Peak Constitutional Amendment - XIX, Part 2

Posted On: Tuesday - July 14th 2020 11:36AM MST
In Topics: 
  Feminism  Hildabeast  Morning Constitutional

Continued from Amendment XI, Amendment XII, Amendment XIII, Amendment XIV, Amendment XV, Part 1 on Amendment XVI, Part 2 on Amendment XVI , Part 3 on Amendment XVI, Amendment XVII, Amendment XVIII, and Part 1 on Amendment XIX .)

Part 1 of our Amendment XIX discussion contained a few details on the history of Amendment XIX to the US Constitution and its proposal and ratification in 1919-1920, a century ago. In this post Peak Stupidity will explain why this one was another really bad idea.

I looked up some data on voting patterns during Presidential elections, such as that below from the Pew Research organization from exit polls.

I couldn't get but so far back a whole century (perhaps exit polling is a fairly recent thing), but this is opinion here, not a Sociology papers, and we feel our common sense is just as good as one of those. It's back to the I know what I know, if you know what I mean. meme. Here's what I know, if you know what I mean:

There is evolutionary psychology. It's an interesting subject, one that I had never even though about until reading comments on the internet a decade ago (now, there's some scholarly work!), but one that has to have some truth to it. Like most of evolutionary theory/hypotheses though, such as what could help in the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate, nobody seems to have any numbers.

There's no doubt that women and men are different creatures is more ways that just external features, and didn't the difference in mindsets come from our different roles in ancient history (hunters vs. gatherers, etc.)? One would think there would have to be an evolutionary element that persists in the present day, just as with race or the difference between the mindset of dogs and cats. You'll find this kind of thinking all over the internet comment threads when any mention of women's bad behavior is discussed. However, it's easy to explain almost ANY kind of behavior with evolutionary psychology - "yeah, they are like this, because the opposite behavior would have gotten them killed or reduced their chances of mating due to this .." You can come up with an EP explanation for about anything.

Presidential voting exit polls aside, we all know that women, as nurturers, have a different attitude about, say justice vs. mercy, and are supposedly more compassionate than men (more on both), etc. Then, there's the point that women use their feelings rather than logic or principles much of the time to make decisions. Speaking of polling data, though, the old story from the 1960 Nixon vs. Kennedy election, that those who saw the debate on TV (the beginnings of TV's involvement) favored Kennedy's having won the debate, while it was the opposite for those listening on radio. Is there any doubt that this would apply to women more than men. "Oh, he's so charismatic, that young JFK!"

Yeah, I know, one could say, what about the alt-right men's fixation with Tulsi Gabbard, early-on possibility for Blue-squad candidate, pretty much because she has a nice rear end?* What about Sarah Palin, VP candidate with John McCain in 2008**. When it comes down to it, though this may help visibility of a female candidate, men will vote more on logic than their feelings of lust, most of them knowing that their one secret ballot will not get them laid with a particular candidate. (Honking the horn when she's crossing the intersection is a better bet than that!) Geraldine Ferraro, the first female VP candidate, running mate to Walter Mondale against Ronald Reagan, was no hottie at all. And then there's Maude the Hildabeast. Actually, I remember that I liked her in the nice long hair back when husband Bill was running for office in 1992, but her using the non-elected spousal powers in an attempt to implement Government health care in 2 years later completely overrode any possible favorability toward her I may have had.

Voting for the big cheeses on the TV debates is one thing, but all the local/State stuff is important too. For voting of all sorts, the problem comes in that the candidates will pander to the whims of the voters, rather than any Constitutional principles. We're going to continue on this topic tomorrow.

* There IS more to this, of course, as Miss Gaddard was one of the only of these politicians of either squad to come out strong against America's war-mongering around the world. They seemed to forget that she was a complete Socialist SJW type otherwise though.

** Sure, she had a nice rack. Was that the cause of her popularity? For me, it was simply that she was a real Conservative at heart, and about the only reason I might have voted for John McCain, hoping he'd kick it in the first few months.

Wednesday - July 15th 2020 8:09PM MST
PS: Thanks for the comments, both of you. Mr. Blanc, I appreciate the on-the-scene reminiscence from Mme B.

About Evolutionary Psychology, or really, all evolutionary theory, I'd just like the proponents to come up with some numerical modeling. Unlike with very complex problems with lots processes unknown - Global Climate Disruption(TM), etc, in this case it shouldn't be that hard. They need a model hat takes into account mutation rates, natural selection effectiveness, etc. to demonstrate that some of the changes to animals and human beings could have happened over the time span that is in question.

It's a very simple and elegant theory, natural selection. It's not that I don't believe it, but some of the (Fred Reed's, per instance) doubts about how drastic new features of animals could have come about, seem to be good arguments and should be taken seriously.
Tuesday - July 14th 2020 11:30PM MST
PS: Speaking of 'Just so' stories, "the Cat that Walked by Himself" is by far my favorite.

P.S. And no, I am one of those that do not beleeve in any of the many variants of the Neo-Darwinian Theories of Evolution by Natural Selection. I almost did not get my A.B. because of the Biology requirement; but luckily I managed to eke out a 'C' with an anti-evolution paper, even though my test scores should have given me a 'B' with a near-zero on the writing component.
Tuesday - July 14th 2020 3:22PM MST
PS All arguments about evolution by natural selection are “just so” arguments. The evolution of life on Earth is a singular, and, as Aristotle pointed out, there is no science of a singular. Science studies universals. Nevertheless, there are some pretty suggestive ideas in evolutionary psychology. Not that you need evolutionary psychology to know that males and females are behaviorally, as well physically, different. Everyone who makes it to about five years old can see that that is the case. It’s taken fifty years of incessant feminist and post-structuralist propaganda to convince some people otherwise. And based on the non-scientific sample of those that I’ve encountered who say that that don’t believe it, mental instability often accompanies disbelief in the differences.

Speaking of JFK, Mme B was 10 years old during the 1960 election campaign. She says that she and all her girlfriends were gaga over Kennedy, because “he was so cute”. Now part of might have been because she came from a working-class family that voted Dem. But I’m pretty sure that a good part of it was incipient sexuality.
WHAT SAY YOU? : (PLEASE NOTE: You must type capital PS as the 1st TWO characters in your comment body - for spam avoidance - or the comment will be lost!)