ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, February 02, 2013

In defense of sexual predilection

Ed Trimnell follows through and posts an admirably substantive critique of what he describes as my sexual determinism:
 Vox took issue with my earlier statement that "Conservatism is for men as well as women." He is also on record as being opposed to female suffrage.  Now, before you ask, “Why bother to refute such ideas?” let me inform you that Vox Day is not some babbling nut job. On the contrary, Vox is highly articulate, and the author of a number of successful books.

However, Vox has been seduced by the doctrine of sexual determinism—and the notion that one’s sex determines one’s ability to function in the political realm. Like most false ideologies, this one, too, is based on an initial premise of truth that is over-extrapolated to a false conclusion.
I think it can be reasonably said that I subscribe to the doctrine of sexual predilection and predictability, thought not absolute determinism, and I readily assert that one's sex can be used to reliably predict one's ideological and political predilections, as well as many other things.  I should note here that one of the things that often trips up my critics when they attempt to attack my positions is that they tend to operate in binary terms whereas I always think in terms of probability even if my rhetoric often sounds superficially binary.  Since binary-based attacks are necessarily crude in comparison and therefore off-target from the start, they are easily defeated.  As for whether that doctrine is false, or over-extrapolated, let us see if Ed is able to adequately support those assertions.

Ed begins with an analogy.
Vox is Tom Peters in reverse. The mistake that Vox commits is to interpret female differences as weaknesses (rather than the strengths that Peters claims them to be). Vox asserts that:

    “…women would not be permitted to vote in any society that wishes to sustain itself…”

According to Vox, the proof is in the pudding. The Western democracies introduced female suffrage around one hundred years ago. And in the intervening years, most have adopted some form of the welfare state.

Women—given their predisposition toward cooperative, group-directed activity—may be more susceptible to the arguments of Democrats, socialists, and similar collectivists. Perhaps. (Of course, Tom Peters asserts—relying on the same data—that these traits make women better corporate managers!)

How can deterministic arguments be turned against men? Men are by nature more aggressive, and more prone to violence and antisocial behavior. Most violent crimes are committed by men; and almost all rapes are committed by men. Compared to women, men are far more inclined toward violent, sexually aggressive, and antisocial behavior.
This is an excellent of example of reason needing to be silent when experience gainsays its conclusions.  Ed makes a basic logical error here in attempting to equate my logical and empirical argument with Tom Peters's logical argument.  I am not familiar with Mr. Peter's post-In Search of Excellence work, so I don't know if he empirically proves his case that women are better corporate managers or not.  But it should be obvious that if Peters has done so, then Ed has shown my argument to be correct, analogically speaking.  If Peters has not, then it has absolutely no relevance to my case that women's suffrage is inimical to human liberty, national sovereignty, and the survival of Western civilization because I have provided empirical evidence to prove my case by a variety of metrics.

Ed goes on to provide a historical metric of his own:
However, history proves that sex does not equal destiny at the voting booth. In the close election of 1976, the gender gap was nil. Reagan’s “gender gap” was in the single-digit range in 1980. In 1988, George H.W. Bush actually captured a majority of the female vote.

So much for the argument that women are destined to vote for the Democrats.

Why then, has the political gender gap become so pronounced in recent election cycles? It might be because women (along with other groups) are voting according to their biology, whereas they mysteriously weren’t in the 1970s and 1980s.
Ed's error here is caused by the erroneous equivalence he makes between voting Democratic and voting against human liberty.  He is assuming that the Republicans are the pro-liberty party, which is simply not true.  Because women are smaller, weaker, more emotional, more fearful, and have a more active left amygdala than men, (to list only a few of the sex differences relevant here), they reliably throw their political support to the party who more adeptly plays upon their fears.

This is not an abstract argument, it is observably a political practice that has been in use since the beginning of the 20th century, which just happens to coincide when women received the right to vote in many countries.  Note that women's suffrage is literally the very first plank in the Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle, which in its demand for proportional representation is more radically pro-female than any current Western political party outside of Scandinavia. 

Here is the program of a genuinely Italian movement. It is revolutionary because it is anti-dogmatic, strongly innovative and against prejudice.

For the political problem: We demand:

a) Universal suffrage polled on a regional basis, with proportional representation and voting and electoral office eligibility for women.

The party that plays most upon female fears in the USA is usually the Democratic Party, but was the Republican Party at the time of George H.W. Bush's first campaign.  The Republicans were offering more credible security promises in a perceived time of global insecurity.  UPDATE: as one reader comments, we should not forget either "Willie Horton" or "Dukakis in the tank".

The Republican security case was trumped in 1992, when Bill Clinton played upon economic fears and made an overt play for female voters by "feeling their pain", because the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and the Gulf War turned out to be considerably less apocalyptic than anticipated.  The Republican Party's objectives have since been significantly feminized, even though they have been trumped by the Obama Democratic Party's abilities to one-up them.  The reason the political gender gap has become increasingly pronounced is that in an environment of increased economic fear, the party that does a better job of appealing to the more fearful portion of the electorate will inordinately prosper from its advantage in that regard.

Consider the fate of Switzerland.  Women were not permitted to vote there until 1971, much later than the rest of Europe.  This is the primary reason why Switzerland retains its sovereignty whereas neither democracy nor national sovereignty presently exists in any of the member states of the European Union, which is ruled by an unaccountable, unelected European Commission.  But even in Switzerland, it only took 28 years post-suffrage for the national constitution to be modified to permit the passage of gun laws, and for extensive restrictions to be placed upon the ownership of firearms.  As for the EU, note that in Italy, even the pretense of popular rule was abandoned in 2011 as the government is headed by an unelected, EU-selected Senator-for-Life.

It is easy to establish an objective metric to consider the effect of female suffrage on a nation without waiting to see how long it takes for female suffrage to be followed by the complete cessation of democracy or the loss of national sovereignty, which I note took as little as 19 years in the case of the German Weimar Republic.  A law is, by definition, a restriction on a human activity.  So, to prove that female suffrage is not inimical to human liberty, all that is necessary is to show that the number of laws being passed post-suffrage is equal to or less than the number of laws being passed pre-suffrage.  Alternatively, one could compare the lifespans of sovereign democracies and/or republics where women are, and are not, permitted to vote.

So my question to Mr. Trimnell is if he accepts the number of laws and regulations in effect as a reasonable metric for measuring human liberty in this regard?  And if so, what are the historical cases he believes favor his anti-determinism case?

Labels: ,

79 Comments:

Anonymous Asher February 02, 2013 7:15 AM  

Um, Bush 41 did not push through TARP, Bush 43 did.

HW had the benefit of running against Dukakis, a total buffoon, and I consider it likely that female herd instinct coalesced against Dukakis for that reason.

Anonymous Asher February 02, 2013 7:26 AM  

Also, both Reagan and Clinton were popular with women and it's likely that their popularity provided residual female support for their heirs-apparent. Second-term support for both Reagan and Clinton increased much faster among women than among men, when moving from first- to second-term, which supports the thesis of women, compared to men, voting much more on herd mentality.

Fear might be one possible cause for herd mentality among women but it is probably only one among several.

Anonymous ODG February 02, 2013 7:27 AM  

Plus, Reagan and H.W. were going to protect women against the evil empire.

Even my "very conservative" wife votes R because of the scary terrorists who will attack us if she doesn't.

Anonymous Chancellor Gorkon February 02, 2013 7:29 AM  

Durn, Asher beat me to it. One day, I'll be the first to correct one of VD's less forgivable errors.

The first Bush successfully frightened the wimminz with horror stories of a million Willie Hortons roaming the streets on their party weekends raping and murdering. Oh, and that bit about Dukakis not wanting to torture and murder the hypothetical man who raped and murdered his wife. Not manly enough. Sheep need a shepherd.

Anonymous VD February 02, 2013 7:31 AM  

Good catch. I had the wrong Bush... corrected now. My belief is that Bush 41 and Reagan had the benefit of the international security fears, which were trumped by Clinton in 1992. Bush '43 made some inroads with his "compassionate conservatism" and big government policies, but Obama trumped McCain's continuation of them thanks to the fear inspired by the 2008 collapse.

Anonymous Cinco February 02, 2013 7:35 AM  

I think a better question for him would be if he accepts the expansion of federal government as a reasonable metric for measuring human liberty. While the number of laws may be a reliable indicator, it ignores rules and regulations, which are generally accompanied by an expansion of various "departments" within the government. Also, both laws and regulations are only enforceable if the government has the bodies to enforce them.

This Trimnell character seems like a decent fellow though. TBH it surprises me that he didn't hit you on the raciss, and homophobia fronts as well. Perhaps he realizes that at least the race issue is a dead duck, and the 2% of the population that is homosexual is not worth pandering to. He seems to clinging to the idea that women are going to save the Republican party. Well, do away with welfare and child support, and they will.

Anonymous Asher February 02, 2013 7:40 AM  

Da wimmins be 'fraid of bein' called raciss

Blogger Edward Trimnell February 02, 2013 7:43 AM  

Vox, before I respond to your post, I think we can all agree on one thing: Somewhere in central Ohio, the beleaguered leader of the Whatever is very, very glad that your attentions are directed elsewhere today.

Anonymous VD February 02, 2013 7:43 AM  

I agree on the regulations. I added "and regulations" to the question. The size of government as measured in spending would be a reasonable alternative, but being one step removed is a less direct measure.

Anonymous VD February 02, 2013 7:45 AM  

I think we can all agree on one thing: Somewhere in central Ohio, the beleaguered leader of the Whatever is very, very glad that your attentions are directed elsewhere today.

(laughs) How can that possibly be true, Ed? Have we not been reliably informed how adorable he finds the attention and how much he enjoys it?

Anonymous Rantor February 02, 2013 7:48 AM  

I think the whole sociosexual hierarchy comes into play to. Reagen, Clinton and Bush II were all seemed much more Alpha than their opponents. Dole, McCain, Romney, Dukakis, etc. all came off as weak sisters. Certainly that will impact both male and female votes but based on what I am learning here about Game, I would assume that the female voter is even more influenced by the Alpha-ness of the candidate and less influenced by political platforms and positions.

Socionomics teaches us two interesting things. As things get worse, socialistic and maternal traits are desired. Democrats should have it easier throughout the depression, as they did during the last depression. Also, the first woman president should be elected in a depression by their reckoning. Now this can get interesting, that if the market goes up, that is good for the incumbent regardless of the true health of the economy. Obama had three strong years of up markets. If the market totally tanks, it should hurt the incumbent party.

So, in the 2016 Presidential election, the Republicans need the market to tank and the Democrats to nominate someone who comes off as weak (An aged Hillary or buffoonish Biden). While the Republicans run a strong, reassuring, aggressive Alpha who has a good sense of humor. (Of course by then the R's will be promising not to overturn Obamacare but to expand and improve it somehow, kinda like Bush and Medicare Part D.)

Anonymous The Great Martini February 02, 2013 7:50 AM  

There are a few assumptions here which, though hidden, are actually quite glaring. Even before that, let's just take it as given that you are entirely correct about the nature of women's voting, about the fear factor, the amygdala, etc. Women are different, and their voting reflects it.

What makes you think that liberty trumps the preference of half the population? If half the population chooses to restrict liberty, why shouldn't it exercise its influence, as much as it can, to satisfy its need for security and other preferences? After all, what are pro-gun laws, if not instruments to satisfy the need for security? What is the purpose of the 2nd amendment, at least as envisioned by the NRA, if not a provision for security?

The moral aspect of the question is far more difficult to argue than just assuming the sanctity of liberty, and then continuing the debate from there. Acceding to all your assumptions as well as the (dubious) equation between laws and restrictions on liberty (which is worth a debate in itself) amounts to begging the question. You're asking for this, this and this--and then you win!

To starting sorting this out, you might address these:

First, the correlation vs. causation thing. How do you know that even if there was no female suffrage, the laws you think restrict liberty wouldn't have been enacted anyway?

Second, how do you justify the equation between laws and restrictions on liberty. How does the definition of "a law" imply restriction to liberty. Do you include criminal laws? Is a law against murder a net detriment to liberty? What about in the way that it allows people to walk safely through the park at night?

Third, why do you think liberty trumps the security of half the population? Supposing women are more acutely insecure, more afraid, etc., how do you know their assessment of reality isn't more accurate than an all male electorate? It's not as if the welfare state has not, in fact, increased the welfare of many people. For instance, in the early 20th century it was the norm for the elderly to end their lives in poverty, while this is far less common today.

Last, if women, why not, say, blacks, or Asians, or poor or wealthy? If disfranchisement acts to gerrymander election results to your preference, why not just slice and dice the electorate until you get everything you want, and everyone else gets nothing?

Anonymous TheExpat February 02, 2013 8:09 AM  

What makes you think that liberty trumps the preference of half the population?

Hm, aside from the issue of natural (negative) rights, perhaps the issue that while a person or people can ignore reality for a time, they cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality? Unless of course you can provide examples of societies/civilizations that survived and prospered long-term by restricting liberty, and vice versa.

Anonymous VD February 02, 2013 8:13 AM  

What makes you think that liberty trumps the preference of half the population? If half the population chooses to restrict liberty, why shouldn't it exercise its influence, as much as it can, to satisfy its need for security and other preferences?

The stated purposes of the foundational documents. Also, because I am a libertarian. I am not a democrat, indeed, I am avowedly anti-democratic. (That being said, I note that I prefer universal direct democracy to universal representative democracy, unlike many so-called democrats.)

Do you truly not understand that the USA is not a democracy and its structures were set up expressly to LIMIT democracy?

The moral aspect of the question is far more difficult to argue than just assuming the sanctity of liberty, and then continuing the debate from there. Acceding to all your assumptions as well as the (dubious) equation between laws and restrictions on liberty (which is worth a debate in itself) amounts to begging the question.

No, it's not. The entire discussion is intrinsically based upon the priority being placed upon human liberty. If you want to examine women's suffrage from the perspective of priority being placed upon the will of the people, that is an entirely different matter.

Some of your other points are substantive, but irrelevant here. I'll try to address them in their own post at some point in the future. And before you start complaining about correlation and causation, we have to settle upon a metric.

Anonymous VD February 02, 2013 8:15 AM  

Last, if women, why not, say, blacks, or Asians, or poor or wealthy? If disfranchisement acts to gerrymander election results to your preference, why not just slice and dice the electorate until you get everything you want, and everyone else gets nothing?

Do you really not understand why the Founding Fathers did precisely that? The entire point of disenfranchisement is to prevent the short-sighted and irresponsible from having a voice in government, for their own benefit and the benefit of everyone else.

Question for you: what better expresses the will of the people, direct democracy or representative-limited democracy? And which do you favor?

Anonymous Godfrey February 02, 2013 8:31 AM  

I think you would find that the same voting pattern, as you describe for the majority of women, exists among effeminate males. And it would exist for the same reasons.

Anonymous Rosalys February 02, 2013 8:38 AM  

Yup, fear kept me voting because Obama and his handlers scared me more than Romney - still do! But I look around and see what ideological evil that even many of my friends (let alone my not friends) are willing to embrace and realize that what I really have to fear is the dominant culture which is no longer based on a Christian world view. It took me a long time to get to this point, but this past election did it. All you men can rejoice that there will be one less female out there voting, because I have removed myself from the list. I'm never voting for so much as dog catcher again.

Anonymous Godfrey February 02, 2013 8:38 AM  

"Question for you: what better expresses the will of the people, direct democracy or representative-limited democracy? And which do you favor?" VD



I think the former if on an extremely small political level (e.g. county, township, village or preferably much smaller) and the latter if any larger.

Anonymous Cinco February 02, 2013 8:40 AM  

@TGM

"Is a law against murder a net detriment to liberty? What about in the way that it allows people to walk safely through the park at night?"

Seriously? Do you really believe that the law guarantees our safety? Perhaps we ought to pass a law against death, foolish decisions, or poverty. Since the law is some sort magical force that makes us safe in a park at night, it ought to be able to easily prevent other unfortunate happenstance as well.

Is a law a net detriment to liberty? Not necessarily. However, let us recall that the Constitution "the supreme law of the land" gives mention to only three laws. Piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. Today we have estimated 5000 federal laws, can anyone name more than 20 off of the top of their head? I think it was a Roman that said you can measure the corruption of a government by the number of its laws...

Anonymous Godfrey February 02, 2013 8:51 AM  

"Because women are smaller, weaker, more emotional, more fearful, and have a more active left amygdala than men, (to list only a few of the sex differences relevant here), they reliably throw their political support to the party who more adeptly plays upon their fears."


This is key. The narcissistic psychopaths that control The State are conmen. They’re like a pervert who attempts to con a child into his car with promises of candy. Unfortunately we’re surrounded by unsophisticated and naïve people who are just like the little child who gets into the car.

Anonymous Rantor February 02, 2013 9:08 AM  

@Godfrey

And the idea of universal suffrage is that the naive have as much right to a say in how we direct our affairs as the wise.

Why I agree that representative democracy is a joke. Churchill and others have pointed out the failings of democracy, ultimately unable to figure out something they think will be better. I think a Constitutional Republic with clear and simple Constitution that restricts law-making itself along with a more limited franchise would be beneficial.

Anonymous Roundtine February 02, 2013 9:44 AM  

Bush the Younger had 9/11. GOP should have lost seats in 2002, it was a historic win for them and it was all about security.

Republicans also are gung ho to build prisons and toss people away with strict sentencing. Libs pass VAWA type laws and Republicans fit it into the security state apparatus.

Also, no test available, but I think logic suffices. Some have said the taller (or better looking) candidate has won in almost every election since women started suffraging. Imagine there is a short fat bald man who talks like an accountant (but he's alpha enough) versus a hunky smooth talking alpha male. Short fat baldy absolutely annihilates his opponent in the debates. Who would you predict would win the election? What if only men were allowed to vote?

Anonymous Vidad February 02, 2013 9:58 AM  

Should this chick vote?

http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/mp/16049810/jennifer-lawrence-stunned-by-uneven-breast/

Anonymous Stilicho February 02, 2013 9:59 AM  

I think a Constitutional Republic with clear and simple Constitution that restricts law-making itself along with a more limited franchise would be beneficial.

You think. I know. But we couldn't keep it. Now where did the Lizard Queen put that reset button?

Anonymous Roundtine February 02, 2013 10:02 AM  

Whoa. This article on there is even more interesting: JAPANESE AKB48 POP STAR SAYS SORRY FOR NIGHT WITH MAN

She shaved her head and made a public apology. It's an interesting dynamic because the men are behaving like women (want their pop star to be single), but the woman is behaving like a woman towards group/male dominance.

Anonymous harry12 February 02, 2013 10:12 AM  

Rosalys February 02, 2013 8:38 AM:
...I have removed myself from the list. I'm never voting for so much as dog catcher again.


Voting is fun! I find write-ins quite hilarious. Also, never forget that a "NO!" vote on tax questions can cause interestingly weird, governmental contortions.

Blogger The Aardvark February 02, 2013 10:12 AM  

Vidad-

How can I go on, knowing she is in such pain?!

Anonymous VD February 02, 2013 10:21 AM  

I think the former if on an extremely small political level (e.g. county, township, village or preferably much smaller) and the latter if any larger.

So you accept the principle of limiting democracy on the basis of the size of the electorate. How does limiting democracy on the basis of the size of the electorate better express the will of the people?

Anonymous Rantor February 02, 2013 10:43 AM  

@Stilicho

any government can only last so long... The major error of our founding fathers was that they assumed too much. They assumed people in the future would understand what regulating interstate commerce meant. They assumed what freedom of religion meant, etc.

Unfortunately it is very difficult to build a constitution that will last for 200 years, totally unaware that the majority of protestants would become apostate, the state would be overwhelmed by Catholic (mostly now apostate) and then all other immigrants, give the senate to the people, give women the vote, outlaw alcohol, legalize alcohol, decide that it wasn't nice to stop perversion, etc.

Anonymous Zartan February 02, 2013 10:45 AM  

Waiiit.... Someone still takes Tom Peters seriously? Ed just lost a boatload of credibility. After Tom's disastrous predictions "I am confident that "ERP" [Enterprise Resource Planning systems] et al. al. al. will change WHITE collar world as much as containerization and forklifts and robots changed blue collar world" and According to Peters, the new business tools (ERP) will do “as much damage to white-collar productivity over the next decade as forklifts and container ships have done over the last 70 and 80 years.” (2000)

So we've had ERP since the late 90's now. Which changed your job more, the Internet and abundant bandwidth, or ERP?

I digress, Ed's chosen subject to use as an analogy is terrible, why should I bother with the rest of his analogy when this subject has been proven (unrepentantly) wrong on several topics?

Anonymous Orville February 02, 2013 10:50 AM  

To Ed, I think this is a false assumption based on initial appearances... Women—given their predisposition toward cooperative, group-directed activity—may be more susceptible to the arguments of Democrats, socialists, and similar collectivists.

I would counter that it is more a male feature to quickly form effective teams sorting along the lines of social-sexual status. Look to male participation in sports, the military, etc. While on the other hand women typically do not play well with others on the team, and are often uncomfortable with the corrective role that all leaders must occasionally employ against poorly functioning team members.

And a question to Vox, would you still regard the welfare society being a post suffrage construct given that the modern welfare society had its start in 19th century Bismarckian Germany where Bismarck explicitly promoted universal male suffrage?

Anonymous Godfrey February 02, 2013 10:56 AM  

"So you accept the principle of limiting democracy on the basis of the size of the electorate. "


Yes


"How does limiting democracy on the basis of the size of the electorate better express the will of the people?"


Limiting democracy will protect the will of the individual from the "will of the people".



Anonymous The other skeptic February 02, 2013 11:01 AM  

How can deterministic arguments be turned against men? Men are by nature more aggressive, and more prone to violence and antisocial behavior. Most violent crimes are committed by men; and almost all rapes are committed by men. Compared to women, men are far more inclined toward violent, sexually aggressive, and antisocial behavior.

I take it that both Ed and Peters believe that women are better than themselves as well?

Of course, Ed and Peters fail to understand that when talking about the properties of a group, the extremes can be vastly different than the averages, and that the averages of those groups can be different as well.

So, for example, while men are on average more physically violent than women and commit more crime than women, we rarely choose corporate managers from among those in jail for violent crime.

The fact is that the variance on male violent behavior is much greater than it is for females, and the IQ variance for males is larger than females as well, so at the upper end of the bell curve we have a situation where there are more smart males than females and they are very much not prone to violence but they take risks ... which you have to do in business.

Anonymous Salt February 02, 2013 11:02 AM  

Limiting democracy will protect the will of the individual from the "will of the people".

Axiomatically that would apply regardless of population size. So on what basis do you say I think the former if on an extremely small political level (e.g. county, township, village or preferably much smaller as to direct democracy?

Anonymous Poli_Mis February 02, 2013 11:04 AM  

If you cannot be bothered to post a link that is clickable, I cannot be bothered to see what you've referenced. Anchor tags are not difficult to master.

Blogger Bogey February 02, 2013 11:06 AM  

Don't forget aesthetics. Dukakis could have been 6'4" and would have still looked like a diminutive little goblin of a man. I've heard many women state that they would have done what lewinsky did, and Obama looked strong and robust compared to McCain. Me, I'm a dude, I want to have dirty meaningless sex with Sarah Palin, but I would never vote for her. I can separate looks from governance.

Blogger The Observer February 02, 2013 11:10 AM  

Most violent crimes are committed by men; and almost all rapes are committed by men.

False, regarding the rape part. Rape is committed by women as well as men, in nearly equal numbers according to the 2010 CDC. (1.27 million women reported “forced penetration” (including attempted), compared to 1.27 million men who were “forced to penetrate”) The sneaky dance played with the definition of rape is that it requires penetration, and that "forced to penetrate" is not covered by that definition.

Here it is.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 02, 2013 11:13 AM  

If we want some proof points of how companies do that are essentially run by women, then we can look at HP (now run by that failure for governor of CA and failure of some other company) and Panasas (which has a bunch of other female refugees from failed companies.)

Keep an eye on them and see what happens.

Blogger The Observer February 02, 2013 11:21 AM  

@Other Skeptic:

There was a woman producer who tried to form a utopic female-only TV station.

It failed miserably.

Quote:

"The venomous women were supposedly the talented employees I had headhunted to achieve my utopian dream - a female- only company with happy, harmonious workers benefiting from an absence of men.

It was an idealistic vision swiftly shattered by the nightmare reality: constant bitchiness, surging hormones, unchecked emotion, attention-seeking and fashion rivalry so fierce it tore my staff apart.

When I read the other day that Sienna Miller had said there was no such thing as 'the Sisterhood', I knew what she meant."

Anonymous Orville February 02, 2013 11:27 AM  

I'm the only guy in the office, and the shit I see the girls pull on each other is crazy, but they usually won't do that to me.

Anonymous VD February 02, 2013 11:30 AM  

Godfrey, are you also the Great Martini? I may have posed a question to the wrong person there.

Anonymous DonReynolds February 02, 2013 11:39 AM  

Egalitarianism necessarily demands democracy.....the worst form of government, and this in turn demands, universal suffurage.

Vox is correct about the tendency of the female vote to directly introduce the welfare state and rabbit behavior on the part of the government. Those who argue against Vox, do so by being critical of male tendencies....STILL clinging to their basic assumption of democracy. NO. NO. NO. Women should generally not vote, nor should certain of the men. Democracy is not an assumption. What we need are voters who are patriotic, intelligent and principled. Anything less will weaken our national purpose.

Anonymous zen0 February 02, 2013 11:42 AM  

E.T. :
Why then, has the political gender gap become so pronounced in recent election cycles? It might be because women (along with other groups) are voting according to their biology, whereas they mysteriously weren’t in the 1970s and 1980s.

The Praeger Guide to the Psychology of Gender cites a study that concludes females show a preference for Democrats in Presidential elections since the early 70's and the same preference in Congressional Elections since the early 80's.

One of these things is not like the other.

Anonymous DonReynolds February 02, 2013 11:44 AM  

Egalitarianism insists there are no differences between human beings. Gender means nothing. Race means nothing. Age means nothing. Intelligence means nothing. Culture means nothing. Egalitarians cannot argue that there are no differences nor can they argue that the differences "coincidentally" tend bunch around other traits. What they must argue is that the differences do not matter and are not significant. You have heard it many times. (Race is a social construct created by bigots and racists. Sexists invented gender differences. There are no stupid people.) Right.....

Anonymous The Deuce February 02, 2013 11:49 AM  

The essential fact here is that while Ed Trimnell is right about sexual determination not holding true an *individual* level, he mistakenly extrapolates this to the group level. Individual women may, with effort and training, exercise their free will to account for and overcome their natural tendencies, and thereby vote responsibly to uphold liberty rather than allowing their fears to be preyed upon.

However, expecting that women everywhere are going to behave contrary to their own nature as a group is tantamount to the Communist goal of believing that we can engineer the "New Man" (or, in this case, the new woman).

It's a failure to account for the inevitabilities of human nature. It's similar to thinking that because each individual can choose not to commit crimes, that it's realistic to believe we will ever have a society with no criminals this side of eternity.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 02, 2013 11:59 AM  

I have a hypothesis, which is supported by research from Eleanor MacCoby in The Two Sexes: Growing up Apart, Coming Together that women are biologically not as capable of cooperative behavior as men, and that they are biologically primed for dyadic behavior.

Thus, the way to fight all this nonsense is to take advantage of that fact and help women be more aware of their differences from other women, eg, women of color, and help them be aware of their differences from fudge packers (why they would ever feel any common cause for fudge packers I will never know.)

Anonymous Gx1080 February 02, 2013 12:13 PM  

On Game terms, Barry had to get Bill Clinton to play wingman for him.

And I wouldn't wish on any man to have to live under the kingdom of Queen Hitlery. *shudders*.

Anonymous The Deuce February 02, 2013 12:17 PM  

The real puzzle is how to create a franchise that won't later destroy itself by expanding itself to women. Imo, this is impossible, and if society ever gets an opportunity to do this again, it should instead try to ensure that the votes of women are permanently outnumbered rather than denied.

Here's my idea. Each intact, married, biological family with children should be given the privilege of choosing one member of the family to represent the children. That person will get one extra vote for each child they have.

In most cases, the representative party will undoubtedly be the husband, particularly as the family becomes larger, because intact families are by nature more patriarchal. However, even in cases where the wife is the children's representative, the damage will be reduced, because married women tend to vote much more conservatively than unmarrieds, probably because they come to fear the state as the biggest threat to the cohesion of their family.

Regardless of how the franchise might be expanded elsewhere, it is extremely unlikely that married families would ever willingly give up their voting privileges, so this would help to ensure that the future-oriented, responsible vote holds sway for a long time to come.

Anonymous Ioweenie February 02, 2013 12:18 PM  

re: The Observer

1.27 million women reported “forced penetration” (including attempted), compared to 1.27 million men who were “forced to penetrate”

While it might be true that if intimidated or threatened with violence (gun), a man could be forced to penetrate a woman, seems more likely that such a threat or force would be carried out by another man: male on male rape. Table does not define sex of perp.

Blogger Jehu February 02, 2013 12:24 PM  

The only real virtue of a democracy is that it has the POTENTIAL to accurately reflect the outcome if a revolution, rather than a referendum, were held on the subject. However, when military power is out of synch with political power it loses even said virtue. Giving women suffrage, besides all of its other problems, largely destroys this virtue, since the military power of women as a group---and they DO vote distinctively in a statistical sense as a group---is pretty negligible.

Anonymous Anonymous February 02, 2013 12:27 PM  

Greencarman here...


“This is an excellent of example of reason needing to be silent when experience gainsays its conclusions.  Ed makes a basic logical error here in attempting to equate my logical and empirical argument with Tom Peters's logical argument.  I am not familiar with Mr. Peter's post-In Search of Excellence work, so I don't know if he empirically proves his case that women are better corporate managers or not. “

VD, you cannot conclude that Ed’s contention is false if you do not even know about the results of Peter’s study. You need to familiarize yourself with his work before you make your claim.


“But it should be obvious that if Peters has done so, then obviously Ed has shown my argument to be correct, analogically speaking.”

 VD, care to substantiate, rather than make a blanket statement?

Human liberty, at its fundamental core, equates to male and female inherently having freedom, and that no human being cannot take away that inherent freedom to do as one wants, unless individuals collectively form groups to limit that freedom through majority rule. Freedom, in its rawest form, means a person can choose to do what they desire, but freedom, in its current context as it has politically, economically, and socially evolved, requires that groups of people individually and collectively agree on what constitutes freedom as a society.

Godfrey--Limiting democracy will protect the will of the individual from the "will of the people".

And who will protect the will of the people from the will of the individual? You see, sir, that is the quandry.


Rantor--”Unfortunately it is very difficult to build a constitution that will last for 200 years, totally unaware that the majority of protestants would become apostate, the state would be overwhelmed by Catholic (mostly now apostate) and then all other immigrants, give the senate to the people, give women the vote, outlaw alcohol, legalize alcohol, decide that it wasn't nice to stop perversion, etc.”

 That is the beauty of our country. Its citizens, individually and collectively, decide what freedom shall be by majority rule. Perhaps you should form your own society, find people who agree with your ideologies, and live accordingly to those rules.


Rantor--”And the idea of universal suffrage is that the naive have as much right to a say in how we direct our affairs as the wise.”

Godfrey--”Unfortunately we’re surrounded by unsophisticated and naïve people who are just like the little child who gets into the car.”

DonReynolds--”What we need are voters who are patriotic, intelligent and principled. Anything less will weaken our national purpose.”

And who, praytell, determines who is naive and who is wise, who is unsophisticated and who is sophisticated--in other words, who are the “proper” voters or rulers? Why should one group of people assume that their best interests will be taken into account by, essentially, elitists who assume their intellect is superior compared to the masses? Why should women and blacks and gays and other groups be beholden to such governance? Because those whom you believe are most qualified to vote/rule?



Let’s get back to the real world, gentlemen. No matter what you say or do, women will always exert their right to vote as conferred to them and whites will be in the minority when it comes to demographics in the next 40 years. I suggest you deal with these facts.

Blogger The Observer February 02, 2013 12:29 PM  

@Loweenie:

Pg. 17 of the report:

"Being made to penetrate someone else includes times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetrate someone without the victim’s consent because the victim was physically forced (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threatened with physical harm, or when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.

-Among women, this behavior reflects a female being made to orally penetrate another female’s vagina or anus.
-Among men, being made to penetrate someone else could have occurred in multiple ways: being made to vaginally penetrate a female using one’s own penis; orally penetrating a female’s vagina or anus; anally penetrating a male or female; or being made to receive oral sex from a male or female. It also includes female perpetrators attempting to force male victims to penetrate them, though it did not happen.

[So, if a male penetrates a female or another male with his penis, it is defined as rape. If a female forces a male to penetrate her with his penis it is defined as forced penetration -ie: NOT RAPE. The definition of rape used in this document is therefore SEXIST. This is how they avoid statistically categorizing females as perpetrators of rape and males as victims, in spite of the fact that females admit to committing rape against males. See this post in the stats warehouse for one example. -7.6% of women surveyed admitted to taking advantage of a man's incapacitated state or using force to have sex with a man against his will.]

Anonymous PR February 02, 2013 12:36 PM  

Vox,

I totally agree with you in regards to the lunacy of allowing women to vote. But why do you not seem to have the same attitude with regards to letting blacks vote? What's the matter with restricting voting to white, landowning males? Isn't this what the founders supposedly believed?

Anonymous VD February 02, 2013 12:37 PM  

VD, you cannot conclude that Ed’s contention is false if you do not even know about the results of Peter’s study. You need to familiarize yourself with his work before you make your claim.

Good point. I should have limited my point to the either/or aspect of my response there. I was assuming, possibly incorrectly, that Peters failed to make his empirical case based on Ed's characterization of it. That assumption could be incorrect.

Anonymous jack February 02, 2013 12:37 PM  

I have no substantive thoughts yet on this post and the comment thread except to state what a pleasure it is to watch two able, articulate and intelligent minds go at it as Vox and Ed are doing. We shall never get enough of this level of debate imho.

Anonymous VD February 02, 2013 12:39 PM  

I totally agree with you in regards to the lunacy of allowing women to vote. But why do you not seem to have the same attitude with regards to letting blacks vote? What's the matter with restricting voting to white, landowning males? Isn't this what the founders supposedly believed?

Why would you assume anything about what I think or do not think? This is not a discussion about race, it solely concerns sex. Anyhow, as a general rule, blacks don't concern me in US political terms because they are a small minority and will remain that way for the foreseeable future.

Anonymous Sojourner February 02, 2013 12:49 PM  

@Other Skeptic:

There was a woman producer who tried to form a utopic female-only TV station.

It failed miserably.

Quote:

"The venomous women were supposedly the talented employees I had headhunted to achieve my utopian dream - a female- only company with happy, harmonious workers benefiting from an absence of men.

It was an idealistic vision swiftly shattered by the nightmare reality: constant bitchiness, surging hormones, unchecked emotion, attention-seeking and fashion rivalry so fierce it tore my staff apart.

When I read the other day that Sienna Miller had said there was no such thing as 'the Sisterhood', I knew what she meant."

@The Observer....

You don't know how much fun that link is creating on my Facebook at the moment....

Anonymous Stickwick February 02, 2013 1:52 PM  

Dole, McCain, Romney, Dukakis, etc. all came off as weak sisters.

Women, for all their sympathy for differently-abled people, are turned off by physical handicaps. It was a real detriment with women voters that Dole and McCain had significant physical limitations. And that they seemed really old -- McCain had a cadaver-like quality that was unsettling. Physical cues like these trigger something in the female brain. There's a reason FDR never allowed himself to be photographed in a way that would betray his physical limitations.

Blogger tz February 02, 2013 3:22 PM  

Why not let toddlers vote too?

In a "christian" country where everyone tries to individually obey the law - the 10 commandments, so as to include things like blue laws (which reduce liberty as well), voting is about how to conserve the working tradition, hypocrisy and injustice includes. Pulling out the tares uprooth the wheat.

In a pagan country (where most women are witches - new age touchy-feely spiritualty), giving women the vote is like giving a robber with a knife your own loaded gun with the saftey off.

I would compare the muslim countries where their women know and seem to prefer their place as they will vote for sharia candidates, one-woman, one vote, one time, and aren't dissatisfied the rulers then block the western cultural toxic waste from being dumped in their countries. I think they realize running the rat race is a step down from the pedestal - which may be small but is secure.

There may be hope for Europe yet. Geographically, not racially or culturally.

And the key is you give the franchise to all women or none as stated. Not to just women business or property owners that don't have children out of wedlock, as an example.

As to race, the mechanism to deny suffrage to black men is the drug war so they are regularly convicted of felonies, so can't vote.

Any sensible status based limits on suffrage would disproportunately deny women and other minorities, e.g. getting any government check (in excess of contributions for social security and medicare), and no voting until the balance is paid back.

Blogger tz February 02, 2013 3:31 PM  

For comparison, consider my Church, of whom it hasbeen said "no organization that stupid and corrupt could exist 20 weeks much less 20 centuries without the hand of God".

If you want an argument for papal infallibility, note it is a dogma that onmy men can be priests or deacons - and that only cardinals vote for a new pope and require a supermajority.

Then look at the Episcopalians. Many protestant denominations are individualistic, but you can start the deathwatch when even in this microcosm they get the vote at any level.

Mormons are likely to be around for a while too (assuming I am correct that Mitt was an apostate).

The fastest way to kill the new atheism would be to demand they live by the equality they are screeching more than preaching.

Blogger tz February 02, 2013 3:36 PM  

Compare the denominations. Roman Catholics don't have woman priests or deacons, and only let Cardinals elect the next pope and require a supermajority. Mormons should be around for a while, assumming Mitt was a backslider. Then look at the Episcopalians. Even traditional jews v.s. liberal ones.

The new atheists would disappear in a few weeks if they practised the equality they screech.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 02, 2013 4:02 PM  

This seems to be the link to the article on a women-only company:

Catfights over handbags and tears in the toilet

Anonymous map February 02, 2013 4:06 PM  

Women vote to create a society where they are completely hedged against the consequences of making a bad decision. They want to make the government their husbands, fathers and boyfriends.

That is what women vote for.

Anonymous DonReynolds February 02, 2013 5:29 PM  

Greencarman..."Let’s get back to the real world, gentlemen. No matter what you say or do, women will always exert their right to vote as conferred to them and whites will be in the minority when it comes to demographics in the next 40 years. I suggest you deal with these facts."

You forgot to mention one other fact.....your utopia will happen in the next 40 years.....IF WE DO NOTHING. Take your own advice. Dreams do not always come true and until they do.....they are not facts. If you think this will be easy, you need to reconsider......that is my suggestion.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 02, 2013 5:46 PM  

What makes you think that liberty trumps the preference of half the population? If half the population chooses to restrict liberty, why shouldn't it exercise its influence,

What makes anyone think the wishes of half the population trumps the wishes of one individual, when it comes to that individual's own life? Do you expect me to put my dinner menu up for a popular vote? Do I need the approval of half my neighbors in order to change jobs? Or hire someone to work for me? Why should half the country tell me what sort of toliet I can have in my bathroom?

Or you can just look up Heinlein's quote about "Bad Luck", which points out how following the short-term wishes of the majority turns out to make the majority thoroughly miserable.

Here's my idea. Each intact, married, biological family with children should be given the privilege of choosing one member of the family to represent the children. That person will get one extra vote for each child they have.


Well, if the folks elected are going to be allowed to borrow money in the name of those children, someone needs to look out for their interests.

Anonymous realmatt February 02, 2013 5:53 PM  

Well if 'we' are going to do anything, it must be done NOW, because with modern technology and the direction it's headed, the leftists will have the tools to really do damage and establish their Utopia.

I'm reminded of the comic "Superman: Red Son", a "What If?" story in which Superman landed in early Soviet Ukraine and managed to convert the entire world (except US, headed by Lex Luthor) to the Soviet ideal because of his powers, giving forced lobotomies to anyone who dares to fight back. The technology these fascists (which are within the scope of Superman's powers) are hoping for and developing are what the leftists of the past were missing.

Lex finally 'defeats' Superman by suggesting he put the entire world in a glass bottle - a reference to the Kryptonian city, Kandor, which was shrunken down and inserted into a bottle (Leningrad in this story) - and that's precisely what these worthless, envious losers want. Everything and everyone in a bottle.

Every leftist is a screaming neurotic woman deep down, on the verge of a nervous breakdown, ranting about wanting everyone "Happy! And healthy!", eyes darting nervously back and forth.

Anonymous realmatt February 02, 2013 5:58 PM  

"Why should anyone's liberty trump the desires of the masses?"

Questions like that make it obvious the person asking doesn't understand anything about human beings, let alone why a civilized society is necessary in the first place.

Anonymous The Great Martini February 02, 2013 6:09 PM  

"Question for you: what better expresses the will of the people, direct democracy or representative-limited democracy? And which do you favor?"

Direct democracy would be preferable if a practical system could be devised to implement it. There's the question of whether it would even be feasible to run a government by constantly consulting all the people every time a decision had to be made. If everyone were versed in everything and if everyone would actually agree to a process of constant polling it would no doubt be a very effective expression of the will of the people. The internet has made that more feasible, but still I think impractical.

Anonymous Anonymous February 02, 2013 6:46 PM  

How does masculine attractiveness play into the female vote? I always thought it was easy to predict the female president vote since the 70's based on which president would get the most tingle.

Durandel347

Anonymous Johnny Caustic February 02, 2013 7:49 PM  

@Great Martini: If half the population chooses to restrict liberty, why shouldn't it exercise its influence, as much as it can, to satisfy its need for security and other preferences?

If six-year olds want candy for dinner every day, should they be allowed to exercise their influence?

Women tend to support lots of things that severely undermine their own security in practice: gun control, immigration, the civil rights movement, Chris Brown. As a group, women genuinely have no idea what's good for them.

One of women's biggest errors is that they greatly underestimate the state's willingness to harm its own citizens. Women will vote in a dictator who'll put a million of his own people in death camps if he'll promise health care for their children.

Anonymous Tad February 02, 2013 11:02 PM  

@Vox Day
So my question to Mr. Trimnell is if he accepts the number of laws and regulations in effect as a reasonable metric for measuring human liberty in this regard?

This strikes me as a problematic metric for liberty.

There are a number of factors it doesn't take into account. For example, there are degrees of transgresses against liberty, some more brutal (such as depriving women of the vote), others of little consequence (such as prohibitions on turn right on a red light). This must be a factor in any calculation of degrees of liberty for the factoring to be of any value.

Second, it doesn't take technological developments into account. For example, at the turn of the century there was no air travel, hence no need for regulations concerning flight plans, air traffic controllers, what can be brought on an airplane, etc.

Your metric is far too elementary; far too simplistic. It's simplicity serves only to help prove the point you hope to make. If you were serious about your theory you'd be willing to do a real, in depth and relevant study of the issue. Clearly you are not.

Anonymous Tad February 02, 2013 11:04 PM  

@Johnny

As a group, women genuinely have no idea what's good for them.

I think what you mean to say is that women genuinely have no idea what you think is good for you.

Anonymous Tad February 02, 2013 11:08 PM  

@map

Women vote to create a society where they are completely hedged against the consequences of making a bad decision.

NO. The majority of the people votes to create a society that hedges against the bad decisions of a minority of the people.

Anonymous Anonymous February 02, 2013 11:13 PM  

Greencarman here.

Don Reynolds--"You forgot to mention one other fact.....your utopia will happen in the next 40 years.....IF WE DO NOTHING. Take your own advice. Dreams do not always come true and until they do.....they are not facts. If you think this will be easy, you need to reconsider......that is my suggestion"

Strawman. I stated two trends that are facts. I never implied "utopia" to describe those trends...YOU DID. The only dream is you thinking that female suffrage will be curtailed or eliminated, or that Mexicans, blacks, and Asians will not eventually outnumber Caucasians in our country. Good luck trying to stop the phenomenon.

http://patimes.org/america-grays-majority-minority-shifts-and-urbanization-accelerates/


DonReynolds--”What we need are voters who are patriotic, intelligent and principled. Anything less will weaken our national purpose.”

And who, praytell, determines who is naive and who is wise, who is unsophisticated and who is sophisticated--in other words, who are the “proper” voters or rulers? Why should one group of people assume that their best interests will be taken into account by, essentially, elitists who assume their intellect is superior compared to the masses? Why should women and blacks and gays and other groups be beholden to such governance? Because those whom you believe are most qualified to vote/rule?



Anonymous Tad February 02, 2013 11:15 PM  

@Vox Day

Do you really not understand why the Founding Fathers did precisely that? The entire point of disenfranchisement is to prevent the short-sighted and irresponsible from having a voice in government

You talk as thought the founding fathers got it right all the time. I'm pretty sure we know that isn't true.

Anonymous Boris February 03, 2013 8:49 AM  

"So my question to Mr. Trimnell is if he accepts the number of laws and regulations in effect as a reasonable metric for measuring human liberty in this regard?"

This is a terrible metric. The content of the law is far more important wrt liberty than the actual number of laws. It can hardly be argued that American society is less free today than in 1919.

In any case, a more complex society will always have more laws, so your metric is not well thought out at all.

Blogger RobertT February 03, 2013 1:51 PM  

Tom Peters is a feminist sycophant who lets his view of the world interfere with whatever good judgement he has. He rose to fame on the strength of a book co-authored with whoever must have been the real brains, and since then has been riding his fame promoting the soft and cuddly side of business. A complete waste of time. Most of the companies he thought were so well run, are now deep in the tank or long gone.

Anonymous Luke February 04, 2013 4:25 AM  

Boris said:

"It can hardly be argued that American society is less free today than in 1919."

Are you insane? Just decisions on whom an employer can hire, a business operator allow in his shop, a landlord rent to, a wage earner decide what to do with his wages, a landowner decide what to do with his land -- on all of those, we're far less free now than we were then. Sure, a FEW countercyclical movements such as increased rights to homeschool one's children, carry concealed firearms, or smoke pot (at least according to state laws in some states) have occurred. But, they're miniscule by comparison.

Blogger Vivienne June 12, 2013 4:52 PM  

So your argument is that you'd rather have a guy with a room temperature IQ than a woman with an MBA and a Mensa membership? Good luck. You do know, don't you, that the variance in male functioning/intelligence means that - not only are there more male geniuses - but there are more male idiots and violent lunatics

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts