May 21, 2019 12:34 am at 12:34 am #1729856
“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
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 #1732015
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 later
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.