In appalachia I worked in a few factories. Women worked in all of them.
They mostly did stuff like run the smaller assemblies or just restock inventory.
I didnt see many actually running the main machines, never seen a woman welder in appalachia. Seen a few of them in nova scotia though. Not to brag but one place I worked at, I was way faster at loading the final assembly than anyone on my shift or anyone on the other shifts. Almost seems like a dream now, I went from working 70 hour weeks to barely being able to do 30, to not being able to hold a full time job now. The only thing I have to look forward to now is homelessness and the soon sweet release of death.
Like the above user said, most women dont want to do physically grueling work.
I'd be a fan of banning all political parties, but I have no idea how that could even be enforceable.
I think the closest thing anyone could do is force a bill where the only allowed funding for any legislative member would be exclusively through direct fundraising by their own constituents. Your constituents have to personally donate money to you directly to get a salary. No pacs, no LLCs, no corporate donations. That also is the only source of all campaign funding as well.
Replace elected representatives with a jury system of eligible voters. (after restricting eligibility) You will still get idiots from time to time but over time they will represent the population perfectly.
I also like your funding idea and have considered that one myself.
I'm concerned about a jury system of eligible voters because I fear that might create a deep state that's even worse than the one we have. No juror would truly know the government.
The only way that that kind of system would work is to give the randomly selected person the kind of powers that the president has: "all public officials exist solely at the discretion of the specific electee that is currently serving". this would also mean you wouldn't be allowed to have independent bodies, and that entire agencies would have to fall under the purview of a specific electee seat.
How's it harsh? You get a whole free chance. I'm of the opinion that wanting to run for office is one of the easiest metrics by which to disqualify you from office.
And the truly great statemen and leaders have always had their skin in the game.
I'd also be comfortable with the notion of seizing your assets upon gaining public office.
So you better be serious about it if you've gotten rejected once and still want to try again. And none of this getting elected, losing, winning, losing again bullshit. Voter fatigue shouldn't be your ticket to office.
Bills should be the same way, any bill or provision that fails twice cannot be brought for 20 years.
I started at one loss should be execution, this is my compromise version.
ETA: Politicians aren't human to begin with. Career politicians are demonic spawn.
You don't have any other measure of getting people into politics besides an election. It also means executing anyone who "loses" an election due to corruption.
Correct. You've identified the paradox of power, and therefore the reason for my goal of making it largely unattractive to anybody who doesn't already have in built popular support.
Granted I also would take a cleaver to universal suffrage and most direct elections regardless
Outing herself as being completely uneducated, I guess. Manufactor = Manus + Facere: Hand + Create. Literally to make something through the effort of your hands. It's from latin, the dead give away is the "or" suffix on the root "fact" which denotes changes it to a title for a person doing the thing. The english equivalent is "er" or "ard".
Fun fact, the female equivalent to the "tor/or" suffis "trix", so a woman who makes things by hand would be a Manufactrix, and this senator would be a Stupifactrix.
Bring back the classics in school so people can stop being retarded through preventable ignorance.
We're dealing with the sort of retards who think ''his''tory is sexist, and that ''humankind'' still isn't woke enough because it has ''man'' in it, so say ''peoplekind''.
In fairness to the communist bastard, it was fairly tounge-in-cheek. He did that because both she, and the audience, and the place he was in were all very ideologically captured. I think she responded with, "You're right, thank you". It was a very friendly crowd and everyone laughed because they thought it was very smart of him to say because it proves his loyalty to the cause.
Most people would have said many other things in response to him saying that.
Only sort of, it's a bit of a leading question for a woman.
He's really asking: "What do you value more: money or attention?" Women, unsurprisingly, universally choose attention. Men, also unsurprisingly, will almost universally choose money.
This is just weasel language to get away from the MAIN reason why women aren't in those jobs:
It's physically demanding.
Women avoid manufacturing work because it's regarded as low status. It's not white collar.
Also very harsh work environment that caters to the lowest common denominator. Youre treated like a cog, because you are one.
In appalachia I worked in a few factories. Women worked in all of them.
They mostly did stuff like run the smaller assemblies or just restock inventory.
I didnt see many actually running the main machines, never seen a woman welder in appalachia. Seen a few of them in nova scotia though. Not to brag but one place I worked at, I was way faster at loading the final assembly than anyone on my shift or anyone on the other shifts. Almost seems like a dream now, I went from working 70 hour weeks to barely being able to do 30, to not being able to hold a full time job now. The only thing I have to look forward to now is homelessness and the soon sweet release of death.
Like the above user said, most women dont want to do physically grueling work.
Oh no! You mean I won't have enough time to shoot office tiktoks?!
I want a 150k job in an office that allows me to do my tiktoks!!!!!!!!
more than you'd think, honestly. when I worked for master woodcraft, about half the people on day shift in the hotpress area were women.
Old buzzard's just grasping at straws, because she has nothing substantial to bring to the table.
She's retarded for sure. But she's won her seat ever two years since 1999. The people voting her in for twenty fucking years are no better.
Result of playing 'my team' with politics, you could put a glass of water, slap a D next to it and it'd win her district.
I'd be a fan of banning all political parties, but I have no idea how that could even be enforceable.
I think the closest thing anyone could do is force a bill where the only allowed funding for any legislative member would be exclusively through direct fundraising by their own constituents. Your constituents have to personally donate money to you directly to get a salary. No pacs, no LLCs, no corporate donations. That also is the only source of all campaign funding as well.
Replace elected representatives with a jury system of eligible voters. (after restricting eligibility) You will still get idiots from time to time but over time they will represent the population perfectly.
I also like your funding idea and have considered that one myself.
I'm concerned about a jury system of eligible voters because I fear that might create a deep state that's even worse than the one we have. No juror would truly know the government.
The only way that that kind of system would work is to give the randomly selected person the kind of powers that the president has: "all public officials exist solely at the discretion of the specific electee that is currently serving". this would also mean you wouldn't be allowed to have independent bodies, and that entire agencies would have to fall under the purview of a specific electee seat.
My idea is that if you run for federal office and lose twice in your lifetime you're executed.
That's a little harsh. That would only work in an already perfect system.
How's it harsh? You get a whole free chance. I'm of the opinion that wanting to run for office is one of the easiest metrics by which to disqualify you from office.
And the truly great statemen and leaders have always had their skin in the game.
I'd also be comfortable with the notion of seizing your assets upon gaining public office.
So you better be serious about it if you've gotten rejected once and still want to try again. And none of this getting elected, losing, winning, losing again bullshit. Voter fatigue shouldn't be your ticket to office.
Bills should be the same way, any bill or provision that fails twice cannot be brought for 20 years.
I started at one loss should be execution, this is my compromise version.
ETA: Politicians aren't human to begin with. Career politicians are demonic spawn.
You don't have any other measure of getting people into politics besides an election. It also means executing anyone who "loses" an election due to corruption.
Correct. You've identified the paradox of power, and therefore the reason for my goal of making it largely unattractive to anybody who doesn't already have in built popular support.
Granted I also would take a cleaver to universal suffrage and most direct elections regardless
Outing herself as being completely uneducated, I guess. Manufactor = Manus + Facere: Hand + Create. Literally to make something through the effort of your hands. It's from latin, the dead give away is the "or" suffix on the root "fact" which denotes changes it to a title for a person doing the thing. The english equivalent is "er" or "ard".
Fun fact, the female equivalent to the "tor/or" suffis "trix", so a woman who makes things by hand would be a Manufactrix, and this senator would be a Stupifactrix.
Bring back the classics in school so people can stop being retarded through preventable ignorance.
We're dealing with the sort of retards who think ''his''tory is sexist, and that ''humankind'' still isn't woke enough because it has ''man'' in it, so say ''peoplekind''.
Justin Castro unironically ''corrected'' a woman not being inclusive enough and she has to say ''peoplekind''.
In fairness to the communist bastard, it was fairly tounge-in-cheek. He did that because both she, and the audience, and the place he was in were all very ideologically captured. I think she responded with, "You're right, thank you". It was a very friendly crowd and everyone laughed because they thought it was very smart of him to say because it proves his loyalty to the cause.
Most people would have said many other things in response to him saying that.
implying it isn't intentional, lol.
Ah, that explains why more women can't use manual transmissions either.
to be fair, I probably couldn't either, but only because I've never owned one, lol.
I don't think it's a probably, you can't as a certainty.
The reality: women will only work safe/cushy lazy jobs :
https://x.com/mylordbebo/status/1643381888034250755
Only sort of, it's a bit of a leading question for a woman.
He's really asking: "What do you value more: money or attention?" Women, unsurprisingly, universally choose attention. Men, also unsurprisingly, will almost universally choose money.
And the left still doesn't understand why they lost
She reminds me of the time some dumbass said he was worried about putting too many marines on Guam because it could tip over
Wow, yeah that's a level of dumb you don't see too often.
With this type of thinking, the people for example working in the banana fields must be Bananufacturing.
manus means hand, not male.
Is that why there are no good actresses these days? Because no talented women want to read MANuscripts?
That explains it! 🙂
There are things so dumb to hear you wish either you or the retard saying it died before they were said so your poor braincells didn't have to suffer.
Shocking that she degrades herself with such use of a mandible.
''-wsky'' oh cmon, it's too easy.
go to bed grandma