Should women be allowed to vote?

[CJK]

Should women be allowed to vote?

[CJK]

Yes.

I'm rather alarmed you voted no.

Why? It's a fact that women are irrational. They make judgements based on emotions rather than reason based on factual information. It's not their fault, it's just the way they're designed.

[CJK]

Yes.

I'm rather alarmed you voted no.

Why? It's a fact that women are irrational. They make judgements based on emotions rather than reason based on factual information. It's not their fault, it's just the way they're designed.

With no exceptions? I think not.

You'll find just as many men who do the same thing. Why not take the vote off them too?

It is well known that women lack the rationality of men.

If women aren't irrational, why do they make such lousy leaders/politicians? Just look at the 2008 election. Hillary Clinton had every advantage yet let herself get beaten by a community agitator with no experience. She held out for months even after she was mathematically eliminated from the race. Contrast that to Romney who gracefully bowed out after it was clear that he couldn't catch up to McCain.

Then came Palin. I'm sure I don't have to elaborate on that one for the lefties out there.

[CJK]

Voting is an attempt to have your interests represented.

Even if one accepts your argument that women are irrational, which I obviously don't, why should that in any way be relevant?

Because it's not in the nation's interest to have half the electorate consisting of largely irrational people. That lead us to electing irrational politicians and contributes to having irrational policy. People who make decisions based off there emotions usually don't do what's in their best interests.

[CJK]

Yes.

I'm rather alarmed you voted no.

Why? It's a fact that women are irrational. They make judgements based on emotions rather than reason based on factual information. It's not their fault, it's just the way they're designed.

With no exceptions? I think not.

You'll find just as many men who do the same thing. Why not take the vote off them too?

It is well known that women lack the rationality of men.

If women aren't irrational, why do they make such lousy leaders/politicians? Just look at the 2008 election. Hillary Clinton had every advantage yet let herself get beaten by a community agitator with no experience. She held out for months even after she was mathematically eliminated from the race. Contrast that to Romney who gracefully bowed out after it was clear that he couldn't catch up to McCain.

Then came Palin. I'm sure I don't have to elaborate on that one for the lefties out there.

I'm sorry but you can't project the examples of one person onto a group of 3 billion people. That is just irrational, something that you seem to have such a disliking for. There are currently not many women in politics simply because they've historically had little power in it. It's increasing, but it wont be anywhere near the proportion of women to men for a long time to come, sadly. If ever.

Well I'm sorry but you have been brainwashed by the PC elite if you actually think women aren't represented because they lack power.

Women have made little if any contribution to science, philosophy, inventions, art, leadership, or mathematics.

Just look at this forum. The vast majority of the people on here are men. Why? Because men are interested in crafting policy, debating political issues, and being competitive. Women aren't interested in that. From their earliest days they are only interested in achieving security and social status. All of their decisions revolve around this irrational basis.

[CJK]

Voting is an attempt to have your interests represented.

Even if one accepts your argument that women are irrational, which I obviously don't, why should that in any way be relevant?

Because it's not in the nation's interest to have half the electorate consisting of largely irrational people. That lead us to electing irrational politicians and contributes to having irrational policy. People who make decisions based off there emotions usually don't do what's in their best interests.

Who are you to judge what is in anyone's best interest? Furthermore, who are you to judge what is irrational?

Do you believe there are also irrational men? Should we maybe test everyone to make sure that only "rational" people vote?

I'm not judging best interest I am merely noting that making a decision based off emotion tends to lead to poor results.

Of course there are some irrational men. But there are far more irrational women thean there are irrational men. Ideally we would want only rational people to vote but it would be hard to make that determination based off some sort of test that isn't time consuming. Allowing 50%+ of the voters to consist of irrational, emotionally driven people is in itself irrational.

[CJK]

1. PC elite? Srsly? I'm about as UNpolitically correct as you can get. Check out my postings on religion for snippets of that.

2. What about Marie Curie? And maybe it's because people like you have always encouraged women not to think about such issues because in your eyes, it'd be 'irrational'.

3. Again, underepresentation. Women may generally have less interest in politics, but it doesn't mean they aren't as well informed.

Marie Curie is one in a million. And even then she only did empirical rather than theoretical work, and worked with other people. I certainly have never encouraged women one way or another.

The question is not a matter of being informed, it's a matter of using the information provided to you in order to make a rational judgement. Women don't do that. If they did, they would be on sites like this talking about it.

[CJK]

Until you can take an accurate measure of the psychological composition of all men and all women on this planet, I don't think you can generalise as such.

It's common sense dude. That's like saying we can't generalize that the sky is blue unless we photograph all of it.

[CJK]

Voting is an attempt to have your interests represented.

Even if one accepts your argument that women are irrational, which I obviously don't, why should that in any way be relevant?

Because it's not in the nation's interest to have half the electorate consisting of largely irrational people. That lead us to electing irrational politicians and contributes to having irrational policy. People who make decisions based off there emotions usually don't do what's in their best interests.

Who are you to judge what is in anyone's best interest? Furthermore, who are you to judge what is irrational?

Do you believe there are also irrational men? Should we maybe test everyone to make sure that only "rational" people vote?

I'm not judging best interest I am merely noting that making a decision based off emotion tends to lead to poor results.

Of course there are some irrational men. But there are far more irrational women thean there are irrational men. Ideally we would want only rational people to vote but it would be hard to make that determination based off some sort of test that isn't time consuming. Allowing 50%+ of the voters to consist of irrational, emotionally driven people is in itself irrational.

What constitutes "good" or "bad" results is entirely subjective. Women (and men) vote for people and parties they think will represent their interests. That's the purpose of voting.

Yes, but again, look at history. If men had given women the right to make decisions, we'd still be in the stone age. Women are not risk-takers, to the extent that they have intersts, they are to achieve social status instead of being inventive or productive.

[CJK]

That's because bigots like you ensure that women are raised from birth to be submissive and weak, while men are taught to be independent, aggressive, and free-thinking.

Actually when I was a kid the PC propaganda at school and on TV brainwashed me into thinking that women were just as good as men were. Through personal experience and the examination of the relevant science, I now know that that conclusion was incorrect.

Your position that men and women really aren't different is liberal creationism, pure and simple.

[CJK]

CJK,
please do us a favor and shoot yourself. Women seem to be smarter than you. So we should not let you vote, much less live. You have got to get your head out of your ass. And you know just cause you cant get a girlfriend does not mean you have to hate on them. It is just sour grapes with you. shame... you are dumb.

You really aren't disproving my point about women arguing based on emotion instead of logic.

[CJK]

That's because bigots like you ensure that women are raised from birth to be submissive and weak, while men are taught to be independent, aggressive, and free-thinking.

Actually when I was a kid the PC propaganda at school and on TV brainwashed me into thinking that women were just as good as men were. Through personal experience and the examination of the relevant science, I now know that that conclusion was incorrect.

Your position that men and women really aren't different is liberal creationism, pure and simple.

Women have all the same mental faculties as men.  The reason why women are on average more emotional than men (although there are exceptions) is because that is how women are socialized.  They are taught to be nurturing and sensitive from a very early age.  They are taught that the proper way for a woman to act is to be dainty and weak, and they are taught that their goal in life is to find a man and have children.  Independence and strength is rarely encouraged in girls as they grow up.  And these same things are also applied to boys, but in the opposite manner.

It is possible to raise a girl to be emotionally strong, independent, and aggressive.  Some women are raised in this way.  But it rarely happens.  It is not because women are programmed at birth to spend an hour fixing their hair in the morning.  It is because they are socialized a certain way.  And bigoted bullsh**t like what you're spouting is only making it worse.

What year is this, 1950? Society has been shoving down pro-women, anti-male crap down our throats for at least 40 years. And it really hasn't changed anything. All the science points to evolutionary biology which explains that over many thousands of years women were gatherers while men were hunters who provided security and leadership. You think it's just a coincidence that men throughout history in virtually every civilization have constituted the vast majority of leaders, and if not leaders, advisers?

[CJK]

Jesus Christ, people.  There are innate differences between women and men.  These differences are statistical, socialization exaggerates them to some degree, and any given woman is probably "manlier" than average in some aspects.  But even if this weren't the case -- if every woman systematically thought differently (in whatever aspect) from every man! -- why the hell would that cause you to argue against universal suffrage, especially if you're still letting the stupidest men vote?!

Anyone who argues against the existence of (I repeat, statistical) differences between women and men in order to argue for universal suffrage is shooting himself (on this forum, there's mostly no reason to try to use PC pronouns) in the foot by tying himself to empirical falsehoods.  The same goes (though to a less cut-and-dried extent) for racial differences.  It's unclear whether there are (statistical, naturally) innate differences between races (to the extent that races can even be defined) but it's also irrelevant because it's stupid and (in my view) immoral to be bigoted based on such differences even if they exist.

Stupidity is not the same as irrationality. The evidence indicates that women are only slight less intelligent than men (on average). The problem is how they use that intelligence. They do not use in a manner that is conducive to leadership or productivity.

For instance, Warren G. Harding was a complete dolt compared to Vladimir Lenin. But I don't doubt that most people would find Lenin's belief more rational than Harding's today.

[CJK]

Forget the argument between nature and nurture. You may think rational and intelligent women are a rarity, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I don't think most black people I know should vote, but I still wouldn't deny all blacks the right to vote because I know plenty of them who are absolutely intelligent, rational, and well informed. I don't want most women I know voting, but I know some who are smarter and more rational than a lot of men.

That's true, but following your logic we would have to let teenagers vote because some teenagers are much more informed and rational than adults. There are plenty of 15 year olds that are more "qualified" to vote than adults but as a society we recognize that they tend to lack judgement.

[CJK]

That's because women were treated as breeding slaves throughout much of human history.  It's true that on average, men are more physically capable than women.  The fact that most societies are patriarchal in nature has something to do with that.  It has nothing to do with women being "irrational."

You confuse cause and effect.

[CJK]

There is little evidence that either sex is the most intelligent. Men tend to be better at maths and have better spatial skills, but usually women are more skilfull when it comes to learning languages, and they seem to have more developed social skills. Girls use to have a better reading comprehension, too.
I'd say that, between those who are extremely smart, men are a majority, but also between the less inteligent ones. So more women than men would occupy the middle ranks. But I guess that when it comes to an issue like this, we should take it as an individual matter. Generalizing can be very dangerous and inaccurate.

Anyway, those who say that women then to be more emotional: what's wrong with that? Being able to empathize with the rest of the people is as important as being rational. I would even say that sometimes it is more important. If we acted regarding only to logical reasoning, we would be like artificial humanoids. Voting is not an excepction. So that's not the point.
In my opinion, education plays a more important role that being more or less clever.


It's sad that so many people have those ultraconservative ideas. And it is sadder the fact that they try to make their opinion look scientifically proven and rational, when it is just full of prejudice.

Re-read what I wrote. The issue is a lack of rationality, not a lack of intelligence. People do not make very good decisions when they rely mostly on their emotions.

[CJK]

There is little evidence that either sex is the most intelligent. Men tend to be better at maths and have better spatial skills, but usually women are more skilfull when it comes to learning languages, and they seem to have more developed social skills. Girls use to have a better reading comprehension, too.
I'd say that, between those who are extremely smart, men are a majority, but also between the less inteligent ones. So more women than men would occupy the middle ranks. But I guess that when it comes to an issue like this, we should take it as an individual matter. Generalizing can be very dangerous and inaccurate.

Anyway, those who say that women then to be more emotional: what's wrong with that? Being able to empathize with the rest of the people is as important as being rational. I would even say that sometimes it is more important. If we acted regarding only to logical reasoning, we would be like artificial humanoids. Voting is not an excepction. So that's not the point.
In my opinion, education plays a more important role that being more or less clever.


It's sad that so many people have those ultraconservative ideas. And it is sadder the fact that they try to make their opinion look scientifically proven and rational, when it is just full of prejudice.

Re-read what I wrote. The issue is a lack of rationality, not a lack of intelligence. People do not make very good decisions when they rely mostly on their emotions.

You're assuming that all men are rational and all women are irrational.  There are a lot of very irrational men, as well as very rational women.  If you think men don't rely on their emotions, you have obviously never been outside of your parent's basement.

Men who beat their wives or significant other certainly aren't being rational.  A man who doesn't ask for directions if he's lost isn't being rational.  Kids who join gangs aren't being rational.  A man who punches a hole in the wall is certainly letting his emotions overtake his rationality.  Yet in your theory, they'd all be allowed to vote because they have a penis.

You're argument about irrationality is a bunch of bullsh**t.  You just hate women.  Please, save some oxygen for the rest of us and jump off a bridge.

I did not say that every single woman was irrational or that every single man is rational. I'm saying that that is the case the vast majority of the time. Many teenagers are more informed than adults, but we recognize that as a whole that tends not to be true.

Women frequently attack men, it just isn't seen as wrong since they only inflict minor damage. The reason men tend not to ask for directions is because they tend not to get lost. And the reason men punch holes in walls is so they avoid punching/insulting someone who can get them into even more trouble.

Anybody that thinks that there are no serious differences between male and female behaviors lives in denial.

[CJK]

I'm going to declare victory in this debate, since nobody can respond to my points with evidence, civility, or non-ad hominem attacks.

Liberal creationism is hard to give up, but the truth shall set you free!