The "Maternal Instinct"

[commonsense]

Has "the maternal instinct" been exploited by socialists since women's suffrage?

[Suburbanite]

You might want to add more to this before I get rid of the topic.

C., is probably asking if Democrats have taken advantage of a woman's proclivity towards emotionalism. Sorry ladies, I know this is a broad generalization and there are certainly exceptions to the rule and the fact that you would participate on this site indicates that you are more inclined to rational thought over emotionalism. Right? However, I'm not wrong in making this generalization about women. C., is correct in his assessment of the Democratic party. Contemporary liberalism relies heavily on an emotional appeal rather than cogent thought. There are libraries worth of data dispelling most of liberal ideology, but these facts are largely overlook, dispelled, or ridiculed defaulting to emotinalism.

[Impenitent]

the maternal instinct has been exploited by socialists ever since socialists were invented...

[Evil Baby]

damn Socialists!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mia]

Originally posted by Suburbanite, You might want to add more to this before I get rid of the topic.

?????

Are you Sean in disguise?

[commonsense]

In posting this topic, I was intentionally vague in hopes it might elicit any sort of relative responses, hopefully from females.

I know there are many of female Libertarians who hold public office, lamentably right now only in local governments. (check www.lp.org and navigate to your state's Libertarian Party site to be surprised just how many!)

A common thread in my posts is the desire to have females, who constitute a majority of voters, make the connection through an enlightened view of history (shared with our nation's founders)
that making the mistake of accepting the theory of reliance of government to ostensibly address the needs of the individual, and the family under emotionally irrefutable banners like
"remember the children"
actually do nothing more magnify human suffering,
create entrenching sociological conditions that perpetuate it,
and provide avenues for primarily male politicians to reap ill-gotten rewards from corruption on the backs of women who remain disadvantaged in society....
The very thing that women's suffrage and the feminist movement sought to correct.

Any thoughts?

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by Mia,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mia,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Suburbanite, You might want to add more to this before I get rid of the topic.

?????

Are you Sean in disguise?[/b][/quote]

No, just a moderator. But there is a need for content when you post something. It broke the etiquette rules

[imperialprincess]

common:

spoken like a true man:>))

in my book you, as a man need to be very, very careful when you decide that you know about "enlightened HIStory"

I am not trying to play some kinda cutesy pc game here but take the example of Jane Goodall. Her observations of gorillas were completely different than what every other expert had ever come up with. What was so different about her? All the other observers had been men.

Most of my friends (majority male) will tell you I am one of the least "maternal" "girly" girls they know. Maybe because I am imminently practical. And yet I love being a women and a mother (I am a great at both).

I do know what you mean about some women being to easily swayed by their emotions. To a very limited degree. I also know many men (every writer of a computer manual or car repair manual--except the zen VW one) who THINK they are very logical and rational when really they are simply linear with no ability to see what they are leaving out.

Let me give you a contradiction about myself. I rarely wear make-up and I rarely "dress" up like a girl in a dress. On the other hand I am extremely good at putting on make-up, doing hair, fashion, etc. (I spent most of my teenage years become an expert). I enjoy doing those girly things ON OCCASION. I DESPISe and resent the fact that in order to have any respect in certain circles (going to a lawyer or an accountant) I MUST wear a minimum amount of make-up and a "feminine" suit type get up to be heard. If I dress too feminine I am ignored, if I dress too masculine (if I had my preference I would dress like that most of the time because it is practical) I am laughed at and not taken seriously. AND why am I judged so completely by my appearance when my brother and husband are not! (Their life experience and intelligence is not much different than mine yet I have often heard them say something I just said and they are listened to while I am not--especially in Texas!)

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

You just made an emotional appeal out of claiming you are rational. Luckily I am older and have enough experience with people not to be swayed to Common's veiwpoint based on your failed attempt to defend the female point of view.

[imperialprincess]

Puh-leeese:>))

LINEAR! LINEAR!

not the same as logical.

Ugh. Men!! ;>)))

So amusing. The bible made women second class citizens, in an ideal world, they'd be doing nothing but desiring their husbands and giving birth. It might also surprise some of you, but Christianity is quite a socialist concept, it's in the bible, you've only got to look.

Sigh.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Now you have failed to manipulate the symbols in my post. I was objecting to your entire post because it was an emotional appeal. The weird side comment about linear thought was one of the few statements that was not emotional appeal, but since it was unsupported opinion I simply ignored it. Repeat, I ignored that part. And I have no idea how you come to that random conclusion using any sort of reasoning. Pulling crap out of the air is not reason.

[Jet]

Dave, where are your "libraries worth of data"?

As for the materal instinct, I have yet to see any support that women are swayed by emotional rhetoric any more than men are. "It's for the children," further, is hardly a socialist line; it's usually used by conservatives (c.f. Howard Stern, Janet Jackson), and to a lesser extent liberals.

[Mia]

Originally posted by PeterWolf, So amusing. The bible made women second class citizens, in an ideal world, they'd be doing nothing but desiring their husbands and giving birth. It might also surprise some of you, but Christianity is quite a socialist concept, it's in the bible, you've only got to look. Sigh.

So move to Saudi Arabia. It's very "ideal" there. The Bible does not make women second class citizens. I love how men know all about the passages relating to a woman's role and ignore all the ones about how he is supposed to be to her.

*Sigh* back at you.....

[Jet]

Mia, nobody here said Islam was any better. Christianity, however, remains very misogynistic, with god always being a he rather than a she, all major characters in the bible being male, and rules in both testaments that subordinate women to men. Even the passages about men's behavior toward women are assymetrical and even further entrench the idea that women are untermensch - childlike, of low caste, if you will.

[Mia]

I don't read it that way. But Islam actually is better in that regard. It specifically goes to pains to express the woman's equality to man - actually above him in some ways.

You know the funny saying by a woman "What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine?"

The Quran spells that out. It says a man must support a woman, but if she wants to work she must be permitted, and he has no right to her earnings. (!)

I mentioned Saudi Arabia because they don't apply Islamic law correctly - they do it more to the liking of whoever mentioned women merely pleasing their husbands and so forth.

[Jet]

Since when does a religion that allows men to wed four wives but not vice versa and requires women but not men to stay in their homes whenever possible and wear burqas support quality betwen the sexez?

[Mia]

Originally posted by Jet, Since when does a religion that allows men to wed four wives but not vice versa and requires women but not men to stay in their homes whenever possible and wear burqas support quality betwen the sexez?

The Quran does not support those things. For the multiple wives, that is only permitted under certain condditions that really can't be met today, but could in Muhammad's time. The Bible talks about multiple wives as well.

Women are only required to cover during prayer.

There is nothing about staying in the house.

These are all perversions which men have come up with and have no basis in the religion.

If Islamic men correctly followed the Quran they would put their mothers, wives, and sisters above all other people and things on the earth.

Mia

And the bible and the quoran, they were written by who, men or women? And hey, you could add Judaism to the list of religions that tend to put women behind their men.