you wake up in the morning, and it's been announced that in american women have lost voting rights
- Thread starter DudeistBelieve
- Start date
Recommended Videos
i'd sit in my chair, staring at the screen and then think "Well, that's probably the last fuck-up they did over there."
And i wouldn't be too suprised.
And i wouldn't be too suprised.
I would laugh and shrug because there's no way anyone, including Congress would take that seriously.
I've been skimming these comments and it turns out Im one of the few Americans/non Australian. I honestly wouldn't be to happy. I am male but America has made so many advancements in our history that taking away a right given to anybody would seem like a giant step in the opposite direction that this country has been moving in.
Absolutely nothing would change because the US will simply ignore the constitution if it is inconvenient and starting another convention to add another amendment would be a pain in the ass. And that's a good thing. If they had reason to start another convention, I don't think they'd be able to resist adding some really horrible shit to it in the guise of fixing the suffrage issues.
If this happened I honestly wouldn't be worried. This isn't because I don't care, it's just that I both don't have time (much like another poster) and I believe that it would sort itself out. I mean, what about all the female representatives and the like who are in the government? Not to mention that the culture has changed so the majority of western society accepts women's right to vote (at least I hope so).
However, if the government didn't pass legislation solving the issue, then it'd be pretty fucked.
However, if the government didn't pass legislation solving the issue, then it'd be pretty fucked.
...Bara_no_Hime said:
Now I really want to show up at a McDonalds with a 100 million people and demand eggmcmuffins.
"Oh dear, did Romney/Ryan take office already?"
Just expanding on what would happen in America.
If it happened in America, there would be a very vocal protest in opposition which would be ridiculed by Fox News. After weeks or months, people would get bored with there being a protest and start to turn on them (thanks to the attention span of the nation). In the end, the protest might continue but attention will be lost and nothing would be resolved.CpT_x_Killsteal said:
Just expanding on what would happen in America.
I would wake up wondering what the hell happened as well as how the fuck everyone missed something like that until now. I would also wonder who the clever little dipshit is who managed to sneak something like that in there.
I think that it would also be safe to assume that just about every politician in Washington would be screwed.
I think that it would also be safe to assume that just about every politician in Washington would be screwed.
I'd make a bowl of cereal, load up a movie on Netflix, enjoy my breakfast, play some video games after, and continue my day as normal. In the end, I would just wait for the government to sort it out as there wouldn't really be anything I could do about it.
how the hell could fox news..or ANYONE for that matter spin this into anything remotely good? theres just nothing good about it on ANY fundametal levelZachary Amaranth said:
I mean at least in regards to other stuff like deamonising video games...you can be deluded into belive they are harmful
but this....I dont see it
Aussie here but if it happened I would do nothing because the government would, out of pure fear, correct the issue probably faster than the internet would be able to spread the rage so we'd get another meaningless apology and the world would go on
As for the rebelling against the government... Whenever something is fucking stupid people should fucking rebel...
As for the rebelling against the government... Whenever something is fucking stupid people should fucking rebel...
Well, a few of the responders have kind of pointed out a big part of the problem in American today in that they wouldn't do anything.SaneAmongInsane said:
Speaking for myself, in this hypothetical case there would have been a reason why such a limitation was put into place to begin with, and it's likely the people setting it up timed it that way for a reason. The devil is in the details as they say, and I'd need more backround on it to make a fair desician.
I honestly wouldn't do much over this in of itself. For me the big question would be whether there was any intention of giving women the right to vote again. If not, then that would probably involve a civil war and I'd probably be fighting to gett ig back to them. If so, then there wouldn't be much of an issue other than missing one election, which might suck, but in the scheme of things probably isn't a big deal. If I felt it was a ploy by one cantidate or the other I might feel differantly, but if it's legit and everyone on all sides just forgot, then it's still pretty even overall.
In the real world, it'd be redone immediately and nothing would happen. If this is so hypothetical that even that wouldn't happen, people would riot until something did. If I were actually in the US, I'd either be protesting, or staying back in my house depending on how violent the riots got.
Also regarding this thread, I'm starting to wonder if some members of the escapist are just acting as uncaring as possible because it's cool to be brooding and cynical. I'm having a hard time believing people are so absolutely indifferent to everyone else's lives that they wouldn't give a shit if they got their basic rights taken away :/
Also regarding this thread, I'm starting to wonder if some members of the escapist are just acting as uncaring as possible because it's cool to be brooding and cynical. I'm having a hard time believing people are so absolutely indifferent to everyone else's lives that they wouldn't give a shit if they got their basic rights taken away :/
Vault101 said:
Really? You haven't thought this through then.
In all likelyhood if something like this existed, the point would be that the equality of women would have just finished it's trial period. It would then be time to review the situation.
What side I'd be on aside (mentioned in a previous post), understand that it's very easy to argue why women shouldn't have equal rights to men, and why we'd do well to make them second class citizens again. The reason is quite simply the basic family structure, right now a lot of problems in society come down to the simple fact that there is nobody around to raise kids, which leads to children being unprotected and vulnerable, as well as to unstable family enviroments that produce broken human beings. We have kids coming home from school to empty houses where they are easy prey (latchkey kids). With both genders having equal rights both genders want to have careers, all discussion about one parent being able to sble to stay at home is a moot point in an economy that has adapted to the idea of a two income household. Right now one parent working and the other being a home maker full time probably wouldn't be sufficient to make ends meet. All that disposable income from families with two jobs bringing in the bread contributed to rising prices since more money could be demanded and now it's expected.
Fair or not, you repeal women's sufferage and the right to vote, and now in most cases you've got one parent to stay home again. This means the kids are safer, not coming hom to empty houses so often, and have constant parental guidance, as well as someone to take them out and watch them play and so on. While it would be chaos for a while the reduction in earning power would probably also lower prices to accomodate since income homes again. With less homes being unoccupied for most of the work day (where both adults are at work and the kids are at school) it would also cut down on crime, as you generally wouldn't see entire neighborhoods turn into virtually unoccupied ghost towns during the day.
In short there are a lot of benefits (more than I'm saying) to the idea of pretty much saying women have to conform to the old model domestic roles. In theory one could argue whether men could do the same thing hypothetically if one gender had to stay behind (so to speak), but that goes beyond the scope of this discussion.
The point here being that while I would oppose the idea of removing women's rights, probably to the point of supporting armed revolution, there would be no denying that some VERY solid arguements for society could be made for it. I happen to think that the problems we're dealing with are nothing that won't eventually work itself out without repealing key women's rights, but then again on this subject I'm fairly optimistic, and do believe there is a fundemental principle at work here.
The problem with saying that there is no way someone could make a case in regards to something like this shows an inabillity to look at the big picture, and multiple points of view. I understand perspectives even when I don't agree with them. Seeing both sides of the story is why I tend to go mostly "right" on actual political issues to be honest since the left wing tends to be extremely short sighted, even if well intentioned. The best principles in the world don't make something right or practical. In an issue like the hypothetical one we're discussing I can side more towards the civil liberties end of thing and abide by the current principles because I already see that the system can be made to work.
On the other hand, when you think this through you can also begin to understand some of the issues inherant in other countries. Women's equality did a lot of damage in the US and other countries and made society a much dangerous place, as well as fundementally altered the economy. As much as I'd personally like to see it happen, I think people underestimate what would happen in certain oppressive societies like many of those in The Middle East and Asia if women were just given equality overnight. The US already had a very strong infrastructure when it embraced women's sufferage, but a lot of these other countries might not be able to take it when they are already strained for employment and substinance on a level the US can't even begin to imagine even with it's own woes. So while I'm judgemental of cultures that oppress women, and actually think we should force those changes and let the chaos play out for long term benefit, I can understand why these cultures won't actually go through with it on their own for all the lip service they might give.
By way of response to most with similar answers, the US is the leader of the free world for a reason. To be honest if the US ever had something like this happen, and it stayed, you'd probably see other nations come around to doing the same thing. Most of the planet is only as free as it is because of us, and that's one of the reasons why we make such a big deal about setting the right example, since we can't really go kicking down someone's door on a moral principle and then not practice it ourselves. If the US removed women's sufferage, or just the right to vote, this would be a sign that it was pretty much okay for anyone else to do it without worrying about the "world police" knocking on their door, and what's more wanting to cultivate relations with us (at least for the moment) many societies would change just to be more like us. Oh sure, most would seemingly come to their own conclusions, that just happen to take them in the same direction.Vault101 said:
Without pointing a finger at anyone's country, I'd point out that most people from outside the US on these forums have mentioned at least once or twice they are upset about the US more or less dictating their policy, and how just because the US does something doesn't mean their country has to do it too. That general anger over "monkey see, monkey do" sort of re-enforces the point. Japan would probably be one of the fastest to regress, and so would Spain and a lot of the mediterrenean (Greece, etc..) as well as south and central america, as Machismo (literally) is still fairly alive there to begin with. I think it would rapidly spread through europe at various speeds as well, at least at the moment.
There is a reason why the world watches the US elections and our policies, what we decide pretty much affects them... at least for the moment. I don't think we'll remain this powerful for the rest of my life, but for the moment .
dafaq did I just read?Therumancer said:
YES alot of problems come from lack of good parenting..HOWEVER I call bullshit that it comes from women wanting to have a career
crime and such comes from lack of education and poverty and of coarse your parents being fuck ups who get pregnat at 16, there are "traditional" familys where in fact BOTH parents stay home because they live on welfare and do nothing but fuck around providing a "wonderful" role model for their children/sarcasm
the conclusions your drawing where half the problem is from women working is (quite frankly) utter bullshit
the motavation to go out and earn ones own living (and before that have acces to education) does not breed criminals
[quote/] and have constant parental guidance, as well as someone to take them out and watch them play and so on. [/quote]
next you'll be saying kids should like....go to shcool...or somthing, this is obvious stuff that I think isnt actually a problem
now I AM NOT denying that divorce, absent parents and other issues with our society are a problem
but I do reject the notion that it all stems from women being able to work
and eventhen..EVEN THEN if we were to have your little neo-50's dystopia scenario...THE VOTE is still something you can;t argue againt
and yes..you dress it up as you like, you say that your totally not agianst women rights
but saying thease are "really" good arguments?
no no no no no no no no NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO MOTHERFUCKING NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I wish to be the master of my own destiny and I do not give a FLYING FUCK how much of a "good" Idea it would be otherwise
HAHAHAHAHA ohhhhh fuck me.......Therumancer said:
Australia and alot of other countrys still don't have some of the bullshit America does like..
bible belts/crazy purtians and religious zealots and a problem with seperating church from state (and by that I mean we dont have it as bad as you do)
we also use the metric systm
I think youve got an over-inflated Idea of how much peopel will copy the US
next you'll be saying kids should like....go to shcool...or somthing, this is obvious stuff that I think isnt actually a problemVault101 said:
now I AM NOT denying that divorce, absent parents and other issues with our society are a problem
but I do reject the notion that it all stems from women being able to work
and eventhen..EVEN THEN if we were to have your little neo-50's dystopia scenario...THE VOTE is still something you can;t argue againt
and yes..you dress it up as you like, you say that your totally not agianst women rights
but saying thease are "really" good arguments?
no no no no no no no no NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO MOTHERFUCKING NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I wish to be the master of my own destiny and I do not give a FLYING FUCK how much of a "good" Idea it would be otherwise[/quote]
Then your simply wrong, that's all there is to it.
Given the tone of your response I'm not 100% sure f you even get what I'm trying to say, and really understand the points I'm trying to make. What's more you come accross as if you think I'm actually championing this cause, which I'm not. However the arguements your making actually wouldn't overcome the logic of that arguement. This would mean at best you'd wind up with enough likeminded people for a civil war, and at worst in a jail cell. You sure as heck wouldn't convince the other side, since your basiclly just dancing around going "that's BS, I'm right and your wrong".
Our founding fathers made it quite clear that people have to give up liberty for the greater good of the state and the benefit of all. The idea of the US was not unfettered freedom for all, and this is a point a lot of people miss when it comes to a lot of arguements about civil liberties and the intent of the constitution, so even arguements about fundemental human rights don't apply on a basic level here when you want to get technical given the way they put their own laws and principles into practice.
Under this hypothetical situation the correct response, and the one that would probably garnet the most support, would be to point out that for all the problems society was making it work before the law changes, and to point out all of the ways those problems have been gradually being dealt with. It becomes a lesser of evils arguement.
I agree with your fundemental position, but your reasoning isn't really especially relevent or convincing on a national level. If I didn't agree with your conclusion and was neutral or undecided on the issue, you would have just chased me to the other side, especially given how you wrote your response. In general I make a point of not siding with anything represented by those who express themselves like you did right there, and that's true of most people.