Men are Screwed (rule 43)

Maybe you should reign in your village clown before you try calling me out.

Oh, and when men so breathlessly stereotype, that's when I check out and really don't care. I have called out many women on these forums who unfairly stereotype, yet very few here call out men who do the same. Oddly enough, it's only the men who I oppose politically that have stuck their necks out in a real way. Sorry, boys. You want empathy and attention to your issues, fight for it yourselves.
It's not about calling anybody out. You assumed from the get go that this is all about men bitching and moaning. Fact is there are men with legitimate complaints but you assume there can't be because the law "is fair in terms of payment contributions". Even the first post in this thread proves that it isn't.

What a load of BS. Those standards are not even applicable any longer.
Doesn't change the fact that they were at some point. Don't change the goals. The argument was about women gaining voting rights. If you are honest and truthful you'll acknowledge that with men it was an earned right but women simply got it. That is indeed a load of BS. So right from the start it was a farce.
 
So much selective history here. BTW, linking to Quora? That's like linking to a MyBB post. And the link to your study is behind a register wall. Care to give us the PDF?

But, let's unpack your little narrative here.

In the UK, from 1918–1928, women could vote at 30 with property qualifications or as graduates of UK universities, while men could vote at 21 with no qualification. From 1928 women had equal suffrage with men. So the man, by virtue of being a man, is entitled to a vote but the woman had to prove her intelligence to vote?

In the USA, before the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, individual states had passed legislation that allowed women to vote in different types of elections; some only allowed women to vote in school or municipal elections, some required that women owned property if they wanted to vote, and some territories extended full suffrage to women, only to take it away once they became states. Black women only got the voting right in 1965.

But, let's talk a little stroll through USA history around voting:

  • 1789: The Constitution grants the states the power to set voting requirements. Generally, states limited this right to property-owning or tax-paying white males (about 6% of the population).[5]
  • 1790: The Naturalization Act of 1790 allows white men born outside of the United States to become citizens with the right to vote.
  • 1792–1838: Free black males lose the right to vote in several Northern states including in Pennsylvania and in New Jersey.
  • 1792–1856: Abolition of property qualifications for white men, from 1792 (Kentucky) to 1856 (North Carolina) during the periods of Jeffersonian and Jacksonian democracy. However, tax-paying qualifications remained in five states in 1860 – Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Delaware and North Carolina. They survived in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island until the 20th century.[9]
  • 1868: Citizenship is guaranteed to all persons born or naturalized in the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, setting the stage for future expansions to voting rights.
  • 1869–1920: Some states allow women to vote. Wyoming was the first state to give women voting rights in 1869.
  • 1870: Non-white men and freed male slaves are guaranteed the right to vote by the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Disenfranchisement after the Reconstruction Era began soon after. Southern states suppressed the voting rights of black and poor white voters through Jim Crow Laws. During this period, the Supreme Court generally upheld state efforts to discriminate against racial minorities; only later in the 20th century were these laws ruled unconstitutional. Black males in the Northern states could vote, but the majority of African Americans lived in the South.
  • 1887: Citizenship is granted to Native Americans who are willing to disassociate themselves from their tribe by the Dawes Act, making the men technically eligible to vote.
  • 1913: Direct election of Senators, established by the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, gave voters rather than state legislatures the right to elect senators.[14]
  • 1920: Women are guaranteed the right to vote in all US States by the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In practice, the same restrictions that hindered the ability of poor or non-white men to vote now also applied to poor or non-white women.

All I see are other people trying to control who, and who does not have the right to vote, first based on class, and then by sex, and then by race.

Exactly right. Swa is being immensely disingenuous by asserting that because men's voting rights were initially conditional on military service, they had it harder than women. Voting rights- and indeed all human rights- are won incrementally and progressively.
 
Exactly right. Swa is being immensely disingenuous by asserting that because men's voting rights were initially conditional on military service, they had it harder than women. Voting rights- and indeed all human rights- are won incrementally and progressively.
That's a statement of religion not fact.
 
That's a statement of religion not fact.

Yeah yeah, just like "feminism is cancer"? It is however a statement of undeniable fact that men's voting rights came significantly before women's, even if they were initially restricted.
 
Yeah yeah, just like "feminism is cancer"? It is however a statement of undeniable fact that men's voting rights came significantly before women's, even if they were initially restricted.
And? No one disputed that.
 
And? No one disputed that.

Swa tried to use the fact that men's voting rights were initially restricted to military service as some kind of proof that men had it harder. But at the same time that men needed to be in the military to vote, women couldn't vote at all - and the process of women's suffrage came at great cost and public action.
 
Swa tried to use the fact that men's voting rights were initially restricted to military service as some kind of proof that men had it harder. But at the same time that men needed to be in the military to vote, women couldn't vote at all - and the process of women's suffrage came at great cost and public action.
Great cost? They did what protestors today do, they kept acting like angry children and throwing temper tantrums until daddy gave them their way.

Also you seem to be confusing rights and privileges, a right is something you earn by either sacrifice or position, a privilege is something you have whether you deserve it or not. Voting used to be a right with prescriptions, now it's a privilege that most people don't even exercise. You are over-simplifying a very complex issue.
 
Great cost? They did what protestors today do, they kept acting like angry children and throwing temper tantrums until daddy gave them their way.

Are you saying they shouldn't have gotten the right to vote? Or it somehow would have happened without suffrage?

Also you seem to be confusing rights and privileges, a right is something you earn by either sacrifice or position, a privilege is something you have whether you deserve it or not. Voting used to be a right with prescriptions, now it's a privilege that most people don't even exercise. You are over-simplifying a very complex issue.

That is a terrible definition of rights and privileges. You have no idea what you're talking about. A right is something you are inherently entitled to based on your status. A privilege is a special entitlement given to one group over another. Voting used to be a privilege given to the gentry classes, and it's become a right given to all citizens of voting age.
 
Are you saying they shouldn't have gotten the right to vote? Or it somehow would have happened without suffrage?

That is a terrible definition of rights and privileges. You have no idea what you're talking about. A right is something you are inherently entitled to based on your status. A privilege is a special entitlement given to one group over another. Voting used to be a privilege given to the gentry classes, and it's become a right given to all citizens of voting age.
No a right is something you either earn or is granted to you by privilege, privilege is something you get that is unearned. You are erroneously applying a evolution framework to voting here. In different areas at different times the franchise was in the hands of different people in different ways, sometimes by privilege and sometimes by right, there is no real consistent upward angle.

There are very few inherent rights..... voting is not one of them. Also "human rights" as defined by the UN is an utter sham of wish-fulfillment used to politically bully traditional societies. You assume that woman should have the vote..... with no real reason for why they deserve it. You also assume that every idiot over the age of 18 should have the vote.....with no real reason for why they deserve it. You are arguing religion not fact.
 
There are very few inherent rights..... voting is not one of them. Also "human rights" as defined by the UN is an utter sham of wish-fulfillment used to politically bully traditional societies. You assume that woman should have the vote..... with no real reason for why they deserve it. You also assume that every idiot over the age of 18 should have the vote.....with no real reason for why they deserve it. You are arguing religion not fact.
I'm convinced, you definitely shouldn't be voting.
 
I'm convinced, you definitely shouldn't be voting.
There actually is a slight likelyhood of that now that you mentioned it. I have no fixed property, no wealth, no military service, a year short of actually getting a degree type qualification..... there is no objective reason why I should have a vote unless my 3 years of study qualifies me.
 
I'm convinced, you definitely shouldn't be voting.
One of the unsolved failings of democracy is that everyone gets a vote. It hasn't been solved because the moment you put someone in charge of making rules of who gets to vote, the system will get corrupted and they will abuse that power to retain power.

Now because it hasn't been solved doesn't mean it's good. It's the best of poor solutions. A well balanced, well educated person in democracy has just as much as a say as a person that has been bribed with t-shirt to vote for party. Or a criminal has just as much say as the most constructive member in society. Members in society aren't equal in their ability to assess what is best for the collective or their contribution to enhancing it, which make it apparent that not everyone should have equal say.
 
So, I have been delving down into the world of Paul Elam.

This speech by Paul Elam mirrors almost every single talking point of Technofool. I am convinced men that follow this should not get married and save themselves by getting a vasectomy. They will be doing themselves (according to their beliefs) a massive service, and the rest of the gene pool.


Oh please please tell me you are calling me the "village clown"?
Wouldn't it just be the sweetest irony if the village jack-in-a-box stuffed you into a box? Just asking.

Wow. We have another tough guy here, folks. He is so threatened he has to allude to some kind of violence.

Doesn't change the fact that they were at some point. Don't change the goals. The argument was about women gaining voting rights. If you are honest and truthful you'll acknowledge that with men it was an earned right but women simply got it. That is indeed a load of BS. So right from the start it was a farce.

Tell us. What gives you the right to vote?
 
One of the unsolved failing of democracy is that everyone gets a vote. It hasn't been solved because the moment you put someone in charge of making rules of who gets to vote, the system will get corrupted and they will abuse that power to retain power.

Now because it hasn't been solved doesn't mean it's good. It's the best of poor solutions. A well balanced, well educated person in democracy has just as much as a say as a person that has been bribed with t-shirt to vote for party. Or a criminal has just as much say as the most constructive member in society. Logically not everyone should get a vote and they shouldn't be equal, because members in society aren't equal in their ability to assess what is best for the collective or their contribution.
Which is why pure democracy doesn't work, it's actually quite unfeasible in any kind of mixed society. Someday people will realize this and we will have a new kind of republic where leadership is rotated by group which will finally allow everyone to get their turn and screwups don't get the chance to fester the way the NP and now ANC has.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swa
So, I have been delving down into the world of Paul Elam.

This speech by Paul Elam mirrors almost every single talking point of Technofool. I am convinced men that follow this should not get married and save themselves by getting a vasectomy. They will be doing themselves (according to their beliefs) a massive service, and the rest of the gene pool.




Wow. We have another tough guy here, folks. He is so threatened he has to allude to some kind of violence.



Tell us. What gives you the right to vote?

You need to go have a shower.
 
Which is why pure democracy doesn't work, it's actually quite unfeasible in any kind of mixed society. Someday people will realize this and we will have a new kind of republic where leadership is rotated by group which will finally allow everyone to get their turn and screw ups don't get the chance to fester the way the NP and now ANC has.
The failings of democracy is clear and well understood already. But there's no better solution. Think about it, how do you prevent the corruption of power the moment you put rules into it?

For instance, introduce a rule that everyone with a certain education gets to vote. Inevitably those in power will tilt society so that their supporters are the ones that get that type of education. And most likely the education itself will be corrupted as time progresses to reinforce the legitimacy of those in power.

But this digresses somewhat from the topic. Back to how men are getting screwed :)
 
But this digresses somewhat from the topic. Back to how men are getting screwed :)
Democracy, the moment woman got votes it was game over. All the wives conspired to get their lush husbands clean of alcohol and generally taking the fun out of life. These poor courageous men went off to war and came back to saloons being off limits...... oh the humanity.

Being serious though the temporary banning of alcohol (in murica anyway) and the forcing of men to admit that woman actually can think instead of feel (when they decide to that is) and the resulting reforming of society were obvious improvements. Ever since then though this obsession with "progress" to some mythical utopia has only caused slow societal ruin.

Now boys are girls and girls are boygirls and no one know what exactly the rest are because we are all equal in all ways but no one can properly make rules that actually WORK in this brave new world so the progressives go nuts and with froth in the mouth declare total war on everything that came before. Watch it woman and gays next on the chopping block once their usefulness to the revolution has dissipated.... in fact for those with eyes to see it's already started happening.
 
Democracy, the moment woman got votes it was game over. All the wives conspired to get their lush husbands clean of alcohol and generally taking the fun out of life. These poor courageous men went off to war and came back to saloons being off limits...... oh the humanity.

Being serious though the temporary banning of alcohol (in murica anyway) and the forcing of men to admit that woman actually can think instead of feel (when they decide to that is) and the resulting reforming of society were obvious improvements. Ever since then though this obsession with "progress" to some mythical utopia has only caused slow societal ruin.

Now boys are girls and girls are boygirls and no one know what exactly the rest are because we are all equal in all ways but no one can properly make rules that actually WORK in this brave new world so the progressives go nuts and with froth in the mouth declare total war on everything that came before. Watch it woman and gays next on the chopping block once their usefulness to the revolution has dissipated.... in fact for those with eyes to see it's already started happening.

Are you confused about your gender, sex or sexuality? Is anyone here confused? You, an undergrad student who has next to zero life experience, comes across as having zero issues in this regard, so what is exactly the problem? Are there men in your life that are slogging along confused with their identity?
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X