An all-female cabinet?

[West Leas Oros 2]

You might want to make your intention clearer when you post. I understand what you're trying to do with turning common arguments against women around on men, but you need to make it clearer; as written the post looks like you're flaming West Leas Oro 2.

Thanks!
NVI

i'm not quite sure how insinuating that wlo's political views are emotionally clouded and poorly thought-out is flaming (that sort of thing is very commonly done round these parts), but alright i guess

More likely, yes. The entire male population though? Unlikely.

sure, but those general trends do help the argument that men are on average more influenced to do harm by emotions than womyn (plus these trends seem to occur in every culture, so it's clearly something specific to males and not solely due to culture). if we lack full matriarchy, we should at least more carefully vet men than women and that'd of course end up skewing the ratios a bit.

Insinuating that it's because of my gender and then going on a sexist tirade about the genetic inferiority of half the human population isn't a problem to you?

[Celritannia]

You might want to make your intention clearer when you post. I understand what you're trying to do with turning common arguments against women around on men, but you need to make it clearer; as written the post looks like you're flaming West Leas Oro 2.

Thanks!
NVI

i'm not quite sure how insinuating that wlo's political views are emotionally clouded and poorly thought-out is flaming (that sort of thing is very commonly done round these parts), but alright i guess

More likely, yes. The entire male population though? Unlikely.

sure, but those general trends do help the argument that men are on average more influenced to do harm by emotions than womyn (plus these trends seem to occur in every culture, so it's clearly something specific to males and not solely due to culture). if we lack full matriarchy, we should at least more carefully vet men than women and that'd of course end up skewing the ratios a bit.

While true, this is not a determining factor as to why the most experiences should not be allowed in a cabinet.
Women are also more likely to deal psychological damage than men, as Neji mentioned.

Everyone should be vetted before becoming a political figure, and especially being a member of a Government.

[Cekoviu]

and yet men are far more likely to make reckless decisions and be violent criminals, fascinating

Reckless decisions such as starting fights, rushing into big decisions, or overlooking details? Much like women and their tendencies to also rush into things headfirst, as well as start workplace drama, egg on fights amongst men to appease their vindictive emotions, and irrationally blame an entire gender for their own poorly thought choices which result in being “barefoot and pregnant again”.

The male gender is not perfect, but nor is the female gender. Nuclear war over who’s shoes are prettier? Yikes. (I’m joking, I’m joking.)

this seems more like a bitter misogynistic tirade than an attempt to make a serious point. not sure what i'm supposed to argue with here given that it's entirely nonsense with no logical backing whatsoever.

[Cekoviu]

i'm not quite sure how insinuating that wlo's political views are emotionally clouded and poorly thought-out is flaming (that sort of thing is very commonly done round these parts), but alright i guess

sure, but those general trends do help the argument that men are on average more influenced to do harm by emotions than womyn (plus these trends seem to occur in every culture, so it's clearly something specific to males and not solely due to culture). if we lack full matriarchy, we should at least more carefully vet men than women and that'd of course end up skewing the ratios a bit.

Insinuating that it's because of my gender and then going on a sexist tirade about the genetic inferiority of half the human population isn't a problem to you?

well i don't think it counts as flaming, you could argue that it's annoying or unnecessary but that's not the same thing
and i wouldn't call it genetic inferiority per se, it more seems to be a result of male hormones and those aren't exactly unchangeable or fully genetic.

[Somerania]

I wouldn't want to ruin my teak cabinet by stuffing them with my murder victims

[Cekoviu]

i'm not quite sure how insinuating that wlo's political views are emotionally clouded and poorly thought-out is flaming (that sort of thing is very commonly done round these parts), but alright i guess

sure, but those general trends do help the argument that men are on average more influenced to do harm by emotions than womyn (plus these trends seem to occur in every culture, so it's clearly something specific to males and not solely due to culture). if we lack full matriarchy, we should at least more carefully vet men than women and that'd of course end up skewing the ratios a bit.

While true, this is not a determining factor as to why the most experiences should not be allowed in a cabinet.
Women are also more likely to deal psychological damage than men, as Neji mentioned.

i'm not sure that's true, in fact i'm almost certain it isn't unless you're using a very narrow definition of "psychological damage"

Everyone should be vetted before becoming a political figure, and especially being a member of a Government.

yes, i agree, the point is just that men ought to be vetted more heavily

[The Unified Missourtama States]

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

Not a good idea. All it will help is the Far Left, and not for long.

So why do you claim male supremacy?
Or am I misunderstanding?

[West Leas Oros 2]

Insinuating that it's because of my gender and then going on a sexist tirade about the genetic inferiority of half the human population isn't a problem to you?

well i don't think it counts as flaming, you could argue that it's annoying or unnecessary but that's not the same thing
and i wouldn't call it genetic inferiority per se, it more seems to be a result of male hormones and those aren't exactly unchangeable or fully genetic.

Per se? Oh my....

[Celritannia]

While true, this is not a determining factor as to why the most experiences should not be allowed in a cabinet.
Women are also more likely to deal psychological damage than men, as Neji mentioned.

i'm not sure that's true, in fact i'm almost certain it isn't unless you're using a very narrow definition of "psychological damage"

Everyone should be vetted before becoming a political figure, and especially being a member of a Government.

yes, i agree, the point is just that men ought to be vetted more heavily

Speaking behind someone's back, spreading rumours, that sort of thing.

Again, I do not think so. There are probably more socio-economic reasons men also fight or are more violent than a natural reason.

[Nuroblav]

Per se? Oh my....

Now you mention it, it do be a fun phrase, especially in saying you don't believe in something.

Personally I find this whole 'which sex is more reckless' debate to be pointless. From my viewpoint it doesn't have any bearing on someone as a person. There have been great men. There have been great women. Each one also has those that aren't necessarily mindful as people. Take what you will but one thing stands: I don't care about which one is better. It is not an argument that I feel the need to waste time on.

[Cekoviu]

i'm not sure that's true, in fact i'm almost certain it isn't unless you're using a very narrow definition of "psychological damage"

yes, i agree, the point is just that men ought to be vetted more heavily

Speaking behind someone's back, spreading rumours, that sort of thing.

maybe men don't do that as often but they absolutely do psychologically damage people (especially women) in other ways, probably more severely than women on average again.

Again, I do not think so. There are probably more socio-economic reasons men also fight or are more violent than a natural reason.

i'm sure there's a component of that but given how widespread the disparity is globally i have to imagine there's something biological contributing (this is further evidenced by trans men; you often hear from them that their testosterone supplements make them much more aggressive and increases libido, that explains the disparity in sexual violence as well as non-sexual violence)

[Celritannia]

Speaking behind someone's back, spreading rumours, that sort of thing.

maybe men don't do that as often but they absolutely do psychologically damage people (especially women) in other ways, probably more severely than women on average again.

I was more refering to a work place situation or a social situation, rather than in a domestic setting.
If I was to include a domestic setting, then absolutely.

i'm sure there's a component of that but given how widespread the disparity is globally i have to imagine there's something biological contributing (this is further evidenced by trans men; you often hear from them that their testosterone supplements make them much more aggressive and increases libido, that explains the disparity in sexual violence as well as non-sexual violence)

IT still pretty small, especially in the western world. Many authoritarian or military regimes do still rely on strength in terms of power. But in western societies, it has decreased.
I mean, I can't see Professor Brian Cox, or Sir David Attenborough going around starting fights.

[Theberstan]

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.

Honestly, if I had an all female cabinet the Secretary of War would rather want to have a discussion or insult each other...

[West Leas Oros 2]

I do think certain powerful positions such as Minister/Secretary of the Interior need to be kept female to prevent dictatorship. The defense minister / secretary should be female unless there is actually a major war. Most importantly the executive leadership needs to be female.

This can cut down on a lot of the abuses.

Reserving some positions for one gender will do zilch for preventing abuses and dictatorships...

It would probably make it worse. Can you imagine if some positions were reserved for a particular race? Well you don't have to, because that is a thing that has and still does exist.

[Feline Goetland]

Reserving some positions for one gender will do zilch for preventing abuses and dictatorships...

It would probably make it worse. Can you imagine if some positions were reserved for a particular race? Well you don't have to, because that is a thing that has and still does exist.

Race and gender are very different. Women are objectively nicer than men on average. So the most fishy positions do need to be exclusively female: executive leadership and interior ministry.

[Cekoviu]

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.

Honestly, if I had an all female cabinet the Secretary of War would rather want to have a discussion or insult each other...

this seems like a good thing

[The republic ofTexas and northern Mexico]

A all female cabinet would not solve discrimination
In fact it would encourage it by having only one sex in a cabinet
(just like having only males in a cabinet would be discriminatory if they ignored better qualified candidates)

[West Leas Oros 2]

It would probably make it worse. Can you imagine if some positions were reserved for a particular race? Well you don't have to, because that is a thing that has and still does exist.

Race and gender are very different. Women are objectively nicer than men on average. So the most fishy positions do need to be exclusively female: executive leadership and interior ministry.

You got a credible study or anything to back up this claim?

[J o J]

With reservations I voted the SECOND option. If there had been one like ...

"IF all impediments to women going into politics are removed, including at the party level, systemic sexism in the voting population is then accurately mapped onto representation; if then females in parliament have equal standing with males regarding qualifications and talent but with little weight on political experience, for promotion to Cabinet, they should comprise 30% to 70% of all Representatives"

... then I'd have voted for that.

What impediments? Can you list them?
Where is the systemic sexism? Can you adequately and fully describe this system of deliberate sexism to me? Which polling stations are the women being turned away at?
Why is there a specific amount of women required to be in the cabinet? What if not as many females apply for the position or are available for it than males? What if the males are simply better qualified than the females? What if there were way more females than males, and there were not enough males to fit THEIR required percentage?

I don't believe in laws to force the rate to 50%. I do believe that laws making it equally easy for a parent to spend time with their child(ren) and have control over the environment of same, while also having equal work time to a non-parent, would remove a big part of the impediment to women going into politics.

It's almost as if one gender was biologically developed to be the primary care taker of children, and the other was not. Perhaps each gender was biologically designed to have specific roles and traits, don't you think? Man, I guess all those other mammals who have the mother raise the child almost exclusively must be sexist misogynists right?

I believe it is at the Party level that women face the most obstruction, in the rise to power. This is the responsibility of each party, and let any party left behind by more than a century (since female suffrage) suffer the slings and arrows of the mostly-female voters.

Tell me where any legitimate mainstream American political party has a condition that states: "NO WOMEN ALLOWED, BOYS RULE GIRLS DROOL!" Where is the obstruction?

Let's be clear about that. A party with a sexist selection policy for candidates, has only itself to blame if it sees the enemy party drawing further and further ahead in the women's vote and does nothing to fix its problem. I could say HOW to fix the problem, but you know what? Fuck the Republicans. They're not evil, but in a choice of evils ... they are evil. Fix your own problem.

I am no republican, so please enlighten me on how the Republican party is being deliberately discriminatory to their female supporters? Describe to me this sexist selection policy, I would like to have a little more to dislike the Republicans for since I already severely despise the Democrats.

The rest is pretty straightforward. The Cabinet should roughly represent the Caucus that it is drawn from, in term of gender. If that Party has only 30% female members, in the parliament, something around 30% in the Cabinet would be acceptable to me.

So, what you're saying is the demographics of a party's supporters should be exactly mirrored in the leadership of said party? Did it ever occur to you that maybe just not as much women enter the world of politics? Are you saying there should be a cap on how many males (70%) should be allowed into the Cabinet? Isn't that discriminating? I would like to see some evidence of consistent and repetitive rejection of females en masse by any modern political party in this day and age. It's simple: elect the best qualified leaders and officials, nobody should care what gender they are. If a portion of females aren't able to enter the field because they are taking care of children, isn't that what mothers are supposed to do? A mother's primary concern is taking care of her children, is it not?

If you can adequately and substantially prove to me that there is serious, recurring, and deliberate sexism on a large scale against women in this field, then you will have changed my mind. Until then, I implore you to stop making these claims. I want you to completely prove that this is an ACTUAL problem that goes beyond the biological differences, preferences, and goals of the two genders, and not some tin-foil hat conspiracy theory like the neo-Nazis conjure up. (and boy, do I have a lot of that garbage to put up with considering who I work with.)

[J o J]

Insinuating that it's because of my gender and then going on a sexist tirade about the genetic inferiority of half the human population isn't a problem to you?

well i don't think it counts as flaming, you could argue that it's annoying or unnecessary but that's not the same thing
and i wouldn't call it genetic inferiority per se, it more seems to be a result of male hormones and those aren't exactly unchangeable or fully genetic.

So, you admit that is biology that causes the issues between the two genders? Why are you making a big deal about it then? One gender was biologically developed for certain roles and traits, and the other has it's own too. Females are generally more sensitive and nurturing, "nicer", as some other nation that was just deleted put it. Males are physically stronger and are generally less sensitive and nurturing, hence why they are most often the ones who work to provide for the family, do the heavy lifting, and fight in war when necessary. I can't comprehend why you're making such a big fuss about less women being in the field of politics because they are more worried about their primary biological and human concern, which is caring for their children and family. There is no systemic sexism, if you think there is, I implore you to provide substantial, relevant, and recurring evidence that there is indeed some otherworldly force that is barring women from politics.

Also, you directly claimed WLO's political views were discredited solely based on his sex, rather than any sound argument you made, which is definitely not ok. I think it counts.

[Cekoviu]

well i don't think it counts as flaming, you could argue that it's annoying or unnecessary but that's not the same thing
and i wouldn't call it genetic inferiority per se, it more seems to be a result of male hormones and those aren't exactly unchangeable or fully genetic.

So, you admit that is biology that causes the issues between the two genders?

some and not others.

Why are you making a big deal about it then? One gender was biologically developed for certain roles and traits, and the other has it's own too. Females are generally more sensitive and nurturing, "nicer", as some other nation that was just deleted put it. Males are physically stronger and are generally less sensitive and nurturing, hence why they are most often the ones who work to provide for the family, do the heavy lifting, and fight in war when necessary.

why should i care? i do not see how this is related; looks more like you're trying to use the topic as a way to shoehorn some dumb and irrelevant evolutionary psychology in

I can't comprehend why you're making such a big fuss about less women being in the field of politics because they are more worried about their primary biological and human concern, which is caring for their children and family. There is no systemic sexism, if you think there is, I implore you to provide substantial, relevant, and recurring evidence that there is indeed some otherworldly force that is barring women from politics.

at the moment i'm not even arguing there is systemic sexism (although there is, but that's beside the point). in fact, i'm saying we should have systemic sexism, it should just be discriminating against men rather than women. sooo uh there you have it

Also, you directly claimed WLO's political views were discredited solely based on his sex, rather than any sound argument you made, which is definitely not ok. I think it counts.

again, "not ok" based on your judgments != flaming

[J o J]

some and not others.

Which ones?

why should i care? i do not see how this is related; looks more like you're trying to use the topic as a way to shoehorn some dumb and irrelevant evolutionary psychology in

Because I was just demonstrating how vastly different the two sexes are, and that directly because of this females tend to worry more about raising their children than being employed and making money when their spouse is doing that FOR them. I'm not talking about evolution, I'm talking about human nature and the natural biological forces at work with each gender.

at the moment i'm not even arguing there is systemic sexism (although there is, but that's beside the point). in fact, i'm saying we should have systemic sexism, it should just be discriminating against men rather than women. sooo uh there you have it

Why should we have it? What goals does it achieve? Won't it just create a mirrored scenario of the situation you claim exists now in regards to the political field? Considering that less females enter the realm of politics because they are pre-occupied with caring for their children, won't that lead to a generally LESS qualified pool of candidates, seeing as though you have constrained the flow of said candidates to prioritize a smaller demographic of females, which will in turn create less space for potentially MORE qualified individuals? Simply put, a larger group will have a higher chance of having more qualified individuals than a smaller group simply due to size, so won't prioritizing a smaller group deliberately only serve to hinder the effectiveness of the cabinet as a whole? Why don't we just not constrain either gender, that way only the most qualified individuals from BOTH genders can be accounted for?

If you need me to make it even simpler to understand, let's make a scenario with Group A being males and Group B being females. Your systemic sexism is implemented. 10 females must be placed into the cabinet along with 7 males. Group A has 75 members with 15 exceptional candidates. Group B has 30 members with 5 exceptional candidates. The cabinet has a maximum capacity of 17, and because of your pro-female biased policy, a threshold of 10 females and 7 males must be maintained. Because there are only 5 exceptional group b members (women), and there must be 10 members from this demographic, 5 members of the cabinet will be less qualified and non-exceptional politicians, whereas an unbiased system would allow for the allocation of the best of the best from both genders having the whole cabinet full of exceptional individuals.

If this is not the type of systemic sexism you are implying we should have, please feel free to enlighten me!

again, "not ok" based on your judgments != flaming

I said something about your argument was not ok, I did not say anything about your character. You said that because WLO was a male, what he said was not ok. I then responded that what you said about WLO is not ok. I see no flaming. There is a difference between verbal aggression/personal attacks and targeting the enemy argument.

[Cekoviu]

some and not others.

Which ones?

not really pertinent to this conversation, but, for example, the average difference in physical aggression and sex drive are largely biological whereas the propensity of women to prefer the extremes of very tightly fitting or loosely fitting clothes is cultural in origin.

why should i care? i do not see how this is related; looks more like you're trying to use the topic as a way to shoehorn some dumb and irrelevant evolutionary psychology in

Because I was just demonstrating how vastly different the two sexes are, and that directly because of this females tend to worry more about raising their children than being employed and making money when their spouse is doing that FOR them. I'm not talking about evolution, I'm talking about human nature and the natural biological forces at work with each gender.

so uh how do you think that human nature & those biological forces would be formed if not by evolution, you a creationist

at the moment i'm not even arguing there is systemic sexism (although there is, but that's beside the point). in fact, i'm saying we should have systemic sexism, it should just be discriminating against men rather than women. sooo uh there you have it

Why should we have it? What goals does it achieve? Won't it just create a mirrored scenario of the situation you claim exists now in regards to the political field?

1. because i don't like men
2. it keeps men out of positions of power
3. not quite, since the version i'm suggesting is more extreme

Considering that less females enter the realm of politics because they are pre-occupied with caring for their children, won't that lead to a generally LESS qualified pool of candidates, seeing as though you have constrained the flow of said candidates to prioritize a smaller demographic of females, which will in turn create less space for potentially MORE qualified individuals? Simply put, a larger group will have a higher chance of having more qualified individuals than a smaller group simply due to size, so won't prioritizing a smaller group deliberately only serve to hinder the effectiveness of the cabinet as a whole?

...i don't think you've thought this argument through entirely. women who are "preoccupied with caring for children" will obviously be less qualified than women who aren't because their preoccupation will reduce the amount of time and effort they put into studying and working. therefore, the unqualified homemakers' lack of presence in the hiring pool actually increases the average quality of the female hiring pool relative to the male hiring pool while having little to no effect on the gross number of qualified individuals, so that hypothesized effect of yours does not follow whatsoever. additionally, the fact that in my ideal system men would be prohibited from government work means they will naturally stop trying to specialize in it and after sufficient time no talent will go wasted.

Why don't we just not constrain either gender, that way only the most qualified individuals from BOTH genders can be accounted for?

because i don't want to do that for the reasons above.

If you need me to make it even simpler to understand, let's make a scenario with Group A being males and Group B being females. Your systemic sexism is implemented. 10 females must be placed into the cabinet along with 7 males. Group A has 75 members with 15 exceptional candidates. Group B has 30 members with 5 exceptional candidates. The cabinet has a maximum capacity of 17, and because of your pro-female biased policy, a threshold of 10 females and 7 males must be maintained. Because there are only 5 exceptional group b members (women), and there must be 10 members from this demographic, 5 members of the cabinet will be less qualified and non-exceptional politicians, whereas an unbiased system would allow for the allocation of the best of the best from both genders having the whole cabinet full of exceptional individuals.

If this is not the type of systemic sexism you are implying we should have, please feel free to enlighten me!

nope, i'm not suggesting quotas, i'm suggesting prohibiting men altogether, which i was very clear about earlier. you really should read up the quote chain before you try inserting yourself into an argument; you clearly haven't read any of my posts past like this page and as such, you're being forced to assume some very important basics of my argument and you're mostly guessing wrong. it's not a great look.

[J o J]

not really pertinent to this conversation, but, for example, the average difference in physical aggression and sex drive are largely biological whereas the propensity of women to prefer the extremes of very tightly fitting or loosely fitting clothes is cultural in origin.

Ok, are you saying that women choosing to wear certain types of clothing is bad? Don't you want to have the choice to wear what you want?

so uh how do you think that human nature & those biological forces would be formed if not by evolution, you a creationist

I didn't say it had nothing to do with evolution, I just stated I wasn't referring to the process of evolution directly.

1. because i don't like men
2. it keeps men out of positions of power
3. not quite, since the version i'm suggesting is more extreme

Oh, I see. If the situation was reversed I'd be called a nazi for something like that. How abhorrent. That's just blatant discrimination and hatred.

...i don't think you've thought this argument through entirely. women who are "preoccupied with caring for children" will obviously be less qualified than women who aren't because their preoccupation will reduce the amount of time and effort they put into studying and working. therefore, the unqualified homemakers' lack of presence in the hiring pool actually increases the average quality of the female hiring pool relative to the male hiring pool while having little to no effect on the gross number of qualified individuals, so that hypothesized effect of yours does not follow whatsoever. additionally, the fact that in my ideal system men would be prohibited from government work means they will naturally stop trying to specialize in it and after sufficient time no talent will go wasted.

No, I think you have not thought this through entirely. The argument was that a large portion of women are preoccupied with caring for their children, while a large portion of men are not, and so this means way more men have the time for full time employment than females, making the total pool of available candidates numerically skewed in favor of men. This means that because there are more males available than females, there is a greater probability of a highly qualified individual being a male rather than a female. Like you said, with so many women being preoccupied, they can't put all that time into studying and working, leaving the ones that can heavily outnumbered by males. That means that there will naturally be way more qualified males than females. Your assertion and misunderstanding is apparently that all women are supernaturally qualified and exceptional in the field, and that any woman who isn't qualified is a homemaker, and that males are the only gender that have unexceptional and unqualified politicians. This makes sense to me that you would think this way because of your now apparent extreme misandrist views.

Hey, you're right about one thing though, your ideal system won't waste talent, it will outright prevent and destroy it's progression.

because i don't want to do that for the reasons above.

And people call me a sexist, hateful, bigot.

nope, i'm not suggesting quotas, i'm suggesting prohibiting men altogether, which i was very clear about earlier. you really should read up the quote chain before you try inserting yourself into an argument; you clearly haven't read any of my posts past like this page and as such, you're being forced to assume some very important basics of my argument and you're mostly guessing wrong. it's not a great look.

I had no reason to do a 10 page research project on this simple debate. You were either an individual who fell under the lies of third wave feminism and could be reasoned with, or you were a literal misandrist that would become evident quickly, and the latter has proven to be the case. I simply proposed an argument against third wave feminism, you would either attempt a counterargument OR reveal you were a misandrist, and that's exactly what happened. There was no need to read up the quote chain, you were going to be one or the other. It makes no difference, because either way, any sexist view on this matter is incorrect by default. A cabinet exists to provide a group of qualified and experienced individuals, and so it should therefore be chosen by merit, not by gender. By the way, I'd refrain from telling somebody else they are doing something that gives them a bad look when you're literally just promoting barbaric sexism...

[Cekoviu]

not really pertinent to this conversation, but, for example, the average difference in physical aggression and sex drive are largely biological whereas the propensity of women to prefer the extremes of very tightly fitting or loosely fitting clothes is cultural in origin.

Ok, are you saying that women choosing to wear certain types of clothing is bad? Don't you want to have the choice to wear what you want?

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.

1. because i don't like men
2. it keeps men out of positions of power
3. not quite, since the version i'm suggesting is more extreme

Oh, I see. If the situation was reversed I'd be called a nazi for something like that. How abhorrent. That's just blatant discrimination and hatred.

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

...i don't think you've thought this argument through entirely. women who are "preoccupied with caring for children" will obviously be less qualified than women who aren't because their preoccupation will reduce the amount of time and effort they put into studying and working. therefore, the unqualified homemakers' lack of presence in the hiring pool actually increases the average quality of the female hiring pool relative to the male hiring pool while having little to no effect on the gross number of qualified individuals, so that hypothesized effect of yours does not follow whatsoever. additionally, the fact that in my ideal system men would be prohibited from government work means they will naturally stop trying to specialize in it and after sufficient time no talent will go wasted.

No, I think you have not thought this through entirely. The argument was that a large portion of women are preoccupied with caring for their children, while a large portion of men are not, and so this means way more men have the time for full time employment than females, making the total pool of available candidates numerically skewed in favor of men. This means that because there are more males available than females, there is a greater probability of a highly qualified individual being a male rather than a female. Like you said, with so many women being preoccupied, they can't put all that time into studying and working, leaving the ones that can heavily outnumbered by males. That means that there will naturally be way more qualified males than females. Your assertion and misunderstanding is apparently that all women are supernaturally qualified and exceptional in the field, and that any woman who isn't qualified is a homemaker, and that males are the only gender that have unexceptional and unqualified politicians.

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.

Hey, you're right about one thing though, your ideal system won't waste talent, it will outright prevent and destroy it's progression.

yes, that is correct.

because i don't want to do that for the reasons above.

And people call me a sexist, hateful, bigot.

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

nope, i'm not suggesting quotas, i'm suggesting prohibiting men altogether, which i was very clear about earlier. you really should read up the quote chain before you try inserting yourself into an argument; you clearly haven't read any of my posts past like this page and as such, you're being forced to assume some very important basics of my argument and you're mostly guessing wrong. it's not a great look.

I had no reason to do a 10 page research project on this simple debate.

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

You were either an individual who fell under the lies of third wave feminism and could be reasoned with, or you were a literal misandrist that would become evident quickly, and the latter has proven to be the case. I simply proposed an argument against third wave feminism, you would either attempt a counterargument OR reveal you were a misandrist, and that's exactly what happened. There was no need to read up the quote chain, you were going to be one or the other.

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

It makes no difference, because either way, any sexist view on this matter is incorrect by default. A cabinet exists to provide a group of qualified and experienced individuals, and so it should therefore be chosen by merit, not by gender.

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

By the way, I'd refrain from telling somebody else they are doing something that gives them a bad look when you're literally just promoting barbaric sexism...

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