If women didn't get the vote...

[jupta]

I'm sure most men reading this are thinking along the lines of:

Man: Women with voting privileges? Sounds reasonable.

Woman: Now that we have it, we can vote for taxes, social security, medicare, medicaid, abortion on demand, federal education, managed economics, removing the gold standard, employer provided health care, welfare, policies to encourage single mothers, and we can get militarily involved in world affairs. You know, for the children.

Woman2: The best part is we can make men pay for it.

Man: You can't be serious?
(uncomfortable silence)


The biggest thing to keep in mind when you're analyzing this question is: men produce; women consume. As a caveat, I would like to add, I don't see this as a value judgment, more as an observation.

I am taking US politics to illustrate this point, because I know about it the most among all the western nations, and because more people here would identify with western politics. In American(and pretty much every other country's) politics I see the right as masculine and the left as feminine. I imagine were only men able to vote the middle of the political spectrum would be around the ideology of Austrian economics.

Historically a lot of things happened in the early 20th century that set the stage for what happened in the rest of it. Two in particular happened. The 16th and the 19th amendments were ratified in 1913 and 1920 respectively. One brought a female voice to international politics and the other gave government the funds to act. Both combined gave an impetus to governments to do something in response to an (Randian) altruistic 50% voting block. The 17th and 18th were equally as short sighted. One reduced state power in favor of federal by causing senators to be appointed by popular vote instead of by state legislators. The other was the amazingly dumb prohibition.

We could probably go round after round explaining the Great Depression. My take is that the government, fresh with new funds from 1913 tried to bring order to an unordered world. Much of the legislation in the twenties directly gave cause to the market breakdown in 1929. The combination of 16 and 19 led to a much more active federal government. This activism was evident in the federal reserve board extending credit and keeping a loose money supply. The price of gold was also kept constant and not allowed to fluctuate. If it had been allowed to move this would have given the market signals that something was amiss and provided a release valve for the market pressures building up at the time. These excesses of activism led to the great depression and were directly responsible for extending it. Had the government done nothing (Like Smoot-Hawley) the depression of the 1930s would have been over within a year (like the depressions of 1907, 1920, 1987, etc).

The WWs would have happened anyway. But without the woman vote the US would have been out of Europe much earlier. Leaving earlier would have forced Britain and France to develop militaries that could hold their own against the Soviets with backup from the US. Their inability to project military force currently leaves the world in an awkward position. They depend on the US for defense and chafe at their own weakness. The Soviets facing a concentrated (imagine all republican politics) US military would have realized earlier that a managed economy will always under produce a free market. Without the US in concentrated force in Europe the soviets would not have been as threatened. And felt no need to build their military to the extent that they did and as fast as they did.

My point is this activism and centralization is a decidedly feminine point of view. That is not to say men are not prone to concentrations of power. They are, but with a different focus. A man will concentrate to produce, while a woman will concentrate to consume.

As Mark Twain said, "a man who carries a cat by the tail is gaining a valuable education." He will neither grow dim nor doubtful. But if he wants to do it again, I say let him. I see a child place his hand on the stove and my guess is that he will probably not do that again. A woman will want to take steps to ensure that incident never happens in the first place. The problem with that is there is no education. The child hears stoves are bad, but does he really know?

I can look at incredibly messed up situations in the world and think: I probably wouldn't do it like that but good luck to you. The feminine mindset is how terrible that situation is and what can we do to fix it. Sometimes the best answer is to do nothing. Situations often work themselves out. I look at the situation in Zimbabwe with Mugabe kicking farmers off their lands. That is just dumb. Don't complain later when your people are starving. Eventually that situation is going to resolve itself and not peacefully. British citizens gave up their guns. They can't be too surprised when crime rates go up and their government becomes ever more intrusive. Eventually that situation is also going to resolve itself. Let's just say I would rather not be visiting when it does.

There are situations like this all over the world where the US gets involved. The images shown are always drawn to compassion like children starving. With a male only vote other images would have to be shown. Imagery of empire will only take one so far. I would rather help McDonald's (or whatever corporation I am giving loyalty to this week) open shop in every country in the world than give aid to some pipe dream of empire and world domination. What type of imagery would get a male voter to intervene in Kosovo, Rwanda, or Somalia? Those were all marketed as altruistic aid which is not real effective on men.

However, not until post WW2 would there have been drastic divergences. I don't think that if the US would recognize the current situation the changes would have been that drastic. The change in attitude up to the end of WW2 would have been significant enough to comment on. With a male only vote I think the US would have been truly fed up with world politics. The prevailing attitude would be, if you want to kill each other, fine, leave us out of it. We will certainly do business but we are not going to expend national life and treasure to pull your fat out of the fire again. Europe would be much more defense independent without the US safety net.

Politically I don't think the Democratic party would even exist today. I think the lines would be drawn between the Republicans and Libertarians. Nixon would have beat Kennedy, and the USSR would have collapsed much earlier. By the same token there would not have been a space race and mankind may or may not have made it to the moon. (And the point of that was??). Nixon still would have been caught at something like Watergate and a Libertarian style president would have taken over in the 70's.

China would have immediately been recognized which would have spelled the end of socialism. The 60's backlash would have been more localized. No Vietnam as a catalyst perhaps the 17th amendment would be recalled. In the meantime Europe forms a union and has to develop a serious military as there is no US safety net.

I would guess that the USA is twenty years behind where it could be.

[Shahrazad]

Are you saying you think the US's interventionism is all about altruism? If so, you're dumb as a doorknob.

[jupta]

Are you saying you think the US's interventionism is all about altruism? If so, you're dumb as a doorknob.

So what do you think US interventionism is 'all about'?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

British citizens gave up their guns. They can't be too surprised when crime rates go up and their government becomes ever more intrusive. Eventually that situation is also going to resolve itself. Let's just say I would rather not be visiting when it does.

This seems like rather sloppy reasoning based on what I know. The causes of the differences in crime rates or the increase in the UK are not related to gun-control. This whole idea that more or less control over legal ownership of guns would affect crime one way or another is probably flawed. The abuse and preventive effects would cancel each other out.

The crime control that seems to work in the US and is frowned upon in the EU is the amount of police enforcement and [length and unpleasantness of] incarceration that the US employs to control their problems. The ratio of the US prison population and visibility and presence, not to mention the amount of doubtful methods of the active police force are all significantly higher.

There's a call in the UK and the rest of Europe to follow suite: to increase sentences, more cops on the street, more traps to lay for the criminal or in general a more tough attitude toward injustice while staying out of the way of the ordinary civilian [or at least his awareness].

If this method is the way to go or if this would be a more masculine or feminine approach I'll leave for another discussion but at least I want to stress that there's no good evidence I know of that possession of guns has much to do with falling or rising crime rates. The only part of such reasoning I do agree with is that increasing any system of control of the populace in general increases violence and tensions. In that sense it's interesting to see how the UK has increased the amount of regulations and camera surveillance immensely over the last two decades, even more so than in the rest of Europe although many cities have similar but smaller scale projects.

[jupta]

The abuse and preventive effects would cancel each other out.

No.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

There's no evidence of real correlation between gun ownership and crime rate. Put up or shut up.

[jupta]

There's no evidence of real correlation anyway. Put up or shut up.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 328368.ece

http://stason.org/TULARC/society/guns-c ... rates.html

Can't you liberals even google stuff?

[Shahrazad]

jupta,

So what do you think US interventionism is 'all about'?

Imperialism, colonialism, expansionism. Empires grab sovereign countries so that they can steal their land and resources.

I suggest you read a history book such as "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire". You are seriously ignorant.

Better yet, read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins. That ought to burst your illusion bubble. After that, we'll talk.

[jupta]

jupta,

So what do you think US interventionism is 'all about'?

Imperialism, colonialism, expansionism. Empires grab sovereign countries so that they can steal their land and resources.

I suggest you read a history book such as "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire". You are seriously ignorant.

Better yet, read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins. That ought to burst your illusion bubble. After that, we'll talk.

You libtards are just too stupid and stuck-up to debate with. I should have guessed that all the non-enlightened members of a philo forum would be liberals.

Anyway, I've read those two books. The first one is halfway decent. The second one is an anecdote - yeah right. If you want to accept the conspiracy view - then too, feminism is a social engineering project gone wrong. And besides there's my point about feminine centralisation and socialism, which is backed by the Depression.

And I don't think I'd be wrong if I said that you don't know much about world political history.

[Shahrazad]

You libtards are just too stupid and stuck-up to debate with. I should have guessed that all the non-enlightened members of a philo forum would be liberals.

I'm not a liberal, you idiot. My political view is very compatible with the Libertarians, especially Ron Paul.

And I don't think I'd be wrong if I said that you don't know much about world political history.

I bet I know more about the history of US imperialism in the last 100 years than you do. I even lived some of it ring side.

You are full of shit.

[jupta]

I'm not a liberal, you idiot. My political view is very compatible with the Libertarians, especially Ron Paul.

Ah, Ron Paul the isolationist. I also heard he is a massive racist. Well, I have my own isolationist bent, but that doesn't concern any of what I said.

I bet I know more about the history of US imperialism in the last 100 years than you do. I even lived some of it ring side.

You are full of shit.

Heh, you just swallowed the bait. US imperialism in the last 100 YEARS? If you said Afghanistan or Iraq then I would have agreed partially with you. Dude, you gotta do some serious reviewing of that view if you're to get along with the Libertarians, because that is really dumb. And reading a few books by pinkos won't get you anywhere.

Anyways, what was the topic again? Till now I've just seen the typical liberal techniques. There's no way you are compatible with libertarian views. But seriously dude, if you gotta argue, argue the actual points I made, because I've got no time for retards.

EDIT: I should have a clarified my stance on the subject. I'm against all women and braindead liberals voting.

[Carl G]

There is no real vote. Not at the national level, anyway.

[Shahrazad]

Dude, you gotta do some serious reviewing of that view if you're to get along with the Libertarians, because that is really dumb.

I have no need for acceptance within the libertarian party, or to "get along with them". I stated that a lot of their views happen to coincide with mine, that is all.

But seriously dude, if you gotta argue, argue the actual points I made, because I've got no time for retards.

The points you made are too stupid to argue with. I'm the one who has no time for retards like you.

[jupta]

I have no need for acceptance within the libertarian party, or to "get along with them". I stated that a lot of their views happen to coincide with mine, that is all.

Well, apparently they don't. Anybody who says that the US has carried out imperialism for the past 100 years is a retard. You haven't got a clue man. Take your head out of your ass.

The points you made are too stupid to argue with. I'm the one who has no time for retards like you.

Typical ad hominem. Why are all you liberals and feminists the same?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

There's no evidence of real correlation anyway. Put up or shut up.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 328368.ece

http://stason.org/TULARC/society/guns-c ... rates.html

Can't you liberals even google stuff?

Liberal, are you retarded?

Anyway, you're not capable of understanding the articles you posted or what I tried to explain in my post.

For example, the second link: "The American states bordering Canada have homicide rates similar to ours despite easier legal access to firearms and liberal handgun laws[7]".

So that's what I was saying: it doesn't seem to make a difference. The reason there's a rise in UK violence is more likely because they and other European cities are getting just as stupid as American cities were some while ago. In Europe we've "imported" a lot of mindset from across the ocean and immense stupidity came with it. Although it wouldn't surprise me if it just comes with being retarded post-modern Judeo-Christian Western-minded for a while.

The fact is crime rate doesn't seem to depend on the over-regulation of guns. You might think of a other few reasons why private gun ownership is good but controlling the crime rate of a state just doesn't cut it.

[jupta]

Anyway, you're not capable of understanding the articles you posted or what I tried to explain in my post.

For example, the second link: "The American states bordering Canada have homicide rates similar to ours despite easier legal access to firearms and liberal handgun laws[7]"

Um, read the entire article. That's just a portion of it.

An excerpt:

However, it's easy to see that Canada's violent crime rate has been
increasing rapidly -- in spite of increasingly strict gun laws -- and it
has increased faster than the US rate. While the Canadian rate has
been decreasing since 1991, the same is true of the US rate. (Besides,
a 4% decrease hardly compensates for a 400+% increase!)

Example:
- Canada's "tough gun laws" came info effect on Jan 1, 1978.
- Increase in Canada's violent crime rate 1977 to 1991: 89%
- Increase in USA's violent crime rate 1977 to 1991: 58%
Also, note that Canada's violent crime rate was dropping 1975 to 1977,
and started climbing sharply after Bill C-51 was passed in 1978. "Gun
control" doesn't seem to have decreased violent crime.

In addition, Canadian break and enter rates were greater than US rates
in 1983 and the difference has only increased since.

US and Canadian residential burglary rates were very similar until 1991
when Canadian rates surpassed the US rates. In 1992, the Canadian
residential burglary rate was 896 (per 100,000 persons) and the US rate
was 774.

The reason there's a rise in UK violence is more likely because they and other European cities are getting just as stupid as American cities were some while ago. In Europe we've "imported" a lot of mindset from across the ocean and immense stupidity came with it. Although it wouldn't surprise me if it just comes with being retarded post-modern Judeo-Christian Western-minded for a while.

Another retarded 'I hate America' chanter. Great.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Um, read the entire article. That's just a portion of it.

The numbers are playing tricks with you, poor wanna-be libertarian. Compare it with international changes in crime rates, check out some numbers after 1991 or before 1977 and if they were going up and own, compare it with the United States. You won't find any reason. Many numbers went down again in the eighties below the levels of the seventies. There's not much rhyme to it.

Another retarded 'I hate America' chanter. Great.

It's a big country so it has a lot of morons, naturally. There's no evil in the States that Europe doesn't have somewhere too, and always had, I hate to say. America is just a bigger juicier target and secretly desires to be as well I suspect :)

[jupta]

The numbers are playing tricks with you, poor wanna-be libertarian. Compare it with international changes in crime rates, check out some numbers after 1991 or before 1977 and if they were going up and own, compare it with the United States. You won't find any reason. Many numbers went down again in the eighties below the levels of the seventies. There's not much rhyme to it.

http://stubbornfacts.us/files/ViolentCr ... Trend2.gif

You should google things before you say anything about them.

[Unidian]

Jupta,

You are full of crap.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

http://stubbornfacts.us/files/ViolentCr ... Trend2.gif

You should google things before you say anything about them.

Yes, your post 1985 graph follows about the same trend as the larger one I supplied from Canada. You're proving my point. Perhaps it's better to think things through before googling them. Keep up trying though, I do agree on a few other things you wrote.

[jupta]

http://stubbornfacts.us/files/ViolentCr ... Trend2.gif

You should google things before you say anything about them.

Yes, your post 1985 graph follows about the same trend as the larger one I supplied from Canada. You're proving my point. Perhaps it's better to think things through before googling them. Keep up trying though, I do agree on a few other things you wrote.

Can't you do simple math? The numbers differ. Besides, the US is ethnically less homogeneous, has greater poverty and hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants.

[Shahrazad]

jupta said,

EDIT: I should have a clarified my stance on the subject. I'm against all women and braindead liberals voting.

The USA would be better off if we kept all Repukes and religious people from voting. George Bush would've never been elected once, let alone twice.

[brokenhead]

Woman: Now that we have it, we can vote for taxes, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, abortion on demand, federal education, managed economics, removing the gold standard, employer provided health care, welfare, policies to encourage single mothers, and we can get militarily involved in world affairs. You know, for the children.

Some of this characterization rings true, but as a whole, it comes across as ignorant. I agree women might be for social security and Medicare. And most women I know favor legal abortions but are much less ardent about having them be available on demand. They just want them to be available (and safe). Policies to encourage single mothers? That is a whiny, vague rightist concept if I have ever heard one, and it is without basis in the real world. No one that I know thinks that single-parenthood is an ideal situation. Militarily involved in world affairs? What women do you know that want to see their men go off to war?

I think Shah might be closer to identifying the problem. I think if women as a voting bloc are to be blamed for anything, it is for following the religious right and making the same mistake that many men do, which is confusing righteousness with self-righteousness.

[jupta]

most women I know favor legal abortions but are much less ardent about having them be available on demand

I don't care about the women you know, and either way it's the same thing whether they want it on demand, or just 'available'.

Policies to encourage single mothers? That is a whiny, vague rightist concept if I have ever heard one, and it is without basis in the real world. No one that I know thinks that single-parenthood is an ideal situation.

Single motherhood is supported throughout America, whereas it should be discouraged. That has nothing to do with whether people you know think that it is ideal.

Militarily involved in world affairs? What women do you know that want to see their men go off to war?

Straw man.

I think Shah might be closer to identifying the problem. I think if women as a voting bloc are to be blamed for anything, it is for following the religious right and making the same mistake that many men do, which is confusing righteousness with self-righteousness.

How did you come up with that? The women's vote in the US always favoured the left.

Besides, you are addressing a small part of my post, conveniently ignoring the rest of even that small part. That is a leftist technique if I ever saw one.

[Unidian]

It seems anything you don't like a "leftist technique" employed by "liberals." In addition, anything you don't like is also controlled by women and sinister feminists.

Are you Rush Limbaugh?