Earning The Right To Vote

Bogan

An interesting argument put forward by you, Mr Vaulk.     I have often wondered if democracy can survive if the population is composed of low IQ people?    We can see in the USA how African people with generally low IQ elect African mayors and administrations who enrich themselves while destroying their own communities with insane ideas like "defund the police" and "shoplifting less than $1000 dollars is not a crime."     More extraordinary, these same low IQ voters still insist of voting for the very people who are still destroying their own communities.    Recently, the woke black mayor of Chicago was voted out of office and a worse woke black mayor was installed by the voters of Chicago.      Ama-a-a-a-zing.   Keep out of Chicago.      For that matter, keep out of New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, they are all nuts.      

I have struggled to find a solution as to who should be allowed to vote, but every proposal I think of is subject to manipulation and corruption.     The best idea I think came from that excellent book "Starship Troopers" where the only people in that society who were allowed to vote were veteran soldiers, male or female, who had volunteered to fight for the society they lived in. 

Vaulk

Bogan said:

An interesting argument put forward by you, Mr Vaulk.     I have often wondered if democracy can survive if the population is composed of low IQ people?    We can see in the USA how African people with generally low IQ elect African mayors and administrations who enrich themselves while destroying their own communities with insane ideas like "defund the police" and "shoplifting less than $1000 dollars is not a crime."     More extraordinary, these same low IQ voters still insist of voting for the very people who are still destroying their own communities.    Recently, the woke black mayor of Chicago was voted out of office and a worse woke black mayor was installed by the voters of Chicago.      Ama-a-a-a-zing.   Keep out of Chicago.      For that matter, keep out of New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, they are all nuts.      

I have struggled to find a solution as to who should be allowed to vote, but every proposal I think of is subject to manipulation and corruption.     The best idea I think came from that excellent book "Starship Troopers" where the only people in that society who were allowed to vote were veteran soldiers, male or female, who had volunteered to fight for the society they lived in. 

   Well, that's an interesting point.  I think you may have mixed up IQ with Judgement.  There is no correlation between high IQ and consistency in making good choices, in fact that opposite has been found in research spanning over a decade as recent as 2016 from Keith Stanovich and the University of Toronto.  While IQ tests are a great way to measure mental capabilities like logic, abstract reasoning, and memory capacity, they don't seem to account for a person's ability to make smart decisions in real-life situations.

What you're suggesting is...bordering on highly controversial topics, but this is neither here nor there in reference to the subject matter in this debate. 

John_C_87

In honesty women do not have a United States Constitutional right to vote, nor do women have the right by amendment that ensures they have a right to vote. The abilities for a woman to vote in elections it is only conditional according to the 19th amendment. “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. ( See the limit in writing is only set on a basis of gender not perjury before American United States Constitution.)  Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Meanwhile the right for a man to vote for a President of the United States of America is all but non-existent though the United States Constitution describes still only a man can be a President of the United States of America. This is due to inappropriate legislation enacted by Congress and those elected to that office. All votes for executive officer as a vote for a President of the United States of America. In article II of the American Constitution. A woman running for the political office of Executive officer of the oval office is held in American Constitutional right by describing her as a Presadera not President of the United States of law. There is also a more perfect state of the union with a Congress woman to established justice as well as it is inappropriate to call her a congress woman, ands is to by whole truth a form pf perjury. It would be more Constitutionally appropriate to describe a female in the US House as Cinisprudense

John_C_87

@Vaulk

The adoption of the United States Constitution itself describing a man as having to also be citizen of America as so to command as "President"  the issue which limited the simple abilities of just owning Land. Not represented by law or legal counsil. A man must won property and server, protect and defend the United States Constitution to vote. While at a time when not all men could even read let alone write, they had been created equal by their own words describing a desire to be a President of the United States and owning land. The complication is that had women even been allowed to own land, at the time, females had no legal precedent set for establishing all women being created equal under law. Yes, there is no doubt that women have faced the harsh and bruital hostilaties of descrimination. In comparission this setback is minimal to the obsticals of law which did, do not, and have not yet been established in connection to established justice by states of the nunion, by woman.

In fact, there had been multiple declarations of Civil War made publicly because of the obstacles set by poor states of the union out of man’s control. Though the civil war by litigation was to be covert it does not mean that it in fact was, or that it was safe, we have no idea that the states of the union that should have been set by preamble had been followed to ensure the tranquility of the people. As whimsical as it appears there are no legal objections in holding all women as created equal by describing them as a united state constitutional right Presadera.

MayCaesar

I do not think that equality in all respects makes sense when talking about people of fundamentally different biology, namely men and women. It is true that men are required to register for draft (in my view, they should not be) and women are not. It is also true that every single human being eligible for voting has been birthed and nursed by a woman and not a man. That follows the general biological-historical trend in which men did the hard physical labor, and women did growing children and housekeeping. Now, perhaps it would make sense to require that just as men are to register for military draft, women are to register for public housekeeping or something of this kind (say, in case of a war, women can be drafted to cook food for and wash clothes of soldiers) - but it seems sensible to me that the law sees men and women as playing fundamentally different roles in mandatory public service. And you will be hard pressed to find a single country in the world in which men and women are expected to serve in the army equally.

I have never understood either of these two perspectives: that women have been historically dominated and oppressed by men, and that men have been taking on all the beating while women have had it relatively easy. Jordan Peterson is spot on on this: "Everyone's life sucked". Nowadays it sucks a lot less, and it sucks differently for different people. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be a woman going through pregnancy, childbirth and nursing a baby: to me that sounds like a nightmare. By the same token, I gather, many women cannot imagine what it is like to be shipped to a battlefield with a gun in your hands against your will. We have different challenges, and we are different creatures.

Naturally, people who say that "there is no difference between men and women" are completely nuts and their wild claim does not warrant a serious response.

Bogan

@Vaulk

I completely disagree with you on the subject of whether IQ is incidental to success.

Throughout history, people with high intelligence have been valued, while people with low intelligence were either scorned or laughed at.    Every racist joke ever invented throughout history (and they have found them chiseled into Roman stonework) basically says that some despised group of people are a bunch of dummies.

Human intelligence is measurable.    The scientists who measure IQ are Cognitive Metricians and their work is considered valid by industry, the armed forces, and academia.   Western society layers itself through IQ.    The du-mbest people usually inhabit the lowest class and the smartest people are usually at the top.      Working class people have mostly average intelligence.     There are exceptions.    Some smart people may find themselves in the lowest level of society through circumstance.     But smart people are upwardly mobile and unless they suffer from either a physical of mental disability, they can be relied upon to claw their way out of lowest level of society.      Du-mb people can and do exist in the highest levels of society, just look at Hunter Biden.    They are usually protected from slipping down the ladder of society through family connections and money.   These people form a favourite character in many media stage and screen productions, that of the the Upper Class Twit.

Over 100 years of IQ testing has proven beyond a doubt that people with high IQ tend to be the most successful, while those with low IQ are the least successful.    I have no knowledge of your Keith Stanovitch, but I think that you would agree with me that today, too many ideologues with degrees are using science to validate their own potty social convictions.    

John_C_87

@MayCaesar

You’re missing the point either intentionally or unintentionally. " All men are created equal by their creator." Whatever that creator turns out to be in connection with law AKA established justice, it is to be a characteristic shared between those who are to be judged equally by it as whole truth. Agree or disagree? If all men had been held created equal by their creator, the term President then was it not within reason to dictate " All women are created equal by their creator.?" The point of creator of equality must be some characteristic that is to be shared by all those who are to be equal a word to describe as whole truth all women. Not a term to describe a new suspected crime a term to describe the United State directly. That state being female, all female, and nothing but female, by whole turth and law of nature.

We cannot in whole truth judge all people equally based on the guilt of prejudice if the judicial practice is prejudice itself. Article II states that a President is a "he" Article I did not say, does not say, nor does the preamble state a women cannot be described and held as Presadera binding all women equal by law as witness to then judge and to be judged by United States Constitution negligence with all men.

John_C_87

Women in the Armed Service means that the Armed Service in America is no longer a mechanism to ensure Constitutional United State. The fact is "He” Article I is a "She" not described in writing in Article I but to be at a level of Vice Executive officer in politics. The contention of the voter is that she is Presadera, Kamala Haris. The only means to re-instate this status for the grievances which address women such as female-specific amputation and Presadera are in Armed Service Tribunal. As the damage has been done so to speak and already by direct order of the Civil Court and Congress taking place. It is now necessary for damage assessment, not crime control to begin. Like any wrong conducted by criminal prosecution is the same as civil matters of the court. Existing as a form of negligence performed by civil courts, litigators and the process of civil prosecution itself, and the grievance is legal prejudice. Judicial council be it now member of Congress or lawyer does not have a right to withhold the whole truth from the courts. When truth was presented in a way which could have been collected fit for evidence to those courts of established justice.

John_C_87

@Bogan

Reminder not being convicted and presumed innocent does not mean innocent. is an accusation and may be a relative statement in concerns of refusal to participate in mass crime similar but not equal to luting. We all do agree luting has and still does take place. We do understand that a form of white-collar luting can be created and occur.

As a reminder Bogan we have a United States Constitutional right to hold the 1st Amendment in tacked, as it is a statement of whole truth and not a series of legislated " clause." as often suggested by those who assume all risk and break the state of the union. They are multiple words and sentence held as Article / Section/ Amendment. H.B Might be a means of freedom of being a name dropper. I live for the edit option that appears after a click on the gear to the right of the post is made. You are however at liberty to make your own path, be it costly or free.

Vaulk

Bogan said:

@Vaulk

I completely disagree with you on the subject of whether IQ is incidental to success.

Throughout history, people with high intelligence have been valued, while people with low intelligence were either scorned or laughed at.    Every racist joke ever invented throughout history (and they have found them chiseled into Roman stonework) basically says that some despised group of people are a bunch of dummies.

Human intelligence is measurable.    The scientists who measure IQ are Cognitive Metricians and their work is considered valid by industry, the armed forces, and academia.   Western society layers itself through IQ.    The du-mbest people usually inhabit the lowest class and the smartest people are usually at the top.      Working class people have mostly average intelligence.     There are exceptions.    Some smart people may find themselves in the lowest level of society through circumstance.     But smart people are upwardly mobile and unless they suffer from either a physical of mental disability, they can be relied upon to claw their way out of lowest level of society.      Du-mb people can and do exist in the highest levels of society, just look at Hunter Biden.    They are usually protected from slipping down the ladder of society through family connections and money.   These people form a favourite character in many media stage and screen productions, that of the the Upper Class Twit.

Over 100 years of IQ testing has proven beyond a doubt that people with high IQ tend to be the most successful, while those with low IQ are the least successful.    I have no knowledge of your Keith Stanovitch, but I think that you would agree with me that today, too many ideologues with degrees are using science to validate their own potty social convictions.    

Yea again, that's irrelevant to the topic of this debate and you've provided no source material or evidence to even suggest that you're assertions are based on anything solid.  Your opinion is noted.

Vaulk

MayCaesar said:

I do not think that equality in all respects makes sense when talking about people of fundamentally different biology, namely men and women. It is true that men are required to register for draft (in my view, they should not be) and women are not. It is also true that every single human being eligible for voting has been birthed and nursed by a woman and not a man. That follows the general biological-historical trend in which men did the hard physical labor, and women did growing children and housekeeping. Now, perhaps it would make sense to require that just as men are to register for military draft, women are to register for public housekeeping or something of this kind (say, in case of a war, women can be drafted to cook food for and wash clothes of soldiers) - but it seems sensible to me that the law sees men and women as playing fundamentally different roles in mandatory public service. And you will be hard pressed to find a single country in the world in which men and women are expected to serve in the army equally.

I have never understood either of these two perspectives: that women have been historically dominated and oppressed by men, and that men have been taking on all the beating while women have had it relatively easy. Jordan Peterson is spot on on this: "Everyone's life sucked". Nowadays it sucks a lot less, and it sucks differently for different people. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be a woman going through pregnancy, childbirth and nursing a baby: to me that sounds like a nightmare. By the same token, I gather, many women cannot imagine what it is like to be shipped to a battlefield with a gun in your hands against your will. We have different challenges, and we are different creatures.

Naturally, people who say that "there is no difference between men and women" are completely nuts and their wild claim does not warrant a serious response.

Well said.  I agree Dr. Peterson explains it concisely when he argues that history is not an account of oppressor and oppressed but instead is a recording of how everyone had it rough, some more than others, and that partnering is what has always made it more tolerable.

I don't think that Women should be drafted, I don't think compulsory service of any sort is necessary.  It is worth mention though that while Men carry the brunt of the responsibility regarding society and tasks involving life and death, they're certainly not treated as such by the opposite sex.  There seems to be a growing disdain for Men in general, so much so that it's measurable as far as our earliest forms of public education where boys are being largely medicated out of their biological predispositions towards competition, aggressiveness, rough and tumble play, and the characteristics that eventually lead to the development of leadership qualities.

And we both agree that Men and Women, while more similar than different, are distinctly not the same and the idea that the differences can be overlooked in any area are ridiculous.

MayCaesar

@Vaulk

I wonder how much of this disdain is a population-wide phenomenon, and how much is the output of a vocal minority. Empirically, it seems to me that women (of all ages) in general understand and accept that femininity and masculinity are somewhat inherent to women and men respectively, and all interactions in which I played the role of somewhat of a gentleman have been well received on the other end. Of course, I never let the biological differences get in the way of treating individuals as persons regardless of their gender - however, there are definitely situations in which gender plays a role, and, again anecdotally, it seems that people in general recognize that.

When it comes to the concept of equality, people confuse metaphysical equality with practical equality. Metaphysical equality implies that the two beings are essentially the same, while practical equality implies that in this particular instance of interaction the two beings should be treated as the same. There is absolutely no reason to make any corrections to one's gender when hiring a programmer, or when having a casual chat with a stranger, or when choosing a music teacher... But, by the same token, there is no reason to expect equal representation of genders in these activities. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that men are going to gravitate more towards technical fields, while women are going to gravitate more towards social fields. That does not imply that every woman must be treated as somehow less capable of doing hard math - individuals remain individuals - but there is no dispute that free individuals, when left to their own devices, are going to make statistically different choices based on their group belonging.

People who expect equal representation seem to think that every individual is somehow responsible for representing their group: I am not just a guy, say, doing long distance running, but I am a representative of all straight white men who do long distance running. Yet, when it comes to long distance running, all that should really matter is my personal performance; what groups I belong to is irrelevant, and I certainly cannot be responsible for anything anyone else in these groups does.
As I see it, treating individuals as unique persons can go hand-in-hand with recognizing statistical and biological group differences. I can simultaneously acknowledge that statistically in the US a black person is more likely to commit a crime that an Asian person - and treat every black and every Asian person however their merit warrants, regardless of what race they happen to be.

Something has gone wrong in the movement for equality that this distinction has been lost.

John_C_87

@Vaulk

Women are in combat roles in the Armed Services and outside it as key point of honesty not to display ability, to preserve, to protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, women have been placed while placing themselves in the line of fire to protect democracy. It started before the Civil War. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, extends the Constitution’s protection to all citizens—and defines “citizens” as “male”; the 15th, ratified in 1870, guarantees Black men the right to vote.  Women’s Suffrage - The U.S. Movement, Leaders & 19th Amendment (history.com)

By the United States Constitutional Right set forth be Preamble, above and before all Articles, Section, Bill of Rights, and Amendments placed thereafter American Constitution. Women outside the American Armed Service hold firearms to assume the American described right to display abilities to in fact preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution. Though undescribed by legislators in an appropriate way the method is still declared openly as Presadera. A woman is holding a self-evident truth that all women are created equal by their creator. In holding all women as created equal a female then also acts on behalf of women in Armed Service who have otherwise been part of a perjury which states as court record, they are defending democracy internationally. To recap all females as well are protected in return by United States constitutional right of female-specific amputation, and not any other unconstitutional democratic declaration which may be found to be perjury as a lie in future legal proceedings.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my , Ability, preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

• The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

  Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Nineteenth Amendment | Browse | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

: especially suitable or compatible : FITTING

: to take exclusive possession of : ANNEX
: to set apart for or assign to a particular purpose or use
: to take or make use of without authority or right

Appropriate Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

specifically : the exercise of the power and function of making rules (such as laws) that have the force of authority by virtue of their promulgation by an official organ of a state or other organization

Virtue Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

a: conformity to a standard of right : MORALITY

b : a particular moral excellence

2 : a beneficial quality or power of a thing

3 : manly strength or courage : VALOR

4 : a commendable quality or trait : MERIT

5 : a capacity to act : POTENCY

Legislation Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

: to make (an idea, belief, etc.) known to many people by open declaration : PROCLAIM

Vaulk

MayCaesar said:

@Vaulk

I wonder how much of this disdain is a population-wide phenomenon, and how much is the output of a vocal minority. Empirically, it seems to me that women (of all ages) in general understand and accept that femininity and masculinity are somewhat inherent to women and men respectively, and all interactions in which I played the role of somewhat of a gentleman have been well received on the other end. Of course, I never let the biological differences get in the way of treating individuals as persons regardless of their gender - however, there are definitely situations in which gender plays a role, and, again anecdotally, it seems that people in general recognize that.

When it comes to the concept of equality, people confuse metaphysical equality with practical equality. Metaphysical equality implies that the two beings are essentially the same, while practical equality implies that in this particular instance of interaction the two beings should be treated as the same. There is absolutely no reason to make any corrections to one's gender when hiring a programmer, or when having a casual chat with a stranger, or when choosing a music teacher... But, by the same token, there is no reason to expect equal representation of genders in these activities. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that men are going to gravitate more towards technical fields, while women are going to gravitate more towards social fields. That does not imply that every woman must be treated as somehow less capable of doing hard math - individuals remain individuals - but there is no dispute that free individuals, when left to their own devices, are going to make statistically different choices based on their group belonging.

People who expect equal representation seem to think that every individual is somehow responsible for representing their group: I am not just a guy, say, doing long distance running, but I am a representative of all straight white men who do long distance running. Yet, when it comes to long distance running, all that should really matter is my personal performance; what groups I belong to is irrelevant, and I certainly cannot be responsible for anything anyone else in these groups does.
As I see it, treating individuals as unique persons can go hand-in-hand with recognizing statistical and biological group differences. I can simultaneously acknowledge that statistically in the US a black person is more likely to commit a crime that an Asian person - and treat every black and every Asian person however their merit warrants, regardless of what race they happen to be.

Something has gone wrong in the movement for equality that this distinction has been lost.

So I'm there with you.  Allow me this, I've been toying with this idea for a very long time and this would be the first time I put it into writing.

I think I've figured out Toxic Masculinity.  I've listened for the better part of five years to the claims that there's this large wave of Toxic Men out there and they're ruining everything for everyone, Women in particular.  What I think Women are trying to point to is the disgust for Men who have no leadership qualities.  Think about it, when a Woman hits another Woman, society sees it as an argument gone wrong.  When a Man hits a Man, both Men are horrible and they're likely not capable of disagreeing like adults and walking away.  But when a Man hits a Woman, he should be put down like a rabid dog.  In the three examples, the two of Men both result in Men being targeted by their Sex and then degraded because of their behavior...and that's because there was an expectation for them to be above the behavior that they showed while there was no such similar expectation for Women.

So Men are held to a higher standard than Women, I think we could safely start from here.  Because Men are held to a higher standard, it's much more of a problem when they behave poorly.  Now draw a line between how Women feel about Men who behave poorly and how people in general see other people in leadership positions when they behave poorly...the similarities are unmistakable.  When someone is in a leadership position, we expect more of them, we expect them to be self-sacrificing, to put others first, to put themselves last, to behave with dignity, pride, respect, to be servants.  The way Women react towards Men who don't behave with dignity is so much alike to how people in general react to Leaders who don't behave with dignity that I think it's safe to say that Women, by default, see Men as Leaders and themselves as followers.  This is why Women look down upon Men who aren't succeeding in life while those same Women would submit and do as they're told by Men who are successful.  It's the reason a Man's wife will treat him like a 3rd class citizen and refuse to respect him because she's strong and independent while simultaneously going to work and bending to every whim of her Male boss.  

To be fair I don't think there's any such thing as Toxic Masculinity, I think there's just Toxic Leadership and Men are, by default, the Leader of the Sexes.  History corroborates it, we still live it today.  The problem we're seeing is that not only are we NOT teaching boys to be Leaders, we're actually suppressing all of the characteristics and traits that eventually become Leadership qualities in Men.  No aggression, don't compete, everyone's equal, it's wrong to perform better than someone else, violence is wrong no matter what, and it's never ok to solve confrontations by yourself...get an adult to do it for you.  With these rules in place, we get boys who won't stand up for anyone who's weak because if everyone's equal then there's no reason to, who won't ever learn to use aggression to put an end to wrongdoing or injustice, who won't compete to win, who will feel guilty for being better at anything, and who will grow up terrified of violence and confrontation despite them being a part of their biological arsenal.  The result we get is grown Men who have zero leadership qualities, who make horrible decisions without any thought to the consequences, who have no dignity or self-respect, who aren't competent or confident, and Women are disgusted by them...they call it Toxic Masculinity.  It's being a Male without any dignity.

John_C_87

Something has gone wrong in the movement for equality that this distinction has been lost. (People who expect equal representation seem to think that every individual is somehow responsible for representing their group)

Sounds like you nailed it right on the head there doesn’t its misrepresentation of the group. Some people would simply just call that legal malpractice? The nature of the discrimination grievance rests on circumstantial evidence the argument was that the phrase "All men are created equal by their creator." Was not only sexist it was religiously motivated against women. The truth being it was just a self-evident truth and held the door open for women to hold themselves as created equal. Racial discrimination did not officially begin until the self-evident truth all men are created equal had been attacked as fact. Thus, a civil litigation was set in place before the courts to undermine a united states constitutional union. Due to the lack of understanding either by coaching or simple argumentative strategy you are both on the same side. The claim is consistent that my grievance is ignored by lack of understanding of wording. However, that is not the case in truth neither of you have a more perfect state of the union nor have women and fail to openly admit the mistake of negligence by malpractice.

Nothing has gone wrong there is simply a second crime that was not represented for a women’s restriction of constitutional representation as a state of the union with right. That possibility of a more perfect union is described without a legislated crime designed to targeting all those in opposition to a women elected by vote as President of the United States of America. With a disregard to appropriate legislation, even when appropriate legislation was an insistence of the United States ratification process.

The question asked by the United States Constitution to the both of you, American Congress, foreign Congress, and Parliaments alike, are all women created equal by their creator as "Presadera." Yes? Means yes, and no? Means no. It is not a creation, by creator, to create inequality be use of basic guilt or innocence of crime. Women are acting out aggression against the United States Constitution because they had been told by men and other women the American Constitution refused to simple give them what they wanted. Instead of writing self-evident truths to aid in the creating United States Constitutional right, they, the women, and men chose to help legislate law that created discrimination as it was found on legal prejudice. The only good being that sexual discrimination had existed, and racial discrimination had been entangled into the undertaking of POW’s.

John_C_87

MayCaesar said:

@Vaulk

I wonder how much of this disdain is a population-wide phenomenon, and how much is the output of a vocal minority. Empirically, it seems to me that women (of all ages) in general understand and accept that femininity and masculinity are somewhat inherent to women and men respectively, and all interactions in which I played the role of somewhat of a gentleman have been well received on the other end. Of course, I never let the biological differences get in the way of treating individuals as persons regardless of their gender - however, there are definitely situations in which gender plays a role, and, again anecdotally, it seems that people in general recognize that.

When it comes to the concept of equality, people confuse metaphysical equality with practical equality. Metaphysical equality implies that the two beings are essentially the same, while practical equality implies that in this particular instance of interaction the two beings should be treated as the same. There is absolutely no reason to make any corrections to one's gender when hiring a programmer, or when having a casual chat with a stranger, or when choosing a music teacher... But, by the same token, there is no reason to expect equal representation of genders in these activities. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that men are going to gravitate more towards technical fields, while women are going to gravitate more towards social fields. That does not imply that every woman must be treated as somehow less capable of doing hard math - individuals remain individuals - but there is no dispute that free individuals, when left to their own devices, are going to make statistically different choices based on their group belonging.

People who expect equal representation seem to think that every individual is somehow responsible for representing their group: I am not just a guy, say, doing long distance running, but I am a representative of all straight white men who do long distance running. Yet, when it comes to long distance running, all that should really matter is my personal performance; what groups I belong to is irrelevant, and I certainly cannot be responsible for anything anyone else in these groups does.
As I see it, treating individuals as unique persons can go hand-in-hand with recognizing statistical and biological group differences. I can simultaneously acknowledge that statistically in the US a black person is more likely to commit a crime that an Asian person - and treat every black and every Asian person however their merit warrants, regardless of what race they happen to be.

Something has gone wrong in the movement for equality that this distinction has been lost.

So I'm there with you.  Allow me this, I've been toying with this idea for a very long time and this would be the first time I put it into writing.

I think I've figured out Toxic Masculinity.  I've listened for the better part of five years to the claims that there's this large wave of Toxic Men out there and they're ruining everything for everyone, Women in particular.  What I think Women are trying to point to is the disgust for Men who have no leadership qualities.  Think about it, when a Woman hits another Woman, society sees it as an argument gone wrong.  When a Man hits a Man, both Men are horrible and they're likely not capable of disagreeing like adults and walking away.  But when a Man hits a Woman, he should be put down like a rabid dog.  In the three examples, the two of Men both result in Men being targeted by their Sex and then degraded because of their behavior...and that's because there was an expectation for them to be above the behavior that they showed while there was no such similar expectation for Women.

So Men are held to a higher standard than Women, I think we could safely start from here.  Because Men are held to a higher standard, it's much more of a problem when they behave poorly.  Now draw a line between how Women feel about Men who behave poorly and how people in general see other people in leadership positions when they behave poorly...the similarities are unmistakable.  When someone is in a leadership position, we expect more of them, we expect them to be self-sacrificing, to put others first, to put themselves last, to behave with dignity, pride, respect, to be servants.  The way Women react towards Men who don't behave with dignity is so much alike to how people in general react to Leaders who don't behave with dignity that I think it's safe to say that Women, by default, see Men as Leaders and themselves as followers.  This is why Women look down upon Men who aren't succeeding in life while those same Women would submit and do as they're told by Men who are successful.  It's the reason a Man's wife will treat him like a 3rd class citizen and refuse to respect him because she's strong and independent while simultaneously going to work and bending to every whim of her Male boss.  

To be fair I don't think there's any such thing as Toxic Masculinity, I think there's just Toxic Leadership and Men are, by default, the Leader of the Sexes.  History corroborates it, we still live it today.  The problem we're seeing is that not only are we NOT teaching boys to be Leaders, we're actually suppressing all of the characteristics and traits that eventually become Leadership qualities in Men.  No aggression, don't compete, everyone's equal, it's wrong to perform better than someone else, violence is wrong no matter what, and it's never ok to solve confrontations by yourself...get an adult to do it for you.  With these rules in place, we get boys who won't stand up for anyone who's weak because if everyone's equal then there's no reason to, who won't ever learn to use aggression to put an end to wrongdoing or injustice, who won't compete to win, who will feel guilty for being better at anything, and who will grow up terrified of violence and confrontation despite them being a part of their biological arsenal.  The result we get is grown Men who have zero leadership qualities, who make horrible decisions without any thought to the consequences, who have no dignity or self-respect, who aren't competent or confident, and Women are disgusted by them...they call it Toxic Masculinity.  It's being a Male without any dignity.

Vaulk said:

MayCaesar said:

@Vaulk

I wonder how much of this disdain is a population-wide phenomenon, and how much is the output of a vocal minority. Empirically, it seems to me that women (of all ages) in general understand and accept that femininity and masculinity are somewhat inherent to women and men respectively, and all interactions in which I played the role of somewhat of a gentleman have been well received on the other end. Of course, I never let the biological differences get in the way of treating individuals as persons regardless of their gender - however, there are definitely situations in which gender plays a role, and, again anecdotally, it seems that people in general recognize that.

When it comes to the concept of equality, people confuse metaphysical equality with practical equality. Metaphysical equality implies that the two beings are essentially the same, while practical equality implies that in this particular instance of interaction the two beings should be treated as the same. There is absolutely no reason to make any corrections to one's gender when hiring a programmer, or when having a casual chat with a stranger, or when choosing a music teacher... But, by the same token, there is no reason to expect equal representation of genders in these activities. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that men are going to gravitate more towards technical fields, while women are going to gravitate more towards social fields. That does not imply that every woman must be treated as somehow less capable of doing hard math - individuals remain individuals - but there is no dispute that free individuals, when left to their own devices, are going to make statistically different choices based on their group belonging.

People who expect equal representation seem to think that every individual is somehow responsible for representing their group: I am not just a guy, say, doing long distance running, but I am a representative of all straight white men who do long distance running. Yet, when it comes to long distance running, all that should really matter is my personal performance; what groups I belong to is irrelevant, and I certainly cannot be responsible for anything anyone else in these groups does.
As I see it, treating individuals as unique persons can go hand-in-hand with recognizing statistical and biological group differences. I can simultaneously acknowledge that statistically in the US a black person is more likely to commit a crime that an Asian person - and treat every black and every Asian person however their merit warrants, regardless of what race they happen to be.

Something has gone wrong in the movement for equality that this distinction has been lost.

So I'm there with you.  Allow me this, I've been toying with this idea for a very long time and this would be the first time I put it into writing.

I think I've figured out Toxic Masculinity.  I've listened for the better part of five years to the claims that there's this large wave of Toxic Men out there and they're ruining everything for everyone, Women in particular.  What I think Women are trying to point to is the disgust for Men who have no leadership qualities.  Think about it, when a Woman hits another Woman, society sees it as an argument gone wrong.  When a Man hits a Man, both Men are horrible and they're likely not capable of disagreeing like adults and walking away.  But when a Man hits a Woman, he should be put down like a rabid dog.  In the three examples, the two of Men both result in Men being targeted by their Sex and then degraded because of their behavior...and that's because there was an expectation for them to be above the behavior that they showed while there was no such similar expectation for Women.

So Men are held to a higher standard than Women, I think we could safely start from here.  Because Men are held to a higher standard, it's much more of a problem when they behave poorly.  Now draw a line between how Women feel about Men who behave poorly and how people in general see other people in leadership positions when they behave poorly...the similarities are unmistakable.  When someone is in a leadership position, we expect more of them, we expect them to be self-sacrificing, to put others first, to put themselves last, to behave with dignity, pride, respect, to be servants.  The way Women react towards Men who don't behave with dignity is so much alike to how people in general react to Leaders who don't behave with dignity that I think it's safe to say that Women, by default, see Men as Leaders and themselves as followers.  This is why Women look down upon Men who aren't succeeding in life while those same Women would submit and do as they're told by Men who are successful.  It's the reason a Man's wife will treat him like a 3rd class citizen and refuse to respect him because she's strong and independent while simultaneously going to work and bending to every whim of her Male boss.  

To be fair I don't think there's any such thing as Toxic Masculinity, I think there's just Toxic Leadership and Men are, by default, the Leader of the Sexes.  History corroborates it, we still live it today.  The problem we're seeing is that not only are we NOT teaching boys to be Leaders, we're actually suppressing all of the characteristics and traits that eventually become Leadership qualities in Men.  No aggression, don't compete, everyone's equal, it's wrong to perform better than someone else, violence is wrong no matter what, and it's never ok to solve confrontations by yourself...get an adult to do it for you.  With these rules in place, we get boys who won't stand up for anyone who's weak because if everyone's equal then there's no reason to, who won't ever learn to use aggression to put an end to wrongdoing or injustice, who won't compete to win, who will feel guilty for being better at anything, and who will grow up terrified of violence and confrontation despite them being a part of their biological arsenal.  The result we get is grown Men who have zero leadership qualities, who make horrible decisions without any thought to the consequences, who have no dignity or self-respect, who aren't competent or confident, and Women are disgusted by them...they call it Toxic Masculinity.  It's being a Male without any dignity.

     

Is this relevant?
We are basically talking about enough court time for everyone after paying taxation not voting. Part of the cost of voting is connected to mandatory draft into the service of the courts.

MayCaesar

Vaulk said:

So I'm there with you.  Allow me this, I've been toying with this idea for a very long time and this would be the first time I put it into writing.

I think I've figured out Toxic Masculinity.  I've listened for the better part of five years to the claims that there's this large wave of Toxic Men out there and they're ruining everything for everyone, Women in particular.  What I think Women are trying to point to is the disgust for Men who have no leadership qualities.  Think about it, when a Woman hits another Woman, society sees it as an argument gone wrong.  When a Man hits a Man, both Men are horrible and they're likely not capable of disagreeing like adults and walking away.  But when a Man hits a Woman, he should be put down like a rabid dog.  In the three examples, the two of Men both result in Men being targeted by their Sex and then degraded because of their behavior...and that's because there was an expectation for them to be above the behavior that they showed while there was no such similar expectation for Women.

So Men are held to a higher standard than Women, I think we could safely start from here.  Because Men are held to a higher standard, it's much more of a problem when they behave poorly.  Now draw a line between how Women feel about Men who behave poorly and how people in general see other people in leadership positions when they behave poorly...the similarities are unmistakable.  When someone is in a leadership position, we expect more of them, we expect them to be self-sacrificing, to put others first, to put themselves last, to behave with dignity, pride, respect, to be servants.  The way Women react towards Men who don't behave with dignity is so much alike to how people in general react to Leaders who don't behave with dignity that I think it's safe to say that Women, by default, see Men as Leaders and themselves as followers.  This is why Women look down upon Men who aren't succeeding in life while those same Women would submit and do as they're told by Men who are successful.  It's the reason a Man's wife will treat him like a 3rd class citizen and refuse to respect him because she's strong and independent while simultaneously going to work and bending to every whim of her Male boss.  

To be fair I don't think there's any such thing as Toxic Masculinity, I think there's just Toxic Leadership and Men are, by default, the Leader of the Sexes.  History corroborates it, we still live it today.  The problem we're seeing is that not only are we NOT teaching boys to be Leaders, we're actually suppressing all of the characteristics and traits that eventually become Leadership qualities in Men.  No aggression, don't compete, everyone's equal, it's wrong to perform better than someone else, violence is wrong no matter what, and it's never ok to solve confrontations by yourself...get an adult to do it for you.  With these rules in place, we get boys who won't stand up for anyone who's weak because if everyone's equal then there's no reason to, who won't ever learn to use aggression to put an end to wrongdoing or injustice, who won't compete to win, who will feel guilty for being better at anything, and who will grow up terrified of violence and confrontation despite them being a part of their biological arsenal.  The result we get is grown Men who have zero leadership qualities, who make horrible decisions without any thought to the consequences, who have no dignity or self-respect, who aren't competent or confident, and Women are disgusted by them...they call it Toxic Masculinity.  It's being a Male without any dignity.

I would offer a slightly different interpretation of this phenomenon. In general people in a modern society are pulled in many different directions when it comes to virtually any question of what one should do with respect to X. Suppose you want to improve your diet: you go to the Internet and read 10 articles, and get 10 mutually exclusive different sets of suggestions: one article will suggest the keto diet, another the Mediterranean diet, you will have a vegan diet and, right next to it, advocacy for the carnivore diet, you will have "just eat less food no matter which" and "eat more food so you have more energy"... What is the person with limited time and attention span to do? No matter what choice they make, they will be prone to extreme anxiety and uncertainty, knowing that they are doing something that most articles out there are telling them will decrease their lifespan.

In the past, when the society was much more homogeneous and cohesive, most instructions were held as fairly undisputable. If you want to be a good citizen, you should go to church, take care of your elders and listen to them, be a lady/gentleman. If you want to improve your diet, eat this, this and this food, and no one will criticize you. Respect your culture and your family, take care of your parents... If you are a man, be strong, protect women, find a wife, get married and have kids. If you are a woman, be gentle, obey and care for men, find a husband, get married and raise kids. The downside of this is that people were essentially melded into the same shape, with little respect for their individuality. The upside was that everyone felt a sense of clear direction in their life; there was little ambiguity and stress.

But consider a man living in the modern world. In the same day he can have a conversation with an extreme feminist who believes that there are absolutely no differences between a man and a woman, and with a traditional pious lady who believes that the most noble profession a woman can have is housewife. Agree with either, and you are going to greatly upset the other. Naturally, in most cases, no matter what pattern of behavior you take, a pretty significant fraction of the population will strongly disapprove of it - and given how strong the need of approval in human life is, this can be extremely disheartening.
Same, of course, goes for a woman. With one ear, she hears, "Get a nice career; worry about family later, your independence and personal happiness comes first!" With another, "30 is already too late to form a family; you have to find a husband and have kids in your 20-s!"
Add to it the fact that in modern Western countries people from over a hundred different cultures coexist and wrestle with each other's ideas... It becomes a huge mess inducing a lot of stress and anger. One needs to have a very robust philosophy and approach to life, and what the education systems and the prevalent ideological narratives on the West have to offer does not constitute that.

I personally have avoided the negative effects of that as I am a very chaotic person: I revel in such ambiguity and confusion. I am not sure, however, that a society of people like me would be viable - nor do I think that everyone is genetically and environmentally predisposed to being like that. What about the people whose nature requires a stable and fulfilled life? They are going to be completely lost in this white noise of mutually contradicting instructions. John Vervaeke talks a lot about the "meaning crisis", the difficulty of navigating the ocean of different meanings in the modern society.

Naturally, transition from a homogeneous to a diverse society itself adds even more hot sauce to the sandwich. As you mentioned, historically men have been expected to be strong leaders. But being a strong leader in the modern world comes with a lot of downsides, and one has to be pretty much immune to negative feedback in order to survive a strong leadership position for long. There are certain leaders that have a knack for it and manage to exert strength in a way that does not make their followers feel challenged (in a negative way), but most leaders have not been like that and certainly are not today.
So, on one hand, you have a large fraction of the population (including - perhaps more so even - women) that expect men to be "classic" leaders. On the other, you have another large fraction that sees such leadership as authoritarian and "toxic". A man in a leadership position who tries to please both camps (and we always have this temptation to try to please everyone) will end up behaving in a somewhat creepy way, creating a breeding ground for passive aggressiveness. And when all hell breaks loose, everyone naturally blames the person expected to be a leader.

I think that a major step in the right direction would be opening an honest society-wide conversation about these issues. Acknowledging that different people expect different things and that is perfectly fine would open a pathway to open communication between people, between men and men, women and women, and men and women. We would, at least, be able to know, "This woman wants to do this and be with men like this..." Instead, there seems to be an attempt to cultivate the most neutral version of a man and the most neutral version of a woman and make everyone into these versions - and human beings are just not supposed to be like that. We are individuals with strong opinions and preferences, we are not ants working mindlessly towards promoting some central ideal. Communists believed that we were or, at least, could be made to be, and we can see clearly the results of their attempts to build a society around that assumption. I see no reason why this idea applied on a smaller scale would work any better.

John_C_87

I suppose there is an error in the State & Federal Status of Titles of law in education. The lack of understanding and knowledge of the law regarding education cannot be followed it not known by educators. Again, to be perfectly clear the United States Constitution had described the females right to vote as conditional to the discovery of crimes like perjury not the democracies abilities to understand by education those crimes. American is very likely in default of National Debt.

piloteer

@Vaulk ;

You're going to need to show us the specific text of the 1787 ratification of article 1 of the Constitution which (you claim) gives "men the right to vote", and requires them to own land. You will NOT find any such text in the US Constitution because what you claimed here is absolute bullsh!t. There never was a federal requirement for voters to own land, nor was there ever any federal restrictions of any US citizen to be barred from voting (before the 15th amendment). For instance, in 1776, New Jersey did require voters to own land, but free men and women of all races were allowed to vote. Article 1 of the US Constitution was purposefully written so the states themselves would need to decide on who can and cannot vote.

If your gripe is with the disparities in the laws which govern the draft, then we should just eliminate the requirement for any citizens to sign up for the draft. It's a needless law

just_sayin

@Vaulk

So voting rights in the United States have never been equal and are not equal today in 2023.  As many as five attempts in the past 20 years have been made to change the laws regarding who is legally required to register for the draft and, in every instance, Women involved in the voting process voted to keep the requirements as is and NOT to include Women in the requirements for Selective Service Registration.  While Women have only had the right to vote since 1920, Men have been legally forced to earn that right by trading their lives and freedoms since the birth of our Nation.  

I think you have conflated two different things.  First, just because voting rights were not equal in the past does not mean that they are not equal today.  Secondly, you can vote in the US if you aren't registered for the draft as a male.  These are 2 separate processes.  The requirement to register is most often tied to being able to get a government job, or grant, or government college funding money.  I would argue the title of the debate is misleading as it is really about the draft, and not really about voting rights.  

Regarding voting equality, it would be hard to argue that it isn't equal now. In general, **women have consistently voted at slightly higher rates than men** in the United States over the past few decades. However, the difference in voter turnout between men and women has been relatively small.

Bogan

@Vaulk

 Vault quote     Well, that's an interesting point.  I think you may have mixed up IQ with Judgement.  There is no correlation between high IQ and consistency in making good choices, in fact that opposite has been found in research spanning over a decade as recent as 2016 from Keith Stanovich and the University of Toronto.  While IQ tests are a great way to measure mental capabilities like logic, abstract reasoning, and memory capacity, they don't seem to account for a person's ability to make smart decisions in real-life situations.

I completely disagree with you and Keith Stanovich.        IQ tests are valid and accurate.    They are relied upon by the military, governments, and in business, to screen applicants.    Time has revealed that people with high IQ usually do very well in life, while people with low IQ, short of winning a lottery, do very poorly.

Vault quote  

What you're suggesting is...bordering on highly controversial topics, but this is neither here nor there in reference to the subject matter in this debate. 

 

I disagree with that premise, too.     When assessing who should be eligible to vote in elections, low IQ should be just as important as gender, criminal records, or citizenship.     The proof is in the pudding.     Low IQ people living within cities or suburbs have a bad habit of electing charlatans who enrich themselves while pandering to the crazy beliefs of the low IQ electorate.      

A great example of that is the “Defund The Police” movement which backfired badly with the result of near total anarchy within the precincts of those du-mb enough to vote for it.      With grocery stores and major retailers fleeing the cities and suburbs full of low IQ people for voted for this insanity, the low IQ people are now complaining that it is everybody else’s fault that this is happening.