/politics/ - News & Politics

Also keep in mind that women vote the least for anti-immigration parties.

mods, could you please fix the formatting?

1) yes, they have interests and desires that should be reflected democratically.

2) do you think it's fair that you can vote on policies that don't concern you?

3) yes, burquastan wasn't always so fucked up and and got worse under theocratic rule.

>>10317

they skew left because lefties support abortion. this is one of the top three women's issues across multitudes of major polls, and possibly the largest single issue voter base. if right wingers could abandon the issue or frame on medical grounds this bias could probably be dissolved.

>>10316

Women should always have a say, they outnumber the men anyway. But no, it is unfair for women not to have to enter the draft; that's an archaic stance imo (besides being preggo)

>>10321

what policies? abortion? it does concern me. Also, this is nothing compared to military drafting.

>>10325

>But no, it is unfair for women not to have to enter the draft;

I think if women should be allowed to vote, they must agree to be drafted, it could be optional, if you want to vote, sign this paper.

>>10321

The mindset of democracy being about relfecting "the desires of the populace" is a shit one, because the populace can be wrong, and often is. Bread and circuses, as the cliche goes. People don't often vote in their interests, but in their desires — most often this is a case of lacking long-term planning, which women, from observation, seem more susceptible to. Women's interests were better protected and represented when they couldn't vote than when they could.

Second, it's got nothing to do with fairness. For any political system I only have one question, and that is: does it work? If it works but isn't fair, it should be kept. In fact, the near-autistic focus on fairness is where civilizations go to die, since its a pointless argument only ever employed for people to extort one another. Life isn't fair, and until governments achieve divine powers they'll never be able to correct all of life's blunders. They'd be stupid for doing so, like trying to use solar power to restart the Sun. It's just not something you can do.

Not at all. Not only is there no evidence for denying female suffrage leading to worse conditions (the opposite, in fact), but also the only times female suffrage has ever existed has been in dying empires, so I think your country would collapse far before it had time to go down a slippery slope. Your example is also nonsense; the Arab world isn't the way it is because they don't let women vote. How ridiculous.

>>10325

>Women should always have a say, they outnumber the men anyway

Those statements are not in anyway related. What does being a majority have to do with being more worthy of voting?

>But no, it is unfair for women not to have to enter the draft

It's logical, not unfair. You don't put women into combat unless you like not having a civilization.

>that's an archaic stance imo (besides being preggo)

Have I missed some new leap in genetic modification that has cured women of being absolute shit in combat for multiple different reasons?

>>10316

>1) Do you think women should have the right to vote?

Yes.

Though in my ideal society, the right to vote is earned through service to your people, not given just because you got to age 18.

>2) Do you think it's fair they can vote and not live up with some of the consequences (military drafting when war erupts)?

That question could be applied to literally anyone, not just women.

Again though, in my ideal society having to earn the right to vote would ensure that their vote would be backed by their actions and not just their personal beliefs.

I personally believe women shouldn't serve in combat roles in the military. If they want to serve in the military (or if they're drafted) it should be in non-combat roles only.

To answer your question directly, no it's not fair that someone could vote to institute the draft when it doesn't apply to them directly. That would be like the poor voting a tax increase on the rich. (Or vice versa)

>3) Would denying women the right to vote be a slippery slope?

Yes. Not to mention really, really dumb. Like MGTOW levels of dumb.

>>10327

More numbers is oftentimes more potential avenues for victories (barring shitty Soviet-tier training ); and if you care so much for genetic strength differences, throw them in at low-intensity/non-combat roles.

I agree however, that the number of people doesn't make it justifiable to give them power. Women aren't intellectual garbage though, any discrepancy is negligible and their suffrage promotes women to engage in academia, making a society less retarded.

>>10326

>drafted

two to four years, pay attention and don't act like a dumbass and you probably won't die. not a realistic prospect in the forseeable future due to being the political equivalent of toxic waste.

>preggers

at least 18 years of financially, emotionally, and socially, supporting smelly bitch or asshole that eats your food and hates you. common ailment.

or are you niggers for the draft? that's retarded, not just as policy but also for the servicemen that will inevitably get fragged due to the inherent low morale of conscript wars.

>>10316

vid starts with 160 seconds of sniveling and groveling and saying sorry to women for making the vid.

Starts at 2:40

>1) Do you think women should have the right to vote?

At least not until they have kids. Women with young children change in their outlook. They start seeing everything as a threat to their children. In that mode the last thing they'd want is a boat load of shitskins.

Even so its based on emotion rather than logic.

So no.

2. No

3. No.

>>10339

>At least not until they have kids. Women with young children change in their outlook. They start seeing everything as a threat to their children

This reminds me of this video.

>>10339

>implying the average man doesn't vote based on emotion too

>>10347

not as bad as women though

>>10316

Well I believe that voting should be limited to college-educated people. Going to college means that you at least have a set amount of intelligence. The idea that some trailer trash gas station attendant has the same vote as an accountant or pharmacist,regardless of race, is ridiulous

Of course I am talking about an ideal society free from liberalism and highly religious (the state recognizes official faiths but none is given primacy).

>>10357

> The idea that some trailer trash gas station attendant has the same vote as an accountant or pharmacist,regardless of race, is ridiulous

I think a better solution would be exclude those who don't pay taxes for whatever reason (on welfare, no income, ..etc). The tax rate should be flat. Changing the tax rate or giving tax cuts to certain groups must require a majority (+80%).

1) yes.

2) yes.

3) yes.

>>10371

This is not a poll, try to argue.

>>10373

1) Yes because the basis of democracy is voting rights to all citizens without discrimination.

2) Yes because other policies will touch only them, like policies about pregnancy leave for example.

3) Yes because as soon as we take a social group their voting rights, it's easy to justify taking them from other social groups.

>>10380

Since you are pro-equality, do you at least agree that military conscription (in non-combat roles) should be condition for them to vote?

>>10387

Yeah, why the fuck not. But not in combat roles, otherwise it would actually be a bother for male soldiers for obvious reasons (women are not physically capable of doing the same stuff as men).

>>10390

This would basically accomplish the desired goal (denying them the right to vote) without looking authoritarian or going into a slippery slope.

>>10393

Meh, don't think so.

>>10399

at most 10% of women would sign an agreement for military conscription just to be able to vote.

>>10316

>1) Do you think women should have the right to vote?

as long as the men want them to

>>10400

If you say so.

>>10316

1) No.

2) Yes because they aren't equal to men in combat ability at all so fair enough if a country doesn't want to have its shit fucked up.

3) Slippery slope to what? If you mean repealing more suffrage then that is quite doubtful I'm afraid.

>>10380

1) >Democracy

2) How is that relevant to military service? Are you such a dullard you cannot make policies in isolation of other policies and maintain them?

3) Ah, i suppose that answers my last question. It will not be able to remove voting rights for other members of society based on the same reasons that they are removed for women. Women and working class men are different. Women and middle class men are different. Women and upper class men are different. The grounds for removing the vote from women do not apply to those aforementioned sections of society.

1) No, because they didn't give up anything for that. Men had given up the right to violence for the right to vote. Meanwhile women can still use subterfuge.

2) Look above. Even without the Draft there are consequences of the right to vote for men. Military service has not much to do with political rights.

3) No. With the Roman form of Marriage women are treated very well, the hand that rocks the cradle has a tremendous on society. The very idea of women being oppressed in Western countries is a mystery to me.

Democracy was a mistake. The female vote added insult to injury. This question seems pointless, because you'll never convince women to vote for their own disempowerment. Same thing with immigrants. Democracy has this pesky ratchet mechanism. If we could start over, forget democracy and go for anarcho-capitalism.

I believe women should be able to vote but at the same time I believe it was completely justified for why they didn't.

After all, if they didn't go to war like the rest of the men, what right do they to vote? They should be able to get drafted just like anyone else.

1: Everybody should have the right to vote, once you start attaching any conditions on it, it can quickly get out of hand. Setting a minimum age is kind of acceptable because otherwise you are just giving parents more votes (in most of the cases). But other than that, its good to give every citizen of your country the right to vote.

2: I am in a country without military draft, but if anything is clear from previous world wars, its that when it is needed, pretty much anybody will be doing something for the war, be it in the military, industry, or anything else.

3: It would very much be a slippery slope. I think many of us are living in still reasonably free countries and haven't looked at other countries or history enough to understand the ways dictators can work. Democracy is in constant threat of falling into dictatorship. Politics is all about power, which is why so many things have been put in place to attempt to limit the power a single person/group can get. But many will still try. Gerrymandering is one way to get more power, but denying a large group of people the right to vote is another one. How many people do you believe profit from drug trade in a "legal" way? Police departments in the US get a lot of money each and every year from drugs cases. At the same time, minor offenders will also lose their right to vote. This is just one way in which a group of people can benefit a lot from setting rules that deny certain people their voting rights. It may look very reasonable that criminals no longer have a vote, but your government determines the crimes and how much they investigate, which gives them quite a lot of control over what laws will get made and how much power they can get. To deny women the right to vote for any reason will always only be done for one reason, because the politician currently in charge believes he will get more power by denying women the right to vote. If he felt women were a major contributor to how he got in power, he would ensure they always had the right to vote and might instead try and find a way under which a majority of men cannot vote. The moment the state holds you accountable for your own actions, you should also get the right to vote, under any circumstance.

>>10317

Look, if you are against immigration and believe women are the reason you have too much immigration, just fucking say so in your first post, don't go around asking a question but then try to influence the answer people give you so that you can stroke your own ego because people agree with you, given the information you have given them.

>>10822

Don't be ridiculous, how would anarcho-capitalism even have a single chance of not having everything gobled up into one massive monopoly? We already have had the need to break up some massive monopolies in our system which has rules against monopolies. Think for example about Bell.

>>10316

This is my repost response (from /pol/) to the linked vid, not answering the Qs:

He's not wrong, but he has analysed everything backwards.

He starts by assuming that civilisation is good and desirable, and from there blames women for ruining it.

But the truth is the reverse. Civilisation is the disease and women are the cure.

He was right when he points out that women undermine group loyalty, but it is group loyalty that is the divisive disease ruining the world.

He is right when he points out that civilisation depends on oppressing women, but oppression is the problem to be overcome.

He is right when he says other patriarchal civilisations will invade non-patriarchal ones, because patriarchies are bad and violent and they should end.

It is a prisoners dilemma:

A is nice, B is not nice, A is killed by B.

B is nice, A is not nice, B is killed by A.

A and B are not nice, they fight each other, surviving in dystopia.

BUT if A and B are nice, both live side by side in utopia.

Women are more connected to god/nature and can see the beauty in every soul. This is why they don't discriminate in their love, because they hold love for all. They won't let their nation invade other because they see the suffering of all life.

Man (severed from his femininity) is disconnected from god/nature, and feels internal contradictions because of this. He kills his neighbour and enslaves women to ensure his own false views are enforced upon those who actually know better.

Patriarchy collapses when domination and force (forcing chastity on women) stops propagating it, because it is the false ideology. It is a virus ideology seeking to infect the good, right and natural ways of humans: sharing, caring, compassion and kindness.

>You may say I'm a dreamer

>But I'm not the only one

>I hope some day you'll join us

>And the world will be as one

1) Do you think women should have the right to vote?

Depends on how the democratic system is implemented. I think it'd be fine with women having the right to vote in a nation with decentralized government and harsh immigrant regulation, with voting being limited to regional issues.