Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hate to sound sexist, I'm really not. I have been around women all my life. But, women don't think the same as men. And there is certainly nothing wrong with the way women think in general terms. They are useful at being caretakers, that maternal instinct. But I still think allowing them to vote was a horrible idea.
Anyway, I was looking over some Pew research studies today, and saw this quiz to see how you line up on the political spectrum(I'm right where I thought I would be, rofl).
Anyway, when i was going over the average results by sex, I noticed that women tend to be significantly more leftist than men. Which is really pretty much common sense. But, it got me thinking, how would this country have been different if women had never been allowed to vote.
Well, I can't say that we are any better off because of the woman vote. I really blame them for the welfare state that we are becoming. And the total destruction of the family and our values. While imposing strict social engineering and economic controls.
Basically, I feel that women are ruining America.
If you disagree, then please explain what the woman vote has done to help America in any conceivable way.
looking at your prior posts, you said that you voted for obama in 2008.
then you say that you object to america becoming a welfare state, with social engineering and economic controls.
I know this to be the driving force behind many feminist women, including some in my own family. And it's very sad.
But it should help you empathize with a rising generation of men who are anti-feminist, in part, due to the misandry of their feminist mothers (and teachers, etc.).
It isn't sad, it was a natural reaction to being disrespected by someone who never missed an opportunity to put down women in his presence.
Feminism is NOT misandry. I can fight for equal rights without ever devaluing or demeaning any man.
The same does not appear to be the case with the growing misogynist movement (also represented by many 'father's rights' groups, as it turns out), based on their actions and words. The more I read about this movement, the more I pity them.
A common theme among many of these men (and the women who sympathize with them) is that they feel that men should hold dominance over women, by force if need be. These tend to be men who feel that women are the source of their problems: through messy divorces/being forced to pay child support, getting served with protection orders, they were passed over for promotion in favor of women, etc. Politically, they are the ones who see social programs and 'liberal' politics and blame women for their own party's failure in blocking them.
In short, they feel like they are no longer in control, no longer the dominant force in the world...and what better way to reclaim their 'rightful place' than to attempt to strip the voting rights of women. Dominance by force.
These are very insecure people who cannot own their inadequacies in life, and they're having a whopper of a hissy fit.
Disenfranchising an entire gender may make sense to someone wanting totalitarianism, not so much for someone who actually believes in American government of, by, and for the people.
Ahh, women aren't buying the Republican BS so right wingers are mad that women get to vote. And then you guys have the nerve to claim you're not waging a war against women.
It's called freedom and liberty where everyone has the same rights. It just took awhile for our controlling government to pull their heads out of their backside. You don't get your rights from belonging to a group.
It isn't sad, it was a natural reaction to being disrespected by someone who never missed an opportunity to put down women in his presence.
Feminism is NOT misandry. I can fight for equal rights without ever devaluing or demeaning any man.
The same does not appear to be the case with the growing misogynist movement (also represented by many 'father's rights' groups, as it turns out), based on their actions and words. The more I read about this movement, the more I pity them.
A common theme among many of these men (and the women who sympathize with them) is that they feel that men should hold dominance over women, by force if need be. These tend to be men who feel that women are the source of their problems: through messy divorces/being forced to pay child support, getting served with protection orders, they were passed over for promotion in favor of women, etc. Politically, they are the ones who see social programs and 'liberal' politics and blame women for their own party's failure in blocking them.
In short, they feel like they are no longer in control, no longer the dominant force in the world...and what better way to reclaim their 'rightful place' than to attempt to strip the voting rights of women. Dominance by force.
These are very insecure people who cannot own their inadequacies in life, and they're having a whopper of a hissy fit.
Disenfranchising an entire gender may make sense to someone wanting totalitarianism, not so much for someone who actually believes in American government of, by, and for the people.
ALL the people.
Who'd have thought it... In my country i'm 'normal', in your country i'm a 'feminist'.....
I really have a hard time putting into words how I feel about some of the things that i've seen posted on here (and other political/social sites) with regards to how some aspects of US society view women. Not Women in politics, women with regards to society or women in the family home but women, women in all aspects. I really can't fathom how a first world country that many have looked to (rightly or wrongly) and aspired to has reached a stage where these thoughts are considered by some (many?) to be rational. People with wives, sisters and daughters want to limit the lives, choices and opportunities of those that they love. I can't understand it to be honest, to me it's nonsensical, illogical.
What happend to this?:
Quote:
Historian James Truslow Adams popularized the phrase "American Dream" in his 1931 book Epic of America:
But there has been also the American dream, that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for every man, with opportunity for each according to his ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.
Who'd have thought it... In my country i'm 'normal', in your country i'm a 'feminist'.....
I really have a hard time putting into words how I feel about some of the things that i've seen posted on here (and other political/social sites) with regards to how some aspects of US society view women. Not Women in politics, women with regards to society or women in the family home but women, women in all aspects. I really can't fathom how a first world country that many have looked to (rightly or wrongly) and aspired to has reached a stage where these thoughts are considered by some (many?) to be rational. People with wives, sisters and daughters want to limit the lives, choices and opportunities of those that they love. I can't understand it to be honest, to me it's nonsensical, illogical.
I think that this is generally a fringe position, so there's nothing to worry about. A much more common position is to be against sexism period. The thing is, though, sexism exists both against females and against males. It's not about picking sides, unless the side is sexist versus not sexist.
As to the OP, this is 2012. The whole premise is silly. Women should have equal rights. Even if the characteristics the OP describes of women were to be true, it doesn't matter and it's totally irrelevant.
OP, your problem isn't as much with women as it is with voting. The concept of voting exists to settle issues between people who disagree. You just don't want anyone with whom you disagree to have the right to vote. Unfortunately for you, things don't work that way here. It's an odd stance for someone who claims to value freedom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper03
Wow love how you criticise the parent who actually stuck around and raised your ungrateful butt. What did you say about your daddy again? Oh that's right he wasn't around. Why is that? Of course the world was a super awesome place when men controlled everything and now that women are more than their personal spittoons the world is going to end.
The majority of the worlds problems were created by men without the input of women. Also just so you know the majority of the worlds criminals...dictators...terrorists...greedy bankers etc are men.
Maybe we should put some restrictions on men having the vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper03
This hard working woman was so smart yet not smart enough to vote? Her life would have had more meaning if she had helped less people?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoatTheKing
You know, Redshadowz, I was just thinking the exact same thing, except, instead of women, I was wondering about whether letting older people vote is a mistake. Obviously, the life expectancy when the founders wrote the constitution was much shorter - I highly doubt they had intended for people to keep voting so long after the world has passed them by, and they're left with nothing but their ignorant prejuidices against, oh, I don't know, women voting, for example. So that seems like a much more pressing question for me.
But then I think, wait a second! What am I doing? If I'm honestly considering that it would be a moral good to disenfranchise large swathes of my fellow voters, in what sense do I love America, and Americans? In what sense to I value democracy, or in what sense am I patriotic? How am I anything other than a traitor to America and her ideals? I then I feel ashamed for even considering it, and I keep my mouth shut and don't post to citydata about my obviously anti-American ideas.
Look, I think the way I structured my post didn't do a very good job explaining the intention of my post.
When I was younger, I ran away from home, and ended up living in foster care for about a year. My foster care mother was a very nice lady, and I still talk to her from time to time. She used to always call me analytical, but at the time, I didn't know what it really meant, and certainly didn't know how it pertained to me. As I got older of course, I learned what it meant, and why it was something that was very strong in me.
Basically, I try to make sense of everything and anything, if I don't understand something, I have to read and read and read and ask questions until I understand it.
The point is, when I look at the world, and see the changes that have occurred in the world, I don't just accept that the world simply changes, there must be a reason, there is always a reason, and I must know what that reason is. And while I don't pretend that I am the most intelligent person in the world, and my logic is gospel. I do believe that I have a very above-average ability to piece together the cause and effect of the changes that have happened over time.
The great thing is, even though I'm not old, I'm 32 years old. But, I love history, and I have been pretty much obsessed with history since I was in 9th grade. That was the year I took world history in Mr. Gibson's class. Probably the best teacher I ever had, and probably the class I learned more in than any other class I ever took.
My point is, the great thing about trying to understand the world is, there is just so much information available, especially statistics. And so its nice to line up history and policy changes to those statistics, so you can understand some cause and effect.
But even beyond simply a historical analysis, I also believe of myself to have a great understanding of human psychology. Probably from being around so many women all of my life(very manipulative women might I add). And even beyond that, my old life is a strange mix of so many situations. I used to take pride in the fact that, basically, my life was so crazy that I've seen just about everything there is to see.
I've been extremely poor, I've lived in foster care, stayed in public housing, stayed in a homeless shelter, lived on welfare, I've walked more than 30 miles in a single occasion multiple times, I've had friend who are drug dealers, gang members. I've spent time with the homeless, with prostitutes, etc. I have a sister who has been in and out of jail, can't stay off meth for any length of time, has six kids and doesn't have parental rights to any of them.
There is nothing really wrong with my father, he is just selfish. But his own mother basically gave him up, and he lived in group homes when he was growing up. I don't really think he understands how to be a parent.
But I've also lived the relative good life, and have other family members that are relatively well-off. I've been in business, and have had family and friends that have run their own business. So I like to say at least, that I have enough experience to be able to understand the world around me, how things work.
When I say something, I base it on my analysis of history and my own experience. My intentions are always good, I am looking for a positive outcome, even if you believe my methods are harsh or even evil.
The reality is, women didn't always vote. The question is, was that a bad thing?
Secondly, women now have the right to vote. The question is, has that been for the better?
When we look at social and economic data points, I have a difficult time believing that women voting has had an overall positive effect on the subjective well-being of the inhabitants of this country.
So my question was really, why was it a good idea to let women vote? What good has it done?
I base that in many statistics that have shown that women's happiness has actually gone down relative to men since they started pushing so hard for their "rights". Also statistics that show the harms of diversity, which has long been primarily associated with women. The destruction of the family by the welfare state, which is largely to blame on women, who have aligned themselves in much greater numbers with the democratic party than men.
And while I admit, we were heading more and more towards collectivism long before women had the right to vote. It is my opinion, that these changes would have been greatly slowed or avoided altogether had women never been given the right to vote.
So the question is, if something that you consider to be bad, actually produces good results, is it really bad?
I leave you with one last thing, arranged marriages. It is my position that arranged marriages(not forced, just requiring parental approval) have been a source of positive results for humanity over time. For instance, had my mother required her parents approval to marry my father, it wouldn't have happened, or it would have prompted my father to be a better person. So either I would have never been born, or I would have most likely lived a better life.
And my story is typical. Very seldom do you find single-family households where the grandparents approved of the relationship to begin with. On the reverse, most of the families that are intact, the grandparents approved of the relationship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
looking at your prior posts, you said that you voted for obama in 2008.
then you say that you object to america becoming a welfare state, with social engineering and economic controls.
maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
I did vote for Obama in 2008, and even in retrospect, I would have voted for him again. McCain was hardly a libertarian by any means, and moreover, he was much more of a warmonger than even Obama has become. And I am quite opposed to war.
For that matter, I don't support Mitt Romney either. If you look at what Obama has actually done over his term, what is it that Mitt Romney plans to do differently?
Was he opposed to the stimulus? Nope. Is he really opposed to the escalation in Afghanistan? Nope. Is he opposed to what happened in Libya? Nope. Is he opposed to an intervention in Syria? Nope. Would he be upset if Israel bombed Iran? Doubt it. Is he going to put back in place don't ask don't tell? Nope. Is he going to do absolutely anything about laws on abortion? Nope. Regardless of who gets elected, the federal government simply isn't going to legalize gay-marriage on the federal level, neither will it be abolished on the federal level.
In my view, only real difference is on healthcare. And even then, I don't believe that Romney's views on healthcare are what he says they are. You might see a couple provisions rolled back from Obama's legislation, but it simply isn't going to be repealed in full. Paul Ryan wants to give out vouchers. So regardless of who gets elected, government will be playing a much larger role in healthcare than it used to.
In reality, I think the country would be better off if Obama got reelected. On the basis that, the longer he is in office, the more backlash against the democrats there will be. The longer he is in office as president, the more conservatives and libertarians will be elected to state positions and in Congress. The longer he is in office, I believe the stronger the libertarian movement in general.
If a Republican gets elected, it will silence the anti-war, pro-freedom right.
With that said, I'm incredibly disappointed that they best they could come up with for running for president was Mitt Romney. I mean, he is a nice guy, but he just isn't what the Republicans needed.
I hate to sound sexist, I'm really not. I have been around women all my life. But, women don't think the same as men. And there is certainly nothing wrong with the way women think in general terms. They are useful at being caretakers, that maternal instinct. But I still think allowing them to vote was a horrible idea.
Anyway, I was looking over some Pew research studies today, and saw this quiz to see how you line up on the political spectrum(I'm right where I thought I would be, rofl).
Anyway, when i was going over the average results by sex, I noticed that women tend to be significantly more leftist than men. Which is really pretty much common sense. But, it got me thinking, how would this country have been different if women had never been allowed to vote.
Well, I can't say that we are any better off because of the woman vote. I really blame them for the welfare state that we are becoming. And the total destruction of the family and our values. While imposing strict social engineering and economic controls.
Basically, I feel that women are ruining America.
If you disagree, then please explain what the woman vote has done to help America in any conceivable way.
Why is this post allowed to stand?
I guess I can post a thread with the alternate view, right?
Maybe I will. Maybe I will post a thread asking why men are allowed to run anything since they are statistically more aggressive and violent than women.
Redshadowz, you're voicing truths that are no longer allowed in public so the reaction is to be expected. And, of course, the fact that much truth is no longer allowed is the core aspect of modern PC living, a direct offshoot of radical feminism.
While I agree with you that women's voting patterns have hurt America, I could not in good conscience vote to remove their voting rights. The real problem is that men, straight-jacketed by PC for decades now, no longer assert themselves....and have essentially surrendered to the feminist agenda. Young men have never known the feeling of being able to think for themselves and most older men have been manipulated into yielding their political influence to the women around them, accepting the guilt trip laid upon them for "oppression" in the past.
A monster has been created that will be with us for a long, long time. But if more men would only break free of the heavy chains of PC that they perceive to be controlled by, we might just start to see a slowing of the swing of the pendulum.
Look, I think the way I structured my post didn't do a very good job explaining the intention of my post.
When I was younger, I ran away from home, and ended up living in foster care for about a year. My foster care mother was a very nice lady, and I still talk to her from time to time. She used to always call me analytical, but at the time, I didn't know what it really meant, and certainly didn't know how it pertained to me. As I got older of course, I learned what it meant, and why it was something that was very strong in me.
Basically, I try to make sense of everything and anything, if I don't understand something, I have to read and read and read and ask questions until I understand it.
The point is, when I look at the world, and see the changes that have occurred in the world, I don't just accept that the world simply changes, there must be a reason, there is always a reason, and I must know what that reason is. And while I don't pretend that I am the most intelligent person in the world, and my logic is gospel. I do believe that I have a very above-average ability to piece together the cause and effect of the changes that have happened over time.
The great thing is, even though I'm not old, I'm 32 years old. But, I love history, and I have been pretty much obsessed with history since I was in 9th grade. That was the year I took world history in Mr. Gibson's class. Probably the best teacher I ever had, and probably the class I learned more in than any other class I ever took.""""
9th grade history doesn't make you an expert and MR. Gibson most certainly never mentioned the contributions of 50% of the population nor that little American thingy about equality for all.
""My point is, the great thing about trying to understand the world is, there is just so much information available, especially statistics. And so its nice to line up history and policy changes to those statistics, so you can understand some cause and effect.
But even beyond simply a historical analysis, I also believe of myself to have a great understanding of human psychology. Probably from being around so many women all of my life(very manipulative women might I add). And even beyond that, my old life is a strange mix of so many situations. I used to take pride in the fact that, basically, my life was so crazy that I've seen just about everything there is to see.
I've been extremely poor, I've lived in foster care, stayed in public housing, stayed in a homeless shelter, lived on welfare, I've walked more than 30 miles in a single occasion multiple times, I've had friend who are drug dealers, gang members. I've spent time with the homeless, with prostitutes, etc. I have a sister who has been in and out of jail, can't stay off meth for any length of time, has six kids and doesn't have parental rights to any of them.
There is nothing really wrong with my father, he is just selfish. But his own mother basically gave him up, and he lived in group homes when he was growing up. I don't really think he understands how to be a parent.""""
A really low class screwed up life doesn't necessarily give you an accurate view of everyone else's life or accomplishments or culture ..
""But I've also lived the relative good life, and have other family members that are relatively well-off. I've been in business, and have had family and friends that have run their own business. So I like to say at least, that I have enough experience to be able to understand the world around me, how things work.
When I say something, I base it on my analysis of history and my own experience.""""
And you have been proven wrong....the only thing you don't want to read are the posts showing you your errors and hatred.
"" My intentions are always good,"""
No, they're not, you hate women and want to punish them for what you think are their faults, you need a scapegoat...
"""I am looking for a positive outcome, even if you believe my methods are harsh or even evil.
The reality is, women didn't always vote. The question is, was that a bad thing?
Secondly, women now have the right to vote. The question is, has that been for the better?
When we look at social and economic data points, I have a difficult time believing that women voting has had an overall positive effect on the subjective well-being of the inhabitants of this country.
So my question was really, why was it a good idea to let women vote? What good has it done?""""
When we look at social and economic data points, I have a difficult time believing that men ruling has had an overall positive effect on the subjective well-being of the inhabitants of this country.
So my question was really, why was it a good idea to let men lead? What good has it done?
""I base that in many statistics that have shown that women's happiness has actually gone down relative to men since they started pushing so hard for their "rights". Also statistics that show the harms of diversity, which has long been primarily associated with women. The destruction of the family by the welfare state, which is largely to blame on women, who have aligned themselves in much greater numbers with the democratic party than men.
And while I admit, we were heading more and more towards collectivism long before women had the right to vote. It is my opinion, that these changes would have been greatly slowed or avoided altogether had women never been given the right to vote.
So the question is, if something that you consider to be bad, actually produces good results, is it really bad?
I leave you with one last thing, arranged marriages. It is my position that arranged marriages(not forced, just requiring parental approval) have been a source of positive results for humanity over time. For instance, had my mother required her parents approval to marry my father, it wouldn't have happened, or it would have prompted my father to be a better person. So either I would have never been born, or I would have most likely lived a better life.
And my story is typical. Very seldom do you find single-family households where the grandparents approved of the relationship to begin with. On the reverse, most of the families that are intact, the grandparents approved of the relationship.
I did vote for Obama in 2008, and even in retrospect, I would have voted for him again. McCain was hardly a libertarian by any means, and moreover, he was much more of a warmonger than even Obama has become. And I am quite opposed to war.
For that matter, I don't support Mitt Romney either. If you look at what Obama has actually done over his term, what is it that Mitt Romney plans to do differently?
Was he opposed to the stimulus? Nope. Is he really opposed to the escalation in Afghanistan? Nope. Is he opposed to what happened in Libya? Nope. Is he opposed to an intervention in Syria? Nope. Would he be upset if Israel bombed Iran? Doubt it. Is he going to put back in place don't ask don't tell? Nope. Is he going to do absolutely anything about laws on abortion? Nope. Regardless of who gets elected, the federal government simply isn't going to legalize gay-marriage on the federal level, neither will it be abolished on the federal level.
In my view, only real difference is on healthcare. And even then, I don't believe that Romney's views on healthcare are what he says they are. You might see a couple provisions rolled back from Obama's legislation, but it simply isn't going to be repealed in full. Paul Ryan wants to give out vouchers. So regardless of who gets elected, government will be playing a much larger role in healthcare than it used to.
In reality, I think the country would be better off if Obama got reelected. On the basis that, the longer he is in office, the more backlash against the democrats there will be. The longer he is in office as president, the more conservatives and libertarians will be elected to state positions and in Congress. The longer he is in office, I believe the stronger the libertarian movement in general.
If a Republican gets elected, it will silence the anti-war, pro-freedom right.
With that said, I'm incredibly disappointed that they best they could come up with for running for president was Mitt Romney. I mean, he is a nice guy, but he just isn't what the Republicans needed.""""
Why not? He has a penis, doesn't he and YOU think that's all that's needed to lead the country to your Utopia.....
"""But I will say, I actually do like Paul Ryan.
You are a sexist despite your disclaimer and women really should vote against your RightwingNutjob War Against Women...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
