Political Gender Battle

[Chip]

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?

 

[oceanenvy]

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?

These are good questions - great topic!

However, while intuitively this makes sense, the factor of how we are living today and who is actuallly now working in the professional environment impacts the political arena. Most women work nowadays, so the traditional viewpoints are blurring. Men have become more "feminized" around social issues, and women have become much more knowledgable and practical about economic issues. Case in point: I am a professional woman and consider myself very progressive on social issues but slightly conservative when it comes to fiscal issues.


Also, interestingly, take the subject of abortion rights. Some of the more strident opposition comes from males. Most females I know (or at least associate with) are either pro-choice or can at least see both sides.

 

[Lagboltz]

Times are a-changing. Women surpassed men in college enrollment rates in 1991. Single parent households (largely the mother) are increasing and they will be the dominant influence on their kids. It is getting closer to a matriarchal society.

However, I believe men will be the dominant person in the household. Women will increasingly make the less important decisions such as what kind of house or car they should buy. Men will make all the important decisions such as what is the age of the universe, and who is most likely to win the world series. We might see a similar phenomenon in politics.

 

[oceanenvy]

Times are a-changing. Women surpassed men in college enrollment rates in 1991. Single parent households (largely the mother) are increasing and they will be the dominant influence on their kids. It is getting closer to a matriarchal society.

However, I believe men will be the dominant person in the household. Women will increasingly make the less important decisions such as what kind of house or car they should buy. Men will make all the important decisions such as what is the age of the universe, and who is most likely to win the world series. We might see a similar phenomenon in politics.

Love it!

 

[Libsmasher]

Women are far more amenable to quasi socialism because they feel vulnerable and insecure. They tend to think of themselves only in relation to others, as opposed to the clear individual image men have. One can imagine primordial societies in which it is crystal clear to women that they have no chance of surviving except within the tribe. Many politicians also exploit the fact that women tend to "think" with their emotions - without this factor, liberals probably would have won few elections.

 

[oceanenvy]

Women are far more amenable to quasi socialism because they feel vulnerable and insecure. They tend to think of themselves only in relation to others, as opposed to the clear individual image men have. One can imagine primordial societies in which it is crystal clear to women that they have no chance of surviving except within the tribe. Many politicians also exploit the fact that women tend to "think" with their emotions - without this factor, liberals probably would have won few elections.

Sorry, I don't feel "vulnerable and insecure". I'm a woman, so i guess I just blasted your ridiculous theory. Are you also threatened by women, in addition to minorities?

 

[Pandora]

Women are far more amenable to quasi socialism because they feel vulnerable and insecure. They tend to think of themselves only in relation to others, as opposed to the clear individual image men have. One can imagine primordial societies in which it is crystal clear to women that they have no chance of surviving except within the tribe. Many politicians also exploit the fact that women tend to "think" with their emotions - without this factor, liberals probably would have won few elections.

I think for the most part you are right, though there are some exeptions.

Hillary Clinton and her book it takes a villiage. That book still bothers me. She is typically what I would think you are talking about?

IT doesnt apply to me, but I dont think I am like most women though, I take care of myself and my kids and dont want or need any help, most women do not understand that about me.

and I think there is another break up of those who work hard and those who do just enough to get by. I notice at work those who work hard really dont care for our union or the way our system is run, but those who just do enough to get by really like the union and the way things are set up because they get everything we get even if they didnt work or produce.

 

[Libsmasher]

Sorry, I don't feel "vulnerable and insecure". I'm a woman, so i guess I just blasted your ridiculous theory.

Sorry, but your vulnerability shows in all your posts.

 

[Libsmasher]

I think for the most part you are right, though there are some exeptions.

Hillary Clinton and her book it takes a villiage. That book still bothers me. She is typically what I would think you are talking about?

Of course I don't mean every single woman, but yes, her book "It takes a village IDIOT" would be an example.

 

[Pandora]

Of course I don't mean every single woman, but yes, her book "It takes a village IDIOT" would be an example.

Schools are controlled by women for the most part, and watching over the years it seems we are turning our children into ...... I can not think of a good word that is not rude Panty wastes?


We no longer use red markers to check the papers for errors because that is a threatening color, we now use purple.

We no longer let little Sally cheer for her friend who is playing against another kid, you can cheer but dont say her name because the person she is playing against might get their feelings hurt.

We no longer have winners because everyone is a winner

Some schools dont even have school colors or mascots because some feel its wrong to teach kids school pride.

These kids are going to have a heart attack when they hit the real world.

The future is a nation full of girls who probably are like girls usually are and a nation of boys that you cant tell the differnce between them and the girls.

These women want everyone to be like them, warm and fuzzy...

 

[Libsmasher]

Schools are controlled by women for the most part, and watching over the years it seems we are turning our children into ...... I can not think of a good word that is not rude Panty wastes?


We no longer use red markers to check the papers for errors because that is a threatening color, we now use purple.

We no longer let little Sally cheer for her friend who is playing against another kid, you can cheer but dont say her name because the person she is playing against might get their feelings hurt.

We no longer have winners because everyone is a winner

Some schools dont even have school colors or mascots because some feel its wrong to teach kids school pride.

These kids are going to have a heart attack when they hit the real world.

The future is a nation full of girls who probably are like girls usually are and a nation of boys that you cant tell the differnce between them and the girls.

These women want everyone to be like them, warm and fuzzy...

You only have to read the posts here by white male libs to see the feminazis are turning this country into a bunch of sissies. I hear they even banned battle ball, a staple of boys gym classes for many years. Most of the males I saw on tv at Botrallies looked like pasty-faced underdeveloped sissies.

 

[Pandora]

You only have to read the posts here by white male libs to see the feminazis are turning this country into a bunch of sissies. I hear they even banned battle ball, a staple of boys gym classes for many years. Most of the males I saw on tv at Botrallies looked like pasty-faced underdeveloped sissies.

battle ball? I dont know that name?

We (HAD) dodge ball and we cant play it now because kids cry and get emotional and because there is a clear winner of the game.

I was good at dodge ball, it was the best way to get everyone back who made you mad and get away with it.

 

[Libsmasher]

battle ball? I dont know that name?

We (HAD) dodge ball and we cant play it now because kids cry and get emotional and because there is a clear winner of the game.

I was good at dodge ball, it was the best way to get everyone back who made you mad and get away with it.

I think it means the same, but there are degrees of it. When I was in high school, there would be big gym classes, where groups of about 100 freshmen would get on one side of the field house, and 100 sophomores on the other. (Boys only - girls couldn't have taken it.) Then about 30 balls were split up on both sides. This was actually a kind of initiation for the freshmen. Then it would start - not a little kids game - big high school guys moving to the center and throwing balls as hard as they could to clobber the opposition. The freshmen always lost because of their inexperience and smaller average size - the last five or so freshmen would be backed into a corner to be blasted rapid fire till they were "wiped out".

 

[Pandora]

I think it means the same, but there are degrees of it. When I was in high school, there would be big gym classes, where groups of about 100 freshmen would get on one side of the field house, and 100 sophomores on the other. (Boys only - girls couldn't have taken it.) Then about 30 balls were split up on both sides. This was actually a kind of initiation for the freshmen. Then it would start - not a little kids game - big high school guys moving to the center and throwing balls as hard as they could to clobber the opposition. The freshmen always lost because of their inexperience and smaller average size - the last five or so freshmen would be backed into a corner to be blasted rapid fire till they were "wiped out".

Ah ok its the same but boys and girls played when I was a kid, if you got hit with the ball you were out, till finally there was one person left. When you got hit it did smack a bit especially if someone ( like me) got you in the face on purpose

 

[oceanenvy]

Sorry, but your vulnerability shows in all your posts.

I am an independent woman who is extremely happy in marriage, motherhood, work and the rest of life. I am happily married, have a great career and have been incredibly blessed. Please be specific as to how you see my posts giving the perception of vulnerability.

As for you, your posts reek of insecurity and the fact that you feel your way of life is being threatened by all types of people who are different from you. Perhaps, according to your logic, you are the one that has been sissified?