Should White Males be Banned From Voting?

[Glacier]

Some of the biggest blows to the progressive cause in the past year have often been due to the votes of white men. If white men were not allowed to vote, it is unlikely that the United Kingdom would be leaving the European Union, it is unlikely that Donald Trump would now be the President of the United States, and it is unlikely that the Democratic Alliance would now be governing four of South Africa's biggest cities.

If white men no longer had the vote, the progressive cause would be strengthened. It would not be necessary to deny white men indefinitely – the denial of the vote to white men for 20 years (just less than a generation) would go some way to seeing a decline in the influence of reactionary and neo-liberal ideology in the world.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/shelley ... _22036640/

[Queen K]

come on, someone can really write satire.

[fvkasm2x]

:spitcoffee: come on, someone can really write satire.

If only that's what it were. Seems like a pretty legitimate viewpoint of hers to me

[Atomoa]

That's not satire. That's modern feminism.

The author :

Shelley Garland

Shelley Garland is an activist and a feminist and is currently completing an MA degree in philosophy. When she’s not gagging at South Africa’s unique brand of rainbow politics, she’s working on ways to smash the patriarchy.

[okanagankitchen]

I love this story... it helps (at least in my own mind) to prove a point I made to a co-worker of mine a few months ago (oh and my comments will $%#* off a lot of people, which I also welcome. At least it means you read my post)...

As a middle aged white male who owns a medium sized business, it is my opinion that I am a part of a group of the population that is the most underprivileged demographic in Canadian society. I clarified this by stating and challenging that my demographic :

- Has the least amount of advantages of any other class/race/age group/colour/etc/etc than any other group in our society. I challenged her to find one area of advantage given to my population group that is only given to my population group. I challenge you, the reader, to define one advantage given to my demographic.

- Have encountered specific opportunities available to other groups (see above comment for clarification of these groups) that I, as a free citizen, am NOT allowed to take advantage of. In our current society that promotes and apparently loves equality and equal access, I do NOT have access to numerous programs and facilities. There are many examples, so here are but a few.. womens only clubs, tax benefits limited to specific races, funding programs and grants only available to people of specific colour, race and gender (of which I do not qualify).
I challenge you, the reader to find a program available to me, a middle aged white male that is only available to me. Please, find one, I would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to sign up!

- Will always be seen as the MOST privileged. I seriously do not understand this stereotype. I have worked very hard for everything I have. I have never been handed anything by family, society or government. I am not "lucky" to have what I have, I earned it through sweat, risk and perseverance. I pay 100% of the taxes I owe. I do not lie, cheat or steal. I run an ethical business. So what makes me, or anyone in my demographic privileged? Please enlighten me.

I am so anxiously awaiting your responses, oh faithful readers...

[Silverstarqueen]

Something that comes to mind first Okkitchen, is you have the option of possibly being elected Prime Minister of Canada, or if you were American, being elected president of the U.S of A, or if you were Mexican, of being elected President. None of these countries has even come close to electing a female, so that eliminates a rather large part of the population. True you might not have a very good chance in Mexico unless you were of latin background. But as for the chance of a non-white being elected in U.s or Canada. we have so far one. Blacks need not apply, females, good luck with that idea.

[okanagankitchen]

Something that comes to mind first Okkitchen, is you have the option of possibly being elected Prime Minister of Canada, or if you were American, being elected president of the U.S of A, or if you were Mexican, of being elected President. None of these countries has even come close to electing a female, so that eliminates a rather large part of the population. True you might not have a very good chance in Mexico unless you were of latin background. But as for the chance of a non-white being elected in U.s or Canada. we have so far one. Blacks need not apply, females, good luck with that idea.

Thank you for the suggestions Silverstar, as scary as it sounds, I would love to be prime minister, but this is not a privilege reserved for any one specific demographic group. In fact I voted in the last provincial election for a female leader and technically in the USA most people voted for a female leader.
Now, historically white males have been the most common people elected to these positions, but why is this? Are most of the population white males? Nope, not even close, either in the USA or Canada. I do not know why this has been the historic choice, when it appears the best choices were anything BUT the white males we voted.
The right to be voted into office is not, in any way, restricted to white males, NOR do we have an advantage in any such election.
A decent example, but not a privilege reserved for my demographic group.

[Silverstarqueen]

If you would like a more exclusive male club, you could enter the priesthood. Okay there are some lifestyle changes you might not be interested in. But the ultimate positions, like cardinals and the Pope (more prestigious than Prime Minister), are only open to males and not too much competition from blacks either I don't think.

[okanagankitchen]

If you would like a more exclusive male club, you could enter the priesthood. Okay there are some lifestyle changes you might not be interested in. But the ultimate positions, like cardinals and the Pope (more prestigious than Prime Minister), are only open to males and not too much competition from blacks either I don't think.

That is a a really good example, but alas it once again does not meet the requirements to give me an edge in joining. I never actually mentioned a male exclusive club, although I can understand your confusion based on most examples I discussed.

The priesthood is typically (but not entirely) limited to male membership. However, ethnicity is not limited to white men. So once again, this is a not a group or club that I have the privilege of joining as a middle aged white male and having any advantage.

A link to the requirements of becoming a priest:

http://work.chron.com/catholic-priest-r ... -4196.html

To further complicate the requirements, I do not have a college education, I am not religious (and as a result, I am not catholic) so do not attend church, I am married (and actually have sex, believe it or not!), the list goes on, but again, this group does not fit my simple demographic of being a middle aged white male.

This is quote honestly awesome, I really had to think on this example and I thought you had found an example that actually gave me a privilege as a member of my specific demographic, but the biggest inclusive factor is really that this is for the most part (but again not entirely!) limited to my sex, but not my age, race or ethnicity.

[JLives]

That's not satire. That's modern feminism.

No, it isn't. It's one person's view that is extreme and doesn't deserve airtime as a serious consideration. Sure, there are others who agree with her but women make up half the population. We don't all think alike you know.

[Silverstarqueen]

I think black women are feeling disenfranchised in American (and probably south african ) politics.
So not surprising that in a fit of frustration, they come up with an impossible alternative.
Example:Only two African american women elected to U.S. Senate.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-e ... te-n680726

[Atomoa]

No, it isn't. It's one person's view that is extreme and doesn't deserve airtime as a serious consideration. Sure, there are others who agree with her but women make up half the population. We don't all think alike you know.

I see the "male tears" coffee cup en masse being bought and used amongst mainstream feminists. I read this sort of crap on a daily basis on mensrights forums written by various University women's studies professors and prominent feminists. I just linked a video on the University of Calgary's head Women's Studies professor telling CBC radio that the men's rights movement was about men wanting to have the right to rape women.

https://twitter.com/MaineFirstMedia/sta ... 2413358080

Have you watched The Red Pill?

I get it - you dont want to be associated with such nonsense. I dont blame you.

Sorry for "mansplaining" if I was.

[JLives]

I see the "male tears" coffee cup en masse being bought and used amongst mainstream feminists. I am also very well read on the subject. I get it - you dont want to be associated with such nonsense but yet here you are.

You're well read? So what? What does that even mean? I read a lot too. I'm a woman and I think it's crap. Lots of other women do too. Go look at your posts in the other thread on how men are perceived and how that's not fair. Now come back to this one and see what you just posted. We're both halfish the population and are represented by every sort of person who has ever existed. You will find any type you are looking for. I represent myself only.

[fvkasm2x]

Something that comes to mind first Okkitchen, is you have the option of possibly being elected Prime Minister of Canada, or if you were American, being elected president of the U.S of A, or if you were Mexican, of being elected President. None of these countries has even come close to electing a female,

I literally cringe when I read your posts.

Kim Campbell did pretty well for a woman in politics. I know you didn't mention other first world countries, but Merkel and Thatcher led countries that are seen as world leaders in most aspects of living.

The US also not only came close, the popular vote went to a woman (and probably the 2nd worst candidate of all time, behind the orange idiot she lost to). Look at women in power in Canada. You have Wynne, Clark and Notley (although maybe bad examples, since everyone hates them). Two of the strongest candidates to replace leadership in Canada right now are women (Rona Ambrose and Kellie Leitch)

Women have the possibility of being world leaders and to claim otherwise is just ridiculous. In fact, after this Trump fiasco... I bet if a woman (ANY WOMAN) ran in the next election down there, she would win.

[Silverstarqueen]

In "other countries" women prime ministers have been elected. That still doesn't mean North America has elected one.
Kim Campbell did pretty well "for a woman", a comment that speaks for itself. We don't expect women to do much better than be a provincial leader. That's progress, that's not equality.
As for your prediction that a woman would be assured to be elected president in the U.S. (aside from the obvious fact that it has NEVER been done), I don't even think it is likely. The proof is in the pudding. And right now the pudding says Women in North America haven't been elected to lead in their country. Just the fact that a woman got more votes in a U.S. presidential election than a man and still didn't win is pretty ironic don't you think? What that election demonstrated is that you can take arguably the most powerful jackass in the U.S. and if he runs against a woman, he will win.
If the U.s. or Canada elected even one female federal leader, it still wouldn't prove women were equal. Just as electing one black leader, did not mean African Americans have equal rights in the U.S. It only means, finally, some progress has been made.
Campbell was not elected, and never sat in parliament. Perfect example of tokenism. And of the tunnel vision of men who think that somehow means things are equal (or almost equal) for women in this country.
Just because women are doing so much better than a hundred years ago, doesn't mean they are equal in our society.
If we elect a woman for every federal election in the next fifty years (just to even the stats out a little) then we could say women have acheived somewhere near the same power that men have.
I don't think we should take the vote away from white men, because I think it will be a very good indicator, when Canada can regularly elect a woman as Prime Minister (or the U.s. a female President), doesn't even have to be every election. Because then we will know that women have acheived equality on this continent.