May 21, 2019 12:34 am at 12:34 am #1729856☕️coffee addictParticipant
“I would say that all but one or two of the posts on this thread are fine examples of mansplaining.“
Let me guess who the exception it
Ubiq & katanhadorah
And hey what do you know! They’re enlightened democrats like amil!May 22, 2019 9:20 am at 9:20 am #1730903☕️coffee addictParticipant
A woman killed 24,000 people and no one cares!May 22, 2019 12:14 pm at 12:14 pm #1731131
Men’s suffrage must end.
After hundreds of years it’s time to recognize that the experiment has failed.
War, violence, and destruction has been caused by men and I think it’s time we take away all of their rights and let women have a go.May 22, 2019 12:49 pm at 12:49 pm #1731167
“Men’s suffrage must end.”
Do you have a posek to support your idea or are you just rhetorically flipping Josephine’s nastiness back where it came from?May 22, 2019 1:25 pm at 1:25 pm #1731215
Voting is an act that takes place in a secular democratic society. I don’t see why I need a psak halacha for such a thing- what could possibly be wrong with taking an active role in deciding the way policy and law are created in the city/state/country in which I live.
Also, Joe didn’t say ” Jewish women should abstain from voting”. He thinks ALL women should be forcibly stripped of this right. And there is a world of difference between those two statements.May 22, 2019 1:26 pm at 1:26 pm #1731216
Addendum: if I need a psak to vote, do I also need a psak allowing me to walk on the street? What about a psak allowing me to wear shoes? Why not a psak halacha allowing me to take off my shoes at the end of the day?
I truly believe that halacha has a place in our lives. But I also think it’s absurd that some people need a psak halacha to tell them to get out of bed in the morning and if they can’t find a halachik source then they’ll stay in bed all day.May 22, 2019 1:52 pm at 1:52 pm #1731222
Voting doesn’t require a psak but advocating for that right to be revoked from anyone, does.May 22, 2019 4:28 pm at 4:28 pm #1731271
Phil, does extending voting rights to Muslims (or taking those rights away), in a non-Jewish country, require a psak? How about giving voting rights to 16 and 17 year olds or taking voting rights away from 18 to 20 year olds?
Does anyone taking such a position, even if they’re not in a position to change the law, require a psak?
What about taking a position that 16 year olds should be able to get a full driver’s license. Or that driver’s licenses should require being at least 21 years old.
Must one get a psak before daring to believe in such a position or before expressing that position to other people?
How about advocating a change in the minimum age required to run for public office?May 22, 2019 5:36 pm at 5:36 pm #1731831
Nope, secular societies can decide all such issues on their own, without any psak. You’re the one who constantly attempts to support your “holy” hatreds with made-up, fake halacha.
You started this thread to advocate revoking the voting rights of women and then attempted to justify your misogynist view with a psak from a century ago, before they were granted that right. It just kills you that women exercise the right to vote and now you’re angry because you can’t quote a psak to take it away. Go hate somewhere else.May 22, 2019 5:52 pm at 5:52 pm #1731871
If you admit that a Jew doesn’t need a psak to take a position for all the other things I listed, why do you differently suffrage based on gender versus suffrage based on age?
Do you consider misogynists those who opposed granting the suffrage to women prior to 1920; whether lawmakers who voted against it or citizens who opposed it on principle? Why do you differentiate the opposition to suffrage prior to passage versus opposition to it after passage?
Do you similarly consider legalized abortion a fait accompli that must not be opposed following Roe v. Wade? One being declared a constitutional right 46 years ago versus the other 99 years ago makes one reversible but the other irreversible?May 22, 2019 7:20 pm at 7:20 pm #1731949
Frost and foam to your heart’s content
the Majority of authorities based on Devorim 17:15 The verse from whence political power is derived from [including Democratic ] conclude women are Emphatically Not intended to be included
the fact that we accept it In the present circumstances It is not ideal
And no one for whom the Sages are their Guiding lodestar can say otherwise
most authorities based on 1715 1715 political power is derived from including Democratic
women are not included by the way this this comes out to for example if If you deny that then many example the state right to Democrat democratically-elected like to tax or law of the land and a flexible either and it comes up that’s just a reality eventually gets which part of the government would become the serious one quickly only one house for women well everything else Remains the Same the same as presentMay 22, 2019 7:20 pm at 7:20 pm #1731953
I don’t think that suffrage is a matter of psak any longer because that ship sailed a century ago and the world is a fundamentally different place. You called for this right to be revoked and attempted to justify your usual misogyny. Then, as usual, you didn’t hesitate to label those who disagreed with your fake halacha as being “feminist” or in favor of toeiva rights. No Rav or posek advocates for what you proposed in your thread. Abortion is a completely separate issue and many contemporary poskim feel that it should be much more restricted. But I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know. When you ask “Do you similarly consider legalized abortion a fait accompli that must not be opposed?” you are simply looking to broadly paint those who disagree with your view on suffrage as somehow in favor of abortion on demand. At the very least you’re being disingenuous and more likely, it’s just more of your usual trolling.May 22, 2019 7:20 pm at 7:20 pm #1731955
Have the same branches of government system as The US has with “equal” rights of representation for both genders
For the bicameral legislature 1 House have male only suffrage and 1 House would have women only
Which section of the government would become the serious For the whole country would turn towards
And which section would comparatively be perceived by both genders as less serious
Venture to give a guess how the system will quickly Evolve?May 22, 2019 9:18 pm at 9:18 pm #1732004
I think the section controlled by women would be taken seriously because they’d actually get stuff done. Men have been in control of governments all over the world for centuries and look at how much corruption and chaos exists.May 22, 2019 11:39 pm at 11:39 pm #1732015Neville ChaimBerlinParticipant
I question the validity of the assertion that no women’s suffrage would lead to republican victories. Is there statistical proof that there is such a disparity between women and men’s votes that women’s suffrage has ever actually made the difference? How many households are really 2-party households? (A.K.A. the kind that end in divorce 5 years later). Even for singles. It’s possible that for every feminist who will be alone forever (well-deserved) there’s a corresponding white knight who thinks being a male feminist will get him dates but will also remain alone forever (well-deserved).
Luna: Actually Europe has tried putting women in charge. Merkel has pretty much let the continent turn into an Islamic terrorist haven, and Theresa May continues to refuse to represent her constituents. Do you really think if America put Pelosi, Talib, and Ocasio-Cortez in charge that it would usher in peace and prosperity?
I would love to end women’s suffrage just to troll the feminists. I’m not convinced that it would make any electoral differences, but ruining a feminist’s day is enough motivation for me to support something.May 23, 2019 9:40 am at 9:40 am #1732129
There are incompetent men, just like there are incompetent women. Stupidity is gender neutral.
And I would love to end men’s suffrage just to troll the misogynists. Ruining a misogynist’s day is enough motivation for me to support something.May 23, 2019 9:56 am at 9:56 am #1732126
Though It’ll take a little bit of time because men have the devolved since women got suffrage and therefore will need time to recover
Once men have somewhere Of Power That women can’t enter everyone Honest knows what will happen
[ hey maybe even top hats will have a comeback]
enjoy your feministic pipe dream
I’m willing to bet my bottom dollar even you know otherwise
What will happen afterwards is that women being embarrassed not treated as seriously will start Looking over their shoulders & In their legislature start carefully to operate seriously -even more than the men.
thus the nature of females
[ So it was In Victorian days before suffrage]
Then the Media, the left, enough men with selfish low self-interested agendae, start pumping
that look women are just as serious men they should be allowed into the male legislature .
Since ,most men Contrary to feminist tripe, don’t wish to eternally fight females ..probably just cave in
then the cycle downwards will continueMay 23, 2019 4:21 pm at 4:21 pm #1732370
Start with the Vengeful Khaki election of 1918 In Britain
The red scares, isolationism In the US All Were disproportionately female driven
The collapse of the high and open-minded British Liberal Party through the twenties Being for the most part permanently replaced by the collectivist Socialist Labour
The Head in the sand Disastrous atmosphere progression Riding emotional vacillations that was a 1920s and 30s
In the nascent Egalitarian Soviet Union The overwhelming majority of those sent to the gulag or executed were male .the vast majority the system of informers Trusted and Used by the Bolsheviks Soviet regime were female
Male & females voted roughly in equal ratio proportion for The Nazi party, even though the Nazi Party did
not allow women to serve As Representatives In the Reichstag
However women’s support for the Nazis Seemed to increase disproportionately in the years after voting ceased . And would become arguably its most fanatical supporters
But you Luna can contend that females Needed politically a learning curve.
males were given the suffrage for Different branches and levels over generations ,receiving in 1913 Finally In the US for the Senate
For the the British Isles the last Men received franchise 1918 the same moment that females 30 Or married Received it [ The remaining Gained the franchise in 1928 ]
Acknowledge at minimum that the suffragettes were too hasty
It should Have been done over the decades piecemeal
Women Of 1950s subtly recognized and accepted Most or all of the above Belatedly
Which was cause of Them becoming more ‘housewifery’
They would be maligned For this by the next generation of females just a decade or two laterJuly 11, 2019 11:55 pm at 11:55 pm #1757442
Ubiq suggested that Yeshivishrockstar post his views on this subject here.July 12, 2019 2:02 am at 2:02 am #1757456Non PoliticalParticipant
“I think the section controlled by women would be taken seriously because they’d actually get stuff done.”
Right, because in most times and places that this occurred that is exactly what happened. You are, no doubt, merely extrapolating from a smaller scale to grander one. well done.
“Men have been in control of governments all over the world for centuries….”
Oops. Maybe not.
“and look at how much corruption and chaos exists.”
I have heard this argument before. It goes something like this…
“The Tzars have been controlling this country (Russia) long enough and look at how much corruption and chaos exists let’s overthrow the buggers and make a workers paradise”
But I realize that you where not trying to make a rational argument. You where merely expressing disdain at what is an offensive oversimplification of a rather nuanced issue.
“Ruining a misogynist’s day is enough motivation for me to support something”
I think most posters would agree with this sentiment. After all, if it wasn’t for misogynists we probably wouldn’t have feminists.July 12, 2019 7:56 am at 7:56 am #1757463
The idea that women would do a better job at running a government than men is kind of laughable but mostly immature.
If a specific woman is deserves to have a position of power, it is because she herself is qualified, just like it should be for a man. A woman has more obstacles in her path for various reasons. Some of the reasons may be misogynistic while most reasons take into consideration the many actual differences between men and women.
If women would take over the government, which social group would they come from? Is it reasonable to say that a leftist, socialist woman is more qualified than a conservative, religious man? Or is a leftist, socialist man less qualified than a conservative religious woman? My point is that a person’s gender is not what determines a person’s credibility.July 12, 2019 9:04 am at 9:04 am #1757470The little I knowParticipant
This entire discussion is weird. One’s qualifications to do public service are not determined by gender, race, or anything else. They are inclusive of one’s experience, set of skills, and desirability based on positions relevant to politics. It happens that culture does determine, to whatever degree, the roles of men versus women, and this changes the pools from which public servants will be chosen.
Frankly, I have witnessed quite a number of women, racial minorities, etc. who were eminently qualified to represent me in government. Just the same, there were quite a few who were disastrous. Shall we spare the sharing of names of those in elected office who are brain dead, or espouse policies that are totally destructive? There are men taking such positions whose morality and intellect are similarly deficient or absent. Same goes for races.
I fail to understand how a thread on this subject got so long, as to extend to a second page.July 12, 2019 9:17 am at 9:17 am #1757476
“I think most posters would agree with this sentiment. After all, if it wasn’t for misogynists we probably wouldn’t have feminists.”
I don’t feel that way. It took a lot of internal work but I’ve come to a place where I appreciate the differences between men and women that I don’t feel I have to ruin a misogynist’s day in order to feel my self worth.
Feminism had its time and place. The problem is that feminists still think the war is going on. Feminism used to be about female empowerment. It has more recently become a movement that is intent on destroying whatever aspects of sense of femininity they can while making a mockery of whatever is left. The biggest misogynists of today are feminists.July 12, 2019 1:54 pm at 1:54 pm #1757530
TLIK: Certainly gender does play a large role in one’s qualifications for a job. To deny that is to r”l deny the Torah, which unambiguously defines gender roles. Advocating a position of gender-neutrality is emulating the Mitzrim who forced men to do women’s jobs and forced women to do men’s jobs.
Furthermore, aside from job qualifications there is the general role of women in society. Normally men are the ones who are to go out in the world to take care of the business of society. Whereas women are meant to take care of the home and family. Indeed we explicitly see as such from the Torah where everyone from Chazal through Shulchan Aruch and before and beyond encoded such as a matter of law, where it is codified that women aren’t to leave the home too often.July 12, 2019 4:09 pm at 4:09 pm #1757571WolfishMusingsParticipant
Has anyone noted the irony that one of the voices advocating an end to women’s suffrage and criticizing leadership by women has a username that commemorates a male politician who made one of the biggest mistakes in the last century?
The WolfJuly 12, 2019 4:20 pm at 4:20 pm #1757554yeshivishrockstar2Participant
I think women’s suffrage should end. There has not been a single good thing to come out of it. As Ann Coulter wisely pointed out, without Women’s Suffrage, the only Democratic President since FDR who would’ve been elected is Jimmy Carter. Can you imagine only Republican Presidents? No Clinton? This country would be way better.July 12, 2019 4:21 pm at 4:21 pm #1757553klugeryidParticipant
Just read and scanned this thread
There are at least three issues being jumbled here
Josef posited that women should lose the right to vote.
From his next comments it seems he really meant to say feminism has failed.
Not sure how that equates with the right to vote
They may be connected, they may not.
Someone asked Josef if he has any halachic backing for his position.
Instead of responding “all I said is my opinion is that feminism has been a dismal failure,” he responded with a halachic reference.
For which he was attacked, that that’s an archaic position rendered obsolete by the passage of suffrage!!
He should have responded “who cares! I never stated my opinion based on that, I am just opining that an objective observer would agree that feminism has failed ”
Instead he took the bait and the discussion devolved to whether old halachic opinions carry weight when the facts change.
I want to bring the discussion back to what Josef claims was his original intent (if misleading title)
Does anyone believe that the world is in a better situation now that women have been emancipated from domestic “servitude “?
As a follow up, what about the orthodox Jewish community?July 14, 2019 7:00 am at 7:00 am #1757690Nonna TParticipant
Bamidmar 27, much?July 14, 2019 7:01 am at 7:01 am #1757694July 14, 2019 7:53 am at 7:53 am #1757747
I should’ve specified that I was referring to leftist feminists who are the most outspoken feminists nowadays.
Said feminists are advocates of transgenders competing in female sports competition. They hold that if you paint your nails pink and sway your hips then you are a female. They say that being a woman is a feeling and that anyone who wishes to be a woman can be a woman.
They advocate for no questions asked abortions and they think the most shameful state for a woman to be in is either pregnant or a stay at home mom.
They advocate for equal pay, but don’t you think that if women were being paid so much less than men for the same work, that most employers would only want to hire women?
Their women’s marches are a total joke where they protest that men and women are exactly the same and that it’s sexist to think that one gender should to cover up more than the other.
I am an classic feminist, but I would not qualify as a feminist in 2019. I am a wife and a mother and I would be happy to use my strengths to provide for my family and better the world if necessary and practical. I think that women have their strengths and weaknesses and men have their strengths and weaknesses and while every person is unique and both genders do have similarities, there are definite qualities that are more likely to be considered feminine character traits while there are other qualities that are more likely to be masculine. This was the belief of classic feminists but what is has dissolved into is a trying to destroy feminism entirely which is why I said that feminists are the biggest misogynists.July 14, 2019 8:40 am at 8:40 am #1757773The little I knowParticipant
You wrote: “Certainly gender does play a large role in one’s qualifications for a job. To deny that is to r”l deny the Torah, which unambiguously defines gender roles. Advocating a position of gender-neutrality is emulating the Mitzrim who forced men to do women’s jobs and forced women to do men’s jobs.”
That’s not my point. You cast me as a feminist, and I am not at all advocating gender neutrality on many things. The Torah specifies responsibilities of men and women, and that supersedes anything. I never implied that I would overrule that. No, a woman cannot be a rov, nor should she learn Torah as proscripted by Chazal. And I would never stomach the swapping of roles between men and women. I know my thinking might sometimes get on your nerves, but I do not ever side with absurdity. The reality is that there are countless matters that have zero involvement with gender, and introducing that as a factor becomes an obstacle. For instance, can you provide me any rational basis to limit voting to men? I am not receptive to the notion of “that’s how we do things around here”. Can a woman be a doctor or lawyer? Why not? Should a woman have a job outside the home? I am as aware as you about כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה. But that did not stop דבורה הנביאה from sitting under the tree. (I doubt the tree was in her living room.) Is it okay for the men to sit in kollel and send their wives to work to support them? What about כל כבודה?
Yes, there are things that are gender specific. And there are things that are not. Today, most matzo bakeries have men working there. The gemora speaks openly about women baking the matzos. Wow! They worked outside the home! Don’t cram into my statement nonsense that was not intended.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.