An all-female cabinet?

[Free Las Pinas]

If they're being appointed on the grounds of being female, it would seem like empty lip service to me rather than female empowerment. I would care more about what policies they'd bring.

Exactly! I think that if you’re attempting representation, they should be appointed on the grounds that they represent a certain view. Assuming that all females would represent the same view, and that any could be appointed on the basis of being female, doesn’t seem right to me.

[Cop Met]

If he meant it, it's not trolling.

Jeez, the SJW censorship on this site has gone completely off the rails.

To be fair, the fact that he made a very unpopular and controversial statement with no further explanation or elaboration, and didn't reply to anyone, does indicate that he was probably seeking a reaction.

If making stupid statements without backing them up is all it takes for it to be considered 'trolling', trolling would be all leftists ever did.
And to be fair: you can make a perfectly logical, factually accurate and valid point on here and it'd be considered 'unpopular' and 'controversial' according to the SJWs that have infected and usurped this site.

[Kowani]

*** Warned for trolling ***

If he meant it, it's not trolling.

Jeez, the SJW censorship on this site has gone completely off the rails.

,,,Whether or not you mean something doesn't make it trolling.
Did you read the rules at all? You've been here for like 10 years-

[Picairn]

Jeez, the SJW censorship on this site has gone completely off the rails.

He was seeking a reaction when he posted that controversial statement without any further elaboration or explanation.

I can already smell the edginess coming from his post, as in trying way too hard to be "cool".

[Cop Met]

If he meant it, it's not trolling.

Jeez, the SJW censorship on this site has gone completely off the rails.

,,,Whether or not you mean something doesn't make it trolling.
Did you read the rules at all? You've been here for like 10 years-

Rules? I thought this was just a playground for pathetic and narcissistic mods with no lives to grandstand and throw a fit once in awhile... Didn't realize there was a system behind it. My bad.

[West Leas Oros 2]

If he meant it, it's not trolling.

Jeez, the SJW censorship on this site has gone completely off the rails.

,,,Whether or not you mean something doesn't make it trolling.
Did you read the rules at all? You've been here for like 10 years-

If that were true, half of the bullshit Cekoviu said earlier in this thread would have been deemed actionable. It wasn't. Yes, I'm still pissed about it.

[The Black Forrest]

After seeing Trump’s cabinet?......sure why not?

[Gurkland]

Equal representation is what it's best. With so many men and women to be candidates in such unique roles, it's impossible to claim which one is most qualified(entirely subjective when thousands of people are qualified equally to be in that role).
If you had a top 100 of players with maxed ranks and you can chose only a few, the difference between them it's really, really minimal and non existent, plus the way they are as politicians is unpredictable, many who seem really good in paper are a disaster in real life, and life isn't an rpg game where you can actually know which one has the best level to qualify, or which one learn faster to do a good job. There are many variables here and this unrealistic meritocratic thinking really only work in math based skills, not real life decisions and behavior.

There are many people who would qualify, and in the real world many politicians aren't really that qualified either because the appointers are bad visionaries and can't really see the good and the real practical qualification of the people he chose. So, the best solution is to chose both of them, equally with affirmative action.

[Cekoviu]

nOt AlL mEn is a terrible argument and you should be ashamed of yourself, and here's why.
at a certain point, overwhelming experience (plus data to back it up!) is enough to make some generalizations, yes? i'll illustrate this with an intuitive example based on a real phenomenon: say i go around the world and encounter 50 different termite colonies from all termite subfamilies all over the world and three of them have environmentally beneficial symbiotic caterpillars living inside, so i look up papers about symbiotic lepidoptera in termite colonies and they make the conclusion that only, say, 10 relatively derived species of termite have those caterpillars. it is therefore fair to say termites do not generally have symbiotic lepidoptera living in their colonies and if we try to eradicate termite colonies for pest control purposes, we do not generally have to worry about saving the caterpillars within the colonies, yes?

now, say i have been closely involved (as a friend, close colleague, relative, or partner) with around 40 men (not sure if that's an accurate figure, i haven't kept count, but we'll just go with that). of those, i have known about 12.5% to have sexually harassed me or other women with whom they are involved with the same degree of closeness (i have not seen any sexually harass other men). a slightly smaller proportion have used pornography or have otherwise cheated on their partner. so nearly a quarter think with their dick to the point that they have actively harmed women. in contrast, i've been closely involved as a friend, colleague, or relative with a slightly higher number of women, but of those i have known 2% to have sexually harassed me or another individual and another 6% to have used pornography or cheated on their partner. that means based on what i've observed, men are 6x as likely to sexually harass someone and 2x as likely to have cheated on their partner. so i think, okay, maybe my experience is skewed and men aren't quite that much worse than women in this respect, so i go to take a look at some statistics. men are about 4x as likely as women to commit sexual violence, twice as likely to view internet pornography, men are somewhat more likely to cheat on their partner in either a married or non-married setting but not significantly so, etc. now what conclusion do i make from this data? "oh, well, men are equal to women in every way and we shouldn't try to do anything about this behavior"? no, that's absurd.

"Not all" is not necessarily a bad argument. When "not all," is used to debunk sweeping generalizations, it becomes a fairly good argument. Especially if those sweeping generalizations are used to legally disenfranchise the group you're generalizing, as you seem to be doing.

If I am to understand you correctly, you want to bar men from serving in the cabinet because men are more likely to be sexual harassers according to statistics and your own personal experience of being harassed by the men in your life. As for your personal experienced, I can't begin to understand the pain that must have brought you, and I don't mean to diminish your experience in any way, but it is still anecdotal evidence.

As for the statistics, we cannot rob an entire group of basic opportunities due to statistical probabilities or statistical tendencies. Men are 4 times as likely to commit sex crimes or sexual harassment? Perhaps. But black Americans are nearly 4 times as likely to commit a violent crime as white Americans. And LGBT people are at least 4 times as likely to engage in pedophilic crimes as cishet people. And yet, anyone to suggest treating black people or LGBT people differently because of these statistics would rightly be called a bigot. The same is true of men.

In Australia and the USA, we hold universal suffrage as one of the most important institutions in our countries. If we denied suffrage to every group that had an unusually high statistical likelihood of certain evils, no one would be allowed to vote or hold office. When concerning people's human rights, deciding what their rights and opportunities are to be, it is appropriate at the very least to judge them as individuals.

not exactly what i'm saying. i don't blame you for getting it muddled because i'm making a variety of points and i could probably do better to distinguish them. my point is ultimately that men shouldn't hold high political office because of their higher susceptibility to emotions and sexual desire and backed that up with statistics, so the point is a bit more subtle than that. i'm not advocating for entirely disenfranchising men.

Now that that's out of the way, how've you been Cekoviu. Things seem to have changed a lot in a year on NSG.

terrible and yes they have.

,,,Whether or not you mean something doesn't make it trolling.
Did you read the rules at all? You've been here for like 10 years-

If that were true, half of the bullshit Cekoviu said earlier in this thread would have been deemed actionable. It wasn't. Yes, I'm still pissed about it.

wow, seems like identity politics to me. whatever happened to free speech?

[West Leas Oros 2]

"Not all" is not necessarily a bad argument. When "not all," is used to debunk sweeping generalizations, it becomes a fairly good argument. Especially if those sweeping generalizations are used to legally disenfranchise the group you're generalizing, as you seem to be doing.

If I am to understand you correctly, you want to bar men from serving in the cabinet because men are more likely to be sexual harassers according to statistics and your own personal experience of being harassed by the men in your life. As for your personal experienced, I can't begin to understand the pain that must have brought you, and I don't mean to diminish your experience in any way, but it is still anecdotal evidence.

As for the statistics, we cannot rob an entire group of basic opportunities due to statistical probabilities or statistical tendencies. Men are 4 times as likely to commit sex crimes or sexual harassment? Perhaps. But black Americans are nearly 4 times as likely to commit a violent crime as white Americans. And LGBT people are at least 4 times as likely to engage in pedophilic crimes as cishet people. And yet, anyone to suggest treating black people or LGBT people differently because of these statistics would rightly be called a bigot. The same is true of men.

In Australia and the USA, we hold universal suffrage as one of the most important institutions in our countries. If we denied suffrage to every group that had an unusually high statistical likelihood of certain evils, no one would be allowed to vote or hold office. When concerning people's human rights, deciding what their rights and opportunities are to be, it is appropriate at the very least to judge them as individuals.

not exactly what i'm saying. i don't blame you for getting it muddled because i'm making a variety of points and i could probably do better to distinguish them. my point is ultimately that men shouldn't hold high political office because of their higher susceptibility to emotions and sexual desire and backed that up with statistics, so the point is a bit more subtle than that. i'm not advocating for entirely disenfranchising men.

Now that that's out of the way, how've you been Cekoviu. Things seem to have changed a lot in a year on NSG.

terrible and yes they have.

If that were true, half of the bullshit Cekoviu said earlier in this thread would have been deemed actionable. It wasn't. Yes, I'm still pissed about it.

wow, seems like identity politics to me. whatever happened to free speech?

How is it identity politics to say that calling for the subjugation of half the population is trolling? Are you that fanatical to think that advocating oppression so blatantly is something to be proud of?

Also, barring men from holding political office can be a form of disenfranchisement, one that often leads to more severe forms.

[Cekoviu]

not exactly what i'm saying. i don't blame you for getting it muddled because i'm making a variety of points and i could probably do better to distinguish them. my point is ultimately that men shouldn't hold high political office because of their higher susceptibility to emotions and sexual desire and backed that up with statistics, so the point is a bit more subtle than that. i'm not advocating for entirely disenfranchising men.

terrible and yes they have.

wow, seems like identity politics to me. whatever happened to free speech?

How is it identity politics to say that calling for the subjugation of half the population is trolling? Are you that fanatical to think that advocating oppression so blatantly is something to be proud of?

you're acknowledging that a person can be bigoted for reasons other than class differences, which is identity politics.

[Celritannia]

"Not all" is not necessarily a bad argument. When "not all," is used to debunk sweeping generalizations, it becomes a fairly good argument. Especially if those sweeping generalizations are used to legally disenfranchise the group you're generalizing, as you seem to be doing.

If I am to understand you correctly, you want to bar men from serving in the cabinet because men are more likely to be sexual harassers according to statistics and your own personal experience of being harassed by the men in your life. As for your personal experienced, I can't begin to understand the pain that must have brought you, and I don't mean to diminish your experience in any way, but it is still anecdotal evidence.

As for the statistics, we cannot rob an entire group of basic opportunities due to statistical probabilities or statistical tendencies. Men are 4 times as likely to commit sex crimes or sexual harassment? Perhaps. But black Americans are nearly 4 times as likely to commit a violent crime as white Americans. And LGBT people are at least 4 times as likely to engage in pedophilic crimes as cishet people. And yet, anyone to suggest treating black people or LGBT people differently because of these statistics would rightly be called a bigot. The same is true of men.

In Australia and the USA, we hold universal suffrage as one of the most important institutions in our countries. If we denied suffrage to every group that had an unusually high statistical likelihood of certain evils, no one would be allowed to vote or hold office. When concerning people's human rights, deciding what their rights and opportunities are to be, it is appropriate at the very least to judge them as individuals.

not exactly what i'm saying. i don't blame you for getting it muddled because i'm making a variety of points and i could probably do better to distinguish them. my point is ultimately that men shouldn't hold high political office because of their higher susceptibility to emotions and sexual desire and backed that up with statistics, so the point is a bit more subtle than that. i'm not advocating for entirely disenfranchising men.

Perhaps one could argue the same thing for women should not solely hold office.
Anyone can be susceptible t their emotions, but that does not mean one sex or gender should dominate politics at the Government level. Again, people who are experts in their field tend to focus more on their jobs and running the country.

[West Leas Oros 2]

not exactly what i'm saying. i don't blame you for getting it muddled because i'm making a variety of points and i could probably do better to distinguish them. my point is ultimately that men shouldn't hold high political office because of their higher susceptibility to emotions and sexual desire and backed that up with statistics, so the point is a bit more subtle than that. i'm not advocating for entirely disenfranchising men.

Perhaps one could argue the same thing for women should not solely hold office.
Anyone can be susceptible t their emotions, but that does not mean one sex or gender should dominate politics at the Government level. Again, people who are experts in their field tend to focus more on their jobs and running the country.

It bothers me that this isn't more of a "no shit, Sherlock". Like, this should be obvious to anyone, and yet we still get bogus pseudoscience to try and justify subjugation.

[Mordka]

Woman have no right to be in the government nor have a say in it

*** Warned for trolling ***

It not a troll jackass, It's true, just because the option isn't on the poll, doesn't mean I can't commit it.

[West Leas Oros 2]

*** Warned for trolling ***

It not a troll jackass, It's true, just because the option isn't on the poll, doesn't mean I can't commit it.

Yes, it is a troll. You're advocating for the subjugation of an entire group, which is already bad enough, and with the intent (or at least the unintended consequence) to piss people off.

I could go on, but there's only so many hours in the day, and I'd rather spend them elsewhere.

[South Odreria 2]

A female dominated government is a dubious suggestion considering most haven't played Civilization V

[Martelon]

There are many people who would qualify, and in the real world many politicians aren't really that qualified either because the appointers are bad visionaries and can't really see the good and the real practical qualification of the people he chose. So, the best solution is to chose both of them, equally with affirmative action.

This seems like a terrible idea. In a democracy the appointers of politicians are the voters. Affirmative action is likewise terrible because it awards things to people on arbitrary grounds where merit used to award.

[West Leas Oros 2]

A female dominated government is a dubious suggestion considering most haven't played Civilization V

Explain.

[Cekoviu]

A female dominated government is a dubious suggestion considering most haven't played Civilization V

Explain.

he's clearly joking.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Explain.

he's clearly joking.

I didn't ask you. And I know it's a joke, I just don't get it.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

not exactly what i'm saying. i don't blame you for getting it muddled because i'm making a variety of points and i could probably do better to distinguish them. my point is ultimately that men shouldn't hold high political office because of their higher susceptibility to emotions and sexual desire and backed that up with statistics, so the point is a bit more subtle than that. i'm not advocating for entirely disenfranchising men.

If I recall correctly, you've said in this thread that you would approve of a matriarchy and that you would approve of systemic discrimination against men. That would seem to imply that you'd be okay with snubbing men's human rights to some degree, even if it's not entirely disenfranchising men. So I think my point still stands. Especially since misogynists for centuries or even millennia have claimed that women are too emotional and histrionic to have the same rights and opportunities men have. To make the same sweeping, wholly untrue, generalization except about the opposite gender, would render your position hardly better than that of the chauvinists.

terrible and yes they have.

I'm feeling kinda bad too.

wow, seems like identity politics to me. whatever happened to free speech?

I don't really see how that's identity politics...

[West Leas Oros 2]

not exactly what i'm saying. i don't blame you for getting it muddled because i'm making a variety of points and i could probably do better to distinguish them. my point is ultimately that men shouldn't hold high political office because of their higher susceptibility to emotions and sexual desire and backed that up with statistics, so the point is a bit more subtle than that. i'm not advocating for entirely disenfranchising men.

If I recall correctly, you've said in this thread that you would approve of a matriarchy and that you would approve of systemic discrimination against men. That would seem to imply that you'd be okay with snubbing men's human rights to some degree, even if it's not entirely disenfranchising men. So I think my point still stands. Especially since misogynists for centuries or even millennia have claimed that women are too emotional and histrionic to have the same rights and opportunities men have. To make the same sweeping, wholly untrue, generalization except about the opposite gender, would render your position hardly better than that of the chauvinists.

terrible and yes they have.

I'm feeling kinda bad too.

wow, seems like identity politics to me. whatever happened to free speech?

I don't really see how that's identity politics...

Because its not. The attempt at a cheap gotcha fell flat. Since when is saying "Advocating for the subjugation of men is bad and is done for the purpose of trolling, regardless of its sincerity" identity politics?

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

Comrade, gender is merely social construct.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Comrade, gender is merely social construct.

Kind of, yeah. Way I see it, there's not much difference between genders. It's not like they're different species or anything. As such, why should we deny human rights to a certain group of humans?

(hint for the sexists out there: we shouldn't.)

[Cekoviu]

Comrade, gender is merely social construct.

very wrong but ok