Posted on 06/13/2019 6:44:25 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Puts to mind that indeed LOTS of men are awful leaders, never mind voters?
Meanwhile, Elizabeth I, Catherine, Victoria, Maggie Thatcher....
He would not be president BUT FOR PEROT.
Geessh, so much made over ~5% points.
Meanwhile, race demos vote anywhere from 60% - 95% Dem and they get the same treatment here - but not heavier as their % are! (And they include the men of those races!)
We address the racial vote here.
Oh we do, but they’re all VASTLY lop-sided compared to the category “women”.
Making so much out of 5%. Sorry, it doesn’t deserve the piling on that anywhere from 15% to 45% over half does.
Maybe they should consider: which category is OVERWHELMINGly in the penal system? Always has been?
Ah, men. Guess they shouldn’t vote because we know their proclivity to be killers, robbers, everything.
Because women feel no responsibility to “protect” anything in the world.
Guess you don’t. Redirection doesn’t work on me (proggie tactic). We are talking here about women — not men, cats, or dogs.
I do pile on the 15 to 45% as well.
The fact is Clinton would not have been president without the female vote.
Look, take it for what it is. I have not advocated for denying women the vote. I have said I contemplated the situation. There’s still a problem.
Your cuteness works against your arguments, as do your numbers.
Since men “objectify” them by relying mainly on their physical characteristics for mate choice, women basically “objectify” themselves for men with makeup and perfume.
Furthermore, a majority, if not most states, allowed women to vote by the time the 19th Amendment was ratified. That push started with legalizing the women’s vote in the Wyoming Territory in 1870 or thereabouts.
Now, if there was a place so rugged that doing anything outside the house was a man’s job, it had to be the frickin’ Wyoming Territory! And yet, the territory’s legislature, representing the people of that territory, ultimately decided that allowing women to vote wouldn’t be a problem.
I’d be tempted to get behind taking the vote away from male Democrats.
I think a lot of these ill effects were propelled into being by the sexual revolution and modern feminism, not the 19th Amendment or women having access to careers and birth control, IMO.
Modern feminism is an institutionalized sort of misandry with an abortion sacrament, while all the sexual revolution actually proved is that “free love” isn’t really free.
Please. Men do not withhold sex. We men may talk a good game on this forum, but some men (in general society, not necessarily on here) would do anything on two legs, or maybe even four, when given the opportunity.
A male sex strike would last maybe 48 hours.
Golda Meir and Benazir Bhutto (Pakistan), also, even though Bhutto was probably anti-American.
The point was who cares, the man can be replaced with a doll.
“Why do women use makeup and perfume?”
LOL, wow! Add in high heels, nylons, girdles, tummy wraps, lift-and-separate bras, butt enhancers, fingernail and toenail polish, wrinkle cream, colored contacts, hair coloring...
So much to say following that. I’ll just let my tagline say it.
Not strange at all. Makes logical sense to me. An uncomfortable truth for half of us. But truth.
Ahh, you use the word the MSM, SJWs and fem’s either don’t say or mock — misandry.
Yeah, Idunno, 1776-1807 NJ allowed women to vote. That’s hardly a plurality. But you are right, the issue was determined by the States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States#Background
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.