• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Women voting, bad idea?

Women voting, bad idea?

  • women voting is a terrible idea

    Votes: 13 14.3%
  • women voting is fine with me

    Votes: 78 85.7%

  • Total voters
    91
We do not live in that day and age anymore, where there are still valid battles to be fought for women's rights
Watch, THIS is what feminists will want to yell at him for. Not the outright, blatant sexism against men in the first post :roll:

You heard it here first. Callin' it.
 
the suffragettes fought against a great injustice, it was that injustice that made them so passionate. We do not live in that day and age anymore, where there are still valid battles to be fought for women's rights it is clear to most people that women are equal to men and should be treated that way.

You're romanticizing it. There were many occasions where they sacrificed sure ground over petty disputes, and raked their enemies or even their allies into the coals over the smallest instances. In the earlier years, the two women most known for that were Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. It was not until much later in their lives that they developed better political skills, but as middle-aged women they were pretty inept and volatile. They trashed blacks (many of whom were their allies), they trashed their allies, they trashed everyone they could if they remotely stood in their way. There was one occasion where they publicly humiliated a powerful friend just because he didn't want his wife to sign a petition of theirs. They would have had his backing, but they made a stupid public gesture out of anger. Years later one of the two thought it was not a smart move on their part, but they were that reckless repeatedly. In the later period you can look at the Pankhursts and the NWP as well as NAWSA to see the twin problems of World War I in addition to methods. NAWSA was much more supportive of the war and in many senses reproduced the Republican womanhood ideal by supporting their country during time of war (in addition to it being smarter politically). With the Pankhursts, they idolized principled violence and time spent in jail. The NWP did the same thing with violence, but were vehemently anti-war and essentially refused compromise. Nevertheless both groups contrasted themselves with the immigrant and the colored peoples who they thought didn't deserve the vote due to their mass ignorance and complicity to business interests.
 
Watch, THIS is what feminists will want to yell at him for. Not the outright, blatant sexism against men in the first post :roll:

You heard it here first. Callin' it.

Sexism against men? Where.

I've read the short little article and op over and over and don't see anything against males there.
 
Ehhhh whatever, same difference. Just the fact that you brought it up out of nowhere and had all this retarded reasoning behind it suggests that you at least somewhat endorse the notion of it, at least.

Point is, the very basis of your ridiculous post is sexism and stereotyping, and the outcry would be deafening if someone made the same post about women.

No, it is not the same difference.

And I did not bring it up out of nowhere, remember the title of the thread and the opinion of the daft tea party lady that said it.

You might see it as retarded but I disagree, if anyone at all should be barred from voting (and I do not believe someone should be barred from that) it should be men who should be barred and not women.

IMO, men and women are equal and in centuries this equality will only become stronger. I am not a fan of the "metro-sexual man" but men could do worse than do things a bit more like women do. Emotions and talking things trough between a man and a woman should not be dirty words but common practice.
 
Sexism against men? Where.

I've read the short little article and op over and over and don't see anything against males there.
No, no, no. Not THE first post. Pter King's first post.
 
No, it is not the same difference.

And I did not bring it up out of nowhere, remember the title of the thread and the opinion of the daft tea party lady that said it.

You might see it as retarded but I disagree, if anyone at all should be barred from voting (and I do not believe someone should be barred from that) it should be men who should be barred and not women.

IMO, men and women are equal and in centuries this equality will only become stronger. I am not a fan of the "metro-sexual man" but men could do worse than do things a bit more like women do. Emotions and talking things trough between a man and a woman should not be dirty words but common practice.

This is very amusing after one spends years reading gender historians and feminists criticize the mechanisms through which the generations rationalized social constructions of gender relations and politics.
 
Watch, THIS is what feminists will want to yell at him for. Not the outright, blatant sexism against men in the first post :roll:

You heard it here first. Callin' it.

What? That men and women are equal but that for women (and men) in this day and age there are still battles to be fought to reach that equality? I am sorry but why should feminists take offense at that.
 
No, it is not the same difference.
For all intents and purposes in the context of this discussion, it is.
And I did not bring it up out of nowhere, remember the title of the thread and the opinion of the daft tea party lady that said it.
She didn't say anything about taking away men's right to vote. She made a sexist remark about women, and you used that to bring up out of nowhere, and justify, your own prejudiced thoughts and ideas about men and voting.
You might see it as retarded but I disagree, if anyone at all should be barred from voting (and I do not believe someone should be barred from that) it should be men who should be barred and not women.
See, the only person making it an either/or situation here is you. The only person attempting to actually make a case for why one sex could justifiably be barred from voting, is you.
IMO, men and women are equal and in centuries this equality will only become stronger. I am not a fan of the "metro-sexual man" but men could do worse than do things a bit more like women do. Emotions and talking things trough between a man and a woman should not be dirty words but common practice.
Well now you're stereotyping men AND women in an attempt to demonstrate that men are inherently worse in some way, and should think and behave more like women. That's sexism, guy.
 
Last edited:
What? That men and women are equal but that for women (and men) in this day and age there are still battles to be fought to reach that equality? I am sorry but why should feminists take offense at that.
Ummm, no. You very clearly stated in that post that there are NO valid battles to be fought in this day and age for women's rights. THAT'S what they will have a problem with. Want me to quote it again?
 
Yes, my first post which was a response to the remarks from that tea party person.
Yes, which was a "response" not simply responding to what she said about women, but instead launching into a separate and sexist tirade about men... out of nowhere.
 
Ummm, no. You very clearly stated in that post that there are NO valid battles to be fought in this day and age for women's rights. THAT'S what they will have a problem with. Want me to quote it again?

It was just a writing/translation error, typed too fast and corrected my sentence.

Fact, there are still battles, battles that actually where almost won and some people try to turn back again (like the right to decide what happens in a woman's body early in their pregnancy but that is for another thread).

There is also still a glass ceiling women have to fight against, in business but especially in politics. It is time for the first female president IMHO.
 
It is time for the first female president IMHO.

You're going to be gravely disappointed when it happens. Politics will not be transcended.
 
It was just a writing/translation error, typed too fast and corrected my sentence.

Fact, there are still battles, battles that actually where almost won and some people try to turn back again (like the right to decide what happens in a woman's body early in their pregnancy but that is for another thread).

There is also still a glass ceiling women have to fight against, in business but especially in politics. It is time for the first female president IMHO.
Ahhh, a typo. Ok, well I'm sure you probably just appeased the feminists, then.

Any chance you want to also take back some of the offensive things you said about men while you're at it? Daaaahhhh, who'm I kidding. Our feelings, and our standing in the tide of culture don't matter.
 
Ahhh, a typo. Ok, well I'm sure you probably just appeased the feminists, then.

Any chance you want to also take back some of the offensive things you said about men while you're at it? Daaaahhhh, who'm I kidding. Our feelings, and our standing in the tide of culture don't matter.

Why ought we be offended? I just see it as naive in terms of actual contemporary research and the historical record. We have been there and done that. When women had gained the right to vote, politics was supposed to be transformed in so many ways, including the slow down of wars. It was a romantic definition of female aptitude that ironically was connected with the intellectual history men placed upon the figure of womanhood that the suffragists embraced with full-force. It turned out to be dramatically false.
 
Yes, which was a "response" not simply responding to what she said about women, but instead launching into a separate and sexist tirade about men... out of nowhere.

You see it out of nowhere, I do not see it out of nowhere.

In Pakistan a 14 year old girl was shot in the face because she dared to fight for women's education rights. Some idiot men shot her in the head because they wanted to silence a woman who was standing up for herself. Luckily it backfired and shows not all men and woman are as stupid as those that shot her.

In the US a woman called Sarah Fluke had the audacity to give her opinion about birth control and what was the result? A mister Limbaugh thought he had to add his 2 cents to the discussion by saying the following:


What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled". I take it back.

Can you imagine if you're her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope.

What did presidential nominee Mitt say: "it’s not the language I would have used.". Really, the language is the problem? I would beg to differ. Mister Santorum decided to say "an entertainer can be absurd." Yeah, absurd is what I would call the response of mister Santorum.

Some republican men had the guts to speak up and denounce it in the most clear words, men like Senator McCain, who said that Limbaugh's statements were unacceptable "in every way" and "should be condemned" by people across the political spectrum. And a man like David Frum who said:
"Limbaugh's verbal abuse of Sandra Fluke set a new kind of low. I can't recall anything as brutal, ugly and deliberate ever being said by such a prominent person and so emphatically repeated. This was not a case of a bad 'word choice'. It was a brutally sexualized accusation, against a specific person, prolonged over three days.

But Mister Frum is a speech writer so he can say things nicer than most people can ;)
 
Ahhh, a typo. Ok, well I'm sure you probably just appeased the feminists, then.

Any chance you want to also take back some of the offensive things you said about men while you're at it? Daaaahhhh, who'm I kidding. Our feelings, and our standing in the tide of culture don't matter.

Yes, writing error/translation error. In Dutch the sentence I had in my mind worked beautifully, when I wrote it down in English it got lost a bit in translation.
 
Why ought we be offended? I just see it as naive in terms of actual contemporary research and the historical record. We have been there and done that. When women had gained the right to vote, politics was supposed to be transformed in so many ways, including the slow down of wars. It was a romantic definition of female aptitude that ironically was connected with the intellectual history men placed upon the figure of womanhood that the suffragists embraced with full-force. It turned out to be dramatically false.
Fair enough. I guess one man's naive is another man's offensive.
 
You see it out of nowhere, I do not see it out of nowhere.

In Pakistan a 14 year old girl was shot in the face because she dared to fight for women's education rights. Some idiot men shot her in the head because they wanted to silence a woman who was standing up for herself. Luckily it backfired and shows not all men and woman are as stupid as those that shot her.

In the US a woman called Sarah Fluke had the audacity to give her opinion about birth control and what was the result? A mister Limbaugh thought he had to add his 2 cents to the discussion by saying the following:




What did presidential nominee Mitt say: "it’s not the language I would have used.". Really, the language is the problem? I would beg to differ. Mister Santorum decided to say "an entertainer can be absurd." Yeah, absurd is what I would call the response of mister Santorum.

Some republican men had the guts to speak up and denounce it in the most clear words, men like Senator McCain, who said that Limbaugh's statements were unacceptable "in every way" and "should be condemned" by people across the political spectrum. And a man like David Frum who said:

But Mister Frum is a speech writer so he can say things nicer than most people can ;)
What does any of that have to do with your argument about men being less deserving of the right to vote, or whether or not it came out of nowhere?
 
Last edited:
Fair enough. I guess one man's naive is another man's offensive.

Besides, when men have such dramatic control of political affairs in this country and women become the so-called "51% minority," what room do we really have to be offended at another man for saying something historically and currently bunk?
 
What say you, should women be voting?
Only if they're married.

Otherwise single women tend to elevate the government as a surrogate for the economic security a spouse provides.

One should also be a gun owner and have served a term of service in the military before being allowed to vote, but that's for another thread.
 
Only if they're married.

Otherwise single women tend to elevate the government as a surrogate for the economic security a spouse provides.

One should also be a gun owner and have served a term of service in the military before being allowed to vote, but that's for another thread.

is there any relationship between owning a gun and voting?
 
Only if they're married.

Otherwise single women tend to elevate the government as a surrogate for the economic security a spouse provides.

One should also be a gun owner and have served a term of service in the military before being allowed to vote, but that's for another thread.

Is that so?

Single women -- especially younger ones -- are exploding in the professional work force. They're actually making more than men (in general, not at the same job). It seems that they don't need much help getting on. With what they make, they don't even qualify for most government assistance.
 
Back
Top Bottom