I could have lived very satisfactorily my whole life without voting if I knew that my fellow sisters who always voted liberal were also not voting. 
Posted on 03/29/2009 5:51:07 PM PDT by OneVike
From the day the founding Fathers risked their liberty and life by signing the Declaration of Independence, there has been those who have wanted to sink this great ship called the United States of America. Well 143 years later the good ship America took a torpedo hit that at the time seemed like just another glancing blow. What many still consider the greatest step forward in equality for the sexes, was more then just a glancing blow however. It was in fact a deadly strike that entered the very heart of the ship and has been smoldering since. The damage caused by the 19th amendment was slow in its destruction, but after almost 100 years we can now see how complete the destruction really was.
(Excerpt) Read more at norcalblogs.com ...
Probably not. But since that’s what their world revolves around, it’s a catastrophe if they can’t.
Who’s emotional again??
Absolutely, the sperm donors will vote liberal — especially the ones without jobs.
But, how do you account for the advantage the Democrats always have among women?
See my posts above. With ever increasing out-of-wedlock births and declining marriage rates, single women, many of them mothers, have for many years, and increasingly so, turned to government for the support men won't give them and many of their families can't. If it's a choice between survival for they and their children or no survival at all, they'll choose the party who promises to help provide for them and to some extent does, quite the logical choice, btw.
Without the sexual revolution and the welfare state, the disparity among male and female voting patterns would barely exist, if at all, as evidenced by the fact that far fewer married women vote for the democrats.
I’ve never given it much consideration.
But as has been pointed out, if women shouldn’t have the vote because they tend to vote liberal, there are other groups which shouldn’t have it either.
The problem is, it gets to the point of trying to control the elections and politics by controlling who votes. Just because someone doesn’t vote the way you like, doesn’t mean that you can find some sort of reason that you think is valid for taking their vote away from them.
Saying that women shouldn’t have the vote because they’re women and hence can’t think clearly, isn’t any different that saying that the blacks shouldn’t have the vote because.....whatever reason you want to come up with.
Determining someone’s right to vote based on gender is no better than determining someone’s right to vote based on skin color.
All it gets interpreted as is reinforcing the white male dominance thing.
It's whether your emotions lead your intellect or your intellect leads your emotions.
And that’s a result of men abdicating their responsibility as breadwinners and protectors of their families.
Sure, you can blame women for getting pregnant out of wedlock, but last I heard, getting pregnant is not a solo enterprise.
Abandoning the mother of your child(ren) is not the manly thing to do.
Women left to their own resources are no doubt going to vote for provision, but that isn’t necessarily an emotional response as much as a practical one. When the choice is going without vs voting for someone who will provide, guess what’s going to happen. Nobody likes to go hungry, but again, that’s not an emotional response. Just watch a man when dinner is not on time......
If the men in their lives won’t take care of them, who can blame them for looking for someone who will?
Exactly. As my previous posts indicate, we are in full agreement. Well said! : )
Because of the current social conditions, that's true. It wasn't the case when the marriage rate was high and the divorce and out-of-wedlock births were low.
As I stated previously, it wasn't giving the vote to women, that is responsible for the fact that currently a majority of women vote for Democrats, it was the sexual revolution and the welfare state. I resent the implication of those who would now deny all women the right to vote if they could, that women are primarily to blame for the threat of socialism now looming over all our heads.
Some excellent and thoughtful comments metmom and you as well, as usual, ladylawyer. : )
Your whole post is soooo true, and one of the reasons, I don’t buy this argument that men don’t also think and act emotionally.
Consistency check: do you then believe that men have a right to be stay at home fathers for their baby daughters and sons as well as being able to be CEOs?
Or are you contending that women should have equal opportunity to be CEOs while incongruously simultaneously contending that men should have lesser rights to be a stay at home parent?
Sure they do. Where did I say that men couldn’t stay at home. The topic suggesting that women shouldn’t have the right to vote led to my comments.
How about 140 years in which men are the primary caregivers of their daughters and sons, fathers get custody by default in divorce and get the house and alimony from their former wife as well, and politicians and stores cater almost exclusively to the men's vote?
Now that would be civilization changing.
And all of it would be the exact opposite of how things currently are and have been for decades.
Just seeking a consistent standard.
I have heard too many people shout ‘equal rights’ where they are seeking to get (or retain) rights for women, but suddenly abandon the equal rights slogan where it would result in actual equal rights for men.
Once upon a time... specifically from the dawn of civilization through the American Civil War... men knew that in the event of a divorce or separation, custody of all of the children would remain with them.
Thus, while the men had responsibility and fulfilled that responsibility, they had full rights too.
You advocate for men to be responsible: great. Sure. But.
Are you now advocating, correspondingly, for the full parental rights of men to be restored?
The basis of this country was that rights and responsibilities need to be a package deal.
As in “no taxation without representation”.
I'm also acutely aware of the raw deal - no, the blatant and terrible injustice, something that amounts to slavery in some cases - that men are subject to in divorce and custody cases.
Dealing with the first requires a change of culture, and won't be accomplished in the sort term. Dealing with the second could be done within a year, if the will was there. It's not, partly because... it will require a change of culture.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
I've not butchered a hog, only a turkey. I have no intention of dying soon, and the only invasion I've helped plan was a disaster relief effort. I've only conned a ship in simulation (which I helped write).
The kind of man I'd want as a husband and father to my children should be able to do all that - and give backrubs. And I want to be the kind of gal such a guy deserves to have as his partner.
I could have lived very satisfactorily my whole life without voting if I knew that my fellow sisters who always voted liberal were also not voting.
A bump to remind everyone we were here one time before, because of the squishy female vote, and sadly the same fool is running things again, because Biden ain’t in control of his bowels, let along the agenda.
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.