Should a group of people who are more emotional, less rational and take no physical risks to protect the country while the other side dies to protect them have the same level of control?
Giving women the vote never made sense. They already had a huge influence on politics through men.
1
0 Reply
Most Helpful Opinions
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
Hell no. Give them political rights, and you wind up with a horrid nightmare like feminism.
When will you liberals relate to reality? They have the right to vote now. If they are too stupid to get informed and vote that is their problem. Another problem is women feel their vote instead of using logic. The make less because they can't negotiate a raise. They want the government to get the raise for them by law. They want same pay as men with less experience in many cases.
Yes, we should, and you being a sexist ass doesn't mean we shouldn't have rights. You are not that special nor important that your opinion should render us optionless.
@888theGreat Emotions are merely the prompting of our subconscious. So she is thinking when she is "feeling" similar to how dogs think about chasing the ball...
I guess that depends on what you mean by "political rights". I don't think anyone should have the right to vote, because democracy is evil and we should abolish the state anyway.
They do anyone can run for office at least here in the US so I have no clue what you’re talking about and besides most women don’t want to be politicians.
Girls generally are more emotional and they don't follow a certain path (they are uncertain) they aren't dominant physically/mentally. there are female soldiers but they can't fight at war like men do thus they shouldn't have the right to get involved in politics. thats aside i think women are smart, intelligent and business oriented creatures.
Give me a study that proves that we are more emotional and that is not just a myth. I can give you studies that say men are as emotional as us. Here: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4469291/ this one says that women express their emotions more often, but are not more emotional than men. We express them more often so there is the myth that men are more ration when they actually are not.
Having physically strenght or ability to serve in the army is a terrible argument. A men can be dumb as a rock an be very strong physically. Being physically capable does not mean you are menatly capable.
Let me ask you this, aren't most women attracted to strong men because they feel safe with them (Because they feel weak) and don't they like dominant men because they like someone who leads the relationship? And i gave you an example on soldiers because if soilders are going to fight a war and die they should/deserve to be led by a person who is from their own gender! I wish women were more understanding about this topic. We really do respect women and care about them but they should let us have our own thing and they should have theirs. We are smart equally but wired differently.
No. None of that is right. Maybe in the era of our grandparents, but definitely not now. Today women make most of college graduates. We don't need men to protect us anymore. About leading the relationship, we want a guy that will be our equal partner. Not our boss!
I don't get why they would want to be led by a person of their gender. They should want to be led by someone that is a competent leader. Men or woman.
You can have your thing. Be manly. Be bold. Be strong. Be assertive. Be dominating. But be all of that without trying to make me your submissive! It can be done and that is what we want.
@guywho this conversation started with why were women less worthy of voting rights.
You arguments were we are emotional and physically weak. I proved you we are not more emotional than men and I think we agree that physical strength is not an indicator of good decision making. So you still think we shouldn't vote?
Politics needs someone who is assertive and i'm sure women aren't And girl's can protect themselves financially but not physically (like our grandparents years). I said that soliders need to be led by a man because war is male related from the start of humanity (men suck i know lol) and we can't change reality. i'm sure we aren't going to agree on this and it's fine.
There is no question that the female population of the western world is not just less capable of making intelligent political decisions but also less deserving of such power do to their much lower investment in society.
With the military, the very thing which assures the safety of all including women, yes you do need men you rely on them every day, you are simply utterly ignorant of that fact, being overwhelmingly male and combat infantry being over 98% male, women have utterly failed to contribute to the defense of the nation and deserve correspondingly less say in politics.
Your sex's failure to contribute also leaves you without practical experience in many area's, in this example you and women in general remain utterly ignorant of what it means to go to war and so obviously should have little to no input on matters of tactics, combat, the military, and significantly less on war.
"TallJess I thought you would defend you position more. Do you agree that women muat have the right to vote?"
There has never been a logical case for the supposed "right" of women to vote.
The Western world favors and protects women not just physically, as I already noted in the lack of female combatants and police, but economically via a multitude of methods from female only grants to the mass redistribution of wealth that divorce enacts, if women supposedly deserve equal rights because they are equal to men in ability and contribution, then why are they not contributing equally and being treated preferentially?
You will attempt to simply deny it but you won't be able to make a rational argument as both are overwhelmingly true, I would instead suggest attempting arguing from the equal but different tact though you will also lose.
@guywho first women can be as assertive as men. Second you don't need to be assertive to make good political choices. You can be shy but very intelligent.
Protect us physically from what? I never once in my life had to fight in the streets or protect me from whatever. In fact men are more likely to be victims of violent crimes statistically.
I don't think men suck. Men are great! Even if war was and still is more done by men doesn't mean that a man will will have more leadership skills than a woman.
@Raveagit What data do you have that proves women are not able to make intelligent political decisions?
The military does more to promote gun money and oil then to actually protect the citizens. Unless you are from as Islamic or African country where the actual wars are happening.
Most of the free world is not at war. But even when it was the women at home when men went to wars where many times leaders of their societies and made a very good job keeping things together while the war lasted.
Again, having military experience doesn't mean you will make good political decisions. That makes no sense.
We are intelligent human beings just like men are. There never was a logical reason for us NOT to vote.
@Raveagit Women work and pay taxes as much as men do. Today 1/3 relationships the women makes more money. You talk like all the money we makes comes from divorce. Which is highly untrue.
None of your points was logical. Because, in resume: 1. We don't have to be in the army to make good political decisions. Most men are not in the army either. 2. Women do make a huge contribution to society. We are half of the population and to deny our contributions to economy is ridiculous.
"What data do you have that proves women are not able to make intelligent political decisions?"
I provided multiple reasoned arguments that require nothing but common knowledge. Do you need to learn how reasoning, which really doesn't speak well of you being qualified to make political choices, or are you merely lying? Also not an endorsement.
Yes I know you were lying, since you just criticized guywho for not giving a reasoned argument. Alright, but the question wasn't why you aren't qualified it was why women in general aren't.
You are making a great case for the exactly kind of utter ignorance that makes you completely unqualified to have an opinion much less vote on anything regarding war or the military, or for that matter geopolitics in general.
"Protect us physically from what? I never once in my life had to fight in the streets or protect me from whatever. In fact men are more likely to be victims of violent crimes statistically."
Lets test this shocking and unhinged ignorance by testing it.
In a theoretical world without men protecting you 24/7/365
I walk up to you on the street. I find you annoying and of no value. I decide that the easiest way to make money is to kidnap you at knife point, use you to clear out your bank accounts over the next few days, max your cards and see if your parents want to pay cash for your return by delivering them one of your fingers, while I leave you tied up in a storage unit. Now that I have the money it would be more dangerous for me to allow you to live and there's no consequences to killing you, so instead of returning you after the money I just leave you alive, tied up, in a 20ft hole and fill in the dirt suffocating you.
What stops me? There's no local police patrolling and responding those are over 90% male and women don't patrol alone. There is no FBI to investigate or similar agencies for the same reason, the detectives are all male.
Military? Those guys just "promote" oil money whatever that is supposed to mean.
So in a world without men protecting you you are literally a flesh-bag ATM and if someone with less discerning taste than myself found you alone you can assume you would get raped before being killed.
The "free world" has only been at peace and free for you for the last 75 years because the US military won the second World War and enforced peace by force.
Your complete failure to understand such a basic fact as were your ability to walk around without ending up with your guts spilled out comes from shows you to not only be unfit to vote but unfit to have a conversation with a man. I would say go back to school but you've been. I would say go back to the kitchen but now women can't even cook.
Men still provide over 70% of taxes actually. Check your facts.
"Today 1/3 relationships the women makes more money."
Women have started making more money than men in some relationships after shameless taking advantage of education tailored to them, encouraged, and funded in ways that men haven't been for decades. By the by they you have never heard of a man complaining about providing for a woman, yet I've yet to hear of a woman that doesn't complain about providing for a man. Hardly equal or respectable.
"You talk like all the money we makes comes from divorce. Which is highly untrue."
Absolutely not, the majority of the money women make comes from jobs that men created and handed to them and then directly from the man. Men still earn the majority of money but it is still women that account for 80% of consumer spending. In other words they spend their husbands money.
"None of your points was logical. Because, in resume: 1. We don't have to be in the army to make good political decisions. Most men are not in the army either." Its an example I can easily provide more. "2. Women do make a huge contribution to society. We are half of the population and to deny our contributions to economy is ridiculous." Women are 52% of the population and on net balance currently consume more than you contribute with the notable exception of childbearing which you are badly failing at as we are now below replacement and losing population even during an age of peace.
@Raveagit You claimed that women are not capable of making intelligent decisions and then your main arguments were 1. Around the military. Which makes no sense since peoples capability to vote is not in any way related to the army. 2. Saying we make no contribution to economy. Which is false. So what you call "common knowledge" is factual incorrect or nonsensical.
Not once did I criticized him. We both kept a very pleasant argument even if we had different opinions.
" it was why women in general aren't" All I am asking is proof of this. Back up that claim with a study, a stat, an article, something.
Several weak points in that argument. 1. That novel you described you can do to a man too. 2. Police women exist. Only takes one to save the person in question. 3. Even with with the authorities, kidnappings still happen. They exist either way.
@Raveagit The US didn't won alone. And in modern world you don't need half the military power the US has for peace. Do you know what keeps the peace? 1. Atomic bombs, that lots of countries have. No one goes to real war because we would face nuclear apocalipse. 2. Our allies. Not how many thanks or soldiers you have.
You still fail to say what the military has to do with voting rights. It was an example you gave, but one that still makes no sense.
In my country that number is 63% for men. So you may more taxes, but we pay them too. We make money too. We contribute too. Look around you. We are working literally everywhere now.
@Raveagit And contrary to what you say we got there by merit. Men like you didn't want us to. But still we did. If anything is harder for us, but we still succeed.
An example that makes no sense while you can't make a connection between the two things. Give me the source where you saw that women consume more than they produce.
@Raveagit it's amazing that people like you actually exist. If you believe that women have less capabilities to make decisions then men you are a delusional moron. Do you really think that women are brainless? They actually have an average IQ higher than ours. I am not saying they are better than us. They are not. But to imply they are so incapable... Do you know that most medical students are women right? They are humans like us. Having a vagina or a dick is no indicator of intelligence. Not even close.
@thisIsMyOpinion, he didn't say that they are less intelligent he said that they are less capable from a political side because politics demands men behavior (someone who could control their emotions). So don't read things wrong and call people morons, you asshole.
@guywho that was what you said not him. And by the way you are wrong too. I read the conversation and she even gave you a study to prove that women are more emotional theory wrong and you still keep pressing the same. An ignorant who chose to remain ignorant. All you both have is whisfull thinking and a superiority complex.
He meant the same thing but had to change the way to make her get the idea and i didn't say that women are more emotional i said men can control their feelings more.
The study she gave me says women show emotions more but men have the same level of emotions but less likely to show it thus makes them suitable and determined for politics. Adding to that ask any women who isn't a feminists and they will tell you that they always follow their emotions instead of logic. You have eyes look at their comments and questions you can't change reality through a dumb study that is made by a feminists.
They show them more. But men are as emotional. Meaning they are as likely to make decisions based on those emotions. Just because they don't show it as often doesn't mean they don't. The study proves it.
"You claimed that women are not capable of making intelligent decisions" Incorrect, you are creating a strawman. I stated that women are unqualified to make judgements specifically in regards to.
1) War 2) The military 3) Geopolitics due to the former 4) Have a conversation with me about the same
This kind of blatant deception may get you praise by whatever kind of soft minded people you developed this opinion around but it only makes you look like a fool next to me.
"and then your main arguments were" Again a strawman. You don't get to decide what my main argument was and if you think that's what it was you need to delete your comment and go re-read. Lack of contribution and a resulting complete failure to understand the core reason for your safety and freedom render you incapable of maintaining it and so for your own good you should be disqualified from making choices regarding it. Not to mention everyone elses.
"1. Around the military. Which makes no sense since peoples capability to vote is not in any way related to the army."
Strawman, same issues.
"2. Saying we make no contribution to economy. Which is false."
Miss stating me once again, strawman. What a one trick pony you are. Boring
"So what you call "common knowledge" is factual incorrect or nonsensical." Strawman baseless.
"Not once did I criticized him. We both kept a very pleasant argument even if we had different opinions." You were hostile and condescending as well as illogical. The only reason you found it pleasant is because he is a beaten and submissive man and you quite obviously enjoy that.
"" it was why women in general aren't" All I am asking is proof of this. Back up that claim with a study, a stat, an article, something." I already addressed this, I am arguing from reason, which utilizes common knowledge as its fact base, you are merely attempting to change to a study based argument because you are losing. I would win in that arena as well but I see no reason to allow you to change the field.
"Several weak points in that argument. 1. That novel you described you can do to a man too."
I never claimed that my wife wouldn't also use you as a flesh-bag-ATM
"2. Police women exist. Only takes one to save the person in question."
Same miss stating me and strawman tactic. I addressed this in the original comment, women don't patrol alone and are a small minority of patrol officers.
"3. Even with with the authorities, kidnappings still happen. They exist either way"
False reasoning. You yourself stated that you have never had to defend yourself as I quoted. That some small amount of kidnappings exist despite all attempts to deter them only goes to proving the underlying point that only the presence of armed men allows you to exist.
"And contrary to what you say we got there by merit. Men like you didn't want us to. But still we did. If anything is harder for us, but we still succeed.
False. As I have quite easily proven your very existence, along with the existence of the vast majority of modern women, is only possible do to the active hard work and sacrifice of the men who protect you. If you can't even exist without the protection and support of men you sure as hell didn't achieve anything (despite) them.
"An example that makes no sense while you can't make a connection between the two things. Give me the source where you saw that women consume more than they produce."
I have already conclusively shown that in the corner stone that is the fight for survival women do not contribute virtually at all. You already admitted that in the secondary production aspects of civilization men contribute more. So there is no question that men provide the majority of all the value necessary to society. If as you argue men and women are equal then women consume equally to men and since we have just shown that men provide more women are not paying for their own upkeep.
@Raveagit And why can't we make qualified judgements about war or any of those related topics? Because we are not patrt of it? Neither do most men so what is the foundation for that opinion of yours?
So you are going to say that I don't understand "core reason for your safety and freedom" against my arguments. I say I do and I gave them to you. But you forget to give that reason. And since you gave me a very weak example with that kidnapping novel (I mentioned why in 3 points) I can only assume your idea of "what is really keeping us safe" is equally amusing so go head and tell me you opinion.
The conversation was about women being capable of making good political decisions. You came here talking about, apparently about the military, for some reason. You can't join a conversation were you were not involved, talking about something else, and expect people to understand your points. Specially when you make clamis based on your opinion alone. Yes, you opinion. It is your opinion that women can't have qualified opinion regarding war. Which is a very false generalization made by you. Not actually backed up by any data.
@Raveagit Actually you kept devaluying the contribution of women in today's economy so no strawman here.
"Strawman baseless." Again just pointing and saying "That is incorrect" is worth nothing if you don't back it up with the why. During an argument if you don't make your points you lose. So mine ""So what you call "common knowledge" is factual incorrect or nonsensical." stands.
In your eyes I might have been condescending, but I can assure you I wasn't. I simply enjoying the conversation. You just walk in here like a drama queen for some reason. And that was in insult. See the difference?
"common knowledge as its fact". This one actually mad eme laugh. Common knowledge will change depending on who you are talking and what you are talking bout. Facts are what counts and you have... none.
Good so it can happen to both men and women. Glad we agree.
What? Only the presence of armed men allows me to exist? Are you mental? On that logic you are only allowed to exist because of medics. They help gave birth to you and they save countless lives everyday, most of them are women.
Hard work of the men who do what? Most cops I see are fat as hell. They are far from hardworkers. You are full of generalizations and nothing more. You have talk like you knew about the struggles that we have to endure, specially in certain fields to reach the same level that men do for the simple fact that the path is easier for them.
My previous point about the medics, mostly women, who save lives everyday serves here too. Even now as we speak they are keeping many people alive during this pandemic. Again no actuall data. Just you opinion. And you called my argument a straman, yet here you are again demeaning womens contribution to society.
Irrelevant if it was true but the implication that the US wasn't the deciding factor in what we call World War 2 is utterly historically and factually ignorant. America alone fought and defeated 3 nations simultaneously across oceans. If you had any understanding of history what so ever you would understand the shocking significance of that.
"And in modern world you don't need half the military power the US has for peace. Do you know what keeps the peace? 1. Atomic bombs, that lots of countries have. No one goes to real war because we would face nuclear apocalipse."
Factually and theoretically incorrect. First I will say to you show me the study and graph that proves that to be the case as you repeatedly have. Of course it doesn't exist and you are no arguing reason and theory like a proper human, if incorrectly.
Now on to why you are wrong. The relative and very deep peace that we enjoy is still not complete peace and it is exactly in the places without "overwhelming" military might as you your self brought up in Africa that wars continue openly. With nuclear weapons assuring peace you are now making my case for me. It is military dominance which creates peace and how much you get depends on how much you have. The extreme domination of nuclear arms has created a large and deep cycle of peace.
However it is merely a cycle as are all things. When everyone has nukes no one does. Guns are mutually assured destruction for humans yet they didn't stop wars merely escalated the scope and scale. As China has you simply have to state that you won't use nukes unless the enemy does first and then invade them conventionally. Again it was the US threat of superior force which acted as a deterrent and created peace.
"2. Our allies. Not how many thanks or soldiers you have."
What a female thing to say. "Our allies" without any apprecaition that allies are valuable only for the force and material they bring to the table. As for allies creating peace it is the exact opposite. The more allies you have the more likely you are to go to war. The country with the most allies in history was Hitler's Nazi Germany when it invaded the Soviet Union. It not only didn't lead to peace it didn't lead to victory.
"You still fail to say what the military has to do with voting rights. It was an example you gave, but one that still makes no sense."
It makes sense to anyone with sense. No one but you has failed to understand though most already did to some degree.
"In my country that number is 63% for men. So you may more taxes, but we pay them too. We make money too. We contribute too. Look around you. We are working literally everywhere now."
"Too" Not 50% "Too" You demand equality based on equal worth, worth described as contribution. If you aren't contributing equally, then you don't deserve equal treatment.
Women were, I honestly believe, my wife is living prove of it after all, equal but different and my forefathers fought, lived, and died for them. As I do, and always will, for my wife and any daughters we may have.
However, women demanded what wasn't theirs. If you want equal pay then contribute equally, yet women do not. It is men who continue to lay the bricks, run the power lines, fight the wars, build the houses, invent the medicine and tools, to do all the hard, dangerous and difficult things which keep you safe, warm, clothed and privileged.
I could go on all day but the end is already clear. Women claim all the privilege's of being a woman, yet now also claim, undeservedly the rights of men.
You have never done hard labor in your life and never will. You haven't had to fight once and never will. You have no sworn duty to defend your country and merely wish to "lead from the back" as you wrote. You know nothing of the subjects which you write, clearly you have failed to educate yourself and are unfit to debate me. So given all this why should your "vote" be equal to mine? A man who has done all these things and more.
Because you will raise the next generation? Women are murdering their own babies by the million and barely having any and when they do they steal them from their fathers at a shocking rate while making them continue to pay.
Besides babies what else of value do you contribute? Every job women do was already done as well or better by men. It is men who step aside to allow women positions they would have filled and worked longer hours at with visibly more competence and commitment.
No, for the vast majority of modern women I see nothing. Nothing but a massive betrayal of their partners and protectors, the very men that gave them the world. In you I see nothing but an ignorant bitch, completely clueless of what even keeps her breathing, much less were all her privileges and wealth came from.
This is all going completely over your head. Its amusing you are still trying but you haven't so much as connected with a single ball. It's nothing but swing and miss.
Here get a real easy simply worded soft ball from what I already gave you.
(Why should women receive equal pay when 97% of work place deaths are male?)
You have been wasting my time quite a bit so hit this or I'm going to stop plinking your corpse for extra points. I already won at the first exchange anyways.
@ThisIsMyOpinion Still harping on about the "study" the most cited paper in modern science is by John Ioannidis who created the field of Metascience. (the study of studies) which found that less than half of studies are reliable and many can't even replicate their own results.
Around 80% of those who succumb to mass hysteria are female, the rest are generally young immature and pubescent men.
If I said lets take the group more likely to devolve into mass hysteria under pressure and give them the right to decide nuclear launch codes you would say what?
@Raveagit So a study said that most studies are wrong. Got you!
And right after you gave me a percentage that came from a... guess what? A study! Assuming that is a factual number and not something you pulled out fo your hat.
Actually being more likely to, doesn mean there is a risk of sai thing happening. I am hundreds of times more likely to get struck by lighting then to win the lotery. Still neither is likely to happen. But to say "its more likely" gives pourpose to your arguments in your head. Even with it means basically nothing.
@ThisIsMyOpinion I think you misunderstood. I am not wasting more than 3 strikes on an idiot who has nothing but ad hominem and "I have a study funded by feminists not that I even know that because I didn't source it"
One random thought though to ponder. With only nuclear weapons and over 99% of combatants out of the equation, because police or military that is men, what is saving you from being the human ATM? You never answered that.
It's no novel, its merely fact. What would you do, nuke every city a kidnapping happens in? Haha
@ThisIsMyOpinion I have the same issue with @Raveagit. Most of his points are based on his opinion alone and he ignores the points the other make hidding behing supposed "Strawman". Maybe he should have your mane instead xD You did point out a good example of why "more likely to" doesn't mean "very likely to". Don't mind him. You won.
@Raveagit The only reason the US had the role it had on the war was because of it's geographic position more than anything else. You were very far from the action for a long time.
"Factually and theoretically incorrect." No I don't have a graph, but since neither do you. Here we are now with opposing opinions and no clearence in sight.
Africa is not the problem that it is because of lack of a military force. Modern developed countried also have a developed military. Their growth was not cause by their military, their military was cause by their growth.
Atomic bombs part of the military power, but they are not what composes the army. The army has many more factions, but only that one really gets peace.
Just like atomic bombs, one of the big reasons countries don't enter in quarrels is because of who they are allies with. That's a no brainer and it even happened recently after the elections of Belarus.
@Raveagit So unless we reach 50% that means we don't have a significant contribution? Please. We deserve equal rights because we are humans, just like you are. Rights are a human thing, not gendered or racial. If you don't believe that you are trully messed up.
I doubt you wife is prove of anything regarding women. No offense to her, but to be with someone that has the beliefs that you have she can't be.
We take part in every single one of the things you decribed. Like I siad we are everywhere. And again if your argument is "not 50% then you have no real contribution" then men have no contribution in most labs, where we discovered a vaccine by the way, on the shcool system, on the healthcare system. But I don't share your radicla viwe so I say you do have a contribution there. Just like we do in everything.
First of all, because voting is a human right. A man who has never one fought a a war or had ahard day of labor still has the right to vote doesn't he? Your entire premisse fails with that simple question. But aside from that, the nurses doing really heavy work today to fight covid and put their own lives in danger, disagree with you. You live in a bubble sir.
I already made my point on what we contribute. Men are not stepping aside for us. We are stepping in, even with men like you trying to stop us.
I am the ingorant one and you are the one who has no idea at how much good for the world we do.
@Raveagit Oh dear I already scored more on this deabte than you ever will. You lost the moment you said that we are unable to have pertiment opinions about... well anyhting. Cherry on top you saying the right to vote is connected to hard labor and not a basic human right.
You men chose those dangerous jobs. No one forced you to. Do you know why more men chose dangerous jobs? Working in contruction is more likely to get you killed than working as a street cop. Why men end up in contruction? Because they want to build a big society? Or because they didn't study and had to make a living out of something? See another goal for me!
On the very unlikely event that I get kidnapped I will ask for the help of the police, men or women. You say it's more likely to be a man, well it's also more likely to be a man who tries to kidnap me. If you want to claim men are the reason for peace, it very easy for me to state they are the reason for the absence of peace since they are the main rapists, murderers, robbers, etc. Yet I don't say men are the main peace keepers, just as I don't say they are the main society destroyers. Men and women share both.
By the way, I couldn't help to notice that as soon as another guy came here to challenge you, you run away. You do think low of us don't you?
There's a lot of crap in here but since you don't acknowledge your previous few dozen losses I won't bother with anything except the one freebie I gave you. Clearly you have been around people who let you think you were winning simply because you kept talking.
"You men chose those dangerous jobs. No one forced you to."
Women forced men to by failing to select them. This should be obvious, what is your IQ 80? 70? Someone had to cut the tree's down the build the house you sit in warm at night and women didn't want to do it so it was left to men. Strike 1/3
"Or because they didn't study and had to make a living out of something? See another goal for me!"
Who freed up women to study and work in cushy white collar jobs were they put in less hours than men and leave for years at a time without notice because they changed their mind about children? Oh right the men who studied and created everything from our understanding of every science to the code and keyboard on which you type. Not to mention the washing mashing, sanitary pads, vacuum, cleaner, and so on that freed you from the necessities of house work and gave you the chance to work in the first place. The only reason a mediocre women such as your self qualified to study and have a job outside the home beside weaving or the like is because of men. Making countless advancements you don't appreciate in every field of study at the very highest level. Strike 2/3
I hardly "left" when another man showed up. That was a female delusion you had. I went to work and ate dinner with my wife. Some of us have a life. I already gave him 3 strikes and dumped his body with yours ATM Strike 3/3
The rules of arguments are clear. Debate based on reason and established fact. Admit your losses and take your wins.
You don't debate with reason or facts and you sure as hell don't admit your loses, you just pretend they were wins or that they didn't happen at all. It's beneath me to continue
@Raveagit Funny how you failed to adress several points... The fact that according to your logic men who didn't went to war or done any hard labor couldn't vote. The fact that women in hospitals are a bigger contribution to society than you ever will. They are the majority of lab researchers so thank them for the vaccines. The fact that if unless you are between 50% of a group then your contibution means nothing. This according to your logic. That voting is a gender right and not a human's right. Etc.
But not equally, nor do the parties they represent. 40% of men voted Democrat to 50% of women. An insurmountable gap. There is no question that woman have been driving the party that ultimately resulted in the end of the Republic. You can't steal full control of the government and remain a self governing nation. That's not how it works.
So ultimately woman have been deeply complicit in destroying the greatest country in the world and the core of civilization.
Yeah, I'd have to say giving them them a blank check to vote regardless of ability was a significant step in the decline.
I don't see a woman. By definition a woman is a part of the human race and women crossed that line when they sided together and began waging war against the other sex.
Anonymous(36-45)+1 y
Xper 6 Age: 26 , mho 39%+1 y
Opinion Owner+1 y
Most Helpful Opinions