Toggle Dark Theme
logo
235,172 posts archived

79
80

[–][deleted] 21 points21 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]1Ill_mumble_that 22 points23 points  (1 child)

It's sad day when men won't believe something about their own rights unless a woman is the one that tells them it...

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Men who complain are whiners and not achievers. You don't want to associate with them because it will lower your own value in the eyes of others (esp women).

Women who complain have men rush to them to solve their problems in order to prove they are providers, and hope to earn women by displaying their value as a provider.

It's the world order, nothing new about it.

[–]lachiemx 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, I also think it's partly the fact that if a man speaks on gender, then he is immediately castigated as a sexist, a hateful misogynist, and financially penalised. The only way this kind of material can get out is if a woman or a homosexual says it.

[–]chiefroaringpeacock 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I feel like this is sidebar material. I want to know so much more though, what was the audience reaction? Were there other speakers before or after her? If so what did they discuss? This is the type of well thought out rational debate that helps TRP community and men's rights!

Also I just had to mention that I laughed so hard at the part about men dying from "faulty rafters". I suppose technically it could be a legitimate problem, but I would use an example more like inadequate access to safety training(which is being addressed). Not trying to nit pick about one thing she got wrong, just saying I thought it was hilarious.

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn 6 points7 points  (20 children)

I have to laugh. I still remember when /r/Libertarianism shit a brick when I mentioned that it could have 90% of it's goals (small non-intrusive government) simply by removing women's suffrage.

But they'd rather have their ideology than their goals, so fuck em. They'll accomplish nothing because they don't understand the system.

Edit: wrong spelling correction on the reddit in question.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (7 children)

Libertarians aren't exactly known for being pragmatic, true, but do you really think removing women's suffrage is even remotely feasible?

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn 3 points4 points  (6 children)

Not without revolution. But like I've said before, there are only three solutions to feminism: Revolt, Expat, or Turtle.

[–]real-boethius 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Civilizations that adopt feminism invariably collapse.

So there is a fourth solution: collapse of society and takeover by a patriarchy. I am thinking of Islam here.

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's basically what Turtling is. Wait for the collapse/takeover and hope to rebuild something successful out of the ashes.

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point  (3 children)

What exactly do you mean by "Expat" and "Turtle" in this context?

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Expat: Leave the country.

Turtle: Prepare for the coming collapse and plan to rebuild from the ashes.

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Why not just say "Leave"?

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Meh. "Expat" is a term for people who leave their countries. That's the word that popped into my head when I first wrote down the answers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriate

[–]Judge_Jackass 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Why is removing women's suffrage a magical solution in your view? I'm not convinced, but then I don't think voting will solve these problems at all.

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Why is removing women's suffrage a magical solution in your view?

Because the women's vote is a moral hazard. Women have 55% of the vote, but contribute around a quarter to a third of the taxes which government redistributes. Women also vote in very very predictable patterns. A married woman votes for smaller government (so that her husband can keep more money to spend on her) while single/divorcing women vote for lager government (so that government will have more money to spend on her).

Studies in multiple countries have shown that once women get the vote, government expands (and then has to justify that expansion by intruding into citizen's lives). And, really, that's the main thing libertarians want: a pre-women's suffrage government. In the US, the federal government was 3% of GNP from 1776 till 1920 (sans major wars), instead of the 40% it is today.

[–]Judge_Jackass 1 point2 points  (1 child)

This is actually insightful. Do you have any sources you're willing to share?

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x737rhv91438554j/

Abstract: In this paper we test the hypothesis that extensions of the voting franchise to include lower income people lead to growth in government, especially growth in redistribution expenditures. The empirical analysis takes advantage of the natural experiment provided by Switzerland''s extension of the franchise to women in 1971. Women''s suffrage represents an institutional change with potentially significant implications for the positioning of the decisive voter. For various reasons, the decisive voter is more likely to favor increases in governmental social welfare spending following the enfranchisement of women. Evidence indicates that this extension of voting rights increased Swiss social welfare spending by 28% and increased the overall size of the Swiss government.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashTimesWomensSuff112707.html

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf

Excerpt: Academics have long pondered why the government started growing precisely when it did. The federal government, aside from periods of wartime, consumed about 2 percent to 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) up until World War I. It was the first war that the government spending didn't go all the way back down to its pre-war levels, and then, in the 1920s, non-military federal spending began steadily climbing. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal — often viewed as the genesis of big government — really just continued an earlier trend. What changed before Roosevelt came to power that explains the growth of government? The answer is women's suffrage.

[–]Gentle-Mang 2 points3 points  (5 children)

But they'd rather have their ideology than their goals, so fuck em. They'll accomplish nothing because they don't understand the system.

You just described most of the mens rights movement too unfortunately.

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn 3 points4 points  (4 children)

Unfortunately, yes. That's why I've started switching from MR to TRP.

MR used to be very much like TRP. It's been taken over in the last 3-4 years.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

whats wrong with it exactly?

(ive never actually gone there)