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?

[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.

[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.

[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....

[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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

Piffle - The British Empire's moral and subsequent territorial decline is inextricable linked to the broadening and deepening of the franchise.

Which is to say - if you can do strawman, I can do better.

[HoreTore]

Piffle - The British Empire's moral and subsequent territorial decline is inextricable linked to the broadening and deepening of the franchise.

Which is to say - if you can do strawman, I can do better.

And life in Great Britain is better with feminism as well, and the economic growth you have seen in the last 50 years is stronger than any of what you saw during your "empire".

Face the facts, PVC: you traded your empire for feminism, and you're better off because of it.

[Sarmatian]

Face the facts, PVC: you traded your empire for feminism, and you're better off because of it.

That sounds so gay.

[HoreTore]

That sounds so gay.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And life in Great Britain is better with feminism as well, and the economic growth you have seen in the last 50 years is stronger than any of what you saw during your "empire".

Face the facts, PVC: you traded your empire for feminism, and you're better off because of it.

If by economic growth you mean City of London - sure.

If you mean the mines, the factories, the shipyards.

Try visiting the poor parts of the country - there are lots to choose from.

[HoreTore]

If by economic growth you mean City of London - sure.

If you mean the mines, the factories, the shipyards.

Try visiting the poor parts of the country - there are lots to choose from.

Maggie says 'ullo.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Maggie says 'ullo.

All she did was shoot a terminally ill patient - I blame Labour protectionism. Labour only won an election after women first got the vote you know, and Maggie was a woman.

Clearly, women are evil and want to grind good working men into the ground

[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.

[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.").