PATREON EXCLUSIVE (Full Video): Women are too emotional to appropriately dole out justice
Added 2024-01-07 05:00:02 +0000 UTC
Comments
@Joseph Agree overall.
RhodiumMaiden
2024-08-01 21:01:32 +0000 UTC@RhodiumMaiden - So are you agreeing or disagreeing with these suggestions?
Joseph Omega
2024-07-24 21:50:56 +0000 UTC@Joseph Couple based administration = king + queen, with both highly active. Monarchy is the best system imo.
RhodiumMaiden
2024-07-19 21:59:22 +0000 UTC@RhodiumMaiden - And here is a summary of that part of a complementary conversation where I asked: "What about the idea of couple-based political and administrative representation? What would be the arguments in support of such a system, given the same considerations?" Balanced Gender Perspectives Equal Representation: Couple-based representation could ensure that both male and female perspectives are equally present in political and administrative decisions, potentially leading to more gender-balanced policies. Diversity of Thought: By combining the viewpoints and experiences of both members of a couple, this system could lead to more well-rounded decision-making, reflecting a broader range of societal needs and perspectives. Enhanced Collaboration and Consensus-Building Encouraging Cooperation: This system could foster a culture of collaboration and partnership in governance, as couples would need to work together to reach consensus on policies and administrative matters. Modeling Unity: Couple-based representation might serve as a model for societal unity, demonstrating how different perspectives can come together to find common ground. Mitigation of Gendered Power Imbalances Balancing Soft and Hard Power: With both members of a couple participating, the influence of soft power (often associated with women) and hard power (often associated with men) could be more evenly integrated into governance. Addressing Historical Inequities: This system could be seen as a corrective measure to historical gender imbalances in political and administrative roles, ensuring that women's influence is structurally guaranteed. Practical Considerations and Challenges Variability in Relationship Dynamics: Not all couples may have balanced or healthy dynamics, and this system could inadvertently give more power to the dominant partner in unequal relationships. Representation of Singles and Non-Traditional Relationships: Similar to couple-based voting, this approach raises questions about how single individuals or those in non-traditional relationships would be represented. Complexities in Implementation: The practical implementation of couple-based representation would be challenging, raising questions about how decisions are made if the couple disagrees, and how power is balanced within each couple.
Joseph Omega
2024-06-13 00:50:52 +0000 UTC@RhodiumMaiden - I know this thread is QUITE old now, but I found your response SO intriguing that I thought you would be interested in part of the summary of a conversation that I had with ChatGPT based on the prompt: "For the sake of argument, supposing there were just two sexes, male and female, what would be the arguments in support of having elections based on COUPLES voting instead of individuals?" Arguments in Support of Couple-Based Voting Balanced Gender Representation: Couple-based voting could theoretically ensure that both male and female perspectives are equally considered in each vote. This could lead to decisions that more accurately reflect the interests of both genders. Promotion of Unity and Consensus: This system might encourage couples to discuss and reach a consensus on political matters, potentially fostering greater unity and understanding within the household and, by extension, within society. Mitigation of Gender Biases: By requiring joint decision-making, couple-based voting could mitigate biases that might occur if one gender consistently leans towards certain policies or candidates, assuming the couple comprises opposite genders. Reflective of Family Interests: Decisions made by couples could be more reflective of family and household interests, potentially leading to policies that better address family-related issues. Impact on Gender Dynamics Considerations Rebalancing of Soft and Hard Power: In a couple-based voting system, the soft power dynamics (traditionally associated with female influence) and hard power dynamics (often associated with male influence) could find a new equilibrium. The need for consensus within a couple could lead to a more balanced consideration of both types of power in decision-making. Challenging Traditional Power Narratives: Such a system would directly challenge traditional narratives of gendered power imbalances. By mandating that both male and female voices are equally counted in each voting unit, it would structurally enforce a form of gender equality in political participation. Redefining Gender Roles and Stereotypes: This approach could lead to a redefinition of gender roles and stereotypes. It could emphasize the importance of collaboration and shared decision-making, moving away from traditional notions of gendered power. Addressing Contemporary Imbalances: If the current feminist ideologies are creating an imbalance toward female perspectives, as previously contended, couple-based voting could act as a counterbalance, ensuring that male perspectives are equally represented in each decision. Potential Challenges and Criticisms Individual Autonomy: A major criticism would be the potential infringement on individual autonomy. The system assumes that all individuals are in heterosexual relationships and willing to conform to joint decision-making, which may not be the case. Diversity of Relationships: In modern society, relationships are diverse, and not all individuals are in traditional couple relationships. This system could marginalize single individuals, those in non-heterosexual relationships, and those who prefer to make independent decisions. Practicality and Enforcement: The practical implementation of couple-based voting would be complex. Enforcing a rule that requires couples to vote jointly could be challenging and might lead to issues of compliance and verification.
Joseph Omega
2024-06-13 00:47:10 +0000 UTCAgreed. Voting should be a privilege limited to the qualified. Women still influence men & can affect politics in that manner.
RhodiumMaiden
2024-01-21 11:32:42 +0000 UTCLarge scale destroys everything.
RhodiumMaiden
2024-01-21 11:28:05 +0000 UTCI think that Alexander was reasonable, I'm a bit confused on why some find it sexist, although I don't think at all that he is sexist, I remember many other videos that can be viewed as sexist way more than this one. He did support the fact that women should have the right like any adult to vote. Maybe describing them as mainly emotionally driven ? I think he's right, there are exceptions to this and some women when making a decision are more logical than emotional and it's the opposite among men, most men are logical in making a decision with a few who are mostly emotional. I think it's only because in general, we value logic as a more respected state in politics and in the workplace more, places where we create value and prosperity. On the other hand, we view emotions as a personal thing that are not to be the basis for business, career, or political decision. Both are partially correct or incorrect. In business for example, emotions play a major role in why consumers would prefer one thing over the other so if we disregard emotions, the ones that don't make that mistake are in most cases going to be the overall winners. If you'd like to see how that is what actually happens, check any video for Rory Sutherland, who is one of the most brilliant minds that I've enjoyed watching or listening to. The same applies to politics, think tanks as they call them usually employ psychologists vs philosophers, and so do businesses. There is no uni-dimensional solution or mode of thinking that would dominate I guess, and I'm not the biggest fan of women's emotional way of thinking, but as I matured and my life experience expanded. I realized that if we disregard women's emotional inclinations we're not optimizing for the best solution, at least for the sake of succeeding in whatever we want to achieve, because no matter how much anyone tries to sell you something whatever it was and you don't feel comfortable about it, they will probably fail whether immediately or later, whatever it is, it won't work. Palestine and Israel are a great example here too because this is another issue that truly illustrates how uni-dimensional people are becoming. I really believe that, unlike most other things where the majority are in the middle, most people are wrong about this one because most are either fully in support of Israel or totally supporting Palestine. I'm an Arab and Arabs over here, if you ask them what should happen they will tell you that they want the demise of Israel, maybe 80% of them, not a two state solution that gives a lot more to the Palestinians than Israel would be willing to give, no, the demise of Israel. I can't say that it is true of the West, disregarding the far left obviously because I can't see how the far left can be considered a political party that truly represents a segment of society, which is another matter on its own, but I can't say of the rest of Westerners that most of them will choose to kick the Palestinians out, I think they are less extreme. But they'd still say that Palestine never existed and Hamas are terrorists (Which is true in my opinion) and call for obliterating Hamas specifically and imposing stricter policies to deal with Palestinians. Like most of things, even this complex, millennia old conflict, would only be resolved by meeting somewhere in the middle. Politics are and extremely dirty game, one that I'd never want to play, and the fact that this has been going on for more than three quarters of a century proves that. The only good way to handle it is a peaceful resolution and whoever does use their advantage, Israel clearly at least for the last 50+ years, they won't be able to just get rid of the other without at the same time be digging their own grave. Hamas and Israel's government, at least the current one, don't want that for some reason, maybe just to keep it going on, yes, that is almost indisputable in the case of Hamas and most probably it's the same for Israel. Hamas is probably an Israeli intelligence creation, which explains a lot. Qatar's relationship with Israel, supports this disputed fact, as well as many other things. The point is, people shouldn't base their attitudes and actions, solely on their membership in a certain party, preferably they shouldn't give politics or politicians much say when dealing with their fellow humans, as long as there is no direct harm inflicted on them. Because a lot of all those social problems are actually created by politicians, as the famous maxim says, divide and conquer.
Breaking Taboos
2024-01-14 09:32:58 +0000 UTCIn order to vote, women should have to opt in to the draft for every voting cycle they participate in. I don't really believe they SHOULD do that because women aren't meant to be at war - even less than men are - however it's neither fair nor just to have women able to vote on leaders who can make decisions that will lead us to war while they will not suffer the consequence of being compelled to fight in that war. Perhaps if voting was tied to opting into the potential for forced military service this would mean that only citizens with a willingness to sacrifice for their country become voters or politicians. Men are naturally subject to the draft. If women want access to the traditional male privilege of voting, they should have to be willing to die for the country just like any man might have to. For politicians I'd say we should go back to the Roman way of requiring them to serve in the army to get anywhere. Not as coddled officers either. Field officers maybe. They have to risk their lives. They have to know what the consequences for their decisions are. They need to lose friends and comrades in battle. Maybe this wouldn't make them all great people, but they'd at least understand the gravity of their decision making. Here in Canada we have the least serious leader essentially any nation has ever had. No real job experience even. Just a spoiled rich boy. Maybe if even spoiled rich sons of Prime Ministers were expected to serve and be actively deployed before seeking office, he'd be a little less terrible of a human being after having gone through that.
Andrew Bain
2024-01-09 17:03:29 +0000 UTCDid I spark a "video response"? XD The description of said somebody strangely matches my comment from last week. Yet the details differ so I checked if no other fits. Which does not. Makes me wonder... Alas. You were welcome to join Alex, because, in reality, it was such a bore ^^" There wasn't any firestorm of discussion. Barely a conversation really. Just me being confused about some guy who couldn't articulate his issue. It wasn't an endorsement, but a cold and cynical analysis. Anyway. Me with my friends often conclude that an exam that gives you proportional voting rights between 0 and 5 would be the best system... On paper at least. But there are fundamental problems. Who would create this test? How would we be sure some interpretations and theories aren't prioritized over others? How could we safeguard against the current governments from tinkering with them to promote their electorates? Wouldn't such a test raise cries of injustice and discrimination? Many problems and nobody is taking this solution seriously and pushing it. In my opinion, the likelihood of implementation is less than 1%. And the clock is ticking. Tensions are rising. In all my predictions I see that the next 2 decades to be... Interesting, as the famous Chinese proverb says. Everybody will do what they like with some random warnings from an internet stranger.
Cezary Skoczek
2024-01-07 19:48:59 +0000 UTCI’ve watched hundreds of videos on Alexander’s channel and this one is probably the closest to being sexist. The difference is that emotional irrationality is a characteristic found in some women some of the time rather something that is generally true of all women all of the time. Therefore one has to be careful with the extrapolation. Another difference is that more than just understanding psychological differences this video is close to prescribing policy based on those differences. The part about the competency test for voting I liked. This is not discriminatory as it goes to directly to the attributes needed for the job in hand.
Andy
2024-01-07 19:15:06 +0000 UTCBarn fight in Alexander's Patreon. LOL
Mark Bryski
2024-01-07 17:36:14 +0000 UTCI appreciate your final thought that culture is downstream to psychology which implies the same for policy. This will be helpful when participating in future Patreon discussions.
Mark Bryski
2024-01-07 16:17:47 +0000 UTCRegarding the complexity of large political institutions: For me that just means we should reduce the size and complexity of these institutions wherever possible. My main critique about your stance is: Yes, these things might be too complicated for a single person to understand. But then why do you let others make that decision? You think these people in power understand so much more than everyone else? I have my doubts. I fully agree to focus on our personal sphere of power and competence. But if you retreat entirely from the political scene you may leave the floor to lunatics, which frankly seems to be what is happening. You don´t need to understand the complexities of every political topic to see that many politicians are just entirely unfit for the job.
Hermann
2024-01-07 15:43:02 +0000 UTCThat video sure made me think. Which is a good thing, I guess. I still do think that the female inflluence in modern politics is a severe problem. Most topics that worry me personally about modern politics can be attributed to that typical feminine mindset of putting feelings over logic. As wonderful as that may be in personal life, it is potentially catastrophic in any position of power. Now, I would never say that women shouldn´t vote or that we should remove them from politics. Women have a right to participate in politics and plenty of women are very capable of using logic as well. However, we need to push back on the supposed moral superiority of empathy and femininity: There is this sense that more women in power is automatically good, because women are the better people. Because they are more empathic and nicer. And also that the more empathic political party is morally superior. Just try to critizize the increasing welfare programs, price controls, affirmative action or quotas for equity and inclusion. No matter how logical or well intended your arguments are, your starting point is as a heartless, greedy, white man, who just wants to defend his priviliges. Again, we do not need to remove women from the political space, but we should be clear that reason and justice must be the primary driver for policy decision and hold everybody to that standard.
Hermann
2024-01-07 15:33:30 +0000 UTCThe video is a but here snd there. But i think it has good points. The premise is more a perception than the subject of the video The execution there of is a bit muddled.. the messaging is muddled. But its not terrible
Peter
2024-01-07 08:13:51 +0000 UTCFeeling an emotion is a long way of reacting to an emotion. If you exhibit that maturity male or female… you are safe in my book Now if, men experience, less emotions even without that maturity, functionally, they will have an overall more dispassionate result But that result would still be more than a woman with a lot of emotions, but a high-level of maturity . Incidence X maturity factor = result Low invidence or good (lower number) maturity factor will result in good results. for the discussion of the requirements for dispassionate results. Gender isn’t actually required, but can be statistically acknowledged But i dont like that its the premise rather than a footnote
Peter
2024-01-07 07:39:14 +0000 UTCI don’t think I’ll ever stop supporting your patreon. It’s been six months since I watched a video but I always come back and binge all I’ve missed. This is the second video I came across ( I watched the previous first) and I am so impressed at your ability to tackle these topics with a rational lense. Thank you Alexander, you’re my light when the tunnel has been cemented.
Kevin Pereira
2024-01-07 05:45:09 +0000 UTC
