore is really, really wrong here....

You read the score the wrong way around, methinks....

[rory_20_uk]

Apparently, China is 35th on the UN's Gender Inequality Index, compared to India's 129th (of 146).

That's a big gap.

They're unequal as in China no one has the vote. Not sure how that is better.

[HoreTore]

They're unequal as in China no one has the vote. Not sure how that is better.

Womens rights concern more issues than just the vote....

[Husar]

You read the score the wrong way around, methinks....

I didn't read it at all, he said inequality index and China is 35th, India 129th...

I suppose it means that China ranks 35th in terms of equality though, not in terms of inequality.

Communication, precision, etc.

[HoreTore]

I didn't read it at all, he said inequality index and China is 35th, India 129th...

I suppose it means that China ranks 35th in terms of equality though, not in terms of inequality.

Communication, precision, etc.

Ze Grammar!! Ze Nazis are coming!

[Papewaio]

Of course, to emphasize this point would imply that social liberals by definition are "more emotional" than social conservatives, who prefer to rely on pure reason (whatever that might mean).

I reject that imputation.

And I wonder as to the relation to the larger trends you speak of, if single women are growing in proportion to partnered women and single women are also more liberal than partnered women.

They're unequal as in China no one has the vote. Not sure how that is better.

As I've already noted more equal rights works even in the absence of democracy. Ones rights does not begin and end in a single vote cast every three or four years.

Education, job access, marriage/divorce rights, gender safety etc.

Votes are headline stuff the rest is day to day life and in China women have more equality with men then they would in India.

[Kadagar_AV]

I didn't read it at all, he said inequality index and China is 35th, India 129th...

I suppose it means that China ranks 35th in terms of equality though, not in terms of inequality.

Communication, precision, etc.

Let me then as a teacher inform you... That if you find a result miles wide away from what you expected the outcome to be, you should go back and check if you haven't misunderstood the basic premise.

Also, pupils are encouraged to read it ALL before commenting on it.

This isn't really an outcome of imprecise wording, but of a failed German school system.

Schooled



Regardless... ON WOMEN... I exaggerated. Of course women should have voting rights, they make up around 50% of the population for crying out loud!!

Gah, come one guys, I don't see them as kettle!! Just as sexdolls!!

Regardless, schools REALLY need to make a real effort to teach women in reasoning and logic thinking... As is, scarily many of them when will in the scenarios:

A) We need to help the refugees, with 10 Z money we can help 2 Y people.

B) We need to help the refugees, with 10 Z money we can help 1 Y people, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

Most women in my surroundings will go with option B. This is of course retarded. And I will blame them for it.

[Husar]

Let me then as a teacher inform you... That if you find a result miles wide away from what you expected the outcome to be, you should go back and check if you haven't misunderstood the basic premise.

Also, pupils are encouraged to read it ALL before commenting on it.

This isn't really an outcome of imprecise wording, but of a failed German school system.

Schooled

I am, in fact, confused now.

I was not confused before, I knew exactly what Montmorency said, maybe you were confused about that and it led you to confuse me then. But you see, this is what I'm talking about. Precision in communication, getting your point across to people who read thoroughly. There are always two sides to communication. How often did you already feel as though people do not read your posts correctly? As though they gloss over words or ignore sentences that made their "point" moot before they even posted? And why could that be? Perhaps because people are sloppy when they write and just as sloppy when they read. And then both sides of the communication fail entirely and I've even seen people argue on this very forum when they were essentially agreeing with eachother, they just didn't realize it because of sloppy, imprecise communication.

If you want reasoning and logical thinking, then I hope you made a baby with each of your flags to spread your genetic material, because otherwise you only did it for an emotional high each time and that would be disgusting, no? Could we trust someone like that to vote?

[Kadagar_AV]

I am, in fact, confused now.

I was not confused before, I knew exactly what Montmorency said, maybe you were confused about that and it led you to confuse me then. But you see, this is what I'm talking about. Precision in communication, getting your point across to people who read thoroughly. There are always two sides to communication. How often did you already feel as though people do not read your posts correctly? As though they gloss over words or ignore sentences that made their "point" moot before they even posted? And why could that be? Perhaps because people are sloppy when they write and just as sloppy when they read. And then both sides of the communication fail entirely and I've even seen people argue on this very forum when they were essentially agreeing with eachother, they just didn't realize it because of sloppy, imprecise communication.

If you want reasoning and logical thinking, then I hope you made a baby with each of your flags to spread your genetic material, because otherwise you only did it for an emotional high each time and that would be disgusting, no? Could we trust someone like that to vote?

Let me see if I read you right.

1. I don't bother reading what Monty thinks much, until he gets off his high horse and start posting in a way people can interpret without dedicating their life to it. I find him as acting rude on an international board with often weak English skills. I responded to you Quoting HT.

2. Yadda yadda.

3. I answered the thoughts you put forward.

4. Weak attempt of claiming my youth sins in anyway would reflect on my thoughts today.

5. Weak attempt of personal attack. You can do better.

Did you have a point?

I answered the precise argument you put forward based on what you quoted as answering to.


PS: I did sex a lot for an emotional and, let's not forget, very PHYSICAL high. You know orgasms is a physical high, no? That's why we do it, it's fun. Also, rarely as fun as when you do sisters, AND have them to interact

Of course, sometimes the main allurure of the game is the psychological high, controlling someone's body is a rather cool experience

Since I'm not into bionics, I guess this was my only way to have a go at it...

I won't make any excuses for having been a 20-30 year old male.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Of course, to emphasize this point would imply that social liberals by definition are "more emotional" than social conservatives, who prefer to rely on pure reason (whatever that might mean).

I reject that imputation.

And I wonder as to the relation to the larger trends you speak of, if single women are growing in proportion to partnered women and single women are also more liberal than partnered women.

Traditionally, the greater support among women for social welfare programs has been ascribed to a greater interest in security (personal and familial, not national)issues. Many American conservatives do deride women as less logical for just the reason you note, but I've heard good arguments that an interest in personal economic security is eminently rational -- so I take such conservative lambastry with a goodly dollop of salt.

Single women are a growing segment of our society, as are divorcees choosing not to remarry. Moreover, a growing number of women are choosing to become single parents (as an active choice, mind, not some teenage "accident.").

[Husar]

Let me see if I read you right.

1. I don't bother reading what Monty thinks much, until he gets off his high horse and start posting in a way people can interpret without dedicating their life to it. I find him as acting rude on an international board with often weak English skills. I responded to you Quoting HT.

The point is that there WAS imprecise wording and I exaggerated it even though I knew what he actually meant. HoreTore actually got it as he responded in kind.

4. Weak attempt of claiming my youth sins in anyway would reflect on my thoughts today.

5. Weak attempt of personal attack. You can do better.

Did you have a point?

I answered the precise argument you put forward based on what you quoted as answering to.


PS: I did sex a lot for an emotional and, let's not forget, very PHYSICAL high. You know orgasms is a physical high, no? That's why we do it, it's fun. Also, rarely as fun as when you do sisters, AND have them to interact

Of course, sometimes the main allurure of the game is the psychological high, controlling someone's body is a rather cool experience

Since I'm not into bionics, I guess this was my only way to have a go at it...

I won't make any excuses for having been a 20-30 year old male.

Not my point(s) at all. The point is that if you think emotional people shouldn't vote, then 20-30 years old you should probably not have voted according to your own silly theory. That's not what I think, it's what you said. What I think is that your anti-emotion stance is wrong. Let's take your example:

A) We need to help the refugees, with 10 Z money we can help 2 Y people.

B) We need to help the refugees, with 10 Z money we can help 1 Y people, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

Most women in my surroundings will go with option B. This is of course retarded. And I will blame them for it.

Charity. Great topic to show how wrong men can be.
You may have noticed that a whole lot of men choose the charities they donate to according to the amount of overhead costs and the percentage that "actually gets through to people in need", assuming that the charity with the lowest overhead is the best one for those in need and the least money gets wasted there on not helping people. Well, this guy explains why that is wrong if you actually want to help people:

[Sir Moody]

oddly good timing...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-29722848

seems Husar was right - China ranks better than India in Overall gender inequality.

[Husar]

oddly good timing...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-29722848

seems Husar was right - China ranks better than India in Overall gender inequality.

In overall gender equality or lack of gender inequality you mean.
What's actually interesting (if we ignore the wording for now) is that the difference between China and India is not as big as it is according to Montmorency's numbers.
UN has China 35:129 India
WEF has China 87:114 India

with 1 being the country with the least gender inequality.

So India looks better according to the WEF's numbers than according to the numbers of the UN, while China ranks a whole lot lower, though still in front of India. Could be different criteria of course, so the people who actually read the entire reports can discuss which criteria are better or how else the differences can be explained. Maybe someone can find a formula to calculate the average industrial growth of a country given its index rank and the GDP per capita.

[HoreTore]

Maybe someone can find a formula to calculate the average industrial growth of a country given its index rank and the GDP per capita.

Already done.

[Papewaio]

As you can see in the two ways of capturing data it is fairly fuzzy.

What isn't fuzzy is the usual suspects are at each end of the table.

However the question is it the chicken or the egg? Does having more equality lead to improved economy or an improved economy lead to improved equality?

Because if it is the first the politicians should focus on improving equality to improve their economy.
If the second feminists should help improve the economy to increase equality.

I think it is in the middle ground where one enhances the other over time. There will be no instant rewards for increasing the number of women in leadership positions in government. It is the foundation pieces that make that happen (educated workforce) that increases the stats for economy and leadership. So in my view equality and economic performance are both outcomes of the same fundamentals, they also then reinforce each other for the next round of growth.

[HoreTore]

As you can see in the two ways of capturing data it is fairly fuzzy.

What isn't fuzzy is the usual suspects are at each end of the table.

However the question is it the chicken or the egg? Does having more equality lead to improved economy or an improved economy lead to improved equality?

Because if it is the first the politicians should focus on improving equality to improve their economy.
If the second feminists should help improve the economy to increase equality.

I think it is in the middle ground where one enhances the other over time. There will be no instant rewards for increasing the number of women in leadership positions in government. It is the foundation pieces that make that happen (educated workforce) that increases the stats for economy and leadership. So in my view equality and economic performance are both outcomes of the same fundamentals, they also then reinforce each other for the next round of growth.

A male-dominated society draws on the strengths of 50% of the population. A society focusing on equality draws from 100% of the population. Male domination is an extreme waste of resources, while equality does better at utilizing the resources in a society.

It's the egg.

[Husar]

A male-dominated society draws on the strengths of 50% of the population. A society focusing on equality draws from 100% of the population. Male domination is an extreme waste of resources, while equality does better at utilizing the resources in a society.

It's the egg.

You have a dictatorship where noone can vote and women earn 20% less for the same work, they can work in every area.
How high is the percentage of the strengths it draws from its population?