I'd say the headline of this article is blatantly sexist against men. I'd also say it's shitty to say "women have ruined society". Women, along with men, have built the greatest society ever known to man, the American society. Together, man and woman combine to form a whole, both emotionally and physically. We are one, just as our creator intended. One is not greater than the other. We both have strengths and weaknesses, but we are all responsible for our current situation.
I guess thats one way to put it. Really its that women tend to let their emotions rule over them, they vote and think in line with their emotions. Crying kids, mean words, social pressure can all easily sway their mindsets.
Instead of critically thinking about what is best, they let their feelings guide them.
At the end of the day though i lay blame at the feet of weak men who have allowed women to walk all over them and think through emotion aswell.
Conservative women with conservative men in their lives are better off.
I'm gonna give you some facts that may or may not shock you:
Women control 56% of the vote. Women are a little over 52% of the adult population and the rest of the difference is due to disenfranchised felons.
From 1776 to 1920, the Federal government ran on ~2% of GDP sans wartime. We're pushing 40% of GDP now.
Every State that allowed women's suffrage prior to the 19th immediately started growing at near exponential levels. The States which didn't ratify the 19th but were beholden to it also increased at the State level once it was enacted. In short, the USA was a near-perfect natural experiment to isolate the cause of government expansion to be women's suffrage.
One of the major reasons government has increased significantly is because men pay 75% of taxes while women receive 80% of government welfare.
Currently, the USA government transfers $2T/yr from men to women.
I don't have the exact numbers for other countries, but the UK, France, and even Switzerland (which allowed women's suffrage in the 1970s) have all followed similar trends in the increase of government (intrusion and taxes) after women's suffrage.
That's the cost of women's suffrage. What does it grant which offsets the cost?
You're getting downvoted, but I don't think everyone needs the right to vote. Unless you have an actual stake in the election and you benefit the country somehow (you're a land owner, business owner, etc), you're probably just gonna look for handouts with each election. Does that make sense?
Wives' votes are most likely going to be a duplicate of her husband's, and 3rd generation Welfare Bums are going to vote in their best interest regardless of gender. So, there should be certain stipulations in who decides the outcome of our elections. The fact that there are almost ZERO stipulations is what's causing problems in this country.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
― Alexander Fraser Tytler
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
"Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."
This page talks about their origins, if interested.
The problem with that is that with the current corporate oligarchs there will be pushes for structuring in policy to make sure only they and their circle can vote. Suddenly you would see a bunch of legislation calling for multiple "stimulus " payments that magically target and match average regional tax payments for certain voting demographics.
I agree with it as a test, but it can't be the only one. I think a "are you or have you been on public assistance for more than 6 months in the past 3 years " question as well as a constituonal test would work, i.e. "The 2nd amendment was written to give civilians the right to keep and bear arms: True or False" You say false, fuck off to the congo.
I think the right to vote should be divided up based on issues. Are you not a business owner? Then you don't get to decide the rules businesses abide by. Are you not a worker? Then you don't get to decide the rules workers abide by. Are you not a soldier? Then you don't get to decide anything involving foreign policy.
You can then break it down further than that. If you're not a farmer, you don't get a say in farming regulations, retail for retail regulations, etc. The devil is in the details of course and you'll run into the problem of who gets to decide who is doing the deciding in each particular case, but it makes the relevancy of the vote less ambiguous and prevents people who don't bear the costs from having a say in policy.
My biggest worry with only letting land owners vote would be all the land owners that aren’t Americans.
I’ve read how the Chinese have bought lots of land all over the United States, not to mention mega corporations, mega churches, other various countries, etc.
How long before this could easily be corrupted into manipulating traitorous people into positions of power that then sell our country out?
Here is the problem: The is no nuclear family in the USA and there has not been for decades. Our entire legal system gives women near complete autonomy to do whatever they want including commit crimes.
Looking at society through rose tinted glasses isnt going to help anyone. Right now the only way to fix this is to purge the Bolsheviks and restrict the so called "womens rights" to the point where they are held to the same standard as men.
Obvious things like not being able to murder children without the father consent, redefining rape to include female aggression (currently only men can rape) honk.
In fairness, Commies injected themselves into every social "struggle" because they knew they could use these groups to push their agenda (see BLM, Antifa, Feminism, etc.). That's why all of these groups use a Marxist lens (groups oppressing one another) to view the world. If you can create an invisible bad guy ("patriarchy", "white privilege", "bourgeoisie") and build a narrative around fighting them, you can create a permanent group of fighters to help you overthrow the government.
I think it's fair to point out BLM being pushed by like 80% college aged white girls, and to rip on feminists, but it's getting a little over the top to blame women at large.
If women had the right to vote taken away, The republican party might not have to worry about the national elections for another 20 years.
If women got out of the workforce, salaries across the board would go up, as companies now don't have essentially a slave class to use, aside from immigrants.
If women stayed in the homes more, it would lead to more prosperous families, better marriage and divorce rates, non-fatherless homes, the birth rate going up.
Iran & China are ruled by manly men. China even exterminates its female babies for 100s of years. This virus hysteria suits the needs of tyrants, that's why it's being milked. The pussies who wrote this article are useful idiots keeping more useful idiots in check.
Women have ruined society. Men have ruined society by allowing women to ruin society.
I'd say the headline of this article is blatantly sexist against men. I'd also say it's shitty to say "women have ruined society". Women, along with men, have built the greatest society ever known to man, the American society. Together, man and woman combine to form a whole, both emotionally and physically. We are one, just as our creator intended. One is not greater than the other. We both have strengths and weaknesses, but we are all responsible for our current situation.
As a 2 spirit otherkin I will save society
But only one of us should be voting...
1 family 1 vote
I disagree, for reasons I just outlined.
Show me a great and good man and I'll show you one who was loved and cared for by a woman.
Amen. It's an attempt at division. We need to work together.
I mean this is a grey area thing. The real problem isn't that women can vote. It's that retards can vote.
But women are politically retarded.
I guess thats one way to put it. Really its that women tend to let their emotions rule over them, they vote and think in line with their emotions. Crying kids, mean words, social pressure can all easily sway their mindsets.
Instead of critically thinking about what is best, they let their feelings guide them.
At the end of the day though i lay blame at the feet of weak men who have allowed women to walk all over them and think through emotion aswell.
Conservative women with conservative men in their lives are better off.
I'm gonna give you some facts that may or may not shock you:
Women control 56% of the vote. Women are a little over 52% of the adult population and the rest of the difference is due to disenfranchised felons.
From 1776 to 1920, the Federal government ran on ~2% of GDP sans wartime. We're pushing 40% of GDP now.
Every State that allowed women's suffrage prior to the 19th immediately started growing at near exponential levels. The States which didn't ratify the 19th but were beholden to it also increased at the State level once it was enacted. In short, the USA was a near-perfect natural experiment to isolate the cause of government expansion to be women's suffrage.
One of the major reasons government has increased significantly is because men pay 75% of taxes while women receive 80% of government welfare.
Currently, the USA government transfers $2T/yr from men to women.
I don't have the exact numbers for other countries, but the UK, France, and even Switzerland (which allowed women's suffrage in the 1970s) have all followed similar trends in the increase of government (intrusion and taxes) after women's suffrage.
That's the cost of women's suffrage. What does it grant which offsets the cost?
Those are hate facts
Womens voting pattern is almost unanimously retarded. Even conservative women want media banned and alcohol prohibited.
We do? I must have missed that memo.
Most conservative women I know just want to shoot their guns and take care of their family. For some that means working, for some it's staying home.
We want feminists to stop trying to turn us all into victims.
We want to support and love our men, and encourage them to be strong protectors, and never hear the term "toxic masculinity" again.
Most of us are quite capable of protecting our family from media they don't need to see and avoiding alcohol if we need to.
The family unit was allowed 1 vote for a while. Back when men were able to be fathers and take care of the family.
We’ve extended that right to women and Now we find most men on the streets, jails or dead. The family unit still gets their ‘1’ vote.
We took it all away. Father from child. Man from home. God from our lives...
Take back what you lost.
This is the only way. Sadly someday it will come with a price. But I will be willing to ‘pay’ for it.
You're getting downvoted, but I don't think everyone needs the right to vote. Unless you have an actual stake in the election and you benefit the country somehow (you're a land owner, business owner, etc), you're probably just gonna look for handouts with each election. Does that make sense?
Wives' votes are most likely going to be a duplicate of her husband's, and 3rd generation Welfare Bums are going to vote in their best interest regardless of gender. So, there should be certain stipulations in who decides the outcome of our elections. The fact that there are almost ZERO stipulations is what's causing problems in this country.
I'm saying this as a woman, by the way.
What was the line about the government realizing they can bribe and buy the populace with their own money.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.” ― Alexander Fraser Tytler
You may be thinking of these two quotes:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
"Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."
This page talks about their origins, if interested.
The problem with that is that with the current corporate oligarchs there will be pushes for structuring in policy to make sure only they and their circle can vote. Suddenly you would see a bunch of legislation calling for multiple "stimulus " payments that magically target and match average regional tax payments for certain voting demographics.
I agree with it as a test, but it can't be the only one. I think a "are you or have you been on public assistance for more than 6 months in the past 3 years " question as well as a constituonal test would work, i.e. "The 2nd amendment was written to give civilians the right to keep and bear arms: True or False" You say false, fuck off to the congo.
This is a great idea.
I think the right to vote should be divided up based on issues. Are you not a business owner? Then you don't get to decide the rules businesses abide by. Are you not a worker? Then you don't get to decide the rules workers abide by. Are you not a soldier? Then you don't get to decide anything involving foreign policy.
You can then break it down further than that. If you're not a farmer, you don't get a say in farming regulations, retail for retail regulations, etc. The devil is in the details of course and you'll run into the problem of who gets to decide who is doing the deciding in each particular case, but it makes the relevancy of the vote less ambiguous and prevents people who don't bear the costs from having a say in policy.
Voting has never been a right. Voting is always a privilege.
It would be infinitely preferable to live under an emperor who upheld actual rights than an elected tyranny, would it not?
My biggest worry with only letting land owners vote would be all the land owners that aren’t Americans.
I’ve read how the Chinese have bought lots of land all over the United States, not to mention mega corporations, mega churches, other various countries, etc. How long before this could easily be corrupted into manipulating traitorous people into positions of power that then sell our country out?
Communism pushed womens rights heavily for a reason. Now its gay and tranny rigths.
Here is the problem: The is no nuclear family in the USA and there has not been for decades. Our entire legal system gives women near complete autonomy to do whatever they want including commit crimes.
Looking at society through rose tinted glasses isnt going to help anyone. Right now the only way to fix this is to purge the Bolsheviks and restrict the so called "womens rights" to the point where they are held to the same standard as men.
Obvious things like not being able to murder children without the father consent, redefining rape to include female aggression (currently only men can rape) honk.
In fairness, Commies injected themselves into every social "struggle" because they knew they could use these groups to push their agenda (see BLM, Antifa, Feminism, etc.). That's why all of these groups use a Marxist lens (groups oppressing one another) to view the world. If you can create an invisible bad guy ("patriarchy", "white privilege", "bourgeoisie") and build a narrative around fighting them, you can create a permanent group of fighters to help you overthrow the government.
Exactly and who is most susceptible to that type of messaging?
Yeah, there're plenty of women at Trump rallies.
I think it's fair to point out BLM being pushed by like 80% college aged white girls, and to rip on feminists, but it's getting a little over the top to blame women at large.
It's not misogyny if it's the truth.
If women had the right to vote taken away, The republican party might not have to worry about the national elections for another 20 years.
If women got out of the workforce, salaries across the board would go up, as companies now don't have essentially a slave class to use, aside from immigrants.
If women stayed in the homes more, it would lead to more prosperous families, better marriage and divorce rates, non-fatherless homes, the birth rate going up.
It's literally a net positive.
MAGA women agree that women and girly boys have ruined society.
Not all women, there are many based women who can't stand "progressive" women who have little to offer society and therefore wish to destroy it
AWALT
Iran & China are ruled by manly men. China even exterminates its female babies for 100s of years. This virus hysteria suits the needs of tyrants, that's why it's being milked. The pussies who wrote this article are useful idiots keeping more useful idiots in check.
meme related