[extropy-chat] late response to Dan/Technotranscendence

[rick]

Adrian Tymes wrote:

>It is trivial to prove this is logically inconsistent,
unless by "qualified to vote" you mean "qualified to
vote for whoever the males would vote for" or
something like that.  A candidate who, for instance,
advocated treating women as property would get a fewer
votes from women used to freedom than from men used to
freedom.  Therefore, disallowing females from voting
would make the election of such candidates more
likely, and the set of all females is not entirely a
random sample with respect to the set of all human
beings.
/>

Trivial is it? Your proof seems to rest on just one ridiculous
assumption -- you seem to have a horrible opinion of men in general:
implying that men in general wish to mistreat women. And that women, on
the other hand, are saintly in general. Camille Paglia had something to
say regarding this: "A major failing of most feminist ideology is its
dumb, ungenerous stereotyping of men as tyrants and abusers, when in
fact -- as I know full well, from my own mortifying lesbian experience
-- men are tormented by women's flirtatiousness and hemming and hawing,
their manipulations and changeableness, their humiliating rejections.
Cock teasing is a universal reality. It is part of women's merciless
testing and cold-eyed comparison shopping for potential mates. Men will
do anything to win the favor of women. Women literally size up men --
"What can you show me?" -- in bed and out. If middle class feminists
think they conduct their love lives perfectly rationally, without any
instinctual influences from biology, they are imbeciles." (Vamps &
Tramps, p. 35)