An all-female cabinet?

[Stellar Colonies]

...

Are you sh*tposting?

[J o J]

i have literally no idea how you came to that conclusion, all i said was that it was culturally influenced and that makes zero judgments in terms of good or bad. cultural gender differentiation in clothing is ok and i don't consider that something we really need to change unless norms are super objectifying or disrespectful towards women, like the sort of norms we see in really conservative muslim countries.

I didn't come to any conclusion, I was asking if you thought that was bad or not. The norms in Muslim countries you are referring to are part of their religion, they believe that is what their God tells them to do, so there isn't really a reason to complain about that. Either way, this is not on the topic so we can disregard it.

ok but 1) it's a false equivalence to equate men & women here and 2) i don't think people normally get called nazis just for espousing misogyny anyway

How is it a false equivalence? Just because you say men are not equal to women?

No, they get called "fash" and "nazis" all the time, and for those who are actually promoting misogyny that's usually appropriate, but it often spills over to branding people who simply disagree with third wave feminism or disagree with sexism. (Which is bad obviously)

yes, the total pool of available candidates is initially skewed in favor of men, but like i said, that'll go away. plus there are tons of women that exist, probably an excess than are necessary for government positions. i also do not think all high-ranking officials need to be exceptional or supernaturally qualified as long as they can perform their job satisfactorily (which is still a much higher bar than we currently have in the us regardless of gender), so i'm not sure where you got that idea.

How will it go away? Are you going to force women to work in the cabinet positions and then tell men who are available to screw off and go do something else? What will be done with all the excess workforce now? How will you ensure that there are enough qualified and competent females to replace the massive amount of males? What if there isn't? What if females generally reject this idea because they, rightfully so, care more about their children and families? Have you considered the issues with females being in charge of a male military? There are too many variables in this plan, you can't just swap one gender out with another, they're too different. There is a reason that for all of human history leadership and politics has been predominately a male field of profession. (biology and human nature!)

You don't think the most qualified individual should be chosen for a job? Ok then, I guess general efficiency and competency is not important to you! You will have a cabinet full of idiots with that line of thinking.

i mean i kind of get the vibe that you probably are in other ways but eh

Denouncing female supremacy and denouncing third wave feminism = sexist? Alright, that's sound pretty sound logic huh?

well, this thread is only 5 pages long and like at most 10% of that is posts involving my thread of argument so that's a lil bit of an exaggeration

It was an expression, apparently it flew right over your head.

er well the point is you could make a better argument against third wave feminism (lol) that might result in a bit more engagement if you were a bit less lazy & tried to figure out what argument i was making beforehand instead of rehashing the thread

You haven't posed a proper counterargument to it, so I don't see how it's a bad argument since you can't convince me I'm wrong and you haven't disproved anything. You mentioned me being lazy, but like I said, all I had to do was make an argument against sexism and you would either counterargue as a feminist OR just end up being a bigot, and the latter is what happened. There was no reason to do all that reading and researching.

i happen to consider male sex to be a large demerit in fact, so that is consistent.

That's your opinionated input though, this is not backed up by any research, studies, statistics, anything of the sort. You are just going off of your feelings and emotions to formulate a hateful worldview. That is an inherently invalid argument. Anybody can say they consider something or someone to be "a large demerit", that doesn't magically make the thing demerited.

well i'm clearly not you so i'm not going to refrain from doing that

Of course not, you're too entrenched in hatred.

[J o J]

...

Are you sh*tposting?

They could be baiting with fake views, who knows. I've rarely encountered such blatant bigotry of this nature before. The last time I saw a radical feminist like that was goddess jadny and those abhorrently evil folks over at those disgusting femdom regions.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Are you sh*tposting?

They could be baiting with fake views, who knows. I've rarely encountered such blatant bigotry of this nature before. The last time I saw a radical feminist like that was goddess jadny and those abhorrently evil folks over at those disgusting femdom regions.

You could try reporting it

[J o J]

They could be baiting with fake views, who knows. I've rarely encountered such blatant bigotry of this nature before. The last time I saw a radical feminist like that was goddess jadny and those abhorrently evil folks over at those disgusting femdom regions.

You could try reporting it

They aren't really breaking any rules in my opinion, I don't see it as s-posting or flaming or any serious issue, there's no reason to waste moderator time over this.

[Omnum]

Consider the following scenario.
The president/prime minister of the country you live in (real life country) has appointed a all-female cabinet. What would be your opinion on this matter? Would it be unfair to do this, or a great advancement of women's rights?

My opinion

I think that the cabinet should strive for a male-female balance rather than an all=female cabinet.

Its genuinely a non-issue if she's appointed them based on their qualifications and merit.

[West Leas Oros 2]

You could try reporting it

They aren't really breaking any rules in my opinion, I don't see it as s-posting or flaming or any serious issue, there's no reason to waste moderator time over this.

I disagree. If you are saying "men need to be oppressed" to piss people off, that's trolling.

[J o J]

They aren't really breaking any rules in my opinion, I don't see it as s-posting or flaming or any serious issue, there's no reason to waste moderator time over this.

I disagree. If you are saying "men need to be oppressed" to piss people off, that's trolling.

I don't think their attempting to piss people off, I think they're genuinely forwarding this nonsense ideology. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen such behavior and rhetoric.

[Arkhane]

Governing a country is a privilege, not a right.

You can still make progress with women's rights even if the cabinet is only men. By implying that women can only make changes and progress and achieve rights if they've been "allowed" a share of power by men is a bit of an outdated concept.

[Cekoviu]

ok but 1) it's a false equivalence to equate men & women here and 2) i don't think people normally get called nazis just for espousing misogyny anyway

How is it a false equivalence? Just because you say men are not equal to women?

men are in power in society, insulting a group with institutional power is not the same thing as insulting a group without power

No, they get called "fash" and "nazis" all the time, and for those who are actually promoting misogyny that's usually appropriate, but it often spills over to branding people who simply disagree with third wave feminism or disagree with sexism. (Which is bad obviously)

haven't seen that but ok whatever

yes, the total pool of available candidates is initially skewed in favor of men, but like i said, that'll go away. plus there are tons of women that exist, probably an excess than are necessary for government positions. i also do not think all high-ranking officials need to be exceptional or supernaturally qualified as long as they can perform their job satisfactorily (which is still a much higher bar than we currently have in the us regardless of gender), so i'm not sure where you got that idea.

How will it go away? Are you going to force women to work in the cabinet positions and then tell men who are available to screw off and go do something else?

more or less, yep.

What will be done with all the excess workforce now?

reeducate them to be able to work in other fields?

How will you ensure that there are enough qualified and competent females to replace the massive amount of males?

reeducate those who aren't to be able to work in the political field

What if there isn't?

make more babies so there are more women

What if females generally reject this idea because they, rightfully so, care more about their children and families?

i really think you're vastly overestimating the number of high-level government positions that should and do exist. a large majority of women could choose to do this and there would still be enough to supply high-level gov positions.

Have you considered the issues with females being in charge of a male military?

like what lol (plus i don't think the military should be male-dominated anyway)

There are too many variables in this plan, you can't just swap one gender out with another, they're too different. There is a reason that for all of human history leadership and politics has been predominately a male field of profession. (biology and human nature!)

mostly because they jumped in front of women who were saddled with pregnancy and distracted by caring for an endless array of babies. we don't have that problem anymore because we now have birth control.

You don't think the most qualified individual should be chosen for a job? Ok then, I guess general efficiency and competency is not important to you! You will have a cabinet full of idiots with that line of thinking.

the most qualified individual within the parameters that have already been set, sure. doesn't have to be the most absolutely qualified person. as it turns out, you don't need albert einstein to run the USDA.

i mean i kind of get the vibe that you probably are in other ways but eh

Denouncing female supremacy and denouncing third wave feminism = sexist? Alright, that's sound pretty sound logic huh?

i SPECIFICALLY said in other ways, meaning based on other contextual clues than just the fact that you disagree with my position on matriarchy

er well the point is you could make a better argument against third wave feminism (lol) that might result in a bit more engagement if you were a bit less lazy & tried to figure out what argument i was making beforehand instead of rehashing the thread

You haven't posed a proper counterargument to it, so I don't see how it's a bad argument since you can't convince me I'm wrong and you haven't disproved anything. You mentioned me being lazy, but like I said, all I had to do was make an argument against sexism and you would either counterargue as a feminist OR just end up being a bigot, and the latter is what happened. There was no reason to do all that reading and researching.

you're just reiterating what you already said so i'm not sure how you want me to respond to this

i happen to consider male sex to be a large demerit in fact, so that is consistent.

That's your opinionated input though, this is not backed up by any research, studies, statistics, anything of the sort. You are just going off of your feelings and emotions to formulate a hateful worldview. That is an inherently invalid argument. Anybody can say they consider something or someone to be "a large demerit", that doesn't magically make the thing demerited.

feelings + emotions are the fundamental basis for any worldview, that's a very poor way to discredit mine.

[Cekoviu]

They aren't really breaking any rules in my opinion, I don't see it as s-posting or flaming or any serious issue, there's no reason to waste moderator time over this.

I disagree. If you are saying "men need to be oppressed" to piss people off, that's trolling.

have you considered that maybe i'm saying that because i genuinely believe it's the best solution; perhaps as a woman who's had to deal with disgusting behavior from males basically since hitting puberty and who's seen what they've done to other women, my opinion of them has rather soured. just a thought.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Are you sh*tposting?

They could be baiting with fake views, who knows. I've rarely encountered such blatant bigotry of this nature before. The last time I saw a radical feminist like that was goddess jadny and those abhorrently evil folks over at those disgusting femdom regions.

She called me an autist when I suggested that.

[Cekoviu]

They could be baiting with fake views, who knows. I've rarely encountered such blatant bigotry of this nature before. The last time I saw a radical feminist like that was goddess jadny and those abhorrently evil folks over at those disgusting femdom regions.

She called me an autist when I suggested that.

er, i asked whether you were somewhere on the autism spectrum out of a long-existing suspicion, not quite the same thing

[The Reformed American Republic]

She called me an autist when I suggested that.

er, i asked whether you were somewhere on the autism spectrum out of a long-existing suspicion, not quite the same thing

I don't have autism. Yes, I had problems assimilating into RWDT culture, but I'm not autistic.

[J o J]

men are in power in society, insulting a group with institutional power is not the same thing as insulting a group without power

In what regard are men in power?

Don't men only get custody of their own children 18% of the time? (https://www.divorcelawyersformen.com/bl ... y-for-men/)
Don't women have the equal opportunity to work in any employment they choose?
Don't men account for the majority of all suicides?
Don't men typically get refused the benefit of the doubt and get their lives ended by false rape allegations?
Aren't men socially and culturally expected to be the breadwinners, work and provide for the family, pay the bills, and do the heavy lifting?

I'd like for you to explain this "institutional power" if you could be so kind.

haven't seen that but ok whatever

Happens to me all the time, particularly in regards to NS Gameplay. Those who stand against third wave feminism or otherwise harmful forms of "progress" are branded as evil racists and nazis, when in reality they are not.

reeducate them to be able to work in other fields?

Have you considered how much time and effort that would require? What if the men don't want to do something else? What if the male politicians and soldiers just decide to band together and oust such a sexist bigot from power? (Considering you have it in this highly unlikely scenario) The military is predominately male, why would they just settle for this blatant discrimination against them?

reeducate those who aren't to be able to work in the political field

But, what if those individuals are crucial to other fields? Why would you reeducate a nuclear physicist to be a politician just because she is female, when there's a completely qualified male candidate? That will cause economic and industrial turmoil as unprecedented numbers of workers are withdrawn from where their experience is needed, and then put them in a field where they have no experience at all. The males you took out of the cabinet and political positions will then be forced to fill job opportunities they have no capability to fulfill, and in the end everybody suffers.

make more babies so there are more women

So, you're suggesting offsetting the male-female balance of the population, just to get more females into political positions? What are you going to do with all the male newborns, execute them? What did they do wrong, be born a male? Have you any idea of the ramifications this will cause? This sounds oddly familiar to something a short man with a silly mustache did in the 1940's. (Genocide)

i really think you're vastly overestimating the number of high-level government positions that should and do exist. a large majority of women could choose to do this and there would still be enough to supply high-level gov positions.

If you do this to high level government positions, then there will be a rift and divide between all lower levels, and boy are there a lot of other levels. State governments, county governments, local and city governments, bureaus, government agencies, state agencies, the list goes on and on. If you do this to the head of the government, you will create a serious rift between the higher and lower levels of government, in the sense there is now a severe ideological difference and that they will fear you are coming for their jobs next, and they will likely begin plotting against you. You will have to imitate this same policy with lower level institutions to create uniform and compliant departments across the board, and this will only waste even more time, money, and resources. These wasted resources and time could be used for real problems, like dealing with poverty, the social unrest currently ongoing, or the veteran homelessness crisis. What did you say earlier about "not thinking this all the way through"?

like what lol (plus i don't think the military should be male-dominated anyway)

Like what? Well, how will female leadership, with them being more nurturing and "nicer" and all, be able to universally demonstrate the proper traits of an effective and competent commander across the new leadership board? You will have to find particularly exceptional individuals from the female demographic that properly demonstrate these attributes in order to effectively lead the armed forces, which you will most definitely be needing when you start discriminating against males. Speaking of which, why would the over 1.5 million males in the armed forces be complacent with your blatant bigotry towards them? How will the physically weaker females be able to thwart the inevitable rebellions of physically dominant and numerically superior male soldiers, should they decide they don't want to play along with your sexist policies?

mostly because they jumped in front of women who were saddled with pregnancy and distracted by caring for an endless array of babies. we don't have that problem anymore because we now have birth control.

And funnily enough, females are still not dominating politics even with your miracle contraceptives. Gee, I wonder why! Biology and human nature, that's why! It's because they choose NOT to go into politics! (And no it isn't that institutional sexism garbage, I disproved that and asked you to back it up with some evidence which you did not do)

the most qualified individual within the parameters that have already been set, sure. doesn't have to be the most absolutely qualified person. as it turns out, you don't need albert einstein to run the USDA.

These parameters make no sense and will only serve to create a pool of less qualified individuals than there were before, as was already explained. As it turns out, Albert Einstein would almost certainly do a better job of running the USDA than a 27 year old gender studies professor from California.

i SPECIFICALLY said in other ways, meaning based on other contextual clues than just the fact that you disagree with my position on matriarchy

Like what? Me disagreeing with matriarchy does not make me sexist or imply that I am in any form, I have been denouncing your sexist and bigoted rhetoric from the start. I don't see the tin foil hat conspiracy theory you're suggesting exists.

you're just reiterating what you already said so i'm not sure how you want me to respond to this

I just pointed out how you haven't disproved my arguments or posed a legitimate counterargument to my supposedly bad arguments which you said I could have framed better. How is that hard to understand?

feelings + emotions are the fundamental basis for any worldview, that's a very poor way to discredit mine.

That's pretty amusing of you to say. Your worldview should be based on FACTS and INFORMATION, NOT your emotions and feelings. Letting your feelings and emotions dominate you is how violent ideologies like Hitler's bigoted breed of national socialism came into existence. This is a very poor basis for an ideological standpoint of any kind, because allowing your temporary and complicated emotions to determine how your ideology develops leads to you being more concerned with achieving a goal to satisfy an emotion rather than satisfy a practical and useful goal based on facts and data that will benefit the common good, like dealing with human trafficking or unemployment.

[J o J]

have you considered that maybe i'm saying that because i genuinely believe it's the best solution; perhaps as a woman who's had to deal with disgusting behavior from males basically since hitting puberty and who's seen what they've done to other women, my opinion of them has rather soured. just a thought.

Gee, did it ever occur to you that everybody has bad experiences?

My stepmother used my dad as a cash-cow and treated him like shit!
My first girlfriend was a totally awful relationship partner, and she made it her mission to try to make my life hell after I dumped her!
One of my best friends' biological mother burned him with cigarettes and one time broke his finger because she treated him so horribly when he was a child!
I could go on and on with more minor events, but you get the idea. This behavior is definitely disgusting, and yet you don't see me promoting total bigotry against females.

Just because you have had a handful of bad experiences with men, or maybe because a relationship with a man you had turned out badly, that doesn't justify widescale and total sexism against all men. That goes back to how I mentioned letting your emotions drive your political views is a bad thing earlier.

Have you considered maybe I AM SAYING THIS because I genuinely believe your solution is inherently dangerous and destructive for everybody? Just a thought

[Jajarjava]

An all-female cabinet would be a bad way of advancing women's rights. It could even be a way of gridlocking them, or setting them back.

Policies are the way of advancing rights (women's rights, gay rights, men's rights, human rights, you name it).
Identity politics have a strong correlation with preserving the status quo. The status quo is not kind to women (or to gays, or to most men; in fact, it's a human rights clusterf**k).

So how would a massive round of over-the-top identity politics advance the rights of any woman (gay, man, human being) not in the cabinet?

It's sexist and reductionist theory, detached from reality.

[Dominioan]

I feel like this implies women would do a much better job than men at politics. I mean honestly, has this really proven true?

[Celritannia]

I feel like this implies women would do a much better job than men at politics. I mean honestly, has this really proven true?

I can mention a number of terrible female Cabinet members in the history of the UK. Most of the them Tories, but some Labour too.
Thatcher of course is one of them.

[Dominioan]

I feel like this implies women would do a much better job than men at politics. I mean honestly, has this really proven true?

I can mention a number of terrible female Cabinet members in the history of the UK. Most of the them Tories, but some Labour too.
Thatcher of course is one of them.

American examples include everyone’s favorite politician who ran on the fact she is a woman, Hillary Clinton. If the woman are good, then it’s okay. But if they are just there because they are women, then that’s just stupid. And it appears most people think that as well.

[Celritannia]

I can mention a number of terrible female Cabinet members in the history of the UK. Most of the them Tories, but some Labour too.
Thatcher of course is one of them.

American examples include everyone’s favorite politician who ran on the fact she is a woman, Hillary Clinton. If the woman are good, then it’s okay. But if they are just there because they are women, then that’s just stupid. And it appears most people think that as well.

I prefer cabinet members to be experienced and know something about the position they are being placed in charge of.

[Jajarjava]

I feel like this implies women would do a much better job than men at politics. I mean honestly, has this really proven true?

Some preliminary results are in:

Passable to Good:
Queen Merneith of Egypt
Queen Elizabeth I of England
Mrs. Bandarserinaike
Those two Danish prime-ministers

Bad to Disaster:
Semiramis of Babylon
Queen Christina of Sweden
Margaret Thatcher
Indira Ghandi
Hillary Clinton
Mrs. Peron (both of them)


So it's almost as if being female doesn't matter, but character does...

[Broader Confederate States]

er, i asked whether you were somewhere on the autism spectrum out of a long-existing suspicion, not quite the same thing

I don't have autism. Yes, I had problems assimilating into RWDT culture, but I'm not autistic.

she also called me an idiot because i did the unthinkable: have a political opinion different from hers while being the same gender, oh no!!!

[Estanglia]

As long as they're good at their jobs and weren't picked because they're women/men, I don't really care about the genders of the cabinet members.

[Celritannia]

I feel like this implies women would do a much better job than men at politics. I mean honestly, has this really proven true?

Some preliminary results are in:

Passable to Good:
Queen Merneith of Egypt
Queen Elizabeth I of England
Mrs. Bandarserinaike
Those two Danish prime-ministers

Bad to Disaster:
Semiramis of Babylon
Queen Christina of Sweden
Margaret Thatcher
Indira Ghandi
Hillary Clinton
Mrs. Peron (both of them)


So it's almost as if being female doesn't matter, but character does...

You forgot the current NZ PM, and the Icelandic PM, both of whom are pretty good.