Americastan.....Patriarchy Or Matriarchy?

[Debater Slayer]

Not to compare Egypt and the U.S., but a lot of voters here too are women. When the choices you are presented with don't really represent your views or interests, having the ostensible freedom to vote isn't all that impressive, whether you are a woman or a man. This is why arguing that the decisions of the country's leadership represent the will of the female voters is a faulty argument.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not to compare Egypt and the U.S., but a lot of voters here too are women. When the choices you are presented with don't really represent your views or interests, having the ostensible freedom to vote isn't all that impressive, whether you are a woman or a man. This is why arguing that the decisions of the country's leadership represent the will of the female voters is a faulty argument.

Perhaps this is so in Egypt, but here women greatly participate in party conventions.
One of my friends is particularly active. None of my male friends are.
Moreover, voters know that election is impossible without catering to women's voting preferences.
Nonetheless, we've seen evolution of party (both of the Big Two) platforms in the direction I claim.
Even though this is not proof of my hypothesis, it does comport.

You prolly already sense this, but you really should move to a country more to your liking.
You'd endure less stress.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Perhaps this is so in Egypt, but here women greatly participate in party conventions.
One of my friends is particularly active. None of my male friends are.
Moreover, voters know that election is impossible without catering to women's voting preferences.
Nonetheless, we've seen evolution of party (both of the Big Two) platforms in the direction I claim.
Even though this is not proof of my hypothesis, it does comport.

That doesn't mean the choices the majority of women are presented with represent their views. I also know that a lot of people simply vote Democrat or Republican because they believe that voting for anyone else would be akin to throwing their vote in the trash bin.

You prolly already sense this, but you really should move to a country more to your liking.
You'd endure less stress.

Sure. I don't know what that has to do with my argument, though.

 

[Revoltingest]

That doesn't mean the choices the majority of women are presented with represent their views. I also know that a lot of people simply vote Democrat or Republican because they believe that voting for anyone else would be akin to throwing their vote in the trash bin.

We all face that dilemma.
But there are women voters whose rather median/centrist position means they can cross party lines for a candidate.
This gives them great power, which I argue drives political evolution.

Sure. I don't know what that has to do with my argument, though.

It's a humorous well wishing in your efforts to relocate someplace better for you.
The way you describe Egypt, I'd want to leave ASAP.
(You have no Hawaiian shirts there!)

 

[Debater Slayer]

We all face that dilemma.
But there are women voters whose rather median/centrist position means they can cross party lines for a candidate.
This gives them great power, which I argue drives political evolution.

Not any more power than men have. Not saying that they should have greater power than men, but like I said, the freedom to vote isn't all that special when you are bound by specific candidates that you didn't pick yourself.

It's a humorous well wishing in your efforts to relocate someplace better for you.

Thanks.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not any more power than men have. Not saying that they should have greater power than men, but like I said, the freedom to vote isn't all that special when you are bound by specific candidates that you didn't pick yourself.

Because women vote in greater numbers, this gives them great influence.
The nature of elections does make the effect probabilistic though.
So their (as with all of us) power will vary from election to election.
On average, they wield great influence.
This is why they vote.
Ask women here.....do they think their vote (in aggregate) matters
in determining the outcome? I've asked. They say yes.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Because women vote in greater numbers, this gives them great influence.
The nature of elections does make the effect probabilistic though.
So their (as with all of us) power will vary from election to election.
On average, they wield great influence.
This is why they vote.
Ask women here.....do they think their vote (in aggregate) matters
in determining the outcome? I've asked. They say yes.

Let's say you have choices A and B and nothing else that is likely to succeed. You are thus forced to vote for either A or B. One could argue that women have greater influence in determining whether A or B will win the elections, but there is no argument that the majority of female voters chose neither A nor B in the first place. They are essentially presented with two evils and forced to pick the lesser one.

I have heard that Bernie Sanders may be an exception, but I don't know enough about him to comment on that. I do know enough about Hillary Clinton to have the impression that she is a spineless, delusional "liberal."

 

[Midnight Rain]

We often hear about the "patriarchy" which rules the country.
But what justification is there for this claim?
Is it that men are the majority in government leadership?
The wage gap.....home bound wives....glass ceiling.....etc, etc?
Or is it necessity for political movements to have a boogeyman?
Some contra-indicators based upon the premise that women (more than men) are nurturers are......

fun topic. Lets see...

1) Women are the majority of voters who elect those in charge.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p20-577.pdf
(Note: The linked data provide strong evidence for a geezerocracy. Btw, get off my lawn.)
1a) Women are the majority in the most powerful political party.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

Irrelevant. Totally irrelevant. If the argument were to be made that women don't have equal voting rights then yes I would agree that is bunk. But that isn't the argument. The political power of "women's issues" are still weak. A good example is that I'm pretty sure every single woman in the United States agree's that feminine sanitation products are necessities and should be exempt from sales tax as such. Their non-essential status is fairly unanimous for all women. Yet there is no plans, bills or otherwise being written to change that.

2) As women became the single most powerful voting block, government policies have changed.
2a) Government moved from conquering other countries for material gain, to conquering
other countries for humanitarian reasons, ie, to force them into our progressive image.
(The issue of inhumanity committed in the process of ostensibly humanitarian acts is for another thread.)
2b) Government has moved from treating citizens as rugged individuals to treating them
as protected beneficiaries of largesse, eg, welfare, health care, Social Security.

Correlation not causation. The woman influence hasn't curbed wartime efforts in the slightest it seems. Our humanitarian efforts are almost always for political empowerment or profit.

Changes in the "New Deal" which is what I assume you are talking about, were implemented because our economy was in shambles and our way of thinking did not work. I don't in any way see any actual evidence that suggests there is a direct link between women voters and social programs as there is nearly a 20 year gap between the two.

3) Women have preserved special privileges from patriarchal days, eg, immunity from military draft, dower rights.

Michigan is the only state that has dower laws and it is almost never invoked. Women do not retain dower rights. The military draft is a bad program no matter what. I don't think women should be included but I also don't believe men should be included either. In 1973 they moved to an all volunteer military status and only keeps the draft in case of special wartime crisis. I agree this disparity is negative and many feminists have fought against it. However to say that this minor program that with the exception of the most unpopular and terrible war in our history has affected less than 1% of males in the country and has since ended 43 years ago (meaning that less than 1/5th of our population was even old enough to have it affect them) is in any way equal to the fact we don't get paid maternity leave.

4) Women have gained new privileges, eg, preferential treatment in child custody & divorce.

women have lost old privileges, eg, preferential treatment in child custody & divorce you mean. Only in certain states (which are rare) are there any legal preferences.

5) Women have no governmental restrictions from winning any political office.
The fact that women vote more often for men is their unhindered choice.
Thus, the matriarchal element of government is carried out thru mostly men.
Ironic, eh? Well, gals often tell us we're "tools".

I don't see a lot of pro-women legislation being put in. It seems rather it has to be fought for tooth and nail. There are women congresspersons which is good. I think we are on the right track as each year we get more and more equal in our representation.

But as a note all of congress is tools. Men and women. They are just law-creating prostitutes for the highest bidders.

 

[columbus]

You sound like a 19th century aristocratic complaining about the poor quality of contemporary peasants.
Or a southern matron complaining that the civil rights movement made it impossible to keep good help.
Or a rich old white guy complaining that the playing field isn't tilted in his favor like it was back in the good old days.

Some contra-indicators based upon the premise that women (more than men) are nurturers are......

To start with, your premise here is ridiculous. Men had every bit as much influence over policy as women. Rather more so while most of these policies were being put into place. The policies did not just appear in the last decade you know. In the last decade or two many of them have been weakened, while the numbers of women voters have increased.
For instance, you might see Medicaid D as nurturing. I see it as a taxpayer funded gift to big pharmaceutical companies.
Tom

 

[columbus]

2a) Government moved from conquering other countries for material gain, to conquering
other countries for humanitarian reasons, ie, to force them into our progressive image.

The premise of a "humanitarian" war is ridiculous on it's face. The motive for war that you conveniently ignored is defense, often referred to as preemptive. Nobody cared about living standards in Afghanistan until the proxy army of Islam attacked us, and it was based in Afghanistan. We might have managed to improve USA security if the Bush administration hadn't decided to "liberate" the oil fields of Iraq, instead of finishing what we started in Afghanistan.

None of this had anything to do with humanitarianism. It was all about wealth and power.
Tom

 

[Sunstone]

I see some general differences between men & women.
I pointed this out in the OP.
Do you see any?

Frankly, I think your notion that "Government moved from conquering other countries for material gain, to conquering other countries for humanitarian reasons" is fluff in the wind. I notice that World War I, for instance, was sold as a noble, humanitarian crusade to "end all wars."; that the Civil war was for a significant number of Americans a war to end slavery; that the American Revolution for many people was at least as much about the right to self-representation, self-determination, and freedom from tyranny as it was about taxes. Just to name three wars.

But beyond that, I find your notion that selling a war as a fight for humanitarian reasons is evidence of a matriarchy, or at the least, of women's influence on politics, to be unevidenced. I'm curious what possessed you to think that's plausible?

Honestly, your OP doesn't seem to be thought through very well. For instance, you assert that women are the single largest voting block, but that is a huge assumption! Most studies I've seen clearly show that women do not vote as a block. So, I'm left wondering what evidence has persuaded you that they do vote as a block?

Again, you seem to feel that Democrats are the most powerful political party in America. If that's indeed so, how do you account for Republicans being in control of the US House, the US Senate, and all but in control of the US Supreme Court? To say nothing of their being in control of more governorships and state legislatures than Democrats?

You also fail in the OP to clearly define what you mean by patriarchy and matriarchy. Without such definitions you might as well claim anything that suites your fancy is patriarchal or matriarchal. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing you've never really read up on the two or three matriarchies known to anthropologists, and that your notion of what one might look like owes more to your imagination than to any reality.

I could go on -- and on and on -- but the bottom line is your OP struck me as grossly assumptive. It reminded me of nothing so much as a creationist argument against evolution.

 

[Revoltingest]

A good example is that I'm pretty sure every single woman in the United States agree's that feminine sanitation products are necessities and should be exempt from sales tax as such. Their non-essential status is fairly unanimous for all women. Yet there is no plans, bills or otherwise being written to change that.

Actually, many life saving products which are necessary for both men & women are taxed.
So this would be not an example of sex discrimination, but possibly over-taxation of everyone.

Michigan is the only state that has dower laws....

Well, I am in Michigan, & was a licensed real estate broker who had to address such law on a regular basis.

The military draft is a bad program no matter what.

Woo hoo!
It's always fun to find common ground.

 

[Revoltingest]

You sound like a 19th century aristocratic complaining about the poor quality of contemporary peasants.

Dang! I was shooting for more 18th century shopkeeper.

To start with, your premise here is ridiculous. Men had every bit as much influence over policy as women. Rather more so while most of these policies were being put into place. The policies did not just appear in the last decade you know. In the last decade or two many of them have been weakened, while the numbers of women voters have increased.
For instance, you might see Medicaid D as nurturing. I see it as a taxpayer funded gift to big pharmaceutical companies.

I'll note that you're in the <disagree> camp.

 

[Revoltingest]

The premise of a "humanitarian" war is ridiculous on it's face. The motive for war that you conveniently ignored is defense, often referred to as preemptive. Nobody cared about living standards in Afghanistan until the proxy army of Islam attacked us, and it was based in Afghanistan. We might have managed to improve USA security if the Bush administration hadn't decided to "liberate" the oil fields of Iraq, instead of finishing what we started in Afghanistan.

None of this had anything to do with humanitarianism. It was all about wealth and power.
Tom

Of course, that particular war was triggered by other events.
But its course has been of the more modern variety, ie, concern for the populace.
How was the war about wealth?

 

[Revoltingest]

Frankly, I think your notion that "Government moved from conquering other countries for material gain, to conquering other countries for humanitarian reasons" is fluff in the wind. I notice that World War I, for instance, was sold as a noble, humanitarian crusade to "end all wars."; that the Civil war was for a significant number of Americans a war to end slavery; that the American Revolution for many people was at least as much about the right to self-representation, self-determination, and freedom from tyranny as it was about taxes. Just to name three wars.

But beyond that, I find your notion that selling a war as a fight for humanitarian reasons is evidence of a matriarchy, or at the least, of women's influence on politics, to be unevidenced. I'm curious what possessed you to think that's plausible?

Honestly, your OP doesn't seem to be thought through very well. For instance, you assert that women are the single largest voting block, but that is a huge assumption! Most studies I've seen clearly show that women do not vote as a block. So, I'm left wondering what evidence has persuaded you that they do vote as a block?

Again, you seem to feel that Democrats are the most powerful political party in America. If that's indeed so, how do you account for Republicans being in control of the US House, the US Senate, and all but in control of the US Supreme Court? To say nothing of their being in control of more governorships and state legislatures than Democrats?

You also fail in the OP to clearly define what you mean by patriarchy and matriarchy. Without such definitions you might as well claim anything that suites your fancy is patriarchal or matriarchal. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing you've never really read up on the two or three matriarchies known to anthropologists, and that your notion of what one might look like owes more to your imagination than to any reality.

I could go on -- and on and on -- but the bottom line is your OP struck me as grossly assumptive. It reminded me of nothing so much as a creationist argument against evolution.

It seems we're too far apart to find any common ground to discuss.

 

[Sunstone]

It seems we're too far apart to find any common ground to discuss.

I've reached the same conclusion. Good luck with your thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've reached the same conclusion. Good luck with your thread.

Thanx!

 

[metis]

Old cultural habits change s-l-o-w-l-y, but they are a-changing. With young women now getting more college degrees than young men here in the States, I can pretty much tell ya that the women got their act together but probably most guys would rather play video games and just watch football while sucking down one beer after another.

 

[Revoltingest]

Old cultural habits change s-l-o-w-l-y, but they are a-changing. With young women now getting more college degrees than young men here in the States, I can pretty much tell ya that the women got their act together but probably most guys would rather play video games and just watch football while sucking down one beer after another.

I don't even have the ambition to play video games.

 

[metis]

I don't even have the ambition to play video games.

Ditto. The last one I remember playing was probably about 40 years ago, and it was called "Centipede". But even then it was a rarity for me. Heck, I can't even stand texting, so I had that shut off on my phone years ago.