Don't take everything so fucking PERSONAL. People like that piss me off & ruin my day...& when MY day is ruined, it ruins 3 weeks of about 15 others. Jesus...

------------------
"Do you know how much YOU'RE worth??.....2.5 million Woolongs. THAT'S your bounty. I SAID you were small fry..." --Spike Spiegel

No, SCSI, this won't do. I have to second Jay's legitimate question which I don't believe you've adressed properly. How ARE the sexes different enough in the present climate to deny the vote to one and not the other?

Do you lean back on the knowledge of men, throughout history, making better and more educated decisions than women?

If you can't motivate your controversial views then this whole thread is nothing more than a finely orchestrated flame-war, engineered by a most formidable troll. And if so, you have proven yourself perfect material of a politician, no pun intended.

And please, don't parrot back my statements in one of your "gunslinging"-quotes, just answer the question.

------------------
Ready for the action now, Dangerboy
Ready if I'm ready for you, Dangerboy
Ready if I want it now, Dangerboy?
How dare you, dare you, Dangerboy?
How dare you, Dangerboy?
I dare you, dare you, Dangerboy...

Premise: (statement + supporting evidence)
Premise: (2nd statement, with supporting evidence)
and
Conclusion: (statement logically derived from previous premisis)

...it might make a bit more sense.

Personally, I doubt it.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

UM: Well yeah, you're right. It takes two to tango. But guilt "should" be shared.

Omega: Well for once we agree.
Have fun finding a way to objectively test for "rational" and "responsible" though. I wish you luck.

SCSI: Your last post makes reasonable (loosely defined) sense until:

Problem 1: "The Indutrial Age is ending." Yes, but only in industrialized nations that a) are heading into the Information Age and b) can afford to import the majority of their commercial goods, in exchange for services/information.
Factories are only less integral in N. America because they are being "farmed" out to third-world countries for many reasons.
Therefore,even using your argument, women's rights would only be limited in the Western world.

Problem 2: "...and we can see ourselves in a similar situation to that before the industrial revolution; woman are taking their place back at the home."
a) Do you even have statistics backing up your dubious claim that women would depart from the office workplace any faster then men?
b) In an information based economy, women would have access to many more jobs than in even an industrial age economy. Employers often don't even see the people they hire, so gender is less of an issue, not more of an issue.
Also, the decline of physical labour means that the genders are on more of an equal footing in the job market, not less.
c) Its a universally accepted fact, that after the baby boom-echo generation, the single largest growing commercial demographic is that of single women. Women that have focused on their careers, have not married, and thus have plenty of money to spend.
How do you reconcile this trend with the one that you claim is happening?

• Since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, the role of women in society has changed dramatically. Therefore it is not unlikely that the role of women in the Post-Industrial age may change to incude the loss or abandonment of voting rights...

Well, the role of women in society has change sure enough...but even so, that is a very western centric view. Assuming that we understand that this particular argument has nothing to do with women in the extreme Islamic cultures...and we are arguing about western cultures...that is indeed correct.

However, the Industrial Revolution began a full century and a half before the 1880's and '90's. And the industrial age's impact represents a huge change that manifests itself in many smaller way that have more direct impact on daily lives. One can say that everything really begins with the development of argicultural so very long ago.

Women began working in the mills and on looms during the fledgling industrial period. The 1880's to the 1930's or so represents the maturation of the industrial age, but to describe that time frame as the first entrance of women into the work force, i.e. outside of the home or farm is incorrect.

And even then, the numbers of women in that sort of work did not make any real inroads into the male dominated areas until the 1940's. WWII necessitated that there be some intense societal change to facilitate the winning of the war. As a result, using the phrase from WWI, how you going to keep 'em down on the farm after they've seen Paris.

Consider this for a moment if you would. The Industrial Revolution began in England around the mid-1750's or so. Women got the vote in the United States in 1920 with the passage of the 19th Amendment. That's quite a time frame there.

I think one can make the argument that the Industrial Revolution was little more than a mitigating factor in the area of women and the vote. The era of Progressive politics and the role played by the Progressives, a reaction to the rampant industrialism played a bigger, more immediate role. Women in the United States had for years argued, rallied, and made the general call for suffrage.

1848 saw the Seneca Falls in New York. The Declaration of Sentiments was the initial call for the vote in the United States. Still some 72 years till women got the vote. During that time, as I stated before there are several Progressive social changes taking place. Child labor laws; fire and workplace safety standards (post Triangle Shirtwaist Company fire); action to end political corruption�all of these play a role.

Consider also the role that the extension of the vote to former slaves and free black men had in the movement of women to seek the extension of suffrage to them.

So clearly the Industrial Revolution as you argue was not the single factor in the role of female voting, and should not be considered the single factor for females not voting.

Moreover, it is hard to see the Post- Industrial age as a regressive era. If one believes as I do, that the extension of the vote to classes of citizens who previously had no real voice in society as forward movement in cultural change, the must be a real question how it can be justified that the removal of those rights be seen as anything but a step backward. A step back to a time where women were seen to be secondary to the man (if a women is even married) in any given relationship. Women now have a primary role in the political actions of the state (at least in the United States). No longer is it a proxy role. That in and of itself will not change as we move further into a Post-Industrial age.

Women as caregivers do not give up the right to participate. It is illogical to assume that the influence�no matter how large or small that influence�can replace direct participation in the political process. Moreover it is also illogical to assume that the Post- Industrial Age will necessitate the withdrawal from the political process of any person who has the vote.

If it is safe to conclude that Post- Industrial society and culture will be more complex than previous ages, I think it is safe to conclude that people will want to retain their voice and their position in the system when issues arise that affect them. Not the other way around as you argue Scuzz.

------------------
Oh, fiddle faddle, everyone knows that our mutants have flippers. Oops, I've said too much.....
~C. Montgomery Burns

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited August 17, 2000).]

quote:

---

NO, you piss-poor excuse for a flaccid fuckwand ignoarmaus....I was simply quoting a slightly relevent line from a "South Park" episode as a humorus deflation.

---

*Splits his sides laughing*. I seriously think we need more of that.

Before anyone wails about language and hammers on about editing the post, this IS a flameboard. Say Shik, you have any more of that ammo lying about by any chance?

If you don't see the ridiculousness in that, well, I hope you come to the light soon, because it's goddamned childish.

Not true. You have access to exactly the same information as 99% of the population. You just bother to actually read it.

Scuzzy, suppose, just suppose, that the majority of people who voted for Clinton were Men. Men with winkies. Would you be walking around saying that "Men voted for Clinton, and that's as good a reason as any for men to no longer be allowed to vote".

You're talking about future situations. Let's take, oh, I dunno, Star Trek as an example. Can you really see the chaps with winkies on the Enterprise rushing home to vote every few years, while Bev and Deanna just sit around and talk about their boobs and giving birth? No? Me neither...

Have you discussed these views with women? Of the non-inflatable kind? Because I can't see them sitting their saying "y'know what? You're right! I work mainly from my laptop at home. I tell my husband I like Clinton's hair. I don't need to vote. It's too darn complex for me."

Fine. But be careful of those words.

"a situation arising itself in the future where the woman vote could be belittled, possibly terminated, in the face of a technologicaland social change?"

My belief is that Women's vote is here to stay. It is too sacred a right to give up. Why do you think that women's vote should be terminated "in the face of technological social change?"

Jay: "It is illogical to assume that the influence� no matter how large or small that influence� can replace direct participation in the political process."

My thoughts exactly. A vote is a direct participation in the political process.

Question for you SCSI, how would you feel if America elected its first female president?

------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."

------------------
"Homer, you're dumb as a mule and twice as ugly,
if a strange man offers you a ride, I say take it"-Abe S.

------------------
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw