• 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
SmokeAndMirrors said:
You still have not explained what you mean. If we aren't talking about financial independence, what are we talking about?
Click to expand...
You never read me use the term "financial independence".

You read me use the term "economic security", which runs from raising the minimum wage to Obama'Care. Unmarried women tend to support these issues more than married women. Both groups of women seek economic security, but while married women have a partner to supply either a stable single-income, or an additional household income, the unmarried woman is alone. There is a degree of fear which plays into the single woman's thinking which motivates her to support government programs to compensate for a lack of a spouse.

In a vaccume this would be fine. For example, if only the people who voted for Obama had to pay into ObamaCare. However, these policies are damaging everyone. National healthcare is a bad investment to begin with, but women vote with their feelings, not with their calculator, so they will support harmful policies so long as they derive a feeling or security, even if it's false security, and even if they know it's false.

Generally speaking, person should have a healthy degree of control and security over their financial future before being allowed to vote, otherwise they will panic and vote their inadequacies into law and force the rest of us to pour our hard-earned assets into their insatiable character flaws.
 
Last edited:
Pinkie said:
I believe Jerry referring to emotional dependence, Smoke.

He's a special ball of fun, our Jerry is -- his misogyny is legendary but seems mostly borne out of self-loathing.
Click to expand...

Lol. How can someone be emotionally dependent on a discombobulated entity?

That makes no sense to me, and I'm aware that he essentially thinks women belong in the kitchen, so that was the only kind of thing I could come up with that made any sense. Apparently, jumping to the most logical conclusion is a mistake with Jerry. It is never the most logical conclusion with him.

Yeah, I've gone 'round with him before. I was just feeling naive today, I guess.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
That's changing. I know a couple "house husbands," as you put it. It works for them.

Personally, I am totally comfortable putting more into a relationship in terms of finances as long as my partner is contributing in other ways, including domestic. Money isn't the only thing that matters in terms of maintaining a life together.

However, I do recognize that there is still a large portion of American society that isn't there yet.

In terms of the way women vote, well, no ****. If you were a woman, would you vote for the party that seems to have a complete monopoly on people like Jarvis DeBarry? When was the last time you heard of a Democrat bemoaning the right of women to vote? When was the last time you heard a Democrat saying women need to return to their domestic roles and leave business to the men? When was the last time you heard a Democrat take a strong anti-choice position? When was the last time you heard a Democrat diminish the seriousness of rape?

There are plenty of complaints to be lobbied at Democrats, but it's blatantly obvious why women lean away from Republicans.
Click to expand...


Well, to tell you the truth, I bemoan the right to vote, although not on a gender basis.

Are you saying that republicans wouldn't support women's businesses when half of start-ups that are on top of workplace quality lists are female owned/operated? The cash-flow of these start-ups is wider in the economy than others, so they are more essential. So, for your statement to be true, republicans would have to fail their economics exam.

As for the anti-choice crowd, I don't understand why you group them together with conservatives, I think they are probably just woman-haters, otherwise why would they not imagine, that if they were women, they would be equally worried of any unwanted thing growing inside them, "live" or not.

And it is abundantly obvious to every human being that rape is the crime that murders a person just short of stopping the body. I don't know if any study was successful to bring a raped woman back to life, and both conservatives and progressives agree that rape should be eliminated. Why are you saying that rape is downplayed?
 
DiAnna said:
Absolutely untrue. There are literally tens of thousands of "househusbands" in the US, who have chosen to take primary responsibility for raising children because their wives have more lucrative careers, and the husbands prefer spending quality time raising the children. There is only a "sexist divide" between those who are looking for reasons to pigeonhole females into the "housewife/raise children" role and pigeonhole men into the "monetary support/career" role.

The statement that "women votes will always hurt conservative values consistently, a reasonably unwelcome bias" is also demonstrably false and demonstrably an unwelcome bias that cannot be supported by verifiable fact.
Click to expand...

I wish you were right. As a man, I would feel a lot better if some inequality didn't put me on the spot. But ... are you saying that statistics supports your statements as they stand today?
 
Jerry said:
You never read me use the term "financial independence".

You read me use the term "economic security", which runs from raising the minimum wage to Obama'Care. Unmarried women tend to support these issues more than married women. Both groups of women seek economic security, but while married women hav a partner to supply either a stable single income or an additional household income, the unmarried woman is alone. There is a degree of fear which plays into the single woman's thinking which motivates her to support government programs to compensate for a lack of a spouse.
Click to expand...

I never said you used that term. Jesus, Jerry.

So, yes, this is related to money.

Again, Jerry, explain to me how single women are looking for a "surrogate spouse" to provide economic stability when they make more money than men do? They don't need to compensate for anything.

I'm a single woman living alone with a good enough income to pay my college tuition outright on a per-semester basis. Yes, I work full-time and go to school. I have a nice nest egg, and I'm not worried about my finances -- even in a disaster situation.

I still support affordable health care, because I don't think how much money one makes should dictate whether they're allowed to live.

I still support a minimum wage, because I think hard-working people should be able to feed themselves and keep a roof over their heads.

I don't need either of those things, personally. It doesn't change that I think letting people die because they aren't rich, or treating our own labor force like indentured servants, is wrong. What's hard to understand about that?

Furthermore, single people aren't "alone." We have families and loved ones just like everyone else does.

And finally, how is this unique to women? Wouldn't single men then be more "fearful" about their economics as well? They should be -- they're in a worse position than women are. So why aren't they? Why are single women the "fearful" ones when it's single men who are economically vulnerable?

Your theory completely breaks down in every imaginable way.
 
Pinkie said:
I believe Jerry referring to emotional dependence, Smoke.

He's a special ball of fun, our Jerry is -- his misogyny is legendary but seems mostly borne out of self-loathing.
Click to expand...
The irony of this post does not escape me, that you have to accuse me of hate while giving personal attacks.
 
ab9924 said:
Well, to tell you the truth, I bemoan the right to vote, although not on a gender basis.

Are you saying that republicans wouldn't support women's businesses when half of start-ups that are on top of workplace quality lists are female owned/operated? The cash-flow of these start-ups is wider in the economy than others, so they are more essential. So, for your statement to be true, republicans would have to fail their economics exam.

As for the anti-choice crowd, I don't understand why you group them together with conservatives, I think they are probably just woman-haters, otherwise why would they not imagine, that if they were women, they would be equally worried of any unwanted thing growing inside them, "live" or not.

And it is abundantly obvious to every human being that rape is the crime that murders a person just short of stopping the body. I don't know if any study was successful to bring a raped woman back to life, and both conservatives and progressives agree that rape should be eliminated. Why are you saying that rape is downplayed?
Click to expand...

Individual Republicans will vary. But like I said, name me a Democrat who supports any of those things.

Anti-choicers are overwhelmingly conservative. There are liberal anti-choicers, but most liberal politicians won't run on that platform because they know they'd lose most of their pro-choice base.

If you have missed all the recent comments by Republicans about "real rape" and women who "rape easy," you need to pay better attention. I'm not going to sit here and re-read the news for you.

What I'm saying is that women see that people who espouse anti-woman positions are mostly conservative. So it's dead-obvious why women tend to lean liberal.
 
ab9924 said:
I wish you were right. As a man, I would feel a lot better if some inequality didn't put me on the spot. But ... are you saying that statistics supports your statements as they stand today?
Click to expand...

You are not a statistic. Don't get anyone pregnant accidentily, and when you do choose to have kids, you can thank us women (and men) who went before for the rights you will have to be that child's custodial parent -- and to receive child support -- that are exactly the same as your wife's are, in the event of a divorce.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
I never said you used that term. Jesus, Jerry.

So, yes, this is related to money.

Again, Jerry, explain to me how single women are looking for a "surrogate spouse" to provide economic stability when they make more money than men do? They don't need to compensate for anything.

I'm a single woman living alone with a good enough income to pay my college tuition outright on a per-semester basis. Yes, I work full-time and go to school. I have a nice nest egg, and I'm not worried about my finances -- even in a disaster situation.

I still support affordable health care, because I don't think how much money one makes should dictate whether they're allowed to live.

I still support a minimum wage, because I think hard-working people should be able to feed themselves and keep a roof over their heads.

I don't need either of those things, personally. It doesn't change that I think letting people die because they aren't rich, or treating our own labor force like indentured servants, is wrong. What's hard to understand about that?

Furthermore, single people aren't "alone." We have families and loved ones just like everyone else does.

And finally, how is this unique to women? Wouldn't single men then be more "fearful" about their economics as well? They should be -- they're in a worse position than women are. So why aren't they? Why are single women the "fearful" ones when it's single men who are economically vulnerable?

Your theory completely breaks down in every imaginable way.
Click to expand...
I'm still editing that post. How about you take a breath and slow down, give a guy a chance to proof-read and edit. Especially if I'm to start including sources, that will take even longer as I actually read my sources and take the time to fix vBulliten code to make my post visually presentable.

I'm stepping out for a bit. Perhaps you should do the same.
 
Jerry said:
I'm still editing that post. How about you take a breath and slow down, give a guy a chance to proof read and edit.

I'm stepping out for a bit. Perhaps you should do the same.
Click to expand...

LOLOLOL.

Smoke smoked you, eh?
 
nota bene said:
I wish that no men wished to have a woman support them, but it's not true. I know a couple of emo guys who want exactly this. Of course, I wouldn't describe them as men as in "real men," but they are male.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Exactly! You represent the statistics that contradicts the progressive/democratic idea, that men could be househusbands. Statistically, of course, not individually. However there is no statistics that women can be both working and housewives. So women have it both ways, and man hang on by the thread of shrinking job markets. As it stands today.
 
Jerry said:
I'm still editing that post. How about you take a breath and slow down, give a guy a chance to proof read and edit.

I'm stepping out for a bit. Perhaps you should do the same.
Click to expand...

I have "Zyphlin disease." I can type almost as fast as I think. Sorry if you need a breather.

I happen to be working on things. DP is what I do between spates.

EDIT: None of your edits change any of my points. If anything, it just makes it worse for you by implying single women can't be financially secure, and women in general are incapable of rational thought.

So I will await your response.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
The irony of this post does not escape me, that you have to accuse me of hate while giving personal attacks.
Click to expand...

You have a whole boatload of issues, Jerry, and I would be more compassionate to you if you did not see hating on women as the best answer to every goddamned one.
 
Pinkie said:
You have a whole boatload of issues, Jerry, and I would be more compassionate to you if you did not see hating on women as the best answer to every goddamned one.
Click to expand...
Marriage is not an act of hatred. That's a sick view of the world.
 
ab9924 said:
Thank you. Exactly! You represent the statistics that contradicts the progressive/democratic idea, that men could be househusbands. Statistically, of course, not individually. However there is no statistics that women can be both working and housewives. So women have it both ways, and man hang on by the thread of shrinking job markets. As it stands today.
Click to expand...

This is only true for some people, ab9926. Nota bene would get laughed out of town if she assumed that about my two friends who're stay-at-home dads.

Besides, work is a quality of life indicator for most people -- God knows, I craved my career and fought like a tiger for it. IMO, it's the rare human adult who doesn't need the fulfillment and validation of working -- even if one parent does take a few years off whilst the kids are young.

How many times do you think you could rearrange the living room furniture without going starkers?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Individual Republicans will vary. But like I said, name me a Democrat who supports any of those things.

Anti-choicers are overwhelmingly conservative. There are liberal anti-choicers, but most liberal politicians won't run on that platform because they know they'd lose most of their pro-choice base.

If you have missed all the recent comments by Republicans about "real rape" and women who "rape easy," you need to pay better attention. I'm not going to sit here and re-read the news for you.

What I'm saying is that women see that people who espouse anti-woman positions are mostly conservative. So it's dead-obvious why women tend to lean liberal.
Click to expand...

Hmmm ... am I an odd-ball as a non-liberal then, because although I am an absolute opponent of almost all liberal ideas, I find myself on the side of women about women's issues, simply on a common sense basis (as well as on Christian basis actually HAHAHA)? I am sure there are MANY others like I in active politics.
 
Jerry said:
Marriage is not an act of hatred. That's a sick view of the world.
Click to expand...

Some marriages are -- mine was. I suspect yours was, but both are in the past. You'll never find peace looking for someone else to blame for your turmoil, IMO.
 
ab9924 said:
Hmmm ... am I an odd-ball as a non-liberal then, because although I am an absolute opponent of almost all liberal ideas, I find myself on the side of women about women's issues, simply on a common sense basis (as well as on Christian basis actually HAHAHA)? I am sure there are MANY others like I in active politics.
Click to expand...

Few thinking people are all-liberal, all the time.

I'm not.
 
ab9924 said:
Hmmm ... am I an odd-ball as a non-liberal then, because although I am an absolute opponent of almost all liberal ideas, I find myself on the side of women about women's issues, simply on a common sense basis (as well as on Christian basis actually HAHAHA)? I am sure there are MANY others like I in active politics.
Click to expand...

No, you're not an odd-ball. I'm not saying most conservatives are anti-woman. I'm saying those that are, are overwhelmingly conservative. A woman is more likely to reject a candidate who is anti-woman, because it's more immediately relevant to her than it is to you.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
I have "Zyphlin disease." I can type almost as fast as I think. Sorry if you need a breather.

I happen to be working on things. DP is what I do between spates.

EDIT: None of your edits change any of my points. If anything, it just makes it worse for you by implying single women can't be financially secure, and women in general are incapable of rational thought.

So I will await your response.
Click to expand...
When I get on a roll I can type pretty fast, but I've encountered a recent problem I didn't expect....

I don't know if your a gamer, but I recently bought Razor's Nostromo for World of Warcraft use. Functionally it's just a different keyboard so far as the computer is concerned. The problem is, the device driver for the Nostromo interferes with the driver for the regular keyboard, slowing down the regular keyboard noticeably, leaving out every 3rd/4th letter in a sentence if I type fast.
 
Pinkie said:
You are not a statistic. Don't get anyone pregnant accidentily, and when you do choose to have kids, you can thank us women (and men) who went before for the rights you will have to be that child's custodial parent -- and to receive child support -- that are exactly the same as your wife's are, in the event of a divorce.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I think I must disagree here. Although I can't imagine what a divorce feels like, we all know the fact that most are initiated by women, and most divorce related suicides are between men. Doesn't that speak for itself?
 
Pinkie said:
Some marriages are -- mine was. I suspect yours was, but both are in the past. You'll never find peace looking for someone else to blame for your turmoil, IMO.
Click to expand...
In my case, someone else actually is to blame, with criminal charges pending.
 
ab9924 said:
Sorry, I think I must disagree here. Although I can't imagine what a divorce feels like, we all know the fact that most are initiated by women, and most divorce related suicides are between men. Doesn't that speak for itself?
Click to expand...

I do believe you have your facts wrong, ab9926. Few people of either gender suicide because they're getting divorced, although this is a painful time for almost everyone.

Did you know that after a divorce, a man with child support obligations is better off, financially (on average) than he was whilst married, while his former wife and their kids (on average) slide down in economic standing, many into poverty?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom