Anti-Male sexism exists.

I met this guy the other day.   He claimed he wasn't a racist because he liked black folk just fine, it was just n-word he hated.   I was shocked of course. 

This man is a racist.  The n-word is just code for black people he dislikes.   Just because you recognize that not all of a group conforms to your racist beliefs does not mean you are not a racist.

A transvestite is a man that refuse to conform to our sexist stereotypes.  They dress and act like women.  That's all.  Nothing necessary sexual about it.  Nothing perverted or otherwise evil.  Just refusing to abide by the sexist stereotype.  

Please note the t word is used almost exclusively to talk about men dressing as women.  No one calls a women that dresses in slacks a transvestite.

To the extent that our society is prejudiced against transvestites, it is prejudiced against ALL men.  You can't say "I only dislike men that dress and act like women", that  is just as bigoted as saying you like black people fine, just not n-word. 

The real issue here is that the our society evolved out of a heavily sexist culture that considered women second class citizens.  Which means that men that trying to act like women get treated as if they are trying to be weak.

As we evolved, we have begun to overcome these issues, but obviously we still have a long way to go.  Women have earned the right to vote, the right to work, and the right to choose if they will  have a child or not.  Men have not been given similar rights.   But if I were to name those rights, you would claim I was defending weaklings.   The men that want those rights are called unworthy of being called men.

Our society has reluctantly come to accept the women that break these stereotypes.  Powerful women (even while we pay them less than men, and generally mistreats them) are still admired.  Now a days, a woman that becomes a doctor, lawyer, etc. is considered a 'catch' as a wife.  But a man that becomes a nurse, para-legal, etc. is not.

Men are considered weak if we break these stereotypes.  Which is why the men's rights groups are full of horrible, weak people.  Most of us are still taught to hide our weakness, and the men's rights groups tend to attract only those that embrace those weaknesses.

But that does not change the fact that we are still massively prejudiced against these men - even if they complain about it in a manner that reflects poorly on them.

The self same behavior that we dislike about them would be much more accepted as normal if done by women.   Women complaining about men all the time.  Most men don't dare complain about women, on pain of, well, being treated like those poor men in Men's Rights Groups.

Transvestites are men that dress and act as women. If our society is prejudiced against transvestites, then we are prejudiced against ALL men.

Moral Atheism vs Religion, and the Prisoner's Dilemma

The Prisoner's Dilemma is a ethical quandary.  In short, two prisoners are arrested with a minor amount of evidence against them.  If neither squeal, they get a light sentence (1 year for example).  If both squeals, they both get medium sentences (2 years) , if only one squeals, the squealer goes free while the upstanding criminal gets a heavy sentence (3 years).

Each individual prisoner is better off if they squeal: if you don't squeal you will either get 1 year or 3 years, if you do squeal you will either get 0 years or 2 years. Yet, people do not squeal.  In real life, many, many criminals are offered something very close to this, yet they do not rat. Most humans understand why this happens, it's a recognition of an unspoken contract and sticking to it because you realize the group as a whole is better off.  (Note, religion has nothing to do with it - these prisoners are not afraid God will punish them for squealing. )

But not everyone does keep silent.  Some people do squeal.   They do so because they think it is better to take advantage of the unspoken social contract, rather than to obey it.

There is a psychological word for these people:  "sociopath".  Sociopaths recognize what they are doing and feel guilt about it, but they do it anyway.  They are not pyschopaths - who feel no guilt and may not even understand why it is wrong.  Sociopath simply thinks that while society benefits from the unspoken social contracts, they personally are better off if they break it - just like the Prisoner's Dilemma.

A friend recently sent me a video from a man named Jordan Preston, claiming that religion was the only reason not to commit a crime (squeal).  Jordan is wrong, and is in fact a sociopath.   He knows about the unspoken social contract, but thinks there is no reason for anyone to follow it.

The reason most people do not commit crimes is not, as Preston thinks, only God.  Instead it is four fold.

First, the unspoken contract - I agree not to murder, steal, cheat, etc. because I want other people not to murder, steal, cheat against me.

Second, even if I am a sociopath, I also understand that the government has created a legal system, complete with cops, judges, lawyers, etc. to enforce the social contract, at least the parts they wrote down.  As such, I must take into account the chance of being caught and punished for my crimes.

Third is the social disproval, should I be found out.   This applies to all of the unspoken contract, even the stuff not written down as law.  I.E.  Should you skip the line, people will get upset and you know it.  If people get too upset, they can even riot and/or lynch you.   See the poor black men that were lynched  for decades (even centuries) after the American civil war - they broke the vile rules white men enforced even if they were not written down as laws.  Or see the parts of Mexico where vigilante citizen groups are in a war against the cartels.

Fourth, one of the advantages of religion is (as Mr. Preston pointed out), to convince people that even if our faulty legal system doesn't catch you and punish you, God will.

For someone to commit a crime, the following has to happen:

1)  They must either be a sociopath, or be pushed out of the social contact by others (i.e.  if no one is willing to sell you food, you will steal it rather than starve).
2)  They must also be willing to risk the legal system - they must believe the  potential gain outweighs the risk of legal punishment.
3)  They must also be willing to risk illegal revenge by a lynch mob.  Generally this risk is relatively small if the legal system is strong, but where the legal system is weak, this risk increases.
4) Finally, they also must believe God will not punish them (or much rarely, that the punishment would be worth it.)

These situations are rare. Less than 1 in 20 people decide to commit a crime, at least in America.  But Religion is the last and weakest of the stopgaps.

Usually if you are capable of believing in God, you are also capable of believe in the social contract.  It takes a lot of education to convince a sociopath that God is real and that they will punish you for evil you do. It's not impossible, but it does happen.  Many sociopaths become atheists, but that does NOT mean that many atheists are sociopaths.  All lions are cats does not mean all cats are lions - most cats are house pets.

When you fail to understand that atheists have lots of very good reasons not to commit crimes, you are not being 'rational', as Mr. Preston claims, instead you are being sociopathic.  Failing to understand the basic unspoken social contract.

This is all made worse by one simple factor: Religion does control people's behavior, but there is nothing stopping Religion from being used to make people do evil rather than good.  And throughout history, every single major religion has been used to do evil. Every religion has a Spanish Inquisition, jihadists, or similar fanatical extremists that break the law in the name of God.  Mormons - some of the least criminal people in the world - have a history of murdering people and blaming Indians.  Even Buddhists attack Muslims in Myanmar.  Religion's ability to control people is not always good.

Many atheists believe that the good religion has done is outweighed by the bad.  There is no way to actually tell if this is true, but crime statistics in atheist countries support this belief.  (https://www.quora.com/Are-atheists-more-or-less-likely-to-be-criminals-than-theists)

Quadrant Voting Vs Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering is a complex issue.   We want to let communities vote without outside interference, allowing, for example, a hispanic community to elect a hispanic representative, despite being surrounded by non-hispanic people.  But we don't want one political party to use it to prevent subsections of people from having a voice in politics.


So here is a radical, new version of democracy to consider.  I call it Quadrant voting.

Basically, we group districts into sets of three to five contiguous quadrants, with a requirement of each state having no more than 3 quadrants having less than or more than 4 districts.  All votes are done over an entire quadrant, for the party, not the candidates.  

In the primary elections, the parties members select the four (or 5 if the quadrant has 5 congressmen), best vote getters, and they rank them from least to most popular.

Say your quadrant (like most) was entitled to 4 congressmen and the GOP had six nominees in the primary.  They would end up with the 4 highest vote getters being listed in the general, for example: #1 Smith (most votes), #2 Johnson,  #3 Rodriguez and 4 Peterson.

When the General election is held, you vote for the party, not the man, and you get just a single vote for the entire quadrant.   In a 4 district quadrant, if your party wins 21% of the vote, you get one congressmen, 42% you get two, 63% you get 3, 84% you get four congressmen.  (Three District, the numbers are 26%, 52% and 78%. Five District quadrant use 17%, 34%, 51%, 68%, and 85%).  So Peterson only gets elected if the GOP gets 84% of the quadrant's vote. 

Given our current system, most of the time the quadrants would be fighting to get to 63% for the third vote.

Note that this makes the primary more important.  The quadrant system basically ensures that the congressional make up will match the state's make up, and that party's best vote getter will always stay in power - it's only their secondary people that get kicked out.   It's really hard kick someone out of power if their own party likes them.

Moreover, it ensures that communities can elect someone that represents them.  Have a city that's 30% black, 30% Hispanic, and 40% white?   You are going to get one at least one black, one Hispanic and one white congressmen.  Only the last one is up for debate.

More importantly, gerrymandering is now meaningless.  Make one quadrant 90% black, you just gave them four congressmen and less than 6% wasted votes.  Make your own quadrant 63% Republican, your opponent still gets one out of 4 congressmen - two if your party does something stupid and loses some of the expected vote.

Basically, much fewer votes get wasted.

It would make minor changes more important for the general vote count.

The downside is you are voting for the party, not the man.  People at the center of big scandals would still get elected if they were more popular inside their own party - it would be their less popular associates that pay the price, rather than them.

Effectively, this Roy Moore would win, but it would also mean that they would have a lot less power. And his own party would be very very upset with him for losing them votes.

It would also mean that a lot more states would be much closer to 50-50. 

The governing party is always conservative.

There is a common refrain among conservatives that states:

In any stable country, the most common political belief is conservatism.

This statement, without any proof is usually taken at face value.

While I suspect it is true, they are ignoring several important factors.

First, it using the definition of conservative as "conserving the past and reluctant to change" and nothing else.   It is not the more commonly promoted anti-tax, anti-regulation, pro-religious politics used as propaganda by the current Republican Party.  The actual core philosophies of the Republican Party are different than either of these.  In the 2000's it was a rural party, and Donald Trump is remaking it into a fascist party.

Second, people and political parties are not one thing, they are often several things.   Life is complicated.   Every political party has some conservatism and some liberalism, they also have some aspects of authoritarianism, freedom, etc.  When I say a party is conservative, it generally means they are more conservative than most other parties they compete with.

Thirdly, there is the difference between the beliefs and philosophy claimed and the beliefs they use to decide how to actually govern.


Which leads me to my main point. 

Assuming the aphorism is true, not only are the majority of the population always conservative, but by definition so must the party in power be.  Regardless of what they say they are.   At least for their real beliefs, if not their claimed beliefs.  If they've been in power for more than two years, they become conservative because they cease trying to pass new kinds of laws and instead merely try to maintain the changes they already passed.
So at the height of Obama's power - just after he passed Obamacare - the DEMOCRATS were the conservative party.  Yes, they had hints of urbanism and progressiveness, but conservative became their major trait.   The democrats may have claimed to be liberals, but they were conservatives.

At that time, the Republican party, despite claiming to be a conservative party, was actually a "Radical Right" party - a political party intent on overturning the current improvements and returning to older methods.

When the Republicans get into power, after they pass their laws, they become a conservative party and the Democrats stop being conservatives and become progressive party.  They retained hints of urbanism as well as a few other flavors (pro-environment, anti-discrimination, etc.)

If you are wondering where the liberals are, they go by the name "libertarian".  The word liberal refers to someone that cares more about freedom and liberty than anything else.   But they can never truly gain power because their political belief is at heart against government power.  It's like a pacifist army - a silly idea that won't work.

P.S.  Just as the Democrats and Republicans aren't really liberals or conservatives, most of the time the people claiming to be libertarians aren't really libertarians.  Sometimes they are Radicals that like freedom, sometimes they are Conservatives that like freedom, and s