Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States Constitution prohibits any United States citizen to be denied the right to vote based on sex. It was ratified on August 18, 1920. The Constitution allows the states to determine the qualifications for voting, and until the 1910s most states disenfranchised women. The amendment was the culmination of the women's suffrage movement in the United States, which fought at both state and national levels to achieve the vote. It effectively overruled Minor v. Happersett, in which a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to women or give them a right to vote.
The Republicans continue to think they can get away with the Old-Party tactics but it's a fool's game. They will need to adapt and figure out a comprehensive strategy to combat the Democratic female-centric (and tremendously divisive) narrative. They need to figure out a way to preserve their core beliefs but adapt them enough to get women on board (more serious women than Sarah Palin) with a long-term future goal that re-engineers the stupid male v. female debate that the Democrats have mastered when it comes to politics.
The Democrats current narrative may only be divisive temporarily. If we are, indeed, moving to the Age of Women, their narrative will soon be the dominant one and the GOP's the insignificant outlier.
Quote:
Why shouldn't the Republicans be male-centric, though? Democrats are all women and minority-based.
Well..if the GOP wants to survive the coming sea change, they'd BETTER adapt! However, they're not too good at that right now as can be seen by how their policies reflect an uncomprehending ignorance about not only women, but another coming change, which is that America won't be dominated by Protestant, white males of western European descent much longer. Just as with the rise of women, they're going right along as if it will stay this way forever, when it obviously will not.
Either their movers and shakers are unconscionably stupid, or they really do think they can resist the tides of history.
Quote:
It is. And it isn't looking good. If some of the most successful and powerful men haven't done anything about it, what is the average male expected to do? The answer to a male comeback is with women, but we're not going back to the old ways. The Republicans, and men, better figure it out, but I'm afraid it may be too late. The Nanny State is already here.
See? Even you have difficulty grasping the new reality, which is shown by your use of the gender specific word "nanny." Nannies come in both sexes, as does the desire to regulate others lives. The old-timey man would resist the nanny state with all his being as a usurpation of his authority as head of the family, but the modern "man" is fully on board with it, including a good many of the GOP's male leaders, such as Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal and the whole Oklahoma legislature.
The Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States Constitution prohibits any United States citizen to be denied the right to vote based on sex. It was ratified on August 18, 1920. The Constitution allows the states to determine the qualifications for voting, and until the 1910s most states disenfranchised women. The amendment was the culmination of the women's suffrage movement in the United States, which fought at both state and national levels to achieve the vote. It effectively overruled Minor v. Happersett, in which a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to women or give them a right to vote.
See? Even you have difficulty grasping the new reality, which is shown by your use of the gender specific word "nanny." Nannies come in both sexes, as does the desire to regulate others lives. The old-timey man would resist the nanny state with all his being as a usurpation of his authority as head of the family, but the modern "man" is fully on board with it, including a good many of the GOP's male leaders, such as Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal and the whole Oklahoma legislature.
In a sense, you are correct. However, I grasp it fully, but that doesn't mean that I have to like it or that men should accept the continued disrespect in modern culture. The title of the thread is, "Men, Who Needs Them?" Cultural messages do affect my decisions in life, and it is a loss of culture within my short lifespan, and while it may be a necessary change that is just natural, I don't think it's better. Some ways, yes. Some ways, no. Eh, no different than many humans have experienced before me. So I got the tail-end of "traditional culture" or whatever stereotype you want to use. The younger guys now and boys just being born will have a much easier time with this transition. It won't even phase them. They'll never know any different. And by Nanny State I meant one ruled by the Divine Right of Barack Obama--a man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
Culturally, we're confused about manhood. Politically, that's highlighted by such people as George Bush, who left most of the decisions to his Vice President and staff, yet called himself "The Decider" and his supporters never saw the irony in that. Conversely, we have a President who has made tough decisions (bin Laden raid) and nobody wants to believe he actually did it! It's like...we prefer the IMAGE of a man, rather than the real thing!
Can you name any positives images of "old-timey" men? Don Draper, maybe, but they also focus on his weaknesses. Politically, if you look at how the media chooses images, they often go with a befuddled look for powerful men, yet softer deciders like Obama get a glowing light.
Quote:
Well..if the GOP wants to survive the coming sea change, they'd BETTER adapt! However, they're not too good at that right now as can be seen by how their policies reflect an uncomprehending ignorance about not only women, but another coming change, which is that America won't be dominated by Protestant, white males of western European descent much longer. Just as with the rise of women, they're going right along as if it will stay this way forever, when it obviously will not.
Can't really figure out why they keep trying to go with the old policies. Obama's election and their base getting older should have been important factors when figuring out an election strategy for 2012. They'll either adapt or become irrelevant. I hear some say the younger crowd is more conservative, but actions-wise I don't necessarily see that. Interesting times. Despite the article, men and women need each other. I await the sea change, whichever way the tide may come.
Quote:
The old-timey man would resist the nanny state with all his being as a usurpation of his authority as head of the family, but the modern "man" is fully on board with it, including a good many of the GOP's male leaders, such as Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal and the whole Oklahoma legislature.
Born to be free
Last edited by Free-R; 08-25-2012 at 10:23 AM..
Reason: additions
Do you see the staunch support by men (and misguided women) of lessening of the power of women, even of their own reproductive rights/choices, to be the outcome of their fear?
I do.
The attempt to control keeps ramping up with their increasing fear.
I never understood the fear of legal equality of both sexes.
I am sure looking forward to legal equality.
Actually, I've been looking forward to equal rights with women since I was in grade school.
It was explained to me at that time that feminists (then called women's libbers) were seeking equality for men and women, but that was a lie.
While I saw women on the news at that time protesting what they believed was unfair treatment in the workplace and the home, I never saw them outside a divorce court protesting the way women were given special treatment there.
I heard their complaints about being treated as sex objects, but can't remember ever seeing one out in public without lipstick and eyeliner and I certainly never saw one decline the perks that come with being a sex object.
I listened to all their crap about being sexually harassed at work while they were simultaneously working to force sports organizations to admit female reporters into male locker rooms. Oddly enough, still no push to admit males into female locker rooms. I guess that would be a little too equal.
If a man is accused of any crime he has a Constitutional right to confront his accuser in public, unless his alleged victim is a woman who has accused him of rape.
Domestic violence laws that mandate one party be arrested any time a domestic assault charge is made almost always results in the male going to jail regardless on his obvious defensive wounds and the fact that we know women initiate violence at least as often as men. Still, I never heard Gloria Steinem ***** about that.
The truth is women, as the voting majority, the group that decides every election, have special privileges and status under the law because those they elect will remain in office only so long as they continue to pander.
The current dog whistle being blown by Democrats is an appeal to the majority to protect their special privileges and status over the male and child minority groups.
It's been labeled as a "war on women", but the truth is it's just a modest attempt to restore a little common decency.
We all support equality for women, but our rights are not absolute when they conflict with those of others and in this we have seen the minority sex's and children's rights trampled.
As for the question of "Do we need men?"
When you set aside the feminist's propaganda campaign of the past forty years and look at reality without the colored lenses of political correctness, we see that men are still the leaders in every aspect of life.
Women, the voters and consumers who choose our leaders, will always seek out men to be in charge.
This is especially true today when abortion supporting women seek to alleviate their sense of guilt for their inexcusable actions.
With males in charge, they can then transfer guilt for their unspeakable acts to the men who made abortion on demand legal and available.
"It's my bodily" and "It's not a person" are simply proactive rationalizations comparable to the "I was just following orders" line used by Nazis and their collaborators who also sought to minimize their role in denying others their rights.
Someone being responsible seems to be the common theme even if those who would shift blame are responsible for those same guilty parties being in power in the first place.
When the day comes that liberal women vote other women into office, they will face the prospect of being held accountable for their actions and that isn't how this game is played.
Do you see the staunch support by men (and misguided women) of lessening of the power of women, even of their own reproductive rights/choices, to be the outcome of their fear?
I do. The attempt to control keeps ramping up with their increasing fear.
I never understood the fear of legal equality of both sexes.
How does this insidious control manifest itself in regard to women who are beyond their child birthing years?
I don't expect a response from you because we all know that their isn't such a thing as a logical defense of a lie.
In a slightly tongue in cheek op-ed piece from the New York Times, the author (a man) makes the case that we men are becoming increasingly unimportant to the survival of our species. What little we contribute to the birth process can be replicated in the laboratory, but a woman's contribution cannot. Further, since there doesn't seem to be any empirical evidence that fathers are absolutely essential in the process of a child's development from infant to adult, the question is one of our relevance. What are we needed for? One woman quoted in the article summed up our importance as....entertainment.
Since this is the political forums, let me cast the discussion in that direction.
Given that what the author says about the biology of reproduction is true, and given that our modern culture casts men as shallow, insecure, bumbling idiots who have to be repeatedly rescued by women, and given that millions of children have been raised by single, female parents apparently successfully, are we entering a new Age of the Woman? Is America becoming a matriarchal society in which men are superfluous?
If so, which political party is best positioned to tap into the power of the New Woman? Forgetting the "War on Women" hyperbole for a moment, it does seem clear that the Republican's policy positions are male-centric, while the Democrats are increasingly female-centric.
Assuming no substantial changes in either party's overall direction, could this election be the last hurrah for male dominance?
I like the idea of simply being entertainment, let the women do the real work, I'm happy to sit at home playing videogames and drinking mountain dew all day.
Here's my personal perspective from a conservative. Men and women are not and never will be equal. Both have their strengths and weaknesses and compliment each other nicely.
But they should have certain equal fundamental rights.
The right to vote, the right to not effectively be "owned" by her spouse, the right to get an education, the right to pursue a career... those are all things that had to be painfully fought out against the conservative men of the day who didn't want to give up their dominance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
