Now, just to stir things up a little
From Reader TS...
The decline of once-great Britain and the rest of the West has been accelerated immensely by female suffrage. If only 30-50% of males are either intelligent enough or informed enough to have the vote, that number is more like 10% for women
90% of women have no interest whatsoever in public policy
And women are natural tyrants (just ask Shakespeare) who invent nothing, don't build businesses, and, are not driven to achieve concrete goals related to the physical world
Women value security, i.e. safety and material wealth, over liberty by a massive margin, and they will always vote for the Type A male who promises to keep them safe and secure - in the present. Not being blessed with much facility for abstract thought, the female voter cannot fathom the concept of unintended consequences and long-term ramifications of soft-headed policies to ensure "security" (i.e. primarily state-provision of welfare/housing/healthcare, etc.)
Your red-headed harridan is typical of the tyrannical female politician who is at the forefront in every Western political class, and the judiciary. Your liberty means nothing to her, as she does not value her own
Until the spineless males of Western society face this fact, the West will continue to decline, and weaken
n.b. I am not suggesting that some large number of women are not capable of both being in business and acting responsibly in office, but this cohort will also benefit from having the vote taken away from women. Men will vote for a sensible woman in larger numbers, I would bet, than will women. I would also guess that some very large percentage of women, once barred from voting, would be quite relieved to not have to pretend to care about the process
I'm curious to know what the reaction of a classical liberal will be to the suggestion that liberalism cannot co-exist with female suffrage
I leave it to you dear readers to debate this one, I’m going to bed…!
Comments
I was taught the old adage by my father:
Husbands work from sun to sun,
but a woman's mouth is never shut.
Posted by: trainer | November 16, 2008 11:54 PM
Bwahahahaha...although, while I think you have a valid point regarding 'suffrage' (we call it 'feminazism' here), it is another aspect of liberalism.
I do happen to care about public policy and would prefer government to Mind Its Own Bidness, especially if it knows what is good for it. The nanny state has its roots in social/communism, but muddle headed females think of it as social justice and are idiot enough to not know the difference between the Type A male and law.
Being a Rugged Indvidual as defined by Rush Limbaugh, I vote my pocketbook, not other people's.
I am a Goldwater Rethuglican. Deal with it.
LOL.
Posted by: Cricket | November 17, 2008 12:28 AM
I'm just thinking about parts of Switzerland where women only recently* got the vote.
They didn't want the vote, but were told they had to do so. When finally asked why they didn't want to vote they replied that they told the men who to vote for, and gods help them if the right man didn't win.
*1971
Posted by: misty | November 17, 2008 12:31 PM
Here in the States they have tended to creep into the non-productive jobs. The down side is that one of those job fields is in education. The more women in teaching and in educational administration the higher the drop out rate and the lower the performance of boys. Men have become non-existent in grades 1 through 6 and are getting scarcer in grades 7 through 12. Girls now outnumber males in our universities and grad inflation is rampant.
Posted by: toad | November 17, 2008 5:55 PM
In the last local elections I asked my niece if she was coming down to the polling station to vote. She said no as she planned to go the following day.
Posted by: Rob | November 17, 2008 7:51 PM
What's to debate? Civilizayion has been sliding off the cliff ever since women got the vote.
I know, I know... there are women like my Mrs., and Margaret Thatcher.
David also slew Goliath, but that's not the way to bet.
Frankly, I think the 10% "informed female voter" number is charitable -- as is the 30% - 50% for males.
More like 1% and 5%, respectively.
Posted by: Kim du Toit | November 18, 2008 5:08 AM
I have a history book which states that women are only interested in embroidery and kittens.
Posted by: Debster | November 18, 2008 11:41 AM
Oooh...fluffy kitties! I shall do an embroidered picture of one!
Ummm...I am a stay at home mom. I really really didn't want to vote, but I voted for every singe person on the ballot that was in opposition to Obama. That way, gridlock would give us some measure of protection.
However, I also detest the decline of civilization, so I teach my children at home.
Posted by: Cricket | November 18, 2008 1:59 PM
Errr Kim you did not mention your brilliant essay called "the pussification of man" anyway you are both totally correct BTW what does Connie think about this? Perhaps Mr Free-Market could re-print it?
Posted by: Chris Edwards | November 22, 2008 4:09 AM
Uh huh.
Can any of the present company name a single ancient civilization, that was directed by men, that did not founder under civil strife or war? Does Egypt still have a pharaoh? Is there a sovereign Holy Roman Emperor commanding the people of Europe? How about the contemporary examples? Did Hitler and his male-dominated cabinet provide a shining jewel of civilization to the world? Or Iran's revolutionary government?
By admission of the commenters, a woman's style of tyranny is unsure or unconcerned with the eventual result. That means that she will never achieve her goals--either as the result of happenstance or deliberate sabotage. When faced with an overbearing political presence, I would rather fight against the one which isn't likely to immediately employ violence to settle matters, and one which will misjudge the opposition when attempting force.
I personally prefer a bumbling government, especially when its mistakes make the case to the people that the job is best done by someone else, or not at all. I think this is preferable for the reason--courtesy of Kim du Toit--that no more than three percent of the total population are capable of understanding the current condition of government.
Posted by: TJP | November 23, 2008 6:43 PM