I have been experimenting with creating a type of online mind on Obsidian and this is my first experiment using Obsidian as a type of brain to write this argument. This is just a test and I do not have enough notes to make this good yet or at least as good as it could be, so wish me luck.
feminism pushed by leftists have done irreparable harm to American society.
Women got the right to vote in America on August 18, 1920. [1] That same year alcohol became illegal, giving rise to organized crime. [2] This was just the beginning of the damage caused to society by allowing women to vote. They just aren’t suited to make policy decisions generally speaking.
WOMEN ARE LIBERAL
It’s no mystery that women are more likely than men to lean left on policy issues.[3] I don’t think my opponent will contest this. It’s not only backed up by every study available on demographics of the voting public, but it’s plainly obvious.
They don’t just vote for more liberal candidates but politicians on both sides of the aisle have to pander to the interests of women. This means that normally conservative candidates will have to be account for the female vote by adopting more liberal policies. I am of course speaking specifically of the pro liberal policies that are seemingly pro women and not all liberal policies.
We’ll get to why this is bad in a moment. We’ll continue talking about a few seemingly unrelated things and then connect them all as we go along.
Risk Compensation
Selectinternational.com describes risk compensation this way: “The theory of risk compensation suggests people adjust their behavior according to perceived risk. Where people perceive greater risk they act more cautiously. When they feel more protected they act less careful.”[4]
This effect has been observed in a variety of ways and is a natural human phenomenon. The effect is especially strong when your perceived level of protection does not apply to other people who your actions could harm.
A recent study shows that the perceived safety of SUV causes drivers to become more reckless unnecessarily putting their life as well as the lives of others on the road in more danger. The abstract for this study says: “In this research a model developed by Levitt and Poter (2001) for drinking drivers is applied to assessing the Peltzman Effect of SUVs and Passenger Cars with a set of data characteristics to control for preexisting risk taking behavior. It was found that indeed SUVs pose an externality hazard on passenger cars and that SUV drivers are 2.7 times more likely to cause a fatal crash compared to passenger cars.”[5]
Before anti-lock brakes came standard on every car, making braking easier there was a study conducted on taxi drivers. Over a 36 month period of time there was observed a slight increase in accidents on the taxis with ABS systems. Among the civilian cars observed the rate of accidents for cars with ABS and without remained the same, also suggesting a compensatory effect.[6]
A study in England showed that motorists would be more cautious passing unhelmeted motorcycles slower and at a further distance than helmeted bikers. [7]
You can take on an experiment right now. Go ahead and increase your risk of walking across your house with your eyes closed, and then do it with your eyes open. Were you more cautious when the level of danger increased? Did you walk slower? Shuffle your feet to avoid tripping?
FAMILY MATTERS
It’s better for children when families stay together. The median income for single parent homes is $35,000 a year compared to $85,000 for married couples. [8]
The poverty rate for single mother families is 36% which is 5 times higher than for married families. Almosts 32% of single mother homes were food insecure. Meaning they were struggling to even eat or feed their children.
63% of youth suicides are from children in fatherless homes.
90% of homeless children are from single parent homes.
71% of high school dropouts are from single parent homes.
85% of youth in prison come from single mothers.
Living in a single parent home doubles the likelihood a child will be abused.
71% of teen pregnancies come from fatherless homes. [9]
I think we can see from this that keeping families together is good for children which means it is good for society and judging by the poverty rate of broken homes, better for the mothers as well.
HYPERGAMY
Hypergamy is a theory of mate selection used by adult human females. It refers to the desire of women to mate with men of a higher social status as opposed to the mating strategy of men which prefer women who show signs of fertility.[10]
Studies have shown that women who move up in social status report their pool of acceptable partners shrinks, while men report the opposite phenomenon: “As my status increases, my pool of acceptable partners decreases". In contrast, 90 percent of men felt that "As my status increases, my pool of acceptable partners increases”[11].
Gilles Saint-Paul has argued that female hypergamy happens because of the lost mating opportunity In monogamous relationships due to the smaller windows of fertility. Marriage reduces the likelihood that a woman will become pregnant by the highest status make possible. [12]
This is where the redpill philosophy of “alpha fucks Beta Bucks” comes in. Women will seek high quality sperm whether they’re married or not, but want a long term partner to ensure that she and the child is taken care of. If the Beta bucks partner is fooled into thinking the child is his, This works best.
There is a simple supply and demand principle at play here that explains why women would marry a lower quality male than they can have sex with. It is because a man can impregnate many women but a woman can only get pregnant by one man at a time.
GIRL POWER
These things aren’t necessarily occurring at a conscious level. Just like risk compensation doesn’t happen at a conscious level, but science tells us, this stuff is happening with that in mind we can also expect women to pursue politics in a way that molds the sexual market place in their favor.
The one thing that in the surface seems better than Beta Bucks Alpha Fvcks would be if you could just screw whoever you wanted without having to deal with the Beta for his money. This is how our current system came into play.
After women gained political power they pushed for laws that allowed alimony to be awarded in no fault divorces. They could now get a cut of their husbands income merely because they got “bored” with the marriage.
A decade after getting the vote, women pushed for laws that would ensure men paid massive amounts of child support so women could go off and apply their hypergamous sexual strategy.[13]
It wasn’t long before food stamps were a huge thing and public housing assistance. As we discussed in risk compensation when we give people huge safety nets, it encourages reckless behavior. Women have themselves a bunch of safety nets, ensuring that their hypergamy would not be reigned in by the institution of marriage. A very important institution for the reasons stated earlier.
In 1920 just as women were about to take the reigns of political power, the marriage rate was 12 per every 10,000. Divorce rates were .9 per 10,000.
Today marriage rates are 6.8 and divorce rates are at 3.4. The safety nets have certainly caused some risk compensation and subsidized the risky hypergamous behavior of women. This is a detriment to society for previously mentioned reasons.
Sources
7. Walker, Ian (2007). "Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and apparent gender". Accident Analysis & Prevention. 39 (2): 417–25.
11. Townsend, J. M. (1987). "Sex differences in sexuality among medical students: Effects of increasing socioeconomic status". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 16 (5): 425–444. doi:10.1007/BF01541424. PMID 3689109.
Since it’s a full forfeiture anyways, sure thing.
Please change vote to say.
Unassailable logic too strong for pro to contend with.
I don't know that I care to defend this topic much beyond that, so I wouldn't advise putting too much effort into rebuttals.
Sometimes I debate what I believe. Often it is more fun for me to treat debates like thought experiments.
I do align with the right at the moment more than the left but if the political climate of the Jnited States changes, I could see that changing as well.
I am probably some sort of weird mix between libertarian and paleoconservative
"It's collectivist to ban weed for the good of the collective. We all know which party wants to ban weed"
Nobody gives a shot about Marijuana laws
"Taxing the billionaires (aka the globalists) is how you help out the poor (aka red blooded American Patriots) with government spending on colleges, healthcare, and housing."
Doesn't address my point about energy.
"The right also has a lot of Obese people. It's not like going to the gym or being Obese is an indicator of how good your ideology is. The #1 right winger (Trump) is obese. Obama has been to the gym more than Trump has."
I gave citations and painted with a broad brush and generalized for the purpose of the debate. We are looking at what is more often true here.
"Letting women vote is a good thing."
Bare assertion. I gave evidence to the contrary
"This is true. The right wants to separate more families than the left does (deportation)"
One policy that separates families and usually temporarily or rarely compared to what I brought up about feminism and it's relation to creating a nanny state that allows women to more easily leave their husband's and visa versa.
"Step dads exist. What's your point? Foster dads exist. Are you going to call them betas too? If you were a kid raised by a single mom, you would want a step dad"
It's better to stay with your biological parent. Statistics shower higher rates of abuse with step parents and worse life outcomes.
I have been in foster care. Personally not a fan. The home was abusive and I witnessed my foster brothers raping a kid.
"My reason actually for preferring leftism to conservatism is because the left actually has a consistent ethos; the right does not. The left wing consistent ethos is being anti unwanted pain (AUP"
AUP might be more of a moderate liberal thing than a leftist thing. The debate is about left vs right not liberal vs conservative.
I also think most liberals would disagree with you about a cohesive political ideology. Leftists do have a cohesive philosophy though they are unaware of what it is, but many liberals pride themselves on being pragmatists. For example Hillary Clinton. Although this pragmatism often ends up just being advocating for technocrats rule.
->Leftism is essentially an ideology of weakness. It's collectivist in nature.
It's collectivist to ban weed for the good of the collective. We all know which party wants to ban weed.
->It's why when they talk about taxing billionaires, there is more energy behind it than when they say "let's help the poor." .
Taxing the billionaires (aka the globalists) is how you help out the poor (aka red blooded American Patriots) with government spending on colleges, healthcare, and housing.
->This weakness can be seen in the numerous studies showing that right wingers are more likely to go to the gym[2]
The right also has a lot of Obese people. It's not like going to the gym or being Obese is an indicator of how good your ideology is. The #1 right winger (Trump) is obese. Obama has been to the gym more than Trump has.
->Leftism is pro Women's Suffrage which has been terrible for influencing public policy
Letting women vote is a good thing. The 1st state to let women vote was far left Wyoming. Note, my belief is that positions on issues settled decades ago are irrelevant; it's why I don't accuse the modern day former confederacy of being pro slavery; because the issue is settled and has been for decades.
->WOMEN ARE LIBERAL
Who cares?
->You can take on an experiment right now. Go ahead and increase your risk of walking across your house with your eyes closed, and then do it with your eyes open. Were you more cautious when the level of danger increased? Did you walk slower? Shuffle your feet to avoid tripping?
I was more cautious with my eyes closed, but what's your point?
->It’s better for children when families stay together.
This is true. The right wants to separate more families than the left does (deportation).
->This is where the redpill philosophy of “alpha fucks Beta Bucks” comes in. Women will seek high quality sperm whether they’re married or not, but want a long term partner to ensure that she and the child is taken care of. If the Beta bucks partner is fooled into thinking the child is his, This works best.
Step dads exist. What's your point? Foster dads exist. Are you going to call them betas too? If you were a kid raised by a single mom, you would want a step dad. Be grateful for step dads; don't label them as, "Cucks". There would be way more single motherhood without them.
->After women gained political power they pushed for laws that allowed alimony to be awarded in no fault divorces.
Look bud, if you want there to be tougher laws around divorce, then fine. Honestly, I would sign a pre nup and would refuse to marry a woman who didn't agree to it. But many people disagree with you on this, so it's not an objective reason why women should be barred from voting. If you don't want to risk divorce, then don't marry. When women age, they lose their value quicker than men do. A 50 year old man is attractive to women; a 50 year old woman is not. She knows whoever she marries is often (especially when she's old) is going to be the best man she will get. She won't divorce unless there is ample reason to; otherwise divorce rates would be like at 95% or something like that and nobody would marry. My rule with cheating is if either spouse cheats, then the cheater loses all of their money.
Your argument is leftism bad because woman are more likely to be leftist and women shouldn't be allowed to vote. That's not a good argument.
My reason actually for preferring leftism to conservatism is because the left actually has a consistent ethos; the right does not. The left wing consistent ethos is being anti unwanted pain (AUP). The right wing has no consistent ethos except, "Owning the libs" by making horrible arguments like claiming women shouldn't be allowed to vote.
I appreciate that. Thank you
Hi. Glad to see you active here.
Dang; imagine losing a debate to someone that is banned while they are debating you.
His ban should have expired the other day. I wonder why he's not back yet.
Whoa, wylted is gone. He was funny back in the day. Well, okay then.
I don't support either party, but I prefer the Democrats to the Republicans simply because the Democrats have a consistent ethos (reducing unwanted pain). The republicans don't. I'm more libertarian, but I respect a party with a different ethos over a party with no ethos at all.
I feel like this topic is simply way too broad for a debate like this. Also, arguing that the right wing is better because giving women the right to vote was a mistake is, uh... certainly something!
Just going to ue this as an excuse to test out my new strategy that has yet to be implemented to see if the argumentbis even remotely interesting
I knew leftwing ideology was completely indefensible
Portugal is not a shit hole... Europe is one of the most developed continents on Earth excluding the far right east of it.
Plenty of left wing countries are shitholes.
If leftwing is better than right-wing, why is Portugal a shithole?
I like having both wings.