Are there natural differences between men and women that, if left unbothered by various forms of mind control, would result in two separate political philosophies for each gender?
If men are hunter-gatherers and women are nesters, wouldn't each have a rather different set of political goals?
If men are statistically thinkers by a 60-40 percentage and women are statistically feelers by a 60-40 percentage, isn't that a huge implication that even subtle and unintentional forms of mind control can't hide the true nature of each?
Are men thus more mental and women more soulistic by nature?
And if the answers to these questions are more yes than no, does that mean that, if left to their own non-co-dependent devices each gender would find a natural affinity for political philosophy that meets their genderly unique needs?
Are women still simply lagging behind in taking political initiative, and only that accounts for why there isn't a major political party hugely for women?
I would think so, at least I somewhat feel that to be true.
Look at the Libertarians, for instance.
Libertarians are essentially liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues. Now that's a man's political perspective for sure. Men want all that freedom to behave socially in whatever way they want, no matter which of their brains is in charge at the moment, and whatever you do, don't ever tax or restrict a man from going out in the world to bring home the bacon any way he darn well pleases, no matter who is hurt in the process, and the more heirarchical the ruling system, the better.
Indeed, I've known a ton of Libertarians, and though Ayn Rand may be a famous one, she's a major gender exception to their ranks. The Libertarians are greatly male, with an understandably very small number of women.
So, where is the women's counterpart to Libertarians?
It's still forming ... and it's called, correspondingly, Securitarians.
Securitarians are conservative on social issues and liberal on economic issues. Yep, that's a woman's perspective all right. Women want and need all the nest protection conservative community social values provide them, and women could care less how the bacon is brought home, just as long as it is brought home, even if it isn't a man bringing it home, as the children need to be fed, regardless. The easier it is to get that bacon home, the happier women are, as they attain no satisfaction from winning hard fought struggles with saber-toothed economic systems; they only care that nest necessities are easily obtainable, by whatever means, cooperatively preferred where no one gets hurt and children never suffer from dead-beat dads. Indeed, for women, the more equality in the economic system, the better.
So ... all brainwashing aside, will men and women ever be able to come to a natural agreement with regard to political philosophy?
Is such an agreement necessary in the near future?
And what happens to men if no agreement is made and women eventually organize and Securitarians become the next major political party?
Are men doomed?
Or will men need to nuke everything to have a start-over chance at regaining supremacy?
If men are hunter-gatherers and women are nesters, wouldn't each have a rather different set of political goals?
If men are statistically thinkers by a 60-40 percentage and women are statistically feelers by a 60-40 percentage, isn't that a huge implication that even subtle and unintentional forms of mind control can't hide the true nature of each?
Are men thus more mental and women more soulistic by nature?
And if the answers to these questions are more yes than no, does that mean that, if left to their own non-co-dependent devices each gender would find a natural affinity for political philosophy that meets their genderly unique needs?
Are women still simply lagging behind in taking political initiative, and only that accounts for why there isn't a major political party hugely for women?
I would think so, at least I somewhat feel that to be true.
Look at the Libertarians, for instance.
Libertarians are essentially liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues. Now that's a man's political perspective for sure. Men want all that freedom to behave socially in whatever way they want, no matter which of their brains is in charge at the moment, and whatever you do, don't ever tax or restrict a man from going out in the world to bring home the bacon any way he darn well pleases, no matter who is hurt in the process, and the more heirarchical the ruling system, the better.
Indeed, I've known a ton of Libertarians, and though Ayn Rand may be a famous one, she's a major gender exception to their ranks. The Libertarians are greatly male, with an understandably very small number of women.
So, where is the women's counterpart to Libertarians?
It's still forming ... and it's called, correspondingly, Securitarians.
Securitarians are conservative on social issues and liberal on economic issues. Yep, that's a woman's perspective all right. Women want and need all the nest protection conservative community social values provide them, and women could care less how the bacon is brought home, just as long as it is brought home, even if it isn't a man bringing it home, as the children need to be fed, regardless. The easier it is to get that bacon home, the happier women are, as they attain no satisfaction from winning hard fought struggles with saber-toothed economic systems; they only care that nest necessities are easily obtainable, by whatever means, cooperatively preferred where no one gets hurt and children never suffer from dead-beat dads. Indeed, for women, the more equality in the economic system, the better.
So ... all brainwashing aside, will men and women ever be able to come to a natural agreement with regard to political philosophy?
Is such an agreement necessary in the near future?
And what happens to men if no agreement is made and women eventually organize and Securitarians become the next major political party?
Are men doomed?
Or will men need to nuke everything to have a start-over chance at regaining supremacy?