CoinCube, I propose we take a step back and depersonalize our discussion. I think what set me off is combination of factors including but not limited to:

1. Your statement that man can't know what is moral without a God, thus implying a holier than thou attitude (and that men can't think for themselves) about those who don't agree. And this combined with what I perceived to be personal judging, not all of it stated rather just a perception (and not all of our discussion being public but I am not insinuating you said anything to me in private that was obnoxious or demeaning). I don't want to try to explain this perception as it was a confluence of discussion where I perceive your allegiance to certain things (such as medical institutions) as absolute which I perceive to he holier than thou pedestals.

Personally I think it is much more meaningful when someone is empathetic to me not because God told him to do so, but because it in his own heart and mind. The God people always carry this holier than thou righteous, moral baggage which they can dump over our head at any time. And I have pointed out that it often doesn't correctly identify good from evil, given my stance that anything which does not further my cultural group evolutionary strategy is evil. But whereas the Bible is very clear that women should not have suffrage, yet then some religions ignore that wisdom so they are evil.

2. That this discussion has been ongoing while I have been in the midst of a very horrible nausea and in general delirious (nearly hallucinating) and generally not feeling well, because I been in the first two weeks of very toxic 4 drug TB therapy and also I was fighting some kind of salmonella poisoning (or whatever that was?) simultaneously.

3. Generally how everyone including yourself uses derogatory, demeaning terminology when referring to people with ideologies you disagree with. For example, you have said JAD is primitive. Excuse me, primitive would not be respecting women in a civilized society, it would dragging them around by their hair Neanderthal style.

4. In general how men who believe in women's equality feel very disgusted about men who ponder whether women should not be voting. The judging is palatable even when you aren't writing or speaking, just the reverberations of the word "primitive" is more than enough for me to know how you feel about our stance. It is quite demeaning to know that the other side thinks we are Neanderthals.


Btw, you playing the role of the victim begins to mimic the tactics of Marxists, so it is not becoming. And again I consider moralizing to be a weapon of mass destruction and also personally demeaning holier than thou judging, thus I could also play the role of the victim but I instead went on the offensive. Nevertheless how about we step back from the ledge of personalization and try to see if we can debate with more rationality and objectivity.

As for your wife, I have no reason to doubt that she is a great match for you (and no reason for me to not be happy that you have her), but my point is about the widescale effects of idolizing women in ways where we as men usurp our own natural obligation to lead. Most men can not find a highly educated wife who will stay home, bear, and raise 3 - 4 children. You have the advantage of having two degrees and being a doctor, so given the culture your wife originates from I think it is very likely she would subjugate herself in honor of her pride for her husband's very high status, because you know in her culture-of-origin status is very important. But how many men will be in that position (and what if they want a Caucasian woman who isn't impressed by status). I don't think you have reached 3 - 4 children yet either, but anyway I proposed to depersonalize this discussion. Because there are widescale impacts of putting the female hindbrain at par with the male when it comes to leading the society. And that is what suffrage for women does. And if we educate females too highly, then all sorts of bad things happen, including the fertility rate dropping below the replacement rate (and that is not including the social activism and Marxist education that most people get now at educational institutions). You claim this is not the case for orthodox Judaism, but you've also admitted that the Jews are very prone to fall out of orthodoxy and into social leftism and I assert this is because of overly educated women raising little boys and polluting their minds. Women are naturally drawn to social causes (even that orthodox woman's perspective I cited upthread has her mentioning doing work on social causes). It is their nature. And they do not appreciate economics. For them money and strategy are never more important than the babies and the social causes. So that is why they should not be voting. Otherwise we end up with social activism clusterfucks.

You apparently love your wife and view her as an objective, virtuous woman. But I mean in terms of cultural evolutionary strategy, I don't think a woman is capable of subjugating her priority set so she can become a man and have the man's priority set. So I am using virtuous in that context. A woman can be virtuous for nurturing.