• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

HuffPo blogger: Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?

Status
Not open for further replies.
So all this blogger did was write a small-m marxist post about the bourgeoisie, then ctrl+f and replace that phrase with 'white men'.

I hope that everyone who is incensed at this article gets equally upset at voter ID laws, which ACTUALLY seek to remove people's ability to vote based on characteristics beyond their control.

Loss of the vote is one thing. Her proposal to forcefully confiscate and 'redistribute' their money and property is something else altogether.
 

pompidu

Member
This really comes down to the rich and powerful having massive influence on what people are meant to believe.

We have a whole government party who brainwashes people from birth that people of color are evil. The rich and powerful are the enemy, not your neighbor.
 

daviyoung

Banned
The reason we have Trump and Brexit and DA is because white people feel disenfranchised. Removing them even more means their collective baggage, tradition and capital will see a greater seismic shift once the pendulum swings back into their favour rendering the endeavour pointless. The only way to achieve equality is to strip those things from the people that have them, either inherited or earned, and to make them think it's either necessary or by their choice that those powers have been rescinded.
 

Deepwater

Member
This really comes down to the rich and powerful having massive influence on what people are meant to believe.

We have a whole government party who brainwashes people from birth that people of color are evil. The rich and powerful are the enemy, not your neighbor.

poor white people don't have agency to be racist bigots anymore?
 

Plum

Member
Disenfranchisement is not the answer, of course.

I do love how this satirical piece really gets under some people's skin. They might even consider how their disenfranchisement of non-straightwhitemales is horrifically wrong.

It gets under people's skins because it's both unneeded and harmful; if it is satire (which is unclear) it's terrible satire and, if it isn't satire, it's impossible and poorly thought out. I say it's harmful because it's free ammo for alt-righters to help influence those they try to influence. It isn't going to turn someone into a Nazi, of course, but it helps proliferate the whole "both sides" thing and that rarely leads to impressionable white males becoming liberal.

As someone posted in the earlier thread, before posting this the author should have thought "am I helping?"

we're not talking about those countries, talking about America.

I'm explicitly saying that white men not being able to vote for 2-3 decades ins't going to lead to yall being killed in the street by police or sent to the gulags.

If this discussion is only about American race divisions why bring up Chechnya? Unless you're talking about the higher imprisonment rate of minorities in America but, in that case, why use "Gulag"?

Just wait until white people hear about Mark Twain and Jonathan Swift.

A Modest Proposal this is not.
 
Nah, Election Day should just be a national holiday.

I was reading a piece that suggested such a move would have negative results since the only people who would benefit from this holiday are middle class people with jobs that give holiday pay. A burger flipper and retail clerk won't get that time off and the vote becomes more slanted
 

pompidu

Member
poor white people don't have agency to be racist bigots anymore?

I didn't absolve anyone of acting like a piece of shit, but people aren't born to be racist. There is no vantage of being poor and racist. There is an advantage to get people to blame other races for being poor, when you are rich and stealing from everyone because the populist thinks someone else is doing it.
 
As someone who lives in a red state I feel like I'm wasting my time when I go to vote anyways so I wouldn't mind not having to bother with it.
 
we're not talking about those countries, talking about America.

And if you want to take it a step further I would say matriarchal societies are better alternatives that's supported by data, so *shrugs*.

What data is that? I'm more than willing to read up on it, but I can't think of many matriarchical societies like the one described in this piece hat have ever existed, so it'll be tough to say how those studies would apply.
 

Plum

Member
Everyone freaking out over this I've got a highly contentious essay about how we should eat children to end world hunger to show you.

Again, A Modest Proposal this is not. Being satire (which still isn't clear) does not mean it's good satire. If you're going to ape A Modest Proposal don't make it so that you have people agreeing with the proposal instead of the message behind it.
 
What data is that? I'm more than willing to read up on it, but I can't think of many matriarchical societies like the one described in this piece hat have ever existed, so it'll be tough to say how those studies would apply.

And even if it did, it doesn't matter because we're talking about America here amirite?
Edit:fixed
 

daviyoung

Banned
poor white people don't have agency to be racist bigots anymore?

All things being equal, you push white people away and they stay away. But when the white person has forces of capital behind them, ownership of land, production and jobs they won't be able to stay away for long as long as the resources required to maintain that capital are limited. If one of those people take umbrage with the colour or sex of the person that pushed them away they will come back fighting stronger and would favour those people that most resemble them using that initial criteria to make their judgement.
 

Audioboxer

Member
I thought the goal posts for Brexit were if only old people couldn't vote?

Anyway, there was a GAFer who said that, and I know there is people who think it, and thankfully it'll only ever be an angst filled thought. Voting is a right of everyone who is capable to vote.

The only thing on the table here is trying to encourage non-voters of the value of voting. Not trying to take away anyone's right to vote.

Article is more than likely clickbait for the silent agreement and the enraged white males writing blog posts to divert other angry men to the site. Clusterfuck all round but dat live journal like brain dumping of nonsense to whip up a frenzy online.
 

jviggy43

Member
I really agree with your last sentence. I just feel that we (as society) must not give up on finding a way that doesn't need to discriminate in retaliation.

Edit: By the way, disagreeing with racially discriminatory measures =/= not caring about other issues at hand that affect other demographics. This isn't directed at you jviggy, but I'm tired of seeing a common retort on this forum along the lines of "Oh, you disagree with OP? But do you care about X, Y, Z? Huh?" has become stale.

I got you. I agree that even as someone who isn't opposed to this measure, its extreme. I also totally understand about wanting to avoid reverse discrimination. For me personally I would be ok with reverse discrimination if the end result ended up with greater equality but as you pointed out, that might have adverse effects. Its refershing to have a conversation with someone who doesn't quite agree with you but never the less gets you to reflect on things in a new light. Cheers.
 
you should tell the police about those people forcing you to vote

No one is forcing me to vote but if I don't vote right now than I'm just being lazy. If it's made illegal for me to vote then no one can call me lazy because I couldn't have voted even if I wanted to! Basically this proposal is sounding better by the minute to my ears.
 

Madness

Member
But in reality a lot of people think this. I was discussing this amongst a swathe of coworkers. All diverse, chinese, taiwanese, white, russian, nigerian, punjabi, fijian etc. People ask why did so many white people vote Trump, maybe because he promised them what they wanted. Do you really expect someone to willingly give up power? Let's take your wealth and redistribute it so its fair. You're going to get a resounding fuck you from those who have the wealth and power. I get the sentiment of the article but it is a little crazy for anyone's taste.
 

Deepwater

Member
There have never been any large scale, long lasting matriarchal societies, so I don't know where the supportive data would come from. Some societies have more role equality than others, But none were truly female dominant.

Large scale, no. Small scale, yes.

What data is that? I'm more than willing to read up on it, but I can't think of many matriarchical societies like the one described in this piece hat have ever existed, so it'll be tough to say how those studies would apply.

In rural, agriculture based communities there has been work of redistributing power (which in this case, finance based decision-making) from men to women and everybody coming out on top. Communities made and saved more money, utility improvements were actually added to the community, etc. Although these communities weren't historically matriarchal, there is a lot of work done by NGOs and others transforming these communities culturally as it relates to gender power structures. That's why you see a lot of work targeted towards women because the stats show that when women do well, everybody does well.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2012/03/revenga.htm

•First, with women now representing 40 percent of the global labor force and more than half the world’s university students, overall productivity will increase if their skills and talents are used more fully. For example, if women farmers have the same access as men to productive resources such as land and fertilizers, agricultural output in developing countries could increase by as much as 2.5 to 4 percent (FAO, 2011). Elimination of barriers against women working in certain sectors or occupations could increase output by raising women’s participation and labor productivity by as much as 25 percent in some countries through better allocation of their skills and talent (Cuberes and Teignier-Baqué, 2011).
•Second, greater control over household resources by women, either through their own earnings or cash transfers, can enhance countries’ growth prospects by changing spending in ways that benefit children. Evidence from countries as varied as Brazil, China, India, South Africa, and the United Kingdom shows that when women control more household income—either through their own earnings or through cash transfers—children benefit as a result of more spending on food and education (World Bank, 2011).
•Finally, empowering women as economic, political, and social actors can change policy choices and make institutions more representative of a range of voices. In India, giving power to women at the local level led to greater provision of public goods, such as water and sanitation, which mattered more to women (Beaman and others, 2011).



Maybe a rhetorical stretch, but hey.
 
Large scale, no. Small scale, yes.



In rural, agriculture based communities there has been work of redistributing power (which in this case, finance based decision-making) from men to women and everybody coming out on top. Communities made and saved more money, utility improvements were actually added to the community, etc. Although these communities weren't historically matriarchal, there is a lot of work done by NGOs and others transforming these communities culturally as it relates to gender power structures. That's why you see a lot of work targeted towards women because the stats show that when women do well, everybody does well.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2012/03/revenga.htm





Maybe a rhetorical stretch, but hey.

No, the basic anthropological consensus is there are no known societies/civilizations that were unambiguously matriarchal.
 
Large scale, no. Small scale, yes.



In rural, agriculture based communities there has been work of redistributing power (which in this case, finance based decision-making) from men to women and everybody coming out on top. Communities made and saved more money, utility improvements were actually added to the community, etc. Although these communities weren't historically matriarchal, there is a lot of work done by NGOs and others transforming these communities culturally as it relates to gender power structures. That's why you see a lot of work targeted towards women because the stats show that when women do well, everybody does well.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2012/03/revenga.htm





Maybe a rhetorical stretch, but hey.

It's tough not to think that you are showing your bias when the preceding paragraph seems more in line with what I said about pushing for inclusiveness than with the idea of creating a matriarchical society like suggested in the article:


"Gender equality is important in its own right. Development is a process of expanding freedoms equally for all people—male and female (Sen, 2009). Closing the gap in well-being between males and females is as much a part of development as is reducing income poverty. Greater gender equality also enhances economic efficiency and improves other development outcomes. It does so in three main ways:"
 

Deepwater

Member
It's tough not to think that you are showing your bias when the preceding paragraph seems more in line with what I said about pushing for inclusiveness than with the idea of creating a matriarchical society like suggested in the article:


"Gender equality is important in its own right. Development is a process of expanding freedoms equally for all people—male and female (Sen, 2009). Closing the gap in well-being between males and females is as much a part of development as is reducing income poverty. Greater gender equality also enhances economic efficiency and improves other development outcomes. It does so in three main ways:"

Which I acknowledged by saying it was a rhetorical stretch.
 
Which I acknowledged by saying it was a rhetorical stretch.

That seems like more than a stretch when it has very little to do with creating a matriarchical society but instead an egalitarian one, which is what most people disagreeing with this article are saying.
 

Deepwater

Member
You can amend it to in this thread if that makes you feel more comfortable.

well I am a black man, so really that only makes me racist I suppose. Oh wait but black people can't be racist against white people, so I guess you got nothing.

That seems like more than a stretch when it has very little to do with creating a matriarchical society but instead an egalitarian one, which is what most people disagreeing with this article are saying.

fair point.
 

Yoshi

Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
This the same thing as saying 'if there were no men, there would be no wars'

Well, at least this is right. Without men, humanity will end after one generation and thus, 100 years later, no war (between humans) can ever happen again.
 
Its very bizzare considering South Africa's Trump is a black male (Julius Malema). Singing kill the boer (white people) and his prime areas being were xenophobic attacks/rapes/murders happen.

Always be someone preaching to a flock.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom