5809
Comments (469)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
0
almond_activator 0 points ago +5 / -5

Every woman who rules her emotions instead of being ruled by them would see a marked increase in the quality of her government and its alignment with her values if she were disenfranchised.

Ergo, a woman who has 'her emotional and intellectual shit together' should be an anti-universal-suffrage advocate.

0
deleted 0 points ago +2 / -2
1
CovfefeAndBacon 1 point ago +2 / -1

And some men are also weak.

The Founding Fathers had a solution for that, it was only allowing property owning men the right to vote. Now I'm not saying that should be the metric we go by today, but certainly men that don't contribute anything to society should probably not have a say either.

Also, I don't think anyone is saying that we should end women's suffrage right here and now. A lot of things would need to change. Women make up half of the workforce, and certainly if we're paying taxes now we should get to vote right? But would I go back to not voting if it meant that all of my needs were taken care of by my husband and I was free to care for my home and children without other worries? Yes.

1
MelaniaMan 1 point ago +1 / -0

Women make up half of the workforce, and certainly if we're paying taxes now we should get to vote right?

That's if they're paying taxes on the whole. Double the workforce, double the number of taxpayers.